Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[silverjon]

In college we rioted when the Mets won in 86. I didn't actually flip the police car, but I may have been in the crowd

Unacceptable? Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!

[Arcanis]

Hep demands King reveal who he is talking about first so King feeds him exactly what he wanted to hear and hasn't been back since.

...or it could be that Hep hoped King would use his question as a chance to clarify his earlier statement.

My original reply to his first post about rioting was just a "hey, there are idiots and extremists on both sides of the issue". I should have just stopped there instead of letting it escalate.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were intending to start a fight over it. Your first reply didn't come off as "hey, there are idiots and extremists on both sides of the issue" to me. It came off as claiming he only thought there was going to be a riot if Z was acquitted. Meh its all good. This case is very emotionally charged and has people worked up, so little misunderstandings can blow out of proportion. King still hasn't come back to lay out what he really meant so I guess we just have to use our gut until then.

[ImLawBoy]

Remember, a jury or judge can always pick a lesser charge later, like manslaughter.

Is this true? This is where not being a criminal attorney limits me. But I'm not so sure that the jury has the opportunity to choose violations that weren't charged.

It's been a while since I studied criminal law (like over 15 years - man I'm getting old), but I think the general rule is that you have to charge for the lesser offenses as well in order for a judge or jury to choose the lesser offense. As part of strategy, a prosecutor can choose to not charge a lesser offense so that the jury can't take the easy way out and convict on a lesser crime.

Or that could have been something I read in a Scott Turow book or something.

[tru1cy]

El Guapo according to the talking heads the Jury can use a lesser charge such as man slaughter

Btw, Florida has a Sunshine law so this case will more than likely be televised


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jag]

El Guapo according to the talking heads the Jury can use a lesser charge such as man slaughter

Btw, Florida has a Sunshine law so this case will more than likely be televised


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not only that, but the sunshine part means it will be an outdoor trial!

[RunningMn9]

From an email from CNN:

Florida investigators say in an affidavit that George Zimmerman profiled, confronted, then fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

I don't understand the extent of saying that, based on what we thought we knew already. How would they know that he profiled him? How would they know that he confronted him if the only witness is him, and he says he didn't? We know that he fatally shot Trayvon Martin, but I don't understand how they can say the rest. Unless they know something that we don't.

[Jag]

According to the affidavit filed on court, they relied heavily on Zimmerman's call to the police, where he made statements about 'these people always breaking in' and based on the girl's testimony who was on the phone that Martin was being stalked. The 'profile' doesn't necessarily have to be racial, it could also mean he profiled him as a perp as opposed to a resident.

[Kasey Chang]

If he's captain of neighborhood watch, he would have known a few things that gave him profiles of a perp that an average citizen may not have (such as knowledge of most reported property crimes in the area and alleged perps of such crimes).

[Captain Caveman]

If he's captain of neighborhood watch, he would have known a few things that gave him profiles of a perp that an average citizen may not have (such as knowledge of most reported property crimes in the area and alleged perps of such crimes).

Like they tend to wear hoodies?

[Teggy]

Based on the evidence we've seen so far (so far being the important part), I feel pretty comfortable seeing him convicted. Based on the 911 call we know Zimmerman had already decided that this was a criminal. Based on the 911 call we also know he ignored the police request to not pursue.

Now certainly, if the phone call to the girlfriend can be verified in some way, that covers everything up to the point Zimmerman has confronted Martin, and it would seem Martin has been provoked and has every right to defend himself. At that point his death is a direct result of Zimmerman's actions.

Without an actual recording, though, it's up to the jury to believe what the girlfriend says. IANAL, but I think hearsay is admissable if the person is the victim of a possible crime that resulted in their death, correct?

And, of course, this is ignoring any evidence we have yet to see from other witnesses. What's going be interesting is if you get witnesses that say they saw Martin banging Zimmerman's head into the ground, does that matter? If Zimmerman provoked the altercation, Martin should be able to beat the crap out of him.

[Smoove_B]

If this is any indication of what the coverage will be like in the coming months, it truly will be a circus.

[Kasey Chang]

If he's captain of neighborhood watch, he would have known a few things that gave him profiles of a perp that an average citizen may not have (such as knowledge of most reported property crimes in the area and alleged perps of such crimes).

Like they tend to wear hoodies?

A fairly accurate but ultimately useless item in the profile, yes.

[hepcat]

IANAL,

I always read that as a hasty proclamation.

[El Guapo]

Why isn't this story blowing up?

