shape
carat
color
clarity

Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

littlelysser

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,862
So, Misstepcut - are you advocating that a person should be arrested only if it has been predetermined that the case is an absolute slam dunk and there is no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt? That sort of defeats the purpose of a trial, doesn't it? And nevermind the discovery and information sharing that occurs between the parties.

You are a law student correct? Surely you recognize the difference between an investigation/arrest and a trial/conviction.

I have not advocated, nor has anyone else, that this man should be convicted right now.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Gypsy|1332659373|3155906 said:
So... see. You put together a string of facts that are all WRONG. Why? Because you believed the media.

Thanks for proving my point though, I appreciate it.

Yeah, right. You were dead wrong about the 911 transcript yet you sure did know what it said when you wrote me a snarky post asking me if I had even read it. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I think I'll believe the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it as to what it meant.
 

ame

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
10,869
As soon as this boy ran away it stopped being stand-your-ground or self-defense. Period. Does not matter if he was armed or not, that boy was running away, and he was hunted by this adult who murdered him. That was NOT self-defense. At all.

What I DO agree with is that the public will make it impossible to convict this individual of anything more than MAYBE manslaughter. The investigators have a hard enough time sometimes getting all the facts and evidence without them being tainted, but the public's involvement makes it ridiculously hard for the prosecutors once any evidence and factual information is established. It's going to be all about the charges they can prove and get a conviction on.
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
MissStepcut|1332698254|3156073 said:
I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Gypsy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and based just on what I've heard, I see lots of room for doubt. I am sure the prosecutor sees even more than I do.

Well, then. We'll just have vigilantes pursuing children in the streets with guns for "looking suspicious". Great. And again, the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it have said it does not apply to Zimmerman.

The Sanford police should have arrested him and then he should have the burden of proving self-defense.

Nice world when we can go around murdering each other and say, "Oh, well, it was self-defense."

Show me some evidence about these poor beleaguered prosecutors who don't think they have enough evidence. You can't. Because the Sanford police simply let the man go.
Why would the prosecutors make that public??
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
littlelysser|1332699643|3156084 said:
So, Misstepcut - are you advocating that a person should be arrested only if it has been predetermined that the case is an absolute slam dunk and there is no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt? That sort of defeats the purpose of a trial, doesn't it? And nevermind the discovery and information sharing that occurs between the parties.

You are a law student correct? Surely you recognize the difference between an investigation/arrest and a trial/conviction.

I have not advocated, nor has anyone else, that this man should be convicted right now.
Once he's arrested he's entitled to a speedy trial. There's no reason to arrest him right this second except to calm down the people who are outraged. The DOJ has already stepped in. It's not like the gov't is sitting on their hands.
 

perry

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
2,547
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
MissStepcut|1332698254|3156073 said:
Show me some evidence about these poor beleaguered prosecutors who don't think they have enough evidence. You can't. Because the Sanford police simply let the man go.

I believe you and some others have a very large misunderstanding of what the police do - and what they can do. I have a brother who was a cop until he got injured on the job and retired on disability. One of our constitutional protections against abuse of police powers limits when the police may arrest and hold someone.

When police respond to any situation they make one of four initial determinations:

1) There is sufficient evidence apparent to warrant an immediate arrest and investigation. Few crimes actually meet this standard on the first contact with police.

2) There appears to be a crime; but, there is not enough evidence to warrent an immediate arrest of anyone. Many crimes fall into this catagory - and then the police start an investigation depending on seriousness of the crime and resources.*

3) There may have been a crime; but there is not enough evidence apparent (or likely to appear) to warrant either an arrest or to even start an investigation (and seriousness of crime and resources are often driving factors*).

4) There is no appearance of a crime.

Also, in cases 2 and 3 the DA office often is consulted on how high a priority the item is for investigation and prosecution.

* The police and DA's office has limited resources - and intentionally focus their resourses on cases based on seriousness of the crime and degree of likely success.

