Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts

[Hello Kitty]

I' been doing some reflecting. We have the best trained police in the world. I don't know why we trust them to do their jobs. We need to believe in them. They are highly trained and efficient at what they do.

[JDN]

I' been doing some reflecting. We have the best trained police in the world. I don't know why we trust them to do their jobs. We need to believe in them. They are highly trained and efficient at what they do.

I agree, but what are you exactly saying?  Can you expound?  What is your point?

[Hello Kitty]

I' been doing some reflecting. We have the best trained police in the world. I don't know why we trust them to do their jobs. We need to believe in them. They are highly trained and efficient at what they do.

I agree, but what are you exactly saying?  Can you expound?  What is your point?

My point is that the media has turned this into a circus, when in fact, the have a limited knowledge of criminal investigations, and that we as a country comprised of different races, should trust the law enforcement community's judgment, which is comprised of members of every race.

Unfortunately, Zimmerman has already had a public trial, at least in the hearts and minds of nearly every American and guilty or innocent, he will never see a fair trial because of what the media has allowed.

If we are to be a system of law, where anyone, you myself or others, are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, the media must stay out of investigations, particularly ones that will have a substantial divide in them due to the differences in race and culture. If our system of law fails, we fail. We will be relegated to nothing more than a totalitarian society which is in direct contrast to what the Constitution promises each of us.

It is imperative that we trust the law enforcement community because if we do not, we will wind up with anarchy or totalitarianism. Those are the only possible outcomes and albeit, our system isn't perfect, it is the best system that has been thought up yet.

[Mick C.]

The Arizona Senate has passed a law allowing carry in public offices and government places, it's on Gov. Brewer's desk:

Arizona Senate OKs bill on guns in public buildings

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/04/12/20120412ariz-senate-oks-bill-guns-public-buildings.html#ixzz1s3glGMXk

The Arizona Legislature has given final approval to a bill that could allow guns on public property, including city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol.

Gov. Jan Brewer has five days to sign the bill into law, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. If the bill becomes law, Arizona would join nine other states in allowing guns inside public government buildings, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Arizona already ranks among the most pro-gun states in the nation. Two years ago, Arizona became one of only a handful of states to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Arizona cities and counties are railing against House Bill 2729, saying they'll either have to let guns into buildings where the public would rather not have them or pay millions of dollars to provide the security required to keep them out.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, is being pushed by the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group.

"This bill is about preventing murder," said Arizona Citizens Defense League communications director Charles Heller. "When bad people come in armed, they will get stopped by police officers and a metal detector. The alternative is you can let honest people go armed into the building. Either way, you provide a solution."

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, called the bill a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

"This isn't about the Second Amendment. Don't give me that garbage," Gallardo said. "We are allowing guns into public facilities that should not have them. Do we really want guns at our public library?"

The bill proposes making it legal for people to enter public property with a weapon unless the property is secured by either a state or federal certified law-enforcement officer or an armed security guard and metal detectors. It also must have secure gun lockers available.

There are exceptions. The bill would allow a private operator of a multipurpose facility, such as a professional sports arena, to limit or ban guns on the property. It would not apply to private entities that rent space in a public building. It also would not apply to K-12 schools, colleges or universities.

A similar bill passed the Legislature last year, but Brewer vetoed it, saying it was poorly written. Supporters of this year's bill have said they are confident it fixes Brewer's concerns. Brewer doesn't typically comment on bills in advance.

Sen. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson, voted against the bill.

"This is a bad bill. It was a bad bill last year, and it's bad again this year," Cajero Bedford said. "For those of you who like to complain about unfunded mandates, this one takes the cake."

A study conducted by legislative staff estimates that security costs for a government entity to ban guns could range from $5,000 to $113,800 per public entrance in the first year with ongoing costs of $54,400 to $108,800 per year. The amounts are based on estimates that the annual salary and related costs of a security guard are $54,000, and some entrances may need two officers, depending on traffic. The study estimates stationary metal detectors cost $4,000 each and a hand-held detector costs $400.

"Maricopa County reports that if firearms are prohibited from all county buildings that currently do not have the security features outlined in the bill, it would cost $19.5million in ongoing costs and an additional $11.3million in one-time equipment costs," the study says.

Heller called that "a lie."

"There is nothing in this bill that mandates metal detectors or security," he said, saying that governments have the other option of removing signs banning guns. "Just take the sign down. It won't cost you a cent."

Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, was not deterred by the talk of costs. He voted for the bill.

"No cost is too high to protect my constitutional rights," Smith said.

Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox asked Brewer to veto the bill.

"She was a member of the Board of Supervisors when a member of the public brought a gun into a county building and shot me," Wilcox said. "There is a time and place for guns, and that place is not in government buildings."

Phoenix Government Relations Director Karen Peters said her city's costs would be significant as well.

"We have so many public facilities where the public prefers that guns not be present, like libraries and recreational facilities," Peters said. "We would have to install this technology at every entrance and staff it all the hours we are open. It increases operating costs for the facilities and makes it more difficult for us to provide the amenities and services the communities want."

She said Phoenix will send Brewer a letter asking her to veto the bill as she did last year.

National and state gun-advocacy groups support the bill. Law enforcement, chambers of commerce, court organizations and the Arizona Library Association have registered their opposition to the bill.

Garrick Taylor of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry sent a letter to lawmakers opposing HB 2729. He said the bill violates private property rights, will impact private landowners with both public and private tenants, doesn't include exceptions to protect critical infrastructure such as power facilities, and will have a significant fiscal impact.

"HB 2729 remains a flawed bill that would have negative impacts on our economy," Taylor said.

But Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, said the bill is good for Arizona.

"I am a true believer in the statement that an armed citizenry is a safe citizenry," Melvin said. "Our founders, when they gave us the Second Amendment, knew what they were doing. With this type of legislation, we have a safer society."



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/04/12/20120412ariz-senate-oks-bill-guns-public-buildings.html#ixzz1s3fEZUbU

[G M]

http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-groundduty-to-retreat.html

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Stand Your Ground/Duty to Retreat

If the Republicans were smart (and if pigs flew) they would be rephrasing this Stand Your Ground question in "war on women" terms.  I'm impressed how many of the cases that I have found so far involve women defending themselves from abusive intimate partners (and sometimes the reverse, as in State v. Glowacki (Minn. 2001))--and being charged because they didn't leave their own homes rather than use deadly force.

Fortunately, the courts have had the good sense to recognize that there is no duty to retreat in your own home and have ordered retrials with different jury instructions.  Just a couple of examples: State v. Livesay, 233 P. 2d 432 (Idaho 1951) (woman shot, perhaps by accident, her abusive husband when he returned home from jail for domestic violence and attacked her; her right to defend herself in her own home was upheld against a jury instruction denying her the right to use deadly force when she had provoked the confrontation; also found that a “duty to retreat” instruction was incorrect). Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) (duty to retreat not applicable in one’s own residence, even when the attacker is her spouse).  State v. Thomas (Ohio 1997) (no duty to retreat in one's own residence, even when the attacker has an equal right to be there):

Thus, a person who, through no fault of her own, is assaulted in her home may stand her ground, meet force with force, and if necessary, kill her assailant, without any duty to retreat.

[Crafty_Dog]

GM:  Interesting point you raise there.

Mick-- please use the subject heading when you post so a search command can find it in the future.

All:  What do we make of the AZ bill?

[G M]

All:  What do we make of the AZ bill?

Knowing only what is in the above article, I'd tend to support it.

[Hello Kitty]

I like the Arizona bill. Bad people are going to continue their misdeed whether others are armed or not. It is better to be armed and prepared than to be a victim. Nothing says "no" to rape and victimhood like being properly armed does.
I saw that GM was reviewing some cases on the stand your ground law and duty to retreat. I wonder what exists in the way of violent crime stats in pro firearm states as opposed to states that have hefty gun control laws.

[G M]

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334778375&sr=8-1

“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal


(James Bovard Wall Street Journal )


On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review


(John O. McGinnis National Review )
About the Author
John R. Lott, Jr., is the author five books, including Freedomnomics and Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?, the latter also published by the University of Chicago Press.

[Hello Kitty]

Thank you GM.

[Crafty_Dog]

Concerning the AZ bill, as we all know, polictical conversations can get rather warm sometimes and the idea of some or all carrying guns does make me a bit leery.

[G M]

Concerning the AZ bill, as we all know, polictical conversations can get rather warm sometimes and the idea of some or all carrying guns does make me a bit leery.

Really? Ever lose your cool in an arguement and stab someone with knife you had on your person?

[Crafty_Dog]

Well, I have been known to make some other people rather mad and in such moments it occurs to me I'd rather they not have a gun or two on them.

[Hello Kitty]

Well, I have been known to make some other people rather mad and in such moments it occurs to me I'd rather they not have a gun or two on them.

That's why training is necessary and everyone needs to be armed, because any jerk that would stab someone over a difference of opinion, isn't going to respect a law banning them from having weapons anyways.

[G M]

Most people don't road rage, despite having control over a machine much more powerful and deadly than any handgun. Most people don't have a few drinks and then stab a family member over a debate. In my state, public libraries are lawful places for people with CCW permits to carry concealed. Not a single shooting anywhere in the state to my knowledge.

People who commit felony assaults/murders out of spontanious rage are a statistical outlier in any population. Disarming the whole population in an attempt to negate those few is not a good or effective policy, IMO.

[Mick C.]

From the AZ Republic today:

Brewer vetoes bill allowing guns on public property

Gov. Jan Brewer rebuffed gun-rights advocates by vetoing for a second time a bill to allow guns on public property, and sent a strong message that such a proposal would need wider support from police, cities and the public before she would sign it.

Brewer's veto of the bill, which could have let guns into city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol, was the latest setback for a push to expand the right to carry guns in public places in Arizona.

Legislative efforts to put guns on university campuses, just outside K-12 school grounds and in homeowners associations all appear to have run into roadblocks this session.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in her veto letter, Brewer, who vetoed a similar bill last year, recognized the legitimacy of laws banning guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

"The decisions to permit or prohibit guns in these extremely sensitive locations -- whether a city council chamber or branch office staffed with state workers -- should be cooperatively reached and supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including citizens, law-enforcement officials and local government leaders," Brewer wrote in her veto letter.

House Bill 2729, sponsored by Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, was pushed by the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group. It proposed making it legal for people to enter public property with a weapon unless the property was secured by either a state or federal certified law-enforcement officer or an armed security guard and metal detectors.

National and state gun-advocacy groups supported the bill. Cities, counties, law-enforcement agencies and business organizations opposed it, saying they would have had to either let guns into buildings where the public would rather not have them or pay millions of dollars to provide the security required to keep them out.

A study conducted by legislative staff estimates that security costs for a government entity to ban guns could have ranged from $5,000 to $113,800 per public entrance in the first year with ongoing costs of $54,400 to $108,800 per year.

Brewer said the fiscal impact was one reason she opposed the bill, but she also mentioned broader concerns and even went as far as to offer a warning to gun lobbyists who may try again next year.

"While I appreciate the efforts of the bill sponsor ... there must be a more thorough and collaborative discussion of the proper place for guns in the public arena," Brewer wrote.

Charles Heller, communications director of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, criticized Brewer's decision.

"We expected more from an alleged friend of freedom," he said. "This means that some people will still be deluded into thinking that a sign (banning guns in public buildings) makes them safe."

He declined to comment on whether his group may try to run the bill again next year, but he said it will change one tactic.

"We just need to put more letters on her desk next time she's thinking about vetoing so she knows how much people care about freedom," he said.

Gowan did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Bill opponents were thrilled at the veto -- and this session's trend against expanding gun rights.

"Hallelujah," said Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson. "It seems as if (Brewer) is saying that the public is not asking for these bills. She got it. Thank goodness."

Aboud said she hopes the gun-advocacy lobbyists get it, too.

"Twice run, twice passed, twice vetoed," she said. "How many times is it going to take for people to figure it out? This is making our state a laughing- stock."

A similar bill passed the Legislature last year, but Brewer vetoed it, saying it was poorly written. Brewer said her concerns from last year were not addressed in the new version.

Arizona ranks among the most pro-gun states in the nation. Two years ago, it became one of only a handful of states to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Hildy Saizow, president of the grassroots group Arizonans for Gun Safety, said Arizonans don't want these bills.

"Finally, we're getting some common sense in here saying, 'No, this is bad public-safety policy, and we're not going to allow this to happen,'" Saizow said. "No guns on college campuses, no guns in public events, no guns around schools. The gun lobby has hit its limit, and for good reason."



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/04/17/20120417arizona-gun-bill-public-property-brewer-veto.html#ixzz1sRdPMV14

[G M]

Can she at least sign into law an act that creates a magical aura around all public buildings that transforms guns into frogs or candy, because that'd be really cool!

[Hello Kitty]

Less than thrilled with Brewer's response, and I'm a huge fan of the lady generally speaking. I'm pretty sure all the Spartans and Indian warriors were armed. Very polite societies.

[G M]

Well, the slaves owneby the Spartans were not allowed weapons. Throughout human history, free peoples were armed while slaves/subjects were not.

[Hello Kitty]

Good point. I didn't know what to do with the Helots, then again, the Helots weren't Spartan citizens either. Still a good point though.

[Crafty_Dog]

To make it clear, my visceral unease is not with libraries and the like, it is with city council chambers and things like that.  I'm not saying I do not get the logic of the law, I simply admit to a visceral unease.

[G M]

Well, under the proposed AZ law, as I understand it, there would be the option to post a security checkpoint at the public entrance.

[G M]

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/

Twitter lynch mob: George Zimmerman is out on bail? Let’s kill him!

 Posted at 7:16 am on April 23, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

 



TaNashia Taylor@UBlow_TaNashia


Ima kill zimmerman myself *loads semi* where he at

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 


George Zimmerman was released on $150,000 bail late Sunday night in what the Associated Press called a “low-key event.” Threats of death from the Twitter lynch mob were anything but low-key.
 



Jawan's Girlfriend@WhatItDo_BooBoo


"@xSimplyAniya: I think imma personally kill George Zimmerman ..anyone's welcome to join (:" Leggggoooo !

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Nay Nay@HeLoves_SexcNay


I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS ASSS BOAAAAA

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Trizzy T. Montana@TrizzyTroof_CA


I would kill George Zimmerman

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Chatia@Mslips88


someone pass me a gun, imma go follow zimmerman, shoot and kill him and say #imstandingmyground

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Yes Its ZAIN@YesitsZain


Lets kill #zimmerman

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Louis Davis Jr@HeartBreakJay_


They done let Zimmerman free lets kill that MF

 23 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



WillFolarinMawana@RealWillMawana


George Zimmerman Released From Jail 150,000 Bail! WTF! Nigga You Are About To Die, Start Writing Your Will! Justices Has Not Been Served

22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 
Others hoped someone else would take out Zimmerman so they wouldn’t have to dirty their hands.
 



جيرمين سميث@GuccJermaine


Kill that mexican muther fucker george zimmerman #WhiteTrash

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



The Associated Press✔
@AP 22 Apr 12

BREAKING: George Zimmerman released from Florida jail on $150,000 bond in #Trayvon Martin shooting case -JM




 ian moses@DaItalianBeast


@AP Kill george zimmerman

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Ralph Cola@RalphMDCXLV


TF!!! Zimmerman was freed on bail? Kill that man

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Jordan Irving@jordyfxs


They let this nigga Zimmerman out of jail?! Somebody kill this dude already!

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Jai Marie@DiaryOf_A_Doll


So I just found out that they released zimmerman dumb ass out of fuckin jail I hope somebody get that nigga! That bitch deserve to die smfh!

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 
One genius called for the mob to murder Zimmerman because she thinks charges just disappear when someone makes bail.
 



Ms.Lovely@Stallionnett101


Once u been convicted of a crime & let out on bail u can't be charged 2x for the same thing so that means sum1 gonna have to kill Zimmerman

 23 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-shows-bloodied-image-of-zimmermans-head-on-night-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/

[DougMacG]

Interesting points from a Thomas Sowell race post requested to be copied here:
------------
"The last line in most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin.

That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn't.

Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world. "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/24/who_is_racist_113933.html
-------------
Also this:

"the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game."

[Crafty_Dog]

The following comes from a newsletter which I receive from one "Tim Schmidt".  I'm not sure why it shows up in my mailbox, but it does.  Occasionally I read it, but usually I don't.  I am glad I read it on this particular occasion. 

We have spoken of "Preparing our Witnesses" with our verbalizations during a problem.  Here the discussion is on finding and choosing a lawyer with regard to self-defense matters.
================================================

Armed American Report
Click here for important Membership Information! 
Hello, fellow Armed Citizen.

There's a saying that goes "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

What that means, is that the person saying it believes that it's ALWAYS better to come out of a gunfight alive and facing legal charges than to end up getting killed for fear of firing too soon, or breaking some law.

On the surface, I think we all agree: It's always better to be alive, and if you're attacked by a criminal, you may not have many options other than to 'do what it takes to stop the threat'. But there is a LOT more to legal defense than just telling your story to a jury, and having them see that you're really a good guy at heart.

Sadly, armed citizens go down for murder when they thought they did the right thing. It's sad, and it's not common... but it happens. Defending your actions in court, and making sure that you're always within the letter of the law are both things that you ned to be thining about right now- BEFORE you are forced to use your weapon to defend yourself.

Where do you go to do this? Why, the United States Concealed Carry Association, of course!

 
It Doesn't Have to Make Sense: It's Just the Law - One Lawyer
...In any given year, a small number of gun owners will make a desperate call from jail searching for that One Lawyer to simplify their lives...
by kl jamison
There is a legend of a Texas sheriff who telegraphed the Texas Rangers for help with a riot. He found his rescue was only a single Ranger. He asked why only one Ranger had been sent and was told "One riot, One Ranger." Like most such stories, if it isn't true, it should be.

In any given year, a small number of gun owners will make a desperate call from jail searching for that One Lawyer to simplify their lives. The question is always "which one?".(1)

Other inmates of the jail will be connoisseurs of the legal abilities of various lawyers. Their opinion may be colored by recent results, which may have been affected by a turn of circumstances. Bail bondsmen are a source of information. However, the recommended lawyer may simply be the attorney who collects his bad debts.

Any phone book will devote a substantial number of pages to lawyers. It is possible to select one by calling the first listing, and profitable to the firm of Aaron, Aaron and Aaron, but not practical. The Aaron's may confine their practice to estates and trust law, personal injury law, or endangered species law, and no matter how endangered one might feel, they would not help. Advertisements help to narrow the field. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said that he would never hire an attorney who advertises. This justice was never in the position of making a frantic call from jail, and when he practiced law would be more likely to meet prospective clients at his Club than the jail. Legal ethics limit the amount of information advertisements can contain, which is further limited by extortionate fees for larger ads.(2) Advertising makes it possible to determine which lawyers practice criminal law, in what states, and if they take credit cards.

State Bar Associations are closed shops; in order to practice law in a state an attorney must be a member of the State Bar Association or have local counsel who is a member. In any given location three separate jurisdictions exist: federal, state and local. Each jurisdiction has its own unique rules and practices. In the nature of these things, some attorneys are more experienced in one jurisdiction than the others.


   Local Bar Associations can suggest lawyers in specific fields.
 

Clients often reject lawyers in their own area in the belief that they are hopelessly corrupt. These people go to great pains and expense to get a lawyer from elsewhere. It is not clear why they think lawyers from elsewhere are different. It is said that a good lawyer knows the law, but a great lawyer knows the judge. There is something to be said for this saying. A lawyer who knows the judge knows how he will react to evidence or argument. A judge who knows an attorney is more likely to believe him. This is not a conspiracy it is human nature.

Attorneys want to get paid up front. Once an attorney enters his appearance in a case, he is stuck with it. Taking payments may not be possible. Every attorney has stories of clients who stopped paying, leaving them suffering indentured servitude. In 1924, in a real "Trial of the Century," Clarrence Darrow took the case of Leopold and Lobe without a retainer. He made new law in saving the spawn of obscenely wealthy families from a well-deserved execution. He was also stiffed for his fee. Many law firms take credit cards, as do bail bondsmen. Few people can meet unbudgeted expenses in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in the course of an evening. When the banks are open, it is possible for Grandma to tap her life savings, negotiate a second mortgage on the house, or a title loan on the car. The NRA's Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund provides funding, but only in cases of general significance, and only after its Board votes.(3) All these resources take time. Nothing beats a credit card for immediate payment; the ultimate cost may be less than a stay in jail. Keeping a couple of unused credit cards, one for bond and the other for lawyers could come in handy. It is also possible to hire an attorney by assigning the bail bond. However; this is only possible when the defendant pays the entire bond himself.


Three different jurisdictions have their courthouses in a two block radius of Kansas City Missouri.
 

The amount of bond and legal fees will vary with the severity of the case. When there is blood on the ground or a constitutional principle at stake the client has a "55 Gallon Drum" problem. This problem is addressed by stuffing $100 bills into a 55-gallon drum, cramming them in as tightly as possible, then wheeling the barrel into my office.(4) Many persons shop around for the lowest price. However, the objective is not a bargain, but freedom. One often gets what one pays for. It does not take much effort to plead a person guilty or go through the motions of a defense; it is therefore less expensive. Some lawyers go for volume, some are expensive.

Legal ethics prohibit a guaranteed legal result.(5) If a lawyer offers a guaranteed result, he is likely to violate other legal ethics as well, and this cannot work well for the client. It is therefore not possible to charge one fee for a successful result, and another for a guilty verdict.

It is less stressful to find a lawyer in advance of trouble. This is not a matter of finding loopholes, but of learning the rules before engaging in an activity. There are rules for scuba diving, mountain climbing, carrying a gun and self-defense; the wise participant learns them in advance. The person consulted should be an attorney. Some persons espouse "sovereign citizenship" and "common law" theories which allegedly exempt the person from any law of which they disapprove. Apostles of these unlikely superstitions claim legal success. I have been unable to confirm any such victory. I do know of two such individuals who made their situations worse. One turned a speeding ticket into a jail sentence; another turned the chance of a fair trial into a conviction. A lawyer is necessary. A weekend hunter will not find a trophy animal in the wilderness without a guide. A defendant will not find justice in the thickets of the law without an attorney.


   Talk can be expensive.
 
The National Rifle Association provides a reference list of attorneys, as does the Second Amendment Foundation.(6) These attorneys can be accepted as "gun people," but are not otherwise vetted. Computer search engines may turn up others. Attorney referral services may be found in yellow pages and the internet. These resources may reflect lawyers who have purchased a place on the list more than any qualifications. Local Bar Associations may provide referrals to attorneys in relevant fields.

Armed with a selection of lawyers to interview, one must have an idea of the purpose of the interview. The first objective is to convince the lawyer of one's innocence. Criminal defense lawyers usually represent people who are guilty of something. For a criminal a conviction is a cost of doing business, for the survivor of a gunfight, it is a tragedy. It is a completely different mindset to represent an innocent man who cannot afford to lose. Next is to determine what the attorney can do for the client. Bad things usually do not happen during office hours.(7) It must be possible to reach the lawyer at two in the morning, not his voice mail but a human lawyer who can give human advice. The lawyer's retainer will be unknown until a charge is filed, although it will be some function of a 55-gallon drum, and perhaps two. The lawyer's hourly rate will give some indication. For every hour spent on the case, the hourly rate is deducted from the retainer. When the retainer is reduced to zero, bills are sent. Certain expenses become extra bills. Charges for expert witnesses, process servers, and investigators are typical. Some firms also bill for photocopies, faxes, and office staff.( General advice the lawyer can give about weapons and self-defense law will be useful in preventing problems. It is also important in helping the client decide if he is willing to entrust his future to the lawyer's decisions.

Some lawyers will take a small fee to be on call in the same way that they are registered agents for corporations. This gives the lawyer the advantage of a file to work from with contact information of persons to underwrite bail and perhaps an extra credit card.

Criminal defense lawyers keep prosecutors honest, a more difficult project than one gathers from watching "Law and Order." If the worst thing happens, your One best friend in the world will charge by the hour.

Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense.

Please send questions to Kevin L. Jamison -- 2614 NE 56th Ter -- Gladstone, Missouri 64119-2311 -- KLJamisonLaw@earthlink.net. Individual answers are not usually possible but may be addressed in future columns.

This information is for legal information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions you should consult a qualified attorney.

(1) One is tempted to suggest a near-sighted and unshaven lawyer in Gladstone, Missouri, but the advice here is more general.
(2) Legal ethics exist for Good and Sound reasons and are followed by members of the Bar. No smirking will be tolerated.
(3) See www.nradefensefund.org. Contact NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, 11250 Waples Mill Rd, Fairfax VA 22030 nracrdf@hrahq.org (703) 276-1250
(4) The problem will then be addressed, I did not say solved.
(5) I don't mind the lawyer jokes; I raise my fees whenever I hear them.
(6) See www.nra.org or www.saf.org.
(7) I was once called at two in the afternoon to assist an acquaintance who had "just killed" someone. I arrived before the detectives, which they found disturbing, but it worked out. This timing is unique.
( I find such billing to be an accounting burden, other firms delight in it.

[G M]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting
 

By Chris Francescani

SANFORD, Florida | Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:20pm EDT

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.

By June 2011, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.

Few of his closest neighbors knew he carried a gun - until two months ago.

On February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.

During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.

But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

Read it all.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18002220

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01h78ds/Victoria_Derbyshire_09_05_2012/
Interview begins at 06:30

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 Not sure that the punishment fits the crime here.


 By Gil Aegerter, msnbc.com
Marissa Alexander, whose case brought allegations that Florida's Stand Your Ground law is being unfairly applied, was sentenced to 20 years in prison Friday after being convicted of three counts of aggravated assault after firing a warning shot during a dispute with her husband.

Alexander, 31, claimed she fired a shot from a handgun into the wall to protect herself during a confrontation with her husband, who she said had abused her, WJXT reported. Two children were with him when she fired a shot in his direction, and she was charged with three counts of aggravated assault.

 Her attorneys claimed self-defense and cited the state's Stand Your Ground law, which gives people some protection from prosecution for using potentially deadly force in cases in which they feel their life is threatened. The law came under nationwide scrutiny during the Trayvon Martin case, when neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot an unarmed teen and authorities waited weeks before charging him.

                                               P.C.

[Crafty_Dog]

Shooting towards husband and her two children sounds rather bad and SYG a rather desperate defense.  Maybe a plea bargain was involved here?

[JDN]

Corey (the Prosecutor) said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."

The jury was out 12 minutes.  She went BACK into the house and shot the gun.  That is NOT stand your ground.  There is no excuse to go back into the house.  That said, no one was harmed.  It's also family.

I think the penalty is  absolutely terrible.  However the Judge had no discretion.  Plus the Prosecutor was quite aggressive; she's good; she won.  Interesting, it is the same Prosecutor in the Zimmerman case.

Odd, Congresswoman Brown who vehemently complained about the Prosecutor in this case, however, "Brown has been more complimentary about Corey's work in the Trayvon Martin case, where her office filed second degree murder charges against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the February 26 death of the unarmed African-American teen-ager."  Politics?

Again, I don't know the "facts" of that case either.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

[Crafty_Dog]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/broken-nose-broken-narrative/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nagr.org/RickScottPetition.aspx?pid=ND517

[Crafty_Dog]

Its POTH, so caveat lector:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120517

SANFORD, Fla. — The killing of Trayvon Martin here two and a half months ago has been cast as the latest test of race relations and equal justice in America. But it was also a test of a small city police department that does not even have a homicide unit and typically deals with three or four murder cases a year.
An examination of the Sanford Police Department’s handling of the case shows a series of missteps — including sloppy work — and circumstances beyond its control that impeded the investigation and may make it harder to pursue a case that is already difficult enough.
The national furor has subsided for the moment. But as the second-degree murder case against the defendant, George Zimmerman, moves from the glare of a public spectacle to the grinding procedures of the court system and eventual trial, the department’s performance, roundly criticized by Mr. Martin’s family as bungling and biased, will be scrutinized once again, though in more meticulous detail.
With doubts shadowing the quality and scope of the police work, the prosecution and the defense will be left to tackle critical questions even as they debate the evidence. And ultimately, what happened on the rainy night of Feb. 26 may come to rest on the word of one man, George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who fired the fatal shot.
In interviews over several weeks, law enforcement authorities, witnesses and local elected officials identified problems with the initial investigation:
¶ On the night of the shooting, door-to-door canvassing was not exhaustive enough, said a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation. If officers had been more thorough, they might have determined that Mr. Martin, 17, was a guest — as opposed to an intruder — at a gated community called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. That would have been an important part of the subjective analysis that night by officers sizing up Mr. Zimmerman’s story. Investigators found no witnesses who saw the fight start. Others saw parts of a struggle they could not clearly observe or hear. One witness, though, provided information to the police that corroborated Mr. Zimmerman’s account of the struggle, according to a law enforcement official.
¶ The police took only one photo at the scene of any of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries — a full-face picture of him that showed a bloodied nose — before paramedics tended to him. It was shot on a department cellphone camera and was not downloaded for a few days, an oversight by the officer who took it.
¶ The vehicle that Mr. Zimmerman was driving when he first spotted Mr. Martin was mistakenly not secured by officers as part of the crime scene. The vehicle was an important link in the fatal encounter because it was where Mr. Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious teenager in a hooded sweatshirt roaming through the Retreat. Mr. Zimmerman also said he was walking back to the vehicle when he was confronted by Mr. Martin, who was unarmed, before shooting him.
¶ The police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain, and any blood from cuts that Mr. Zimmerman suffered when he said Mr. Martin pounded his head into a sidewalk may have been washed away.
¶ The police did not test Mr. Zimmerman for alcohol or drug use that night, and one witness said the lead investigator quickly jumped to a conclusion that it was Mr. Zimmerman, and not Mr. Martin, who cried for help during the struggle.
Some Sanford officers were skeptical from the beginning about certain details of Mr. Zimmerman’s account. For instance, he told the police that Mr. Martin had punched him over and over again, but they questioned whether his injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed he received. They also suspected that some of the threatening and dramatic language that Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin uttered during the struggle — like “You are going to die tonight” — sounded contrived.
The Sanford police — who contended that their 16-day investigation, done in consultation with the original prosecutor in the case, was detailed and impartial — also encountered other obstacles. One involved the investigators’ inability to get the password for Mr. Martin’s cellphone from his family, who apparently did not know it. That was significant because Mr. Martin had been talking to a girl on the phone moments before he was killed, but the young woman did not contact the police after Mr. Martin’s death was made public.
From what is known of the investigation and the available evidence, what exactly happened in the dimly lighted residential development that Sunday night may remain out of reach. Given Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion that he was acting in self-defense, and lacking enough evidence to the contrary, the original prosecutor in the case, Norm Wolfinger, whose jurisdiction includes Sanford, filed no charges against him.
That decision resulted in an increasingly strident public outcry. After Gov. Rick Scott of Florida contacted Mr. Wolfinger and had a conversation with him in late March, the prosecutor recused himself, citing, among other things, an unspecified conflict of interest.
The governor selected another state attorney to handle the case, Angela B. Corey of the Jacksonville area. On April 11, after nearly three weeks of investigation, Ms. Corey charged Mr. Zimmerman with second-degree murder. An accompanying affidavit said that Mr. Zimmerman had “profiled” Mr. Martin, who was black, and had assumed he was a criminal. Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Ms. Corey declined to be interviewed, as did Mr. Wolfinger. Governor Scott also declined several requests for an interview about how and why he selected Ms. Corey for the case.
In announcing the charge, Ms. Corey praised the Sanford Police Department’s work, indicating that it had conducted a “thorough and intensive” inquiry and was a “tremendous help” to her office.
Eight Minutes
What appears unchanged since the beginning, however, is that investigators say they do not know who started the fight. Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, which has come to shadow a number of homicide cases since it was adopted in 2005, justifies the use of deadly force in certain threatening situations but does not require a person to retreat. The law became the framework within which the police and prosecutors had to work after Mr. Zimmerman claimed that Mr. Martin confronted and pounced on him.
Mr. Zimmerman had called the police from his vehicle to report what he believed was a suspicious person in the Retreat, something he had done numerous times in the past. He later told investigators that he got out of his vehicle and followed Mr. Martin but lost sight of him. As Mr. Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, he told them, Mr. Martin emerged and then attacked him. Mr. Zimmerman told investigators that at one point, Mr. Martin had his hand over his mouth. And before he shot the youth, he explained to the police, Mr. Martin had reached for Mr. Zimmerman’s gun.
“There is a perception that we were trying to protect George Zimmerman,” the Sanford police chief, Bill Lee Jr., who temporarily stepped aside in March to quell the furor and later offered to resign, said in a recent interview. “We think that what he did was terrible. We wish that he had just stayed in his vehicle.”
“There was no bias in the investigation. We did not lean one way or another. We were looking for the truth,” he said.
Chief Lee declined to discuss specifics about the case, but he added, “I have been frustrated by the negative attention the police and the city have received that does not accurately reflect who we are and what we have done in this investigation.”At 7:09 p.m., Mr. Zimmerman, who was driving to a Target store, made his call to a police dispatcher.
Within eight minutes, Mr. Martin was dead from a gunshot wound to the chest, his body crumpled on a stretch of grass behind a row of town houses. When the first officer arrived at 7:17, Mr. Zimmerman was waiting not far from the body. He raised his hands in surrender before relinquishing his 9-millimeter pistol from the holster in his waistband.
He was handcuffed and taken into “investigative detention” at Sanford police headquarters, where he was read his Miranda rights and answered questions without a lawyer present. Investigators described him as unhesitatingly cooperative. At some point, Mr. Zimmerman provided the police with a permit allowing him to carry a concealed weapon. His clothes were taken into evidence after his wife came to the station with a new set.


CONT.

[Crafty_Dog]

second post of day

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/18/new-evidence-is-consistent-with-george-zimmerman%E2%80%99s-self-defense-claim/
 
New Evidence is Consistent with George Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claim
May 18, 2012 2:12 pm
Author:
 Alan Dershowitz
 
George Zimmerman. Photo: wiki commons.
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. Moreover, the New York Times has reported that traces of marijuana were found in Trayvon Martin’s body and that Martin’s father initially said that the voice crying for help was not that of his son. It is also been reported that a bruise was found on Martin’s ring finger that would be consistent with Martin having punched Zimmerman. No other wounds, aside of course from the fatal bullet hole in the front of Martin’s body, were found.
If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.
Now there is much more extensive medical and forensic evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.
You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin” — not for George Zimmerman.
As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”
But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.
Listen to the way a famous British barrister put it in 1820:
“An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other . . . Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”
The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins . . . when justice is done.”
Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.
Speaking of doing their job, the New York Times’ “reporting” on the case has been generally biased against Zimmerman. It has suggested that if the police had done their job properly the evidence would point to Zimmerman’s guilt. Moreover, it included in its reporting an inflammatory item of uncorroborated gossip. This is what it said:
“The reports may give rise to other mysteries as well, including the identity of a woman who called another investigator, less than two full days after the shooting.
The woman refused to identify herself or give any callback numbers, but told the investigator that Mr. Zimmerman “has racist ideologies and that he is fully capable of instigating a confrontation that could have escalated to the point of Zimmerman having to use deadly force.”
I think the New York Times should ask itself whether it would have published the contents of a phone call from an unidentified person that made similar inflammatory charges against Trayvon Martin. I believe that the publication of such unsourced gossip—which would be totally inadmissible in any trial—violates the New York Times’ own policies. It has some explaining to do.

[bigdog]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/05/george_zimmerman_claims_he_was_fighting_for_his_life_how_deadly_is_an_unarmed_teenager_.html


How easy is it to kill a man in a fistfight?
 
It happens more than twice a day, on average. Fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders in 2010, or 5.7 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI statistics. (The data on this have been remarkably stable in recent years. In the five preceding years, the percentage of murders perpetrated by fists or feet fluctuated between 5.6 and 6.1.) It doesn’t even take an experienced brawler to punch someone to death: An 11-year-old California girl appears to have killed a classmate with her bare hands in a February fistfight

[Crafty_Dog]

That is some interesting data there BD.

I would add that being all alone means that "losing" utterly leaves one at the mercy of the winner-- there are no bystanders to say "That's enough!"

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/youtube-pulls-video-of-trayvon-martin-at-fight-club-but-they-cant-hide-it-forever-here-it-is-again/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872

[Crafty_Dog]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1

[bigdog]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386

See page three and four for some discussion of the Tennesee case: http://law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v01-1/Ziporin-Denv-U-Crim-L-Rev-Spring-2011.pdf

[bigdog]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1

See http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensure-use-of-force-is-reasonable-and-necessary-and-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/ for some good discussion involving the Graham case. 

[JDN]

A Texas father caught a man sexually assaulting his 4-year-old daughter and punched him in the head repeatedly, killing him, authorities said.

The father was casually acquainted with the alleged abuser, said Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon.
The girl was left inside the family's house during the social gathering, while other members of her family were tending to horses, the sheriff said.
The alleged abuser was known for his horse-grooming abilities, Harmon said.
The father returned to the house, caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said.
The man was pronounced dead on the scene, while the daughter was taken to a local hospital in Victoria, Texas, for examinations before being released.

The incident took place Saturday.
Harmon described the girl as "OK besides the obvious mental trauma."
Asked whether they would press charges against the father, the sheriff responded, "You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."
Harmon described the dad as "very remorseful," adding that he didn't know the man was going to die.
Authorities were withholding the deceased man's name while they notified next of kin. Officials did not know immediately if he has a prior criminal history.
Lavaca County Precinct Judge Alene Lyons, who is coordinating information in the case including autopsy results, said Monday
that a preliminary autopsy report indicated the victim "died from blunt-force head and neck injuries."
"It will take six weeks to get the full report back because they also did a toxicology report," Lyons said.

[Mick C.]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/13/texas-civil-rights-group-are-we-sure-that-dad-who-beat-his-daughters-molester-to-death-was-engaged-in-self-defense/

Just to show how out-of-touch people can be with reality...

I'd imagine his accuser is probably one of the most disliked men in Texas right now.

[Mick C.]

SHINER, TX -- Hearing his 5-year-old daughter crying from behind a barn, a father ran and discovered the unthinkable: A man molesting her. The father pulled the man off his daughter, authorities say, and started pummeling him to death with his fists.

With his daughter finally safe, the father frantically called 911, begging a dispatcher to find his rural ranch and send an ambulance.

"Come on! This guy is going to die on me!" the man is heard screaming on the 911 call. "I don't know what to do!"

A recording of the tape was played during a news conference Tuesday where the Lavaca County district attorney and sheriff announced that the father would not face charges.

In declining to indict the 23-year-old father in the June 9 killing of Jesus Mora Flores, a Lavaca County grand jury reached the same conclusion as investigators and many of the father's neighbors: He was authorized to use deadly force to protect his daughter.

"It's sad a man had to die," said Michael James Veit, 48, who lives across the street from where the attack happened in this small community run on ranching and the Shiner beer brewery. "But I think anybody would have done that."

The family ranch is so remote that on the 911 tape, the father is heard profanely screaming at a dispatcher who couldn't locate the property. At one point, he tells the dispatcher he's going to put the man in his truck and drive him to a hospital.

"He's going to die!" the father screams, swearing at the dispatcher. "He's going to f------ die!"

The tense, nearly five-minute call begins with the father saying he "beat up" a man found raping his daughter. The father grows increasingly frazzled, shouting into the phone so loudly at times that the call often becomes inaudible.

The Associated Press is not identifying the father in order to protect the daughter's identity. The AP generally does not identify victims of sexual assault.

"He's a peaceable soul," V'Anne Huser, the father's attorney, told reporters at the Lavaca County Courthouse. "He had no intention to kill anybody that day."

The attack happened on the family's ranch off a quiet, two-lane county road between the farming towns of Shiner and Yoakum. A statement released by the district attorney said a witness who saw Flores "forcibly carrying" the girl into a secluded area scrambled to find the father. Running toward his daughter's screams, the father pulled Flores off his child and "inflicted several blows to the man's head and neck area," investigators said.

Emergency crews responding to the father's 911 call found Flores' pants and underwear pulled down on his lifeless body. The girl was examined at a hospital, and Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn said forensic evidence and witness accounts corroborated the father's story that his daughter was being sexually molested.

The father was never arrested, but the killing was investigated as a homicide.

Philip Hilder, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, said he would have been surprised if the grand jury had decided to indict the father. Hilder said Texas law provides several justifications for the use of deadly force, including if someone commits a sexual assault.

"The grand jury was not about to indict this father for protecting his daughter," he said.

Authorities said the family had hired Flores before to help with horses on the ranch. He was not born in the U.S. but was here legally with a green card. Attempts to locate Flores' relatives through public records were unsuccessful.

On Tuesday, a new "No Trespassing" sign was freshly tacked onto a gate barring entrance down a gravelly, shrub-canopied path leading to the barn and chicken coop on the ranch, which belonged to the father's dad.

At the father's house, the front yard could pass for a children's playground: blue pinwheels sunk into patchy grass, an above-ground swimming pool, a swing set, a trampoline and a couple of ropes dangling from a tree for swinging. A partial privacy fence is painted powder blue.

No one answered at the father's home. A few miles away, at a home listed as belonging to the father's sister, a woman shouted through the front door that the family had nothing to say. Huser, the father's attorney, told reporters that neither the father nor anyone else in the family would ever give interviews and asked that they be left alone.

Veit, who lives across the street from the ranch, described the father as easygoing and polite -- down to always first asking permission to search Veit's property for animals that had wandered off the ranch, even though the families have long known each other.

Veit's son was a classmate of the father's at Shiner High School in a graduating class of about two dozen. Veit, 48, said the young father was never known to be in trouble.

"Just like a regular kid, went to dances, drank beer like the rest of the kids around here," Veit said.

Shiner, a town of about 2,000 people about 80 miles east of San Antonio, revolves around the Spoetzl Brewery that makes Shiner, one of the nation's best-selling independent beers. Even gas stations here sell it on tap.

Flores' death is only the sixth homicide the Lavaca County Sheriff's Office has investigated in the last eight years. Shiner residents boast their squeaky-clean image on a highway welcome sign: "The Cleanest Little City in Texas."

At Werner's Restaurant, customer Gail Allen said she didn't want to speak for the whole town, though her comments echoed what others said.

"The father has gone through enough," said Allen, 59, who has nine grandchildren. "The little girl is going to be traumatized for life, and the father, too, for what happened. He was protecting his family. Any parent would do that."

(Copyright ©2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8707343

[Crafty_Dog]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-zimmerman-evidence-removes-any-doubt/?singlepage=true

[bigdog]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/opinion/nejame-angela-corey/index.html

I was unaware of this: "Many in the African-American community in Jacksonville are outraged over Corey's prosecution of an abused black woman who claimed she shot a gun into the air to ward off her abuser. She received a 20-year prison sentence."

[DDF]

Politely, I ask; when aren´t politics used to drive prosecutions? I say this because there are several examples of politics and justice tied together, as well as examples of crimes not being prosecuted.
You´re all aware of several examples of both, so no need to beat a dead horse with examples.
To me, I think it a serious flaw to have the justice system and politics tied together.

Edit: I should clarify... I find selective enforcement of the law to be a serious error whenever it is applied, especially in regard to politics. Ity erodes the moral fabric of which the justice system must be comprised.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.wimsblog.com/2012/09/renzo-gracie-twitter-and-self-defense-a-case-study-of-what-not-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-18722