Texas ‘stand your ground’ shooter gets 40 years in prison. Bad news for Zimmerman?
ServantOfAllah
2012/06/28 09:59:01
|
|
|||||
|
32 votes
|
|
38% | ||
|
33 votes
|
|
39% | ||
|
20 votes
|
|
24% | ||
A Texas man convicted of shooting and killing his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over loud music received a 40-year prison sentence on Wednesday.
Raul Rodriguez, 47, claimed he shot schoolteacher Kelly Danaher in self-defense under Texas' version of the "stand your ground" law, but prosecutors argued Rodriguez provoked the incident by confronting Danaher, 36, and his friends with a handgun and demanding they quiet down at a late-night birthday party in May 2010.
The Houston case captured more attention in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death in Florida. There, George Zimmerman says he was being attacked and cited the state's "stand your ground" law after shooting the unarmed teen. But prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder.
Raul Rodriguez, 47, claimed he shot schoolteacher Kelly Danaher in self-defense under Texas' version of the "stand your ground" law, but prosecutors argued Rodriguez provoked the incident by confronting Danaher, 36, and his friends with a handgun and demanding they quiet down at a late-night birthday party in May 2010.
The Houston case captured more attention in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death in Florida. There, George Zimmerman says he was being attacked and cited the state's "stand your ground" law after shooting the unarmed teen. But prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder.
As in Florida, Texas law includes public areas, "if a person has a right to be present at a location where force is used.", but veteran attorney Andy Drumheller told Yahoo News that the Houston jury appeared to draw a line with Rodriguez leaving his home and going down the street.
"The law is not designed to create this bubble that you can carry with you everywhere you go," said Drumheller, a former prosecutor now practicing criminal defense in Houston. "The jury's verdict is a cautionary statement on the limits of this defense."
SEE VIDEO AND FULL STORY AT http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shoote...
SEE VIDEO AND FULL STORY AT http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shoote...
Top Opinion
-
Yes. Bad news. George Zimmerman's case is very similar to Raul Rodriguez's case.
+13Very similar case. Both men went out looking for trouble, both men shot unarmed people, both men using stand your ground laws but not in their own homes.
There is a common thread for crimes even from State to State.
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained.
Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]
...
There is a common thread for crimes even from State to State.
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained.
Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]
Case law is the set of existing rulings which made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. In some countries, such as the USA, the term is exclusively used for judicial decisions of selected appellate courts, courts of first instance, and other bodies discharging judicial functions. In other countries, such as most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for example, patent office case law. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies; regulatory law which are regulations established by governmental agencies based on statutes; and in some states, common law which are the generally accepted laws carried to the colonies and former colonies of England (USA, Australia, etc.). Trials and hearings which are not selected as 'courts of first impression' do not have rulings that become case law; therefore, these rulings cannot be precedents for future court decisions.[2][3]
Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."[4]
precedence is set by the state, one state can not set precedence for the laws of a different state, no matter how similar the law is. the only time that can happen is if that law takes on a FEDERAL precedence that all states must follow.
one jurisdiction's court decisions on the state lever has not bearing on another state
I said that TX law has nothing to do with Florida Law.
The Texas convection was based on that point.
as per the other, yes you are very right, one can not use self defense after causing the altercation.
Have a blessed day !!!
Shame on you Fox for trying to continue this ridiculous comparison.
According to his testimony and the evidence available, Zimmerman did not provoke a confrontation, but rather was simply trying to keep track of a suspicious person until police arrived. It was Martin who provoked the confrontation while Zimmerman was headed back to his SUV. And then further when he actually assaulted Zimmerman. Of course, if the facts turn out to be different (meaning new evidence comes out that shows that Zimmerman and the witnesses are not telling the truth), then Zimmerman will be found guilty, but those are the facts as we know them.
First, that's not a command. Second, the operator has no legal authority to issue commands to private citizens. Third, Zimmerman said, "ok" and he stops (you can hear his movement and breathing slow down) and starts to walk back to his SUV where he planned to meet the police. He said he had lost the subject at that point.