I suspect (but do not know) that the police figured they had a 3 in this case.

I would also like to remind everyone - that the US Justice system is intentionally set up to allow a certain percentage of guilty to escape prosecution in order to prevent the conviction of the inoccent (and we still get that). There is no perfect system - and ours is not a bad ballance if you look at other systems around the world.

Imdanny: Concering the concept of someone accidentally killing someone. It happens all the time with people driving impared (alcohol, drugs, overtired), or otherwise distracted (texting, phones, other people in the vehicle, insects). Those people did not set out to kill someone else - but they did. There is a simiar series of industrial accidents as well. Do you believe that all of those people should be arrested and tried for murder as well?



Perry
 

Meezermom

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
172
The bottom line is that Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher NOT to do anything - and despite that, he shot this innocent kid anyway. An innocent kid who was armed with a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman should have been arrested immediately. The whole situation is heart wrenching.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
gammygam|1332697301|3156065 said:
Sorry Danny, didnt see you had quoted the article. I, too, have the problems with posting on an iPhone. :rodent:

:))
 

littlelysser

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,862
The right to a speedy trial theory and in application are two VERY different things, for a number of reasons. Please don't think that were Zimmerman were arrested today, the trial would start in the next year. The wheels of justice move incredibly slowly.

And I agree that the government is not sitting on its hands - but it took a tremendous amount of outcry and publicity for that to happen. It was the "ignorant public" and "sensationalistic" media that demanded answers in this matter. And I don't think I"ll be convinced by anyone that that is a bad thing.
 

CaprineSun

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
579
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
Well, then. We'll just have vigilantes pursuing children in the streets with guns for "looking suspicious". Great. And again, the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it have said it does not apply to Zimmerman.

The Sanford police should have arrested him and then he should have the burden of proving self-defense.

Nice world when we can go around murdering each other and say, "Oh, well, it was self-defense."

Show me some evidence about these poor beleaguered prosecutors who don't think they have enough evidence. You can't. Because the Sanford police simply let the man go.

Thank you!

People are more so questioning why he hasn't even been arrested yet, why he hadn't even been questioned. Not, convicted and placed on death row. We are not even at that point yet. No one has EVER had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest and detain, to investigate. That's what the courts are for. Re: the Casey Anthony case, she had already been arrested and was on trial when her case was being discussed here. We are NOT discussing this man's trial here--- I wish we were.

And re: justice vs. revenge? There has been so much injustice the public has cried out over already:
Zimmerman not being properly investigated and detained.
Everything he told taken at face value.
The boy's body missing from his parents for 3 days without notifying them of what happened. Parents frantic.
The dead boy, and not Zimmerman drug tested with the assumption he must have provoked Zimmerman.
So wanting this addressed & corrected = revenge? Investigating a murder is wanting revenge?

And, I never heard of it being routine to absolve someone legally of a crime for mistakenly breaking the law. Next time I kill someone, I'll say it was a mistake. Next time, I run through a red light, I'll say it was a mistake. Next time, I rob someone, rape someone.....
And, next time a black man gets busted for marijuana in his car & gets automatically at least 7 yrs in prison, let him off --- it was a mistake!

Maybe this will make Zimmerman learn to NEVER make this deadly mistake again-- mistaking an innocent boy for a thug based on his prejudices.

And for the record, Hispanic is NOT a race. I won't even go into the tensions between African-American/Caribbean blacks and the Hispanic people (especially the White Hispanics) in Florida. To simply say he was Hispanic in an attempt to minimize the racial bias here is absurd.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
perry|1332700411|3156097 said:
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
MissStepcut|1332698254|3156073 said:
Show me some evidence about these poor beleaguered prosecutors who don't think they have enough evidence. You can't. Because the Sanford police simply let the man go.

I believe you and some others have a very large misunderstanding of what the police do - and what they can do. I have a brother who was a cop until he got injured on the job and retired on disability. One of our constitutional protections against abuse of police powers limits when the police may arrest and hold someone.

