Can i ask you question since you practiced law in Florida because I'm curious. I understand if you can't answer because you don't know all the details. I provided a link below. But in the case of David James of Florida where he was shot by Trevor Dooley in the chest after a scuffle. Witnesses say that David James lunged at Trevor Dooley once he pulled out his gun and a then while on the ground the gun was fired by Dooley. Dooley claims it was self-defense because David James was choking him. The victims daughter (8yr at the time) says that her daddy came towards Dooley and took him down. He was on top of Dooley and had his hands on Dooley's arms...Dooley shoots James and lives are changed forever. Now under the same stand your ground law, Dooley felt he had a right to defend himself and acted. Yet he was arrested and now stands trial. Even though witnesses say that James tackled Dooley; does Dooley have a case? Did he have a right to shoot David James? IMO...I think the police did the right thing unlike the Trayvon Martin case http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=162333
sjackson0 posted this story a while back, but I didn't see any responses to it. I didn't check every page of the thread though. Shooting death of David James by Trevor Dooley It was pretty similar situation. - Man has concealed weapons permit - Man gets into physical altercaton with neighbor - Man shoots neighbor - Conflicting witness accounts of what happened required further investigation - Shooter is claiming self-defense and citing the Stand Your Ground law (although he's making this claim 1.5 years after his arrest). Trevor Dooley was charged and arrested for manslaughter within 48 hours of the shooting. One has to wonder what's taking the Sanford prosecutor so long to formally charge Zimmerman. EDIT: Oops...looks like sjackson0 reposted this story right before I did...
Since when is motive important to you? According to you . . . . I can only guess at Zimmerman's motive and therefore you can only Guess at OJ's Sounds like you are definately on your hypocritical Jump to Conclusion Mat Face it dude. . . . . you've been exposed as the hypocrit and . . . well. . .exposed as being exactly what we think you are . .. Rocket River
I think this reflects on the competence and mindset of the department's decision-making that has placed them in this position in the first place. The man should have been detained at the scene.
agreed...just confused and still waiting for this witness that confirmed Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.
I am not a lawyer but my understanding from listening to other legal experts discussing this is that the epithet combined with a pattern that Zimmerman has profiled black people would show that he targeted Martin because of his skin color. That would mean that the confrontation was driven by his hatred / fear / mistrust of blacks and thus a hate crime. At the risk of pimping my own thread I would be interested in hearing your opinion in the Stand Your Ground thread.
Well i'd like to hear his thoughts on the Shooting death of David James by Trevor Dooley case he's not interested......I guess it's too much media bias going on in it.
My read on the situation is that James might've felt he was acting out of self-defense for himself since he saw an angry armed man confronting him. Under Stand Your Ground he doesn't have the obligation to retreat and can use force to what he reasonably perceives as a threat. A guy pointing a gun at you I think most reasonable people would perceive as a threat. This is why the stand your ground law is troublesome. Is that depending on circumstance, and bias, the law can be seen as supporting either victim or shooter.
James was the one who was killed. Dooley, the gunowner who shot James, is the one claiming self defense.
But he didn't point his gun...He pulled his gun out and then James tackled him to the ground where he was tragically shot dead. The defense is making a case that Dooley pulled his gun, but didn't use it until he felt his life was in danger. The initial contact was made by James (i understand why, but we are discussing this law) he was the aggressor by taking down Dooley. Dooley claimed self-defense yet was arrested.
Well, I guess one can at least not accuse him of doing it because of white-against-black racism http://www.sanfordfl.gov/frames/citymanager_frames.html
OK so stand your ground has nothing to do with this. Let us assume two hypothetical scenarios: 1. Zimmerman was justified to use deadly force BUT the state has a retreat law. Hypothetically it is shown that he "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". The defense can easily say Zimmerman is older, fatter and slower and could have not reasonably escaped. Stand Your Ground law nullified. 2. The state has a Stand Your Ground law. But this time it is hypothetically shown that he could NOT "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". Stand Your Ground law is nullified. If there was no justification to use deadly force, retreating or not is never a question. This is a crappy DA who is using a law as an excuse for either his weak case or ability.
Obviously you are an expert and I am not but would uttering a racial slur then chasing down an unarmed person of that race and shooting him dead be sufficient? Because, if not, what is a hate crime?