Just went back to the OP, and this part made me laugh.

[gameoverman]

Based on the evidence we've seen so far (so far being the important part), I feel pretty comfortable seeing him convicted. Based on the 911 call we know Zimmerman had already decided that this was a criminal. Based on the 911 call we also know he ignored the police request to not pursue.

Now certainly, if the phone call to the girlfriend can be verified in some way, that covers everything up to the point Zimmerman has confronted Martin, and it would seem Martin has been provoked and has every right to defend himself...

I disagree.

First, I think "to the point Zimmerman has confronted Martin" hasn't been established, based on what I've read so far. He followed Martin, but that's not the same thing. I can follow someone, it doesn't mean I'm confronting or attacking him.

Second, for someone to defend himself, he needs something to defend against. So besides Zimmerman being proven to be the one to starts the confrontation, I need proof that in this fight Martin was the one whose life was threatened.

Otherwise we are talking about throwing a guy in prison because "you know he did it". The same way people wanted Casey Anthony in prison because everyone 'knows' she did it. I'd rather see the law followed.

Now maybe they have some secret evidence that proves it, anything is possible. I suspect though that it amounts to the prosecution attempting to use Zimmerman's initial statements to police in an incriminating way, thus proving once again you should never talk to cops without talking to a lawyer first.

[Captain Caveman]

Otherwise we are talking about throwing a guy in prison because "you know he did it". The same way people wanted Casey Anthony in prison because everyone 'knows' she did it. I'd rather see the law followed.

We know he did it. We just don't know whether or not he broke the law by doing it. That's a very different scenario than the Casey Anthony case.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Based on the 911 call we also know he ignored the police request to not pursue.

No, we don't; Zimmerman ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the suspect, which does not equate to ignoring the request of a law enforcement officer. Dispatchers are dispatchers, not LEOs.

I tend to agree with Dershowitz's take, that it's increasingly turning into a narrative Rorschach that everyone interprets as they wish (as demonstrated by Teggy).

[Exodor]

Second, for someone to defend himself, he needs something to defend against. So besides Zimmerman being proven to be the one to starts the confrontation, I need proof that in this fight Martin was the one whose life was threatened..

Could the prosecution turn that on its head by saying that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him and that SYG gave him the right to attack? Can Zimmerman still claim self-defense if he provoked the confrontation?

[Grifman]

The 'profile' doesn't necessarily have to be racial, it could also mean he profiled him as a perp as opposed to a resident.

I wasn't aware that "profiling" anyone was an illegal act.

If Zimmerman has injuries and grass stains on his back, I think it's going to be hard to get a conviction. To me that speaks of self defense. People say he "provoked" Martin, and perhaps he did. What what was the provocation? Unless he physically attacked Martin, then all he could have done is used words. Unless he actually threatened Martin (which means Martin was then acting in self defense), I'm not aware that "provoking" anyone is illegal or is grounds for being attacked. So you then still have self defense.

Unless I'm totally missing something which is entirely possible.

[El Guapo]

Second, for someone to defend himself, he needs something to defend against. So besides Zimmerman being proven to be the one to starts the confrontation, I need proof that in this fight Martin was the one whose life was threatened..

Could the prosecution turn that on its head by saying that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him and that SYG gave him the right to attack? Can Zimmerman still claim self-defense if he provoked the confrontation?

I am intrigued by the possibility that Zimmerman could have threatened Martin, putting Martin in reasonable fear for his safety and prompting Martin to attack Zimmerman (lawfully under SYG). Now Zimmerman has a reasonable fear for his safety and responds with lethal force. In that situation, would either Zimmerman or Martin have the lawful right to kill the other, and it's just a matter of who does it first?

Seems possible under the law, if a bit crazy.

[hepcat]

The SYG law just keeps looking more and more dangerous and ill conceived the longer this goes on.

[Jag]

The SYG law just keeps looking more and more dangerous and ill conceived the longer this goes on.

[sarcasm]Ya think??[/sarcasm]

[Grifman]

Second, for someone to defend himself, he needs something to defend against. So besides Zimmerman being proven to be the one to starts the confrontation, I need proof that in this fight Martin was the one whose life was threatened..

Could the prosecution turn that on its head by saying that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him and that SYG gave him the right to attack? Can Zimmerman still claim self-defense if he provoked the confrontation?