When police respond to any situation they make one of four initial determinations:

1) There is sufficient evidence apparent to warrant an immediate arrest and investigation. Few crimes actually meet this standard on the first contact with police.

2) There appears to be a crime; but, there is not enough evidence to warrent an immediate arrest of anyone. Many crimes fall into this catagory - and then the police start an investigation depending on seriousness of the crime and resources.*

3) There may have been a crime; but there is not enough evidence apparent (or likely to appear) to warrant either an arrest or to even start an investigation (and seriousness of crime and resources are often driving factors*).

4) There is no appearance of a crime.

Also, in cases 2 and 3 the DA office often is consulted on how high a priority the item is for investigation and prosecution.

* The police and DA's office has limited resources - and intentionally focus their resourses on cases based on seriousness of the crime and degree of likely success.

I suspect (but do not know) that the police figured they had a 3 in this case.

I would also like to remind everyone - that the US Justice system is intentionally set up to allow a certain percentage of guilty to escape prosecution in order to prevent the conviction of the inoccent (and we still get that). There is no perfect system - and ours is not a bad ballance if you look at other systems around the world.

Imdanny: Concering the concept of someone accidentally killing someone. It happens all the time with people driving impared (alcohol, drugs, overtired), or otherwise distracted (texting, phones, other people in the vehicle, insects). Those people did not set out to kill someone else - but they did. There is a simiar series of industrial accidents as well. Do you believe that all of those people should be arrested and tried for murder as well?



Perry

Perry, your analogy is not apt because this was not manslaughter.

And you might have noticed the Sanford police are not exactly the people in this situation we're all supposed to bow down to and defer to. The head of the police department has temporarily stepped down. I suspect a lot more information will come out about them before this is over.
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
Twinkle, there certainly has been an investigation underway, and Zimmerman has been questioned by police. You seem determined to see failure and incompetence on the gov't's part.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
*Twinkle*twinkle*|1332701035|3156103 said:
And for the record, Hispanic is NOT a race. I won't even go into the tensions between African-American/Caribbean blacks and the Hispanic people (especially the White Hispanics) in Florida. To simply say he was Hispanic in an attempt to minimize the racial bias here is absurd.

I was born in Florida in spent half my life there. I hear you!

It seems that many in this thread are blissfully unaware of the history of race relations in Sanford.
 

mary poppins

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,606
perry|1332700411|3156097 said:
Concering the concept of someone accidentally killing someone. It happens all the time with people driving impared (alcohol, drugs, overtired), or otherwise distracted (texting, phones, other people in the vehicle, insects). Those people did not set out to kill someone else - but they did. There is a simiar series of industrial accidents as well. Do you believe that all of those people should be arrested and tried for murder as well?



Perry


Why not? It happens every day. That's what charges of felony murder, second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide and vehicular homicide are for. Also, some states have laws holding drug dealers responsible for deaths when the people they sell drugs to overdose.
 

CaprineSun

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
579
MissStepcut|1332701236|3156106 said:
Twinkle, there certainly has been an investigation underway, and Zimmerman has been questioned by police. You seem determined to see failure and incompetence on the gov't's part.

Absolutely not. The reason a proper investigation is even underway now is due to the GLARING failure on the law officials' part. And as some have already stated, as a direct result of the "useless" public outcry.

I was addressing an earlier post that stated the public outcry was for revenge, not justice, so I was explaining some of the injustices that started from the very beginning that outraged many and how wanting them rectified or accounted for does not = revenge.
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,676
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
MissStepcut|1332698254|3156073 said:
I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Gypsy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and based just on what I've heard, I see lots of room for doubt. I am sure the prosecutor sees even more than I do.

Well, then. We'll just have vigilantes pursuing children in the streets with guns for "looking suspicious". Great. And again, the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it have said it does not apply to Zimmerman.

The Sanford police should have arrested him and then he should have the burden of proving self-defense.

