Completely different case. This woman escaped, but then went back into her house, grabbed a gun, came back, and shot a warning shot. She was not in immediate danger when she shot the gun, thus no self-defense, no stand your ground.
Plus, the 20 years is a mandatory minimum sentence for the use of a gun in a crime. The law is absolutely unjust, but the ruling in her case was correct, and the comparison between the two completely invalid and uninformed.
Perhaps, but keeping an eye on someone as you wait for the police is not a crime, nor does it require the person being observed to backtrack and attack the observer.
Yep. Responsible gun owners do not go looking for trouble (despite what the liberals love to believe). Zimmerman was in no way a responsible gun owner.
The dispatcher never told him not to get out (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html). He said "we don't need you to do that" when he was asking about following, and by then Zimmerman was already out. Zimmerman then headed back to his truck.
Plus, even the dispatcher can see why Zimmerman did get out of the truck. Via the Legal Insurrection Day One recap (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-video-live-day-1-states-first-four-witnesses/), with video:
Finally, O’Mara returned on the point at which the State had suggested that Noffke’s telling Zimmerman, “Wed don’t need you to do that,” with respect to following Martin suggested that Zimmerman was somewhow disobeying an instruction. O’Mara asked if Noffke could understand how asking Zimmerman, twice, about the direction of Martin’s direction of flight might have been reasonably interpreted as a reason to get out of the car to determine the answer to the question. Noffke responded, “I understand how someone could have misinterpreted the intent of that.”
At no point did dispatch believe he was not following instructions. At no time did the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to stay in the truck. You're completely incorrect here.
I'm glad you provided that. It sounds to me that the intent was for Zimmerman not to follow Martin, but that Noffke could understand how someone, perhaps an over-zealous and not overly smart person, could "misinterpreted the intent".
I think that's being a little too deferential to the prosecution case, to be honest. Zimmerman had been doing the neighborhood watch thing for some time. He didn't get a direct command and kept things by the book here, it appears. It would be one thing if he had a history of vigilantism.
He said "we don't need you to do that" when he was asking about following,
Righto. Remember, you're the one that said this, initially: (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1737257.html?thread=138355753#t138355753) Profiled, sure. Followed, not really. I was more than happy to give you a healthy dose of factual evidence there, as were several others.
Oh, I put it about 3 comments up. You even responded to it, so I assumed you read it. You can scroll back and we can continue once you've shown basic reading skills.
Correct me if I am wrong, was he not in her house, with the children around? If her alternative was simply leaving the house, then yes she could do that, but it would mean abandoning her own home to what is effectively an intruder. That may indeed be a wise thing to do, but I am not sure how it should be seen as illegal to come back and chase him out of the house.
Now discharging the gun when the children were in fact around has its own element of stupidity, but it seems to be (who is admittedly ignorant of the deeper details of the case) that she was taking a defense of her own home.
Correct me if I am wrong, was he not in her house, with the children around?
The evidence suggests she did not live there, and had not for months. So it's not defense of one's home from an intruder. It's described as the "marital home," which implies that they both may have had ownership, I have not looked into that specific piece on this.
You forgot "Sell your autograph to cheering supporters."
Soon as I heard about that one, it was damn lucky for him that I'd never be allowed near that jury in a million years. Not unless George is really into the idea of being married to a Hell's Angel for a lengthy stretch of time.
The catch is that there is no such thing as a "warning shot in self defense." I do think 20 years is a ridiculously inappropriate sentence, but that just goes to show why there should not be mandatory minimum sentences for anything. Alexander is a victim of misguided gun laws.
Actually that's not true. It's illegal to discharge a gun dangerously, but you actually have to prove lethal intent to charge someone with attempted murder. Guilty until proven innocent and all that, you might have heard of it.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 02:55 pm (UTC)Plus, the 20 years is a mandatory minimum sentence for the use of a gun in a crime. The law is absolutely unjust, but the ruling in her case was correct, and the comparison between the two completely invalid and uninformed.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 03:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 05:10 pm (UTC)Oh come on.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 05:24 pm (UTC)Plus, even the dispatcher can see why Zimmerman did get out of the truck. Via the Legal Insurrection Day One recap (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-video-live-day-1-states-first-four-witnesses/), with video:
At no point did dispatch believe he was not following instructions. At no time did the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to stay in the truck. You're completely incorrect here.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 06:24 pm (UTC)Righto. Remember, you're the one that said this, initially: (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1737257.html?thread=138355753#t138355753) Profiled, sure. Followed, not really. I was more than happy to give you a healthy dose of factual evidence there, as were several others.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 06:46 pm (UTC)So I'm glad I was actually able to teach you something today! Let's use this as a template going forward.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 06:52 pm (UTC)*wink*
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:27 pm (UTC)We know that already. You do drone on frequently.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 01:46 pm (UTC)Now discharging the gun when the children were in fact around has its own element of stupidity, but it seems to be (who is admittedly ignorant of the deeper details of the case) that she was taking a defense of her own home.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 02:00 pm (UTC)The evidence suggests she did not live there, and had not for months. So it's not defense of one's home from an intruder. It's described as the "marital home," which implies that they both may have had ownership, I have not looked into that specific piece on this.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:13 pm (UTC)Get into a fight.
Start losing.
Shoot your way out.
Florida will let you off, sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 07:31 pm (UTC)Soon as I heard about that one, it was damn lucky for him that I'd never be allowed near that jury in a million years. Not unless George is really into the idea of being married to a Hell's Angel for a lengthy stretch of time.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-16 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 05:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 05:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 05:16 am (UTC)