Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
86. it was not jury nullification
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:20 PM
Mar 2012
you point to a jury nullification case that's (if memory serves) about 55 years old. They just don't happen that frequently. The jury refused to convict Goetz of attempted murder even after he blasted away at a bunch of kids on the subway (dark-skinned kids, if you get my drift) and left one in a wheelchair for life.

Bullshit. It was an attempted robbery. Two of the survivors publicly admitted robbery was their motive. That made the shooting was legal under New York law at the time. By the way, the federal investigation showed that there was no evidence that it was because of fear and not race. With the same amounted evidence, I could say that he was railroaded during the civil trial because of race. I don't have any evidence of that.
In the previous year in NYC, Austin Weeks also shot one of two attackers in a subway. Was he a racist who just wanted to blow a way a white kid? I don't think so. The grand jury did not indict even for the illegal gun. I do know that makes Kuby and Sharpton full of shit.

Casey Anthony's case I firmly believe the State could have gotten a conviction for Negligent Homicide, but they got greedy and tried for the big splash. It didn't work. Casey's lawyer wasn't particularly good, but the Prosecution trying to prove Murder stuck in the jury's craw and they did the right thing.

Casey didn't need a good lawyer. I doubt if the DA could have made negligent homicide charge stick. The State could not prove cause of death, they could not show time of death. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing to convict someone of any kind of homicide, you have to at least show one took place. The DA had nothing. The DA fed the media a bunch of bullshit. The media and Floridians ate it up and went for seconds. He not only was greedy, but stupid as well.
Even if she were convicted, it would have been a mistrial because the DA withheld exculpatory evidence. The only thing the DA could prove was that Casey was the last person who admitted to seeing the kid alive. Race was not an issue.

There was a SYG case last year in Tampa that never made it past the local news. Since it was a stabbing, it was not on Brady's radar. Basically, middle school kid stabbed bully in self defense. SYG was not really an issue, because the killer was surrounded by the bully's buddies. So, he would have walked under duty to retreat. The could not understand how their angel could be murdered. Never mind that:
The bullying has been reported on several occasions, so the parents knew about it and did not teach Jr that bullying is uncivilized.
the bully beat and put the killer in the hospital on an earlier occasion (never did pay the hospital bill when sued)
according to all of the witnesses, bully and his friends were in the process of doing the same
The bullies parents whined about the "injustice" and wanted to sue for wrongful death. The old law would have permitted that. The old law should not have permitted it. Put the burden of proof on the state, and have civil immunity if justifiable is proven in a duty to retreat (outside of the home) law, I might support it.

