That's right. It went on as a standard self defense case, not an SYG case.
Not really, in that his counsel affirmatively chose to waive a pre-trial immunity hearing. Even if he is later granted immunity it would not retroactively immunize him against the trial he already underwent.
DVC was there even probable cause in this case to arrest let alone try? No evidence presented ever showed force that was used was unlawful or countered his story. He should get immunity easy.
DVC was there even probable cause in this case to arrest let alone try? No evidence presented ever showed force that was used was unlawful or countered his story. He should get immunity easy.
1) what if defendant subsequently admits to the charge?
2) what prevents the state from continually (legally I mean, pr be damned) throwing new charges over and over? E.g. 1st degree then next 3rd over and over? This ties into first: I assume if defendant does subsequently admit to the original charge they could at least be charged with perjury
3) if the judge acquits before conclusion of trial state can try again. I assume MOM considered this when he asked for an acquittal...
Haha...OJ did write a book, "If I did it" I believe was the title, all about how it could have happened "If" he had done itUnless I'm mistaken, OJ could have walked out of court and announced, "ha ha, I got away with murder!" Come to think of it, didn't he write a book? Of course, in OJ's case, there was the civil lawsuit. But in Zimmerman's case, it's likely that he will be immune to a civil lawsuit.
I never read it either but everyone I know that read it says close enough to be realI didnt read OJ's book. How close to reality was his hypothetical?
I think he probably should get immunity. I differ somewhat from Alan Dershowitz in that I don't think there was a COMPLETE absence of probable cause - there was at least one neighbor saying Zimmerman was on top during their struggle, and there were some inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements on reasonably significant issues. I still don't believe the case should have been brought, because there was no realistic path to victory for the state, but I also don't think it was obviously baseless.
Very minor inconsistency. Which BTW is why you never talk to cops under stress and w/o a lawyer. One minor inconsistency and they'll label you a pathological liar especially if you should take stand. Witness not found until much later. I agree with you though on everything.
That's rich coming from you champ Having read news and opinions from a variety of news sources of all slants I can say it was a majority, if you care to prove me wrong then pull your head out of the sand and try to compile a thorough listing...we'll all be waiting for your empirical evidence
And this proves what exactly? That after shooting and not knowing whether his attacker was dead he got on top of him?Zimmerman was on top after the shot, and he said that in interviews. So I think that's out as an inconsistency. It's a consistency.
Bull shit. I never said Dunn was not guilty. I said specifically his second "volley" of shots, even if the first volley is someone how deemed justified, is still going to land his ass in prison. Dunn WILL serve jail time for that at the very least. Which if the prosecution can tie that second volley of shots to the death of Davis, then Dunn will be serving for manslaughter. That is my prediction. I've stated Dunn is fucked, but for proper legal reasons and evidence, not the same rampant speculation that happened in this case.
HumblePie said:This goes back to the argument with Davis and Dunn. If Davis makes a threat to cause bodily harm or death against Dunn, that in itself does not give Dunn legal authority to use lethal force in self defense. If Davis presents a weapon, like a firearm, which is capable of immediately carrying out that threat or attempts to leave the vehicle to make the carrying out of that threat to Dunn imminent, then Dunn has legal authority to use lethal force in self defense.
That is how the laws are written. In this scenario, Dunn is going to have to prove that Davis was making threats. There is evidence o'plenty of that. The sticky part is what follows. He has to prove that Davis or his friends were presenting an imminent opportunity to make their threat credible.
That is for the first part of the shooting. The part where Dunn got out of his car and continued to fire once the threat was stopped and speeding away. That is going to nail him period. In self defense if you use a gun for defense you shoot to STOP the threat. Not make sure the threat is dead. There is a difference. There is no problem with shooting the firearm multiple times. But to stop firing, reposition, and to fire again on a fleeing vehicle... Yah he's going to be in jail for that part. Deservedly so too.
However, that is just reckless discharge of a firearm and not murder for that. Still a stiff penalty, but not as stiff. The point of contention for topic of Dunn and Davis is if Dunn was legally justified to use lethal force in the first place. We have evidence of Davis threatening him. We don't have evidence, at this point for the public, if that was a credible threat or not.
Nice mental gymnastics there. So, if he killed Davis in the first volley, you think he won't/shouldn't get murder, but if it occured during the second volley he should? Is that what you're saying? Verbal threats shouted from a car window are enough justification to fire?
Here's what you said in that thread:
I never read it either but everyone I know that read it says close enough to be real
Is that really what you are seeing there? Because he specifically says:Nice mental gymnastics there. So, if he killed Davis in the first volley, you think he won't/shouldn't get murder, but if it occured during the second volley he should? Is that what you're saying? Verbal threats shouted from a car window are enough justification to fire?
and that:If Davis makes a threat to cause bodily harm or death against Dunn, that in itself does not give Dunn legal authority to use lethal force in self defense.
If Davis presents a weapon, like a firearm, which is capable of immediately carrying out that threat or attempts to leave the vehicle to make the carrying out of that threat to Dunn imminent, then Dunn has legal authority to use lethal force in self defense.
That is how the laws are written. In this scenario, Dunn is going to have to prove that Davis was making threats. There is evidence o'plenty of that. The sticky part is what follows. He has to prove that Davis or his friends were presenting an imminent opportunity to make their threat credible.
You have this amazing ability to read what you want to believe, instead of reading what was written.
Sheesh.
And like he said, that is going to be the sticky part, proving the threat was credible enough to cause him fear...I don't think it was and he should be prosecuted to find out.He did say the first volley may have been justified, there's zero evidence it was. Except for one guy who called 911 and said that the teens MAY have been stashing something IN THE CAR, not out of the car. No gun was found IN the car.
Remember when the Goldman's got control of the book they made the "If" part of the title really small in later printings? hahaThx on legal questions.
I tho I OJ's book was "hypothetical".
I couldn't find a list of people proudly screaming their guilt after acquittals but I have to imagine it has happened before.
And you have probably picked the wrong white CCW holder to defend in the Jordan Davis thread. :biggrin:
Still, Zebo's point must be driven home. I recommend people go to youtube. There is a video by a lawyer called "don't talk to cops". It gives excellent hypotheticals--which make sense in light of what GZ did in his talking to cops--of why you should lawyer up immediately and say absolutely nothing other than that you are exerting your right to say nothing (thanks, SCOTUS).
And this proves what exactly? That after shooting and not knowing whether his attacker was dead he got on top of him?
Ah...thought I missed somethingYep.
That GZ's story is consistent with witnesses who said TM as on top, and with the witness who said GZ was on top.