Nice world when we can go around murdering each other and say, "Oh, well, it was self-defense."

DITTO.

Sadly, this is just going to be another case where they'll change the ridiculous 'law' after someone tragically had to pay the price.
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
Laila619|1332701994|3156112 said:
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
MissStepcut|1332698254|3156073 said:
I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Gypsy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and based just on what I've heard, I see lots of room for doubt. I am sure the prosecutor sees even more than I do.

Well, then. We'll just have vigilantes pursuing children in the streets with guns for "looking suspicious". Great. And again, the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it have said it does not apply to Zimmerman.

The Sanford police should have arrested him and then he should have the burden of proving self-defense.

Nice world when we can go around murdering each other and say, "Oh, well, it was self-defense."

DITTO.

Sadly, this is just going to be another case where they'll change the ridiculous 'law' after someone tragically had to pay the price.
If the law is bad, the law needs to be changed. But we certainly can't let governors and legislators off the hook for bad laws by letting them say, "OH! We didn't mean in situations like that!" Unless they want to "say" it in the form of a new piece of legislation.
 

movie zombie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
11,879
the kid had a right to stand his ground, NOT ZIMMERMAN WHO WAS TOLD NOT TO DO WHAT HE WAS DOING.
trayvon was being stalked by an unknown male. if he was forceable stopped by that male [touched, grabbed] and/or being asked questions by zimmerman [who had no legal right to do so] he may well have been justified in 'fighting back' or pulling away.

LE blew it: zimmerman should have been arrested and tested for drugs/alcohol. they certainly tested trayvon's body for those substances and found none. it is common procedure for LE to arrest and test after a shooting because that is part of showing probable cause and being of clear mind. but they didn't. i'm pretty sure if it had been a black man stalking a white teenager, that black man would have been jailed immediately.

zimmerman should have been arrested and had his day in court. i would then believe that our justice system works.

i don't know about the rest of you but if i were in this situation i certainly not have complied with some self-professed neighborhood watch captain who was trying to stop me and would have told him to pound sand. if he had touched me i would have killed him had i had the means because i am small and old...i would have felt my life threatened.

zimmerman is the perp in this situation and initiated the events that led to this untimely death. yes, he deserves a day in court.

eta: the problem isn't the law: for once and probably never again i agree with Jeb Bush. the law was never meant to absolve a zimmerman but to protect a trayvon for protecting himself.

also, i agree with Twinkle: i grew up in california's central valley and i can tell you that problems between the two groups re fights/assautls/murder were intense....
 

CaprineSun

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
579
Imdanny|1332701493|3156107 said:
*Twinkle*twinkle*|1332701035|3156103 said:
And for the record, Hispanic is NOT a race. I won't even go into the tensions between African-American/Caribbean blacks and the Hispanic people (especially the White Hispanics) in Florida. To simply say he was Hispanic in an attempt to minimize the racial bias here is absurd.

I was born in Florida in spent half my life there. I hear you!

It seems that many in this thread are blissfully unaware of the history of race relations in Sanford.

Precisely. And, it's very easy to want to dismiss it, to ignore it, to excuse it, to find a 'rational'/'reasonable' alternative explanation.
But it must be faced, a dialogue must occur, progress must be made
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
*Twinkle*twinkle*|1332702757|3156117 said:
Imdanny|1332701493|3156107 said:
*Twinkle*twinkle*|1332701035|3156103 said:
And for the record, Hispanic is NOT a race. I won't even go into the tensions between African-American/Caribbean blacks and the Hispanic people (especially the White Hispanics) in Florida. To simply say he was Hispanic in an attempt to minimize the racial bias here is absurd.

I was born in Florida in spent half my life there. I hear you!

It seems that many in this thread are blissfully unaware of the history of race relations in Sanford.