If the media accounts of Zimmerman are correct or mostly true, he will not walk. He was the aggressor, that made SYG void. On the other hand, if he backed off and Martin counter attacked, then that is another issue. Either way, he is not going to get a fair trial.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I've said all along the prosecutor needs to be very, very, very careful shadowrider Mar 2012 #1
I thought EVERY case had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? eShirl Mar 2012 #2
I thought the same thing, and you're right, pipoman Mar 2012 #4
There's a huge technical difference here COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #15
Not exactly accurate. Callisto32 Mar 2012 #30
Doesn't change the question COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #51
Not really, they just need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was the aggressor Kennah Mar 2012 #68
It's not. But you're not appreciating just how high a COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #76
I do concede ... Kennah Mar 2012 #87
Different case, different facts. And in Scott COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #88
ABC should be ashamed. Callisto32 Mar 2012 #24
Yeah but what would the lead prosecutor know about how SYG applies to this case? Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #3
The "Lead Prosecutor" I assume went to law school shadowrider Mar 2012 #5
Sarcasm apparently not your strong point. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #7
SYG does NOT protect those engaged in unlawful activity. Callisto32 Mar 2012 #26
According to the lead prosecutor it applies to this case. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #34
That's a damn shame AH1Apache Mar 2012 #38
The dispatcher had no legal authority to give those instructions. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #64
Actually, you've been told repeatedly that the law wouldn't not apply to the killing... eqfan592 Mar 2012 #65
Then you'll go with this Columbia law professor view on SYG laws. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #35
The SYG laws are in place for a very good reason.. pipoman Mar 2012 #10
If you decide to take someone's life COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #16
I don't believe that a person pipoman Mar 2012 #19
That's a false argument. You can't start with the COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #47
what happened to gejohnston Mar 2012 #52
Doesn't affect what I'm saying at all, except COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #56
you have more faith in the system gejohnston Mar 2012 #58
Remember Bernard Goetz. GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #63
You can always point to an aberration where the local COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #75
Yeah, because we haven't changed any other laws in that 200 years, huh? pipoman Mar 2012 #72
SYG was a solution to a problem that really COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #74
Who says anyone "decided to take someone's life"?!? X_Digger Mar 2012 #32
Zimmerman had a gun Cirque du So-What Mar 2012 #41
I was asking about intent.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #42
No. It's merely homicide. Murder is a legal COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #46
Exactly. Thanks for writing that. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #23
There few if any cases like you mention. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #36
Really? Many? pipoman Mar 2012 #69
of course he could walk bowens43 Mar 2012 #6
Enough with the "child", pipoman Mar 2012 #20
Same article says safeinOhio Mar 2012 #37
And this has what exactly to do with anything I wrote? pipoman Mar 2012 #70
Any other civil rights you want to see strictly controlled and only in the hands of the Government? ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #25
If so CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #29
And another authoritarian has spoken rl6214 Mar 2012 #43
Amazing, isn't it? shadowrider Mar 2012 #44
Maybe they need a new lead prosecutor. Who was stalking who? /nt still_one Mar 2012 #8
Following is not stalking rl6214 Mar 2012 #45
To me there is a very thin line between the two /nt still_one Mar 2012 #60
In any case of stalking I have ever heard of, the stalker has actually known the stalkee rl6214 Mar 2012 #83
I think what could happen here RDANGELO Mar 2012 #9
I am not a lawyer Cirque du So-What Mar 2012 #11
Most of the SYG laws include language pipoman Mar 2012 #12
If a reasonable person can shoot some one safeinOhio Mar 2012 #39
I completely disagree pipoman Mar 2012 #71
Nope zipplewrath Mar 2012 #13
He can be sued in Civil Court COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #17
Not unless Zimmerman is charged and found guilty Lurks Often Mar 2012 #18
Well, they can *file* X_Digger Mar 2012 #33
You're correct. Florida SYG prohibits the kids family COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #53
I really do love how you just assume Zimmerman is guilty. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #66
I don't 'assume' Zimmerman is guilty. COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #77
Now, the 'horror' scenario. I 'shudder to think of COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #78
Same with Castle Doctrine ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #28
Unfortunately I believe she's right on. COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #14
I don't think so gejohnston Mar 2012 #31
False choice. You don't have to decide between COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #48
not in the minds of the jurors gejohnston Mar 2012 #50
You haven't got much faith in the idea of COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #57
I have served on juries gejohnston Mar 2012 #59
They you agree with me that juries generally DO COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #61
in the OJ case, gejohnston Mar 2012 #62
Again, the point is that we can all dredge up 2 or 3 COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #79
what difference does age make gejohnston Mar 2012 #84
My point is that, in trying to justify the SYG law COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #85
it was not jury nullification gejohnston Mar 2012 #86
A colleague of mine told me long ago COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #89
maybe, but gejohnston Mar 2012 #90
You can't compare this case to Casey Anthony. COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #49
I'm comparing media circus, not the facts. gejohnston Mar 2012 #54
It's possible. However, I wouldn't be at all COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #55
I'm afraid this may be a long, hot summer nt independentpiney Mar 2012 #21
If nothing else, this SYG TheCowsCameHome Mar 2012 #22
It will be renamed and recoded ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #27
We will soon see. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #40
Even with all the negative media attention... eqfan592 Mar 2012 #67
Isn't there a legal difference between SYG and pursuing a person? Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2012 #73
Yes, certainly. There is also a big gray area that covers stalking, pursuing, and following. slackmaster Mar 2012 #80
none of which have anything to do with the SYG statute. correct? It is two separate statutes Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2012 #81
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sufficiently familiar with Florida law to begin to answer any of that slackmaster Mar 2012 #82
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Trayvon Martin Killing Le...»Reply #86