Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[Coito ergo sum]

Alan Dershowitz blasts the prosecution..... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... on-immoral

Possibly perjurous arrest warrant, leaving out exculpatory evidence.....unethical.

[Seth]

"Stand your ground" is merely an element of the general self defense law. Some states (fewer and fewer all the time fortunately) have a "retreat to the wall" statute that requires persons under attack to run away or retreat and do everything possible to escape before they are permitted to use deadly force in self defense.

"Stand your ground" merely says that once you have legal justification to use deadly force, as you would need under a "retreat to the wall" statute, you are NOT required to retreat or try to escape the conflict, but rather you are permitted to go ahead and use deadly force without first attempting to escape.

The reason that most states have voided "retreat to the wall" statutes is because in a deadly confrontation, an obligation to try to retreat or escape substantially disadvantages the victim of a violent crime by making it a crime for him to defend himself without first attempting to retreat, which leads to hesitation and creates vulnerabilities for the victim while trying to retreat.

These laws are usually found in places like Illinois and New York and New Jersey, where citizens are deliberately disarmed by the government and the policy is that you should capitulate and surrender to a criminal attacker rather than taking his life.

All such laws do, however, is favor the criminals and harm victims, which is why they are being repealed and replaced with common-sense, reasonable laws regarding the use of deadly force in deadly situations. In such situations, there is most often no time to do anything other than react as you are trained, and any delay will likely lead to greater injury to yourself.

But remember, the legal standard for the use of deadly force is unchanged, and you'd better have the necessary reasonable belief that your life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm before exercising your right in any circumstance.

[FBM]

Alan Dershowitz blasts the prosecution..... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... on-immoral

Possibly perjurous arrest warrant, leaving out exculpatory evidence.....unethical.

Hope it's OK with you if I unpack here that so everyone can get to it more easily. I found it quite illuminating.

With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …

"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"

Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."

[kiki5711]

Alan Dershowitz blasts the prosecution..... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... on-immoral

Possibly perjurous arrest warrant, leaving out exculpatory evidence.....unethical.

Hope it's OK with you if I unpack here that so everyone can get to it more easily. I found it quite illuminating.

With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …

"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"

Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."

yup, definitely a credible "source".

The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it.

[FBM]

I think a Harvard Law School professor is a pretty credible and relevant expert source for what's legal and what isn't, especially since he's "had cases in Florida against prosecutors...and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence." That in itself doesn't constitute proof that they're doing it this time, though.

Nevertheless, Dershowitz includes a key term in his statements: if. If prosecutors had the photo before filing the afadavit, they would be guilty of a breach of ethics. He's not actually saying that he knows for sure at that point, but he does go on to say "so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules", which is a lot more accusatory language. He should be more careful about that.

[Warren Dew]

I think a Harvard Law School professor is a pretty credible and relevant expert source for what's legal and what isn't, especially since he's "had cases in Florida against prosecutors...and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence." That in itself doesn't constitute proof that they're doing it this time, though.

Dershowitz is at least extremely well known. He does tend favor the defendant, but that isn't saying he's not credible.

Nevertheless, Dershowitz includes a key term in his statements: if. If prosecutors had the photo before filing the afadavit, they would be guilty of a breach of ethics. He's not actually saying that he knows for sure at that point, but he does go on to say "so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules", which is a lot more accusatory language. He should be more careful about that.

Yes. We don't even know for sure that the photo is real yet, though there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason to think otherwise.

[kiki5711]

I think a Harvard Law School professor is a pretty credible and relevant expert source for what's legal and what isn't, especially since he's "had cases in Florida against prosecutors...and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence." That in itself doesn't constitute proof that they're doing it this time, though.

Dershowitz is credible and convincing ONLY to the people HE want to convince. That is what lawyers DO.

[FBM]

Well, he convinced Harvard Law School that he was a competent scholar in his field. I guess they're a bunch of gullible suckers like me, maybe.

[kiki5711]

Well, he convinced Harvard Law School that he was a competent scholar in his field. I guess they're a bunch of gullible suckers like me, maybe.

Yea, and he convinced the jury that OJ was innocent too.

[FBM]

Dershowitz acted as an appellate adviser to O.J. Simpson's defense team during the trial, and later wrote a book about it, Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). He wrote: "the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance."[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dersh ... .281995.29

I'm not sure that an "appellate advisor" to the team means that he was actually a member of the team itself, much less personally and solely responsible for getting Simpson set free.

[kiki5711]

Dershowitz acted as an appellate adviser to O.J. Simpson's defense team during the trial, and later wrote a book about it, Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). He wrote: "the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance."[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dersh ... .281995.29

I'm not sure that an "appellate advisor" to the team means that he was actually a member of the team itself, much less personally and solely responsible for getting Simpson set free.

Doesn't matter. Adviser can be more influential/powerful than the attorney themselves. It was HIS expertise coming out of the mouths of the attorneys.

[FBM]

Could be possible, but is far from proven. Your evidence for that assertion is...?

And while you're at it, the relevance to the Martin-Zimmerman case is...?

[kiki5711]

Could be possible, but is far from proven. Your evidence for that assertion is...?

Gazzillion people feel the same way. No proof needed. Just common sense.

As far as Zimmerman, you or someone else brought up Derschowitz, not me. I was just pointing that his word is not written in stone.

[FBM]

Could be possible, but is far from proven. Your evidence for that assertion is...?

Gazzillion people feel the same way. No proof needed. Just common sense.

An argumentum ad populum fallacy isn't very convincing to rationalists, though it is often commited by people who are working by emotion, rather than reason.

As far as Zimmerman, you or someone else brought up Derschowitz, not me. I was just pointing that his word is not written in stone.

He was brought up as a relevant expert in the legal ramifications of the prosecution's failure to include relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence in their afadavit, which they are legally obligated to do. In the Martin-Zimmerman case, not the irrelevant and long-dead Simpson case, which you brought up. In which a black man (probably) got away with killing a white woman...

[kiki5711]

Could be possible, but is far from proven. Your evidence for that assertion is...?

Gazzillion people feel the same way. No proof needed. Just common sense.

An argumentum ad populum fallacy isn't very convincing to rationalists, though it is often commited by people who are working by emotion, rather than reason.

As far as Zimmerman, you or someone else brought up Derschowitz, not me. I was just pointing that his word is not written in stone.

He was brought up as a relevant expert in the legal ramifications of the prosecution's failure to include relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence in their afadavit, which they are legally obligated to do. In the Martin-Zimmerman case, not the irrelevant and long-dead Simpson case, which you brought up. In which a black man (probably) got away with killing a white woman...

Convincing to rationalist? Everyone who thought OJ was guilty was a rationalist. What do you think they were? All crazy? All billions of people were just too damn emotional?

There's other lawyers , thousands, who could argue very well against Derschowitz "interpretation" and conclusion.

Do you consider yourself the only "rationalist" of the highest degree in some sort of fashion?