Precisely. And, it's very easy to want to dismiss it, to ignore it, to excuse it, to find a 'rational'/'reasonable' alternative explanation.
But it must be faced, a dialogue must occur, progress must be made
It's not that I deny racial tensions, or even that I don't think that Zimmerman acted out of racial motivations. Personally, I am hoping the DOJ decides to pursue this as a hate crime. I just don't think that it's fair to assume the worst about the police or the prosecutors on this one.

The "Stand Your Ground" law in question limits whether the police can arrest Zimmerman. The legislature saying that it doesn't apply doesn't make it so. Neither can the governor just proclaim that. The police must first establish certain things under the law before they can make an arrest.
 

Madam Bijoux

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
5,379
OP, I completely agree with you. Zimmerman was a self-appointed vigilante, not even a security guard. He should be dealt with the way any other murdering loose cannon is dealt with: life without parole. It might take a few years, but I hope that will be his sentence. He doesn't even have the excuses that Bernie Goetz had.
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,676
MissStepcut|1332702230|3156113 said:
Laila619|1332701994|3156112 said:
Imdanny|1332698931|3156078 said:
MissStepcut|1332698254|3156073 said:
I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Gypsy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and based just on what I've heard, I see lots of room for doubt. I am sure the prosecutor sees even more than I do.

Well, then. We'll just have vigilantes pursuing children in the streets with guns for "looking suspicious". Great. And again, the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it have said it does not apply to Zimmerman.

The Sanford police should have arrested him and then he should have the burden of proving self-defense.

Nice world when we can go around murdering each other and say, "Oh, well, it was self-defense."

DITTO.

Sadly, this is just going to be another case where they'll change the ridiculous 'law' after someone tragically had to pay the price.
If the law is bad, the law needs to be changed. But we certainly can't let governors and legislators off the hook for bad laws by letting them say, "OH! We didn't mean in situations like that!" Unless they want to "say" it in the form of a new piece of legislation.

But at some point, common sense has to come in to play, or else there is always a way to get around a law, or use it to suit one's agenda, as in Zimmerman's case.
 

makemepretty

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
987
This is sad for all parties involved, there is no winner in this situation. I feel that everyone did something wrong(even the victim). I don't find this a race incident. I think it's pretty common to describe people with whatever is the most descriptive words for the situation. If I see a cute kid I might describe it later as "I saw this cute toddler with red hair or I saw this cute little black girl or I saw a cute chubby little girl with pigtails" None of those are meant to be offensive descriptions, just human descriptions with aspects that help you picture what I saw.


A person does not have to have a weapon for you to feel threatened. I'm sure everyone would love a do over. I heard Star Jones say that white mothers don't worry about this happening. Yes, yes they do. I worry about my teen being out and getting hurt every time he leaves the house. Whether it be being in a car accident or shot by someone with road rage or the uprising of teen suicides in our state. A mom worries, no matter what color and does not want their kids wandering around in strangers yards for this very reason.
 

Circe

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
8,087
Er. The difference, I think, is lies in whether it is a statistically legitimate concern.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,622
Well this person Zimmerman does seem to have a vigilante mentality. Tried to get into the police academy, but they turned him down after they found on his record an assault - on a undercover police officer (probably was acting suspicious).
I hope this tragedy means the stand your ground laws will be reviewed and revised, as well as other "approved" vigilante activities like volunteer border controls and such. Those things are an accident waiting to happen.

As far as fearing for his life, all Zimmerman suspected was maybe he was "going" to commit a crime like breaking in. He chose to follow him, and confront him. But with someone with that kind of mentality, this kind of thing is just waiting to happen, and finally did.

