Author Topic: Legal professionals on TV  (Read 2469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Legal professionals on TV
« on: August 15, 2012, 04:30:33 AM »
Does anyone else find it odd that everyone seems to think Mr. O'Mara was saying there wouldn't be an immunity hearing? It was pointed out to me yesterday that FNC was having some discussions (which I admit I used to watch FNC quite a bit, but I haven't really watched it at all in 6 months or so). Here's an outline of what I saw in a couple hours time regarding this case:

- "Kelly's Court"
-- Kelly said what I thought, and what Jeralyn thought; there will be an immunity hearing. However, she also said she has never practiced in Florida.
-- One of her guests practices in Florida (I don't remember which, or either guest's name) and said that without a "Stand Your Ground hearing" the decision would be made by a jury. When Kelly read Mr. O'Mara's statement saying there would be an immunity hearing both guests dismissed it.
-- The other guest agreed with the guest mentioned above.

- Shepherd Smith
-- Judge Andrew Nepalitano said that the jury will be making the decision. The odd part about THIS instance isn't so much that he's a judge, it's that they were discussing the writ as opposed to Kelly's Court where they were discussing the presser. In the writ on page 14 Mr. O'Mara specifically states that the judge WOULD be making the decision on immunity - did the judge just miss this?

- Local news in Florda
-- Many posters on the GZLC facebook page have reported that the local reporters (including local legal analysts/lawyers) say that there won't be an immunity hearing.

Side note: I mentioned all the confusion to GZLC in message and they replied that they will be making a statement today to clear things up - there will be an immunity hearing.

How can all of these individuals have it wrong? It seems like they didn't really pay attention to the presser or the writ. Thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 04:33:22 AM by AJ »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Legal professionals on TV
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 04:59:22 AM »
I think you nailed it: they don't pay attention.

That and that section of the law has been portrayed in one way for so long now, their brains won't process the actual truth.

You can see it yourself here. This board has a higher percentage of thinking people than anywhere else and most of us still get bogged down with it.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Legal professionals on TV
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 06:10:38 AM »
Let's see, who around here could offer some perspective from actual experience on the thread topic?

 ;D

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Legal professionals on TV
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2012, 06:21:48 AM »
Let's see, who around here could offer some perspective from actual experience on the thread topic?

 ;D

I assume you mean Jeralyn? It might be interesting to hear from her. I tend to think these experts get called on at almost a moments notice and don't always have time to properly research a specific situation/question. It may well be that neither one of the Fox experts actually watched MOM's press conference. They may have just opined based on the clip they were shown which doesn't show MOM talking about immunity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sxz_-fuN-U

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Legal professionals on TV
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2012, 10:22:26 AM »
I removed one of my comments -- I misunderstood what the commenter was suggesting I do.

I have expounded on this topic so many times on the main site -- my last long post was a comment yesterday here.

But this thread is about the TV analysts, the one discussing immunity hearings and what O'Mara meant  is here.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Legal professionals on TV
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2012, 10:52:17 AM »
I removed one of my comments -- I misunderstood what the commenter was suggesting I do.

I have expounded on this topic so many times on the main site -- my last long post was a comment yesterday here.

But this thread is about the TV analysts, the one discussing immunity hearings and what O'Mara meant  is here.

I carried your comment here.  I hope that is okay.  I hardly go to the main board anymore and I think what you wrote goes a long ways of explaining the aggressor issues. 

I did a partial of your comment because on preview the strike line came thru the bottom half.  If it not OK then please delete.

Quote
The statute says a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself can respond with deadly force if:

    Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

You keep insisting GZ's injuries weren't serious enough. That's not the test. It's whether he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm -- which includes not only what had already been inflicted on him but what he anticipated would happen to him if the attack did not stop. One example: He said he feared losing consciousness. Imminent means about to happen or likely to happen soon. So his belief doesn't have to rest on the damage that has already been inflicted.

And he didn't say Trayvon saw the gun. He said he thought Trayvon saw or felt the gun. TM was on top of him, straddling him. He could have felt the gun and decided to reach for it. GZ said he felt TM's hand going for the gun -- he said TM took one hand off GZ's mouth to do so.

My view: If Zimmerman was not the aggressor, he was  justified in fatally shooting Trayvon if he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. The danger he perceived doesn't have to be real, he just has to believe it is real. His belief is considered reasonable if a reasonable person in his situation would believe the danger was real.

Zimmerman has medical records and photographs to show his battered nose; the back of his head was bleeding from lacerations; he had abrasions on his face. He says he believed he was in danger of losing consciousness if he didn't stop Trayvon's attack. He says Trayon was on top of him, straddling him, and preventing him from getting up. He believed his gun became exposed and Trayvon had seen or felt it, and was reaching for it. John, witness 6, the one witness at the scene who observed the two struggling in his backyard before the shot, confirms Trayvon was on top and Zimmerman was trying to sit up and couldn't. He has never varied from that statement. The only thing he changed was his certainty it was GZ crying out for help (since he couldn't see the face of the person as he was crying out for help) and that while he first assumed Trayvon was hitting GZ, he may have been trying to restrain him. 

What reasonable person in Zimmerman's situation would not believe himself to be in imminent danger of serious bodily or injury or death if the person who had just fractured his nose and slammed his head into the ground didn't stop?

If Zimmerman was the aggressor, he would  still justified in fatally shooting Trayvon, unless he had lesser means at his disposal to respond to Travyon's use of force against him.

Another point you miss: To be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to have contemporaneously provoked Trayvon's use of force  against him. For Zimmerman to have provoked Trayvon's use of force against him, justifying TM's use of force against GZ,  Trayvon had to reasonably believe he was in danger of an imminent physical attack by Zimmerman. (Statute here.)

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

In order for Trayvon to have been justified in his use of non-deadly force against GZ, he had to reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of a physical attack by Zimmerman. He can't just have unsure what Zimmerman up to. And the provocation cannot be the result of something GZ did earlier, like following him.  Being followed does not allow one to respond with a punch in the nose or hitting the pursuer's head against the ground.  We've seen no evidence of that from the State or an eyewitness as to GZ provoking the use of force by TM against him.

See Martinez v. State and Johnson v. State:
And Stinson v. State:

If Zimmerman was not the aggressor, and he reasonably believed himself to be at risk of imminent  serious bodily injury or death from Trayvon, he was justified in fatally shooting Trayvon, regardless of whether he could extricate himself from the situation without using deadly force and regardless of whether lesser force  than deadly force would have sufficed. So long as GZ was in a place where he had a legal right to be - the paths and roads of his own neighborhood - and was not committing an unlawful act, if he reasonably believed himself to be in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death, he was justified in using deadly force.

Stand Your Ground:

    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking