That's another case where they used an "little boy" picture to try to manipulate public opinion. The picture they kept showing of Martin Anderson didn't look anything like he did when he died.

The apologists always say it doesn't matter, but if it doesn't matter why is it necessary to show an old picture. It is obviously done because it completely changes the initial impression.

Reminder


As well as this DAILY discussion thread about the GZ case... there is also


DAILY DAFT POSTS FROM JUSTARSE QUEST
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=822&p=34233#p34233



If only Trayvon had kept his hands in his pockets, none of this would have happened.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I was thinking something along the lines of, Why Can't We Be Friends?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

That is awful, in a really, really funny way.

There is a new document posted at gzlegal :

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO UNSEAL


http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court- ... emo-of-law



Quite entertaining in its deconstruction of Crump's memo except for a few phrases..at least from my non-lawyer perspective.

This defense response shoots down every contra-argument citing the DCA itself. It is hard to see how the DCA would not remove the confidentiality figleaf on this HOA settlement.

Well, I am not lawerly inclined, but I was very impressed with this. I especially liked the term "nonsensical" that was used several times. Made me think of a chess game played by someone who knows how to play. Maybe now we know why MOM encouraged the settlement by the HOA. Ha.

Thank You I really needed to hear that.

Please share that fork yuk !!!

Why is the state so worried about an immunity hearing? I thought the defense already said they weren't going to use the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I was thinking the picture is similar to the National Enquirer pictures under the title of which one would you do?

Because "immunity" and "stand your ground" are not interchangeable?

The immunity hearing is a self-defense immunity hearing, covering all parts of the statutes regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense. The so-called "stand your ground" clause is but one aspect of those statutes. There is no such thing as a "stand your ground" hearing, and one does not need explicitly to invoke the "stand your ground" clause in order to seek immunity on the basis of self-defense.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I understood the "Stand Your Ground" is an immunity hearing The defendant, should he win on the "Stand Your Ground", gets immunity from any further action as well as any civil litigation. The state can appeal the ruling, however.

Some call it an immunity hearing. There is no such thing as an immunity hearing as it falls under "Stand Your Ground".

If it is treated as a regular self defense in the trial and is found not guilty, he is still subject to civil liability. Aspects of the "Stand Your Ground" can still be used in the trial.

No, "stand your ground" is a clause in the Florida statutes regarding the use of force, and in particular the use of deadly force in self-defense.

The so-called "stand your ground" clause is 776.013(3):


The immunity clause is 776.032(1):


As you can see, the immunity clause applies to 776.012 (Use of force in defense of a person), 776.013 (Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm - including the so-called "stand your ground" clause), and 776.031 (Use of force in defense of others).



That should read: " The defendant, should he win in the immunity hearing, gets immunity from any further action as well as any civil litigation.



No, you have it backward. There is no such thing as a "stand your ground" hearing; there is only an immunity hearing.

Immunity from criminal and civil prosecution applies to all aspects of the self-defense statutes, not just the "stand your ground" clause. (The only exception is that self-defense by an initial physical aggressor does not have the benefit of immunity, though such a person may still be justified in the use of deadly force.)



It doesn't matter what aspect of self-defense justification is argued; all that matters in that circumstance is whether the argument is made at trial, or in an immunity hearing. And there is no case law that says that Zimmerman can't invoke immunity in a civil suit, regardless of whether he invokes immunity in his criminal prosecution.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Thanks Chip.

Aspects of "Immunity" continue to be discussed with much confusion.

It helps to see your explanations.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

So what I said is true. Some call it an immunity hearing and some call it stand your ground. Most call it stand your ground. It just doesn't have a separate statute on it's own.

Interesting, too, is that he was portrayed as an innocent little child. He was sent to the boot camp because he was out of control, if I remember correctly. And, he continued in that way. It is too bad what happened to him, but it would have happened anyway, I think, before too long.

And by calling it something it's not... some people get confused.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Currently unsealing the settlement is just before Nelson. It's the deposition of Crump that the DCA is going to decide on. Which begs the question: If Nelson denies the defense the settlement agreement would the defense bring it to the DCA?

That's because some people don't have any idea how statutes are written. It can be called a stand your ground hearing because that is exactly what it is.

ETA

776.013(3)
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.