But in general, my reaction about why are not more people discussing this, I don't watch Nancy Grace, don't watch all those sensational crime shows. the crimes themselves make me sick. The legal system will deal with it (just like I'd rather have the police deal with crime than over-eager citizens) so I'm not going to waste more of my time obsessing over OJ or whatever the latest flavor of outrage is.
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
Circe|1332707193|3156166 said:
Er. The difference, I think, is lies in whether it is a statistically legitimate concern.
Agreed.
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
makemepretty|1332706949|3156160 said:
This is sad for all parties involved, there is no winner in this situation. I feel that everyone did something wrong(even the victim). I don't find this a race incident. I think it's pretty common to describe people with whatever is the most descriptive words for the situation. If I see a cute kid I might describe it later as "I saw this cute toddler with red hair or I saw this cute little black girl or I saw a cute chubby little girl with pigtails" None of those are meant to be offensive descriptions, just human descriptions with aspects that help you picture what I saw.


A person does not have to have a weapon for you to feel threatened. I'm sure everyone would love a do over. I heard Star Jones say that white mothers don't worry about this happening. Yes, yes they do. I worry about my teen being out and getting hurt every time he leaves the house. Whether it be being in a car accident or shot by someone with road rage or the uprising of teen suicides in our state. A mom worries, no matter what color and does not want their kids wandering around in strangers yards for this very reason.
I find the bolded a very strange conclusion to draw if it's true that Zimmerman is heard on the tape muttering a racial slur.
 

indecisive

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
1,240
makemepretty|1332706949|3156160 said:
This is sad for all parties involved, there is no winner in this situation. I feel that everyone did something wrong(even the victim). I don't find this a race incident. I think it's pretty common to describe people with whatever is the most descriptive words for the situation. If I see a cute kid I might describe it later as "I saw this cute toddler with red hair or I saw this cute little black girl or I saw a cute chubby little girl with pigtails" None of those are meant to be offensive descriptions, just human descriptions with aspects that help you picture what I saw.


A person does not have to have a weapon for you to feel threatened. I'm sure everyone would love a do over. I heard Star Jones say that white mothers don't worry about this happening. Yes, yes they do. I worry about my teen being out and getting hurt every time he leaves the house. Whether it be being in a car accident or shot by someone with road rage or the uprising of teen suicides in our state. A mom worries, no matter what color and does not want their kids wandering around in strangers yards for this very reason.

So do you or will you not let your kids walk in your own neighborhood? He was walking home in his father's neighborhood, not wandering around in "strangers yards".
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
I am confused by the lawyers here who are saying that it's too early for an arrest to be made.

Rory Holland, a Biddeford Maine man, shot and killed two brothers aged 19 and 25 in front of his home on June 30, 2009. He claimed self-defense. His claim was that he feared for his life because he was routinely harassed by these men. After a five hour stand-off with police later that morning he was arrested and charged. His trial began in October 2010. He was found guilty and is now serving two life sentences.

Can anyone explain what the differences would be in these cases? Incidentally, Maine has a "Castle Doctrine" that is kind of like (as far as I can tell) the "Stand Your Ground" law when you are at your own residence. Also incidentally, Holland is African-American and the brothers he murdered were white.

It seems to me that there was plenty of time to put a trial together after the arrest. Why would the Zimmerman case be different?
 

MissStepcut

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,723
Maria D|1332716371|3156248 said:
I am confused by the lawyers here who are saying that it's too early for an arrest to be made.

Rory Holland, a Biddeford Maine man, shot and killed two brothers aged 19 and 25 in front of his home on June 30, 2009. He claimed self-defense. His claim was that he feared for his life because he was routinely harassed by these men. After a five hour stand-off with police later that morning he was arrested and charged. His trial began in October 2010. He was found guilty and is now serving two life sentences.

Can anyone explain what the differences would be in these cases? Incidentally, Maine has a "Castle Doctrine" that is kind of like (as far as I can tell) the "Stand Your Ground" law when you are at your own residence. Also incidentally, Holland is African-American and the brothers he murdered were white.

It seems to me that there was plenty of time to put a trial together after the arrest. Why would the Zimmerman case be different?
I see it as different because of the things this law apparently limits specific to arrest when the shooter claims self-defense. From what I understand, the police cannot arrest him without meeting a higher bar regarding what they believe about the shooter. So other cases from other states wouldn't be analogous.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top