Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Bob001]

The problem with this mess is that the police on their own decided that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and closed the case. What should have happened, and I think what would have happened in most of the U.S., is that the police would say, "You shot this guy? You're under arrest." The police don't need anything more than probable cause to arrest somebody, and a dead body, a gun and a confession would be plenty. Then the D.A. would investigate and decide whether to press charges, and if so what charges under what laws. If it went to trial the defendant would have the opportunity to tell the jury that he was in fear for his life and that his fear was reasonable under the law, and the jury would decide whether he was right. The cops shut down the process before it even began.

 

[Noztradamus]

Didn't one of the neighbors say that Zimmerman obsessively drove in circles through the neighborhood on his "watch"? If that's true, isn't that yet another reason why he'd never have to get out to look at the signs to know where he was? I can tell you all the crossstreets around my house. And I don't typically just drive in circles around it.

Anyone have a high degree of confidence that Zimmerman wouldn't have fitted GPS to his patrol vehicle?

 

[R.A.F.]

As many times as this jackass had previously called the cops to "report", it's painfully obvious that he was "looking for trouble"...


...well, he certainly has got trouble now. Talk about being a nation-wide pariah.

 

[R.A.F.]

The problem with this mess is that the police on their own decided that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and closed the case. What should have happened, and I think what would have happened in most of the U.S., is that the police would say, "You shot this guy? You're under arrest." The police don't need anything more than probable cause to arrest somebody, and a dead body, a gun and a confession would be plenty. Then the D.A. would investigate and decide whether to press charges, and if so what charges under what laws. If it went to trial the defendant would have the opportunity to tell the jury that he was in fear for his life and that his fear was reasonable under the law, and the jury would decide whether he was right. The cops shut down the process before it even began.

Yep...that's how I see it also...

Wouldn't be surpised in the next couple of days to see suspensions/resignations in the police force, because of public DEMAND.

 

[AlBell]

I have learned two things from this thread.

1. Don't knock on a door late at night in Florida. Apparelntly you can be shot with no consequenses for the shooter.

2. In florida, if you don't like someone, all you have to do is get them on their own with no witnesses about, shoot them, then claim self defence.

I am not going to Florida.

I would be much more concerned about the way they drive in Florida.

And you should really worry about having a breakdown in a high crime area.

That being much of the rationale for the Law being passed; some dangers you just can't run from.

 

[sgtbaker]

The problem with this mess is that the police on their own decided that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and closed the case. What should have happened, and I think what would have happened in most of the U.S., is that the police would say, "You shot this guy? You're under arrest." The police don't need anything more than probable cause to arrest somebody, and a dead body, a gun and a confession would be plenty. Then the D.A. would investigate and decide whether to press charges, and if so what charges under what laws. If it went to trial the defendant would have the opportunity to tell the jury that he was in fear for his life and that his fear was reasonable under the law, and the jury would decide whether he was right. The cops shut down the process before it even began.

According to the police report, he was handcuffed, placed in the back of a car and detained for questioning. Without an official charge, they can only keep him for so long.

 

[AlBell]

The only possible silver lining I can see is that maybe this hideous law will be removed. Maybe Martin's death will prevent others.

It'll move the deaths back to drivers rather than car-jackers anyway. Or whitey and/or hispanic (running) with a broken-down vehicle in the ghetto.

At least the cocaine-cowboy violence has abated, although a pistol against a machine gun is long odds usually favoring the machine gun wielder.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm going to be careful about trusting what is reported in the media.

I'm referring to complaints about what happened at the scene. You wouldn't normally question the supposed perp at the scene as far as I know. You would take witness statements and take the perp downtown to be questioned.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf

Twin Lakes PD initial report. Looks boringly normal for an initial investigation of a shooting.

Remember that there is a heavy presumption of innocence towards Zimmerman, and a heavy burden of proof on any DA trying to prosecute.

It is nowhere near enough for it to look or seem like Zimmerman murdered Martin.

Thanks for the link, I agree with your assessment of the report.

 

[crimresearch]

The problem with this mess is that the police on their own decided that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and closed the case. What should have happened, and I think what would have happened in most of the U.S., is that the police would say, "You shot this guy? You're under arrest." The police don't need anything more than probable cause to arrest somebody, and a dead body, a gun and a confession would be plenty. Then the D.A. would investigate and decide whether to press charges, and if so what charges under what laws. If it went to trial the defendant would have the opportunity to tell the jury that he was in fear for his life and that his fear was reasonable under the law, and the jury would decide whether he was right. The cops shut down the process before it even began.

Small detail, which has been gone over before in other threads, *just* making an initial contact statement to the police, in which you describe your actions, and your reasons, is not a 'confession'. Some of what you say could be used later, either as evidence, or to undermine credibility, but 'I shot him, it was self defense' really doesn't rank as a confession.

And in the case of the difference between being charged with murder, and being released as self-defense, the narrative of actions will often be the same, i.e. 'I shot him'.

Sometimes people can't stop blurting out their guilt at the scene as in 'You bet I shot the punk, he had it coming, he looked at me funny', but generally confesssions are sworn statements taken after being Mirandized, admitting to committing a crime, which are recorded and signed with witnessess affidavits.

Zimmerman didn't give a confession.

ETA to repeat the obvious: This in no wise advocates that any particular person *should* give any statement to the police, or that this implies anything about the shooter, or the victim.

 

[WildCat]

Really?

How can anyone have any accurate information on the state of the deceased's mind just before he was shot?

I honestly don't know for sure, but to the best of my knowledge, guesses aren't allowed as evidence?

An honest question - are they?

Defendants have a constitutional right to make a defense, and this gives their attorneys wide leeway in establishing reasonable doubt. Thus OJ's lawyers could speculate about Colombian drug lords killing Brown and Goldman, despite having no actual evidence to that effect.