I am intrigued by the possibility that Zimmerman could have threatened Martin, putting Martin in reasonable fear for his safety and prompting Martin to attack Zimmerman (lawfully under SYG). Now Zimmerman has a reasonable fear for his safety and responds with lethal force. In that situation, would either Zimmerman or Martin have the lawful right to kill the other, and it's just a matter of who does it first?

Seems possible under the law, if a bit crazy.

Yeah, I've thought about this too. Who feels threatened first? I think someone described it as a "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy of self defense.

[hepcat]

The SYG law just keeps looking more and more dangerous and ill conceived the longer this goes on.

[sarcasm]Ya think??[/sarcasm]

[sarcasm]no[/sarcasm]

[dbt1949]

I always thought it was "Shoot 'em all and let god sort it out". That's what I see in the movies all the time.

[gameoverman]

If I was on the jury, whoever started the confrontation physically forfeits the SYG high ground. So if Zimmerman put his hands on Martin or even just took the first swing at him, Martin would be the defender imo. However, if Zimmerman merely walked up to Martin and asked him what his business was in the neighborhood, that's not starting the confrontation. When someone merely speaks to you(non threats), the immediate need to attack is not there.

That's why I have doubts about this case, no one besides Zimmerman has been able to provide info on what happened at the moment of confrontation. No one so far that is.

[RuperT]

Second, for someone to defend himself, he needs something to defend against. So besides Zimmerman being proven to be the one to starts the confrontation, I need proof that in this fight Martin was the one whose life was threatened..

Could the prosecution turn that on its head by saying that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him and that SYG gave him the right to attack? Can Zimmerman still claim self-defense if he provoked the confrontation?

I am intrigued by the possibility that Zimmerman could have threatened Martin, putting Martin in reasonable fear for his safety and prompting Martin to attack Zimmerman (lawfully under SYG). Now Zimmerman has a reasonable fear for his safety and responds with lethal force. In that situation, would either Zimmerman or Martin have the lawful right to kill the other, and it's just a matter of who does it first?

Seems possible under the law, if a bit crazy.

Yeah, I've thought about this too. Who feels threatened first? I think someone described it as a "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy of self defense.

That wouldn't be a Stand Your Ground issue so much as a general self-defense issue though, would it? The question would become, "Was the defender's fear for his safety reasonable?" rather than "Could the defender have retreated safely?"

[RunningMn9]

I wasn't aware that "profiling" anyone was an illegal act.

If Zimmerman has injuries and grass stains on his back, I think it's going to be hard to get a conviction. To me that speaks of self defense. People say he "provoked" Martin, and perhaps he did. What what was the provocation? Unless he physically attacked Martin, then all he could have done is used words. Unless he actually threatened Martin (which means Martin was then acting in self defense), I'm not aware that "provoking" anyone is illegal or is grounds for being attacked. So you then still have self defense.

Unless I'm totally missing something which is entirely possible.

"Profiling" isn't an illegal act. Zimmermann wasn't charged with profiling Martin. He also wasn't charged with provoking Martin. Again, on it's own, provoking is not an illegal act.

Apparently, in the eyes of the prosecutor, "profiling" and "provoking" a fellow citizen, and then shooting them and killing them amounts to 2nd degree murder, rather than manslaughter or self-defense.

This is now where it belongs. Prove that he committed the crimes you are charging him with, or he goes free. No more need to speculate on our part with what may be a rather incomplete data set.

[Alefroth]

Who feels threatened first?

Does that matter? If Martin felt threatened first, does that make Zimmerman more culpable?

Ale

[Carpet_pissr]

The SYG law just keeps looking more and more dangerous and ill conceived the longer this goes on.

[sarcasm]Ya think??[/sarcasm]

Incredibly, some here disagreed with my assertion that it's a bullshit law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zarathud]

Yea, but we hauled them out back and shot them. We had to stand our ground before they did.

[Pyperkub]

This really pisses me off (NRA official on Stand Your Ground):

The case has drawn new attention to self-defense laws that give people a broad right to use deadly force without having to retreat from a fight. The NRA strongly supports such statutes, known as "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" laws, which are in effect in about 30 states....

...NRA Executive Director Chris Cox defended such self-defense laws during Saturday’s meeting, recalling the case of Sarah McKinley, who was alone with her baby in her rural Oklahoma home when an intruder armed with a hunting knife broke down the door. McKinley shot and killed the man.

"Castle doctrine can literally save your life," Cox said.

Maybe, just maybe there is a difference between a home invader, and the way that Stand your Ground is being written and interpreted, and maybe...

... just maybe...

