rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago

Sanford will be burned to the ground.

HockeyDad wrote:



Perhaps.
However, I am certain the police won't arrest anyone!
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago
Lawyer will disclose $200K at Zimmerman hearing
Published - Apr 27 2012 06:40AM EST
Associated Press


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — George Zimmerman's attorney said his client's bail might have been set higher if a judge had known about $200,000 raised by a website and that only came to light this week.

Mark O'Mara said on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that he only learned about the money Wednesday and will inform a judge at a hearing Friday.

Zimmerman, who has been charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was released from jail this week after paying 10 percent of $150,000 bail.

O'Mara told CNN late Thursday the money was raised by a website that Zimmerman set up for his legal defense.

Friday's hearing was initially scheduled to deal with several media organizations, including The Associated Press, asking the judge to unseal documents from Zimmerman's court file.

The website used to raise the money has since been shut down, but O'Mara said he'll likely start a new defense fund for Zimmerman.

O'Mara did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated Press.

The website was created almost two weeks ago by Zimmerman's family to thank his supporters and to receive donations from anyone who wanted to help with his legal defense.

The 44-day delay in Zimmerman's arrest spurred protests nationwide and inspired a national debate about racial profiling, equal justice under the law and Florida's self-defense law. Martin was black; Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is from Peru.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding since his release on bail. Under terms of his bond, he has to wear a GPS ankle bracelet that authorities can use to track his location round the clock.
HockeyDad
14 years ago
There is not even a concept of using the "stand your ground" law or not. Either way, it is the same law covering the use of force.




776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
DrafterX
14 years ago
what ever happened to the good ole fashioned ass whoopin.... are guns & knives and stuff really necessary..?? time was when you just kicked someones ass and walked away.. revenge wasn't really a threat either.. 🌫
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago

There is not even a concept of using the "stand your ground" law or not. Either way, it is the same law covering the use of force....

HockeyDad wrote:



What do you mean by this?
HockeyDad
14 years ago
There is not a justifiable use of force law and a separate stand your ground law.

There is only one law. 776.012 Use of force in defense of person

DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

what ever happened to the good ole fashioned ass whoopin.... are guns & knives and stuff really necessary..?? time was when you just kicked someones ass and walked away.. revenge wasn't really a threat either.. 🌫

DrafterX wrote:




The whole Grand Theft Auto thing crept into the minds of everyone. Now they want to crash cars, blow up buildings and shoot everyone.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

There is not a justifiable use of force law and a separate stand your ground law.

There is only one law. 776.012 Use of force in defense of person

HockeyDad wrote:




We should have a law where it's legal to shoot people in hoodies carrying Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea while they're on top of you beating your head into the pavement after they punch you in the face.🐴
DrafterX
14 years ago
we just need more beer summits.... 😟
HockeyDad
14 years ago
You can put someone's eye out with a Skittles.
HockeyDad
14 years ago

We should have a law where it's legal to shoot people in hoodies carrying Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea while they're on top of you beating your head into the pavement after they punch you in the face.🐴

DrMaddVibe wrote:




I guess that would make it a bit more explicit from the way it is worded now.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

You can put someone's eye out with a Skittles.

HockeyDad wrote:




True dat...while you're busy tasting the rainbow...it blinds the other people around you. You could walk out into busy traffic and stuff.:-"
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago
Hearing is on local TV right now:

1. State Motion for Gag Order denied. Both sides have been responsibly in speaking to media;.2. Items filed in court file will no longer be automatically sealed. Sealing of court file items and information will be handled on a matter by matter basis- only exception is matters of security
3. Today is the day (15-day deadline) for State to serve/file response to defendants' request for all info in State's possession;
4. State and Z's lawyer says there are witnesses who feel their safety as at stake and do not want their names disclosed to public or media. media says that judge has very little discretion in the matter- and likely must reveal witness names and info. Judge will take each concern on a "case by case basis". State says there is certain info that NEVER be released, such as 911 tape.
5. Z's lawyer discovered a bunch of fake Z websites. Told Z no more website and to give him any money from Z's website for safe holding in trust. Z informed atty of $200-204k from Z's website in Z's pay-pal account(s). Z's lawyer has all the money in his trust account and says he won't disburse any of it without courts permission. That is to say... Z does not have access to the money so that the change in circumstances now being brought to the court's attention. Judge wants to know what was known and who knew it before responding to State's assertion that Z and other may have lied and/or bail would have been>$150k.
5. Media presence in court, cameras, video cameras, etc. This involves security issues such that the court will not publicly discuss the matter from the bench.
6. Next scheduled court hearing 5/8/12 at which time a trial date will be set.



This judge was AMAZINGLY prepared and efficient to the extent that I am, as a lawyer, somewhat blown away!
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago

There is not a justifiable use of force law and a separate stand your ground law.

There is only one law. 776.012 Use of force in defense of person

HockeyDad wrote:



Where did you come up with that assertion? Even before 776.012 was enacted, "justifiable use of force" has been a defense. Stand your law just further codifies and expands on part of it.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

This judge was AMAZINGLY prepared and efficient to the extent that I am, as a lawyer, somewhat blown away!

rfenst wrote:




On a case like this that STREET COURT wanted to try it doesn't surprise me in the least. He has had the time to get the ducks in a row.
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
14 years ago

He has had the time to get the ducks in a row.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Sure, he had time. Every judge would. But that doesn't mean they would know how to use it that way. My point is that his control, demeanor and preparation were extraordinary, even to me, a lawyer. In big cases, judges are VERY RARELY prepared like he was. He studied the law on his own, summarized it cogently, cited the important cases and totally had his crap together. Everyone saw Belvin Perry on Casey Anthony's case. This guy blew him away. I am talking about this judge having demonstrated "the golden standard" that most lawyers rarely ever see. This is only the second time in 21 years I have seen that.
DrafterX
14 years ago
you should watch Wapner more often.... 😟
HockeyDad
14 years ago

Where did you come up with that assertion? Even before 776.012 was enacted, "justifiable use of force" has been a defense. Stand your law just further codifies and expands on part of it.

rfenst wrote:




It is the same law. It is the same defense. When it was changed due to the media darling "Stand Your Ground" that is now so popular it was changed so that you no longer had a duty to retreat first before using force.

The defense is still justifiable use of force just as it always has been. There is no either/or proposition of it wasn't a justifiable use of force but I stood my ground.


Stinkdyr
14 years ago
I read on the interwebs that there has not been a single burglary in that 'hood since the shooting.


hmmmm...


:-k
DrafterX
14 years ago
was there a problem before..?? 😕
Users browsing this topic