 

[WildCat]

From what the news is reporting, a narcotics detective did the questioning, not a homicide detective. It's also been reported that no background check was done on Zimmerman on that night. There is cause for the public to not trust the investigation.

I reallly doubt a town of 50,000 has homicide detectives.

eta: unless it has an unusually large homicide rate, but I doubt Sanford averages even 1 per year.

 

[sgtbaker]

I reallly doubt a town of 50,000 has homicide detectives.

eta: unless it has an unusually large homicide rate, but I doubt Sanford averages even 1 per year.

Violent crimes are declining in Sanford but in 05 and 06 there were five murder/manslaughters, 07 there were four, in 08 there were 8, in 09 and 10 there were 3. Figuring out the average would be a bit skewed because of the spike in 08.

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/fl/sanford.htm

 

[Bob001]

... *just* making an initial contact statement to the police, in which you describe your actions, and your reasons, is not a 'confession'..... Zimmerman didn't give a confession.

Fair enough. By confession, I don't mean he said "I am guilty of a crime." Maybe confession is not the right word. But he did in fact tell police that he himself deliberately shot the person who died, as opposed to claiming that somebody else did it or that the gun went off by accident. Announcing "I shot the dead guy" should be enough to get him arrested for something. Whether it was self-defense or not is a judgment call that the cops on the scene can't make, especially when the only other witness is dead. Authorities can always reduce or drop the charges after more investigation. There is now nothing to stop this guy from leaving the state or the country. Booking him and sending him home on bail would at least reduce that possibility.

 

[lane99]

...I honestly don't know for sure, but to the best of my knowledge, guesses aren't allowed as evidence?

An honest question - are they?

You are correct. Guesses aren't generally allowed as evidence. Though guesses masquerading as "opinions", when given by supposedly qualified "experts", are allowed as evidence.

Defendants have a constitutional right to make a defense, and this gives their attorneys wide leeway in establishing reasonable doubt. Thus OJ's lawyers could speculate about Colombian drug lords killing Brown and Goldman, despite having no actual evidence to that effect.

Defense attorneys certainly are constrained in their ability to present evidence which is based on nothing more than speculation. They may be able to present ARGUMENTS that are speculative. But they will not have wide leeway to expore such arguments absent some solid foundational evidence.

To use your example, the court, as a matter of fact, indeed limited OJ's lawyers' ability to follow-up on the "Columbian druglord" angle.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough. By confession, I don't mean he said "I am guilty of a crime." Maybe confession is not the right word. But he did in fact tell police that he himself deliberately shot the person who died, as opposed to claiming that somebody else did it or that the gun went off by accident.

Oy vey some people are such pedants. I think most if not all of us knew what you meant Bob.

 

[Gazpacho]

Fair enough. By confession, I don't mean he said "I am guilty of a crime." Maybe confession is not the right word. But he did in fact tell police that he himself deliberately shot the person who died, as opposed to claiming that somebody else did it or that the gun went off by accident. Announcing "I shot the dead guy" should be enough to get him arrested for something.

As mentioned earlier, justified use of force is not just a court defense. It's an immunity from arrest or prosecution, until there is probable cause to believe the use was unlawful (such as evidence that the shooter lied about any material detail).

 

[Bob001]

As mentioned earlier, justified use of force is not just a court defense. It's an immunity from arrest or prosecution, until there is probable cause to believe the use was unlawful (such as evidence that the shooter lied about any material detail).

Great. The person on the ground was unarmed and according to press reports weighed 100 pounds less than the shooter. Those facts by themselves raise questions about self-defense. I can't believe that the law, even in Florida, allows anybody to kill anybody anyplace if they just claim they were scared.

The Florida law says this:
"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony....."
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

So was Zimmerman attacked by Martin out of the blue, or did Zimmerman grab Martin and Martin fought back? If it's the latter, as is looking likely, then Zimmerman started the fight by assaulting Martin and can't claim the right of self-defense. Is it reasonable for a large armed man to believe that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm from a much smaller unarmed man? These are questions that can only be resolved after an investigation. It's way too early to be granting immunity to a killer.

 

[RandFan]

Rep. Brown on why she's suggesting 'hate crime' charges in Trayvon shooting, says Zimmerman should have gun permit revoked

Also, I'm sure this was brought up before, however, Martin was tested for drugs but Zimmerman wasn't. It didn't dawn on me the significance of this. (or is that SOP in Florida autopsies?)

 

[Checkmite]

I wouldn't be averse to revoking the gun licenses of people who kill individuals that can't be shown to have actually done anything wrong, even if there's not enough evidence to convict them of murder.

 

[triforcharity]

I don't know much about US law - I was being hyperbolic, but I do think that the way the 'stand your ground' law has been put to me, it seems easier to murder someone and claim self defence than I think it should be - Yes, I know that's vague as hell, but that law almost seems designed for rich people to be permitted to shoot poor people who have the temerity to walk through upmarket neighbourhoods. (yes, I know, more hype

Well, at least you're willing to admit that it's based on a poor explanation of the law, and not your own conclusions, and that conclusion is based on hype.

You're right about the police in this instance - total shambles as far as I can see. What are the odds of heads rolling?

Actually, very good. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (a state agency charged with overseeing police departments in Florida. They also investigate police shootings to make sure SOP was followed, and make sure it was justified) and the US Department of Justice is investigating this case also.

The Florida Senate (IIRC) is asking for the appointing of a special prosecutor to take the case, so that it takes it out of the hands of not only the Sanford Police, but also the 17th District Attorney's office, since there COULD be a CYA in their office too. Not that there has been any accusations of that (Wrt the 17th District).

So yes, there is a very good chance of heads rolling in the Sanford Police Department. And rightfully so.