It isn't a fault of the law. Blame whatever you want after that, none of us really know. Pick from bad/lazy cops, bad/lazy DA, lack of evidence, whatever.
OK so you have explained a way to skirt the law by lying to police and get away with murder. If you say he just threw a punch and that was it, you will be prosecuted. That just isn't gonna work. A law isn't flawed because people can avoid being prosecuted by fabricating evidence and lying.
I'm not really arguing that it's flawed or not, but rather knowing what someone can get away with. After all, if I were ever in a situation where I'm either a possible victim or perpetrator, I would like to know the law. If the law create a situation where people can easily lie their way out of murder, then I need to know how easily said person can do it. My original post towards you was not suppose to be combative so much as seeking information. Maybe it can be useful some day.
Usually in any criminal investigation where there is no physical evidence or eye witness, that contradicts your (even false) story, you can get out of being prosecuted. I thought that was common knowledge.
Next texxx will ask for the evidence that Martin didn't shoot himself with Zimmerman's gun. I mean, how can we be sure Zimmerman pulled the trigger? "Think, people!"
bigtexx is STILL upset about the HuffPo article written by a dude named Tremaine and chooses to ignore the FACTS that have developed in the Martin case, regardless of source.
Actually I wasn't aware that the HuffPo article was written by a "dude named Tremaine". What are you implying by that?
That is the problem with the law. Dooley felt he was under threat so he pulled a gun. James felt he was under threat when he saw the gun so he tackled Dooley. Neither of them did the sensible thing and retreated and the law doesn't require it. My read of the situation while Dooley was prosecuted was that they figured that even though James tackled him James was acting out of self defense. Dooley of course is going to argue the only reason he pulled the gun was because he acted out of a fear of James. The law technically supports both since it doesn't mandate either have to retreat. It's up to the DA and jury to decide and that's were all sorts of biases come into play rather than a clear cut reading of the law.
The law is so vague and that's the big issue... The law allows people such as Dooley or Zimmerman to basically kill someone without any fear of punishment... I don't agree with everything that BigTexx has stated, but the problem has nothing to do with race but with the broadness of this law. Many people have used the "standing my ground" as defense to killing someone... So as tragic as this is... The law is basically covering both of these individuals. T_Man
I did not practice in Florida, I practiced in the enforcement of hate law legislation for a short period of time right after law school, it really challenged my values. As an advocate and attorney that usually supports self defense legislation I will speak in general terms concerning your question. Your example, and to a point the Martin case are judgment calls. What I mean by that is fallible evidence is relied upon, eyewitnesses to something that occurred shockingly and quickly, police officers that must make quick judgments, investigating officers and last the DA must decide if charges will be filed and how quickly. Because there are so many fallible factors, you will have different outcomes. Every perpetrator and victim are different and every police force. I hope that explains why you have different outcomes for similar events. Last, please understand that in 99% of the cases the self defense applies in situations where someone breaks in your home, attempts rape, etc. For example, had Martin wrestled the gun from Zimmerman and killed Zimmerman, he would have a strong self defense claim. Zimmerman is using the defense, but unless new evidence comes forward, he probably will lose.
Proving a pattern is very hard to do, I have not seen enough to rule it out, but I am skeptical that without so much attention it would qualify as a hate crime. At one point when talking to the 911 dispatcher he was not certain Martin was black.
You already know the answer to this. It doesn't even need to be implied anymore. You are what you are.
BT come on dude if there statment meant anything why is the FBI and The Justice Department there .There is some bad police work being done .
