On Apr 5, 10:05*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Apr 5, 12:27 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:19:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

The ONLY thing that
counts is what I believed and whether that which I believed is the
same
thing that a "reasonable person" would also believe.

You say that but my experience is that what happens is someone gets to
decide what your state of mind was. *It could be the State's Attorney,
as
it
seems to have been here, or it could be the grand jury, a trial jury
or a
trial judge.

I guess that depends on the evidence. *If I follow the CD/SYG law in
Florida, a "justified" shooting, provides immunity from arrest or
civil liabilities. Each CD/SYG state have variations of what applies..

I agree. *A lot will depend on what evidence is collected. *The catch is
that under the law it has to be a "justified" shooting. *That word just
screams someone's going to judge whether is was justified or not. *DA's
can
be wrong. *Looking at Mike Nifong's relentless (and baseless) prosecution
of
the Dukies.

Prosecutorial misconduct is so widespread that the Supremes just ruled
only
a pattern of illegal behavior can be the basis for a suit. *(-:
One-off's
don't even count anymore. *There's a lot of external pressure being
brought
to bear in this case and sometimes that causes justice to deflect a
little.
It seems that some people hate the idea that a miscreant like Sharpton
can
actually affect outcomes. *He couldn't be effective unless the media was
complicit in giving him a soapbox. *They do that to sell newspapers.

There's a concept in liability law about who has the "last clear chance
to
prevent an accident." *This was not a guy on his way home accosted by
muggers, this was someone who engaged in confrontational behavior while
armed on what seems to be a fairly regular basis. *Trouble was bound to
happen. I'm going to be most interested in what Z considered suspicious
about M.

According to Z, after the police told him not to follow, he continued
walking to the end of the street, about a block to get an address to
give to police so they would know the correct spot. *Martin had made
a 90 deg turn onto another sidewalk and he had lost sight of him.
Z turned around and was walking back to his car when M reappeared,
walked up to him and said "You have a problem?" *Z said, "No"
Martin said "Well you do now." and punched him.

AFAIK, no one has a differing account of the engagement.
Nothing in that scenario nor what's in evidence on the calls
suggests that Z was the aggressor.

Just a note
It was the dispatcher, NOT the police.
And the statement was something of the sort:
* * "we don't need that (you follow)".

Stating that the police told him not to follow is both false and misleading- Hide quoted text -


I agree 100%. Thanks for correcting that. In other posts
I've said the same thing that you did above. It was a dispatcher
who asked if Z was following M and when he said yes, the
dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that".

The media has turned that into the police told him to stop
following. I'd say the dispatcher only suggested it.