... there is a better middle ground?

NO, says the NRA... Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes (and be sure to load up on bazookas on your way out - have a nice day!).

[Jag]

I don't have a problem with Castle Doctrine. It's SYG and the shoot first mentality that gives the fucking morons in this world the choice of life and death. If you kill someone, you should not be immune. You may still go free under self defense, but you can't handicap the system they way SYG statutes do.

[Blackhawk]

Horrible example. Being stuck in a house with an infant facing and armed attacker would have been covered under any non-castle doctrine self defense law I've ever read.

[Grifman]

Photo released of George Zimmerman's injuries on the scene

[silverjon]

While dramatic-looking, even small scalp wounds bleed profusely.

So again, not sufficient grounds on which to base a full judgment either way.

[GreenGoo]

I'm just happy to have corroborating evidence that he did in fact have some head injuries. At this point I have little faith in anything coming out of this story.

[El Guapo]

Zimmerman spoke at his hearing today:

There's a lot we still don't know about what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. But today we know a little bit more, thanks to Zimmerman's televised bail hearing (see below) We know:

1.) Zimmerman is "sorry for the loss of your son" (he addressed this to Martin's family). This "mistakes were made" formulation is a little weird, but I suppose it would be awkward for Zimmerman to say, "I am sorry I killed your son."

2.) Zimmerman "did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am." This would appear to suggest that Zimmerman wouldn't have fired the gun had he known Martin was 17. He fired the gun believing Martin was perhaps 25 or 26 (Zimmerman is 28.). The assumption, I guess, is that a 25 year-old is stronger or likelier to be carrying a gun or in some other way more potentially dangerous than a 17 year-old. There's no reason I'm aware of to believe that should be so. Zimmerman thereby confirms that he's a guy who leaps to conclusions.

3.) Zimmerman "did not know if he was armed or not." That's a damaging admission for Zimmerman to make unprompted. Zimmerman didn't say, "I thought he was armed." He said he didn't know. (Or rather: "did not" know. The absence of contractions throughout is, I guess, meant to convey the gravity of the situation.) Yet not knowing, Zimmerman fired the gun anyway. Even under Florida's stupid "stand your ground" law, I can't imagine citizens have license to shoot people merely on the off chance that they might possibly have guns.

An attorney for the Martin family is reportedly "outraged" that Zimmerman was permitted to make these "self-serving" comments. But though Zimmerman's comments were clearly intended to be self-serving, it seems to me that they were more helpful to the prosecution.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/10 ... med-or-not

[Grifman]

3.) Zimmerman "did not know if he was armed or not." That's a damaging admission for Zimmerman to make unprompted. Zimmerman didn't say, "I thought he was armed." He said he didn't know. (Or rather: "did not" know. The absence of contractions throughout is, I guess, meant to convey the gravity of the situation.) Yet not knowing, Zimmerman fired the gun anyway. Even under Florida's stupid "stand your ground" law, I can't imagine citizens have license to shoot people merely on the off chance that they might possibly have guns.

I'm not certain why this matters. Armed or not, if Martin attacked him, and was on top of Zimmerman beating him, then Zimmerman had a right of self defense.

That said, it wasn't all roses for the prosecution either:

In Friday's hearing, an investigator for special prosecutor Angela Corey's office said authorities have no evidence showing who started the altercation that led to Martin's death.

"Do I know? No," investigator Dale Gilbreath said when asked if he knew who started the fight.

[Captain Caveman]

I'm not certain why this matters. Armed or not, if Martin attacked him, and was on top of Zimmerman beating him, then Zimmerman had a right of self defense.

It's crazy to me that, even if attacked first, any physical altercation can be legal justification for using lethal force. I'm sure this info is in this enormous thread somewhere, but does Zimmerman have to fear that his life is in danger in order to legally use lethal force, or does he actually have legal cover to shoot Martin dead if he simply feels physically threatened to any lesser degree (e.g., he gets punched, shoved to the ground, etc.)? Hell, one might argue that Zimmerman felt threatened by Martin even before their altercation began-- why else would he call the cops on him and take a gun with him to the confrontation?

I guess I don't understand how degree of perceived threat, and whether that perceived threat is justified, is handled under the "stand your ground" law.

I sometimes work with paranoid mental ill patients who often misattribute threat when it's not warranted. I can't believe they'd have legal cover to shoot someone unless the feeling of threat could somehow be corroborated as objectively real and not just subjectively perceived. Or does that distinction not even matter under the law?