Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[tyr_13]

Here's an interesting note that I found in the police report.

It states that Zimmerman's shirt was wet, and had grass on it. The officer also said that Zimmerman had a bloodied nose, and was bleeding from his nose and back of his head. He was treated AT THE SCENE by the Sanford Fire Department.

Now, if Zimmerman was in such fear for his life that he had to resort to using deadly force, why were his wounds so insignificant that the SFD treated him at the scene, without referring him to the local hospital?

If his wounds required nothing more than some tape and a 4x4 piece of gauze, and no referral to the local emergency room, how is it that he could claim that he was in such fear for his life?

It doesn't make ANY sense to me.

Wait, one has to already not only be injured, but be significantly injured to be in fear for one's life?

Most of what you've said in the thread is very rational, but that's kind of odd.

EDIT: I've sniped the quote. The parts I cut out are worth reading even though they did have the bad luck of ending up on the bottom of the previous page.

EDIT 2: Also, it's not that I'm saying Zimmerman's claim to have been in fear of his life has merit, I'm saying that the fact his injuries were not severe are probably not good evidence of that.

 

[leftysergeant]

The kid had Skittles and iced tea according to reports. In his situation, I would certainly whack somebody on the head with the tea after he tackled me. Trigger boy does not describe Martin as having thrown it at him,so it must have been used during the struggle.

If you aree packing heat, you do not chase down somebody of whom you are afraid and grab him. You stand off and shoot.

Nothing the lunatic has said since the shooting makes sense.

 

[Freddy]

You know, i believe the only thing holding this law back is the incredible subjective nature of the "reasonable" bit.

I think, in premise it is a good law, conflicts can be won or lost with the first blow, and you should not be put in a legal position that you have to essentially give someone the first blow in order to not be charged. If someone is acting in a threatening manner, they are either A) trying to scare you or B) legitimately going to hurt you. Either way, they know the consequences of their actions may not be your immediate surrender, and are choosing to engage in the situation.

The problem comes in when people refuse to quantify, in any way, what reasonable would include. The word reasonable should not be anywhere in this law, it should be a defined set of circumstances common to confrontations.

Self defense laws are broken by their very nature, assuming people aren't around to witness, everyone always has the option of trying to claim self defense. But there are really no better options, and saying that someone has to strike a blow before you can stop them from harming you, or that you must attempt escape ( imagine trying to get away from someone, and hitting a broken or locked door, or having to turn your back upon someone who is menacing you with a gun to run away.) is simply creating a situation in which victims are at a severe disadvantage.

And in regards to this case in specific, this man is abusing, not using this law. If anything the law was written for folks like Martin, who are engaged with someone who wants to harass and threaten in order to provoke a confrontation, in order to hide behind the law. ( more frequently this is used in simple physical altercations as a scumbag tactic.)

The word "reasonable," in legal language, indicates (perhaps counter-intuitively) an objective test. It isn't enough that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury. It must be the case that a hypothetical "reasonable" person would have been in such fear under the circumstances. Getting one to understand this as "objective" is one of the many ways in which law school warps the mind.

In this case, the shooter's apparent "make-my-day" fantasies, law enforcement wannabe-ism (so to speak) and frequent frivolous 9-1-1 calls could be used to present a strong case that Zimmerman was not generally inclined to react to this sort of situation the way a reasonable person would, and that in this case he did not in fact act as a reasonable person would have under the circumstances. I'm not sure how much of his history would be admissible, but I bet a clever attorney could trick him into opening the door on cross-examination, as he will have to testify to present a defense of self-defense. And even if the character evidence can't be admitted, there is already enough evidence for a jury to find Zimmerman's self-defense claim wholly implausible. At any rate, the presence of the word "reasonable," far from being the problem with the SYG law, will in fact serve to make Zimmerman's subjective feelings irrelevant, at least to the extent that the evidence does not indicate that such fear was objectively justified.

Note that reasonable fear of death or serious injury has always been a defense to a homicide charge, even at common law. Usually, it does not have to get to trial for the prosecutor to exercise his or her discretion not to bring charges in cases where the evidence supports self-defense. SYG laws came about as a reaction to several high-profile cases where an overzealous prosecutor tried to screw over a defendant in a clearly legitimate case of self-defense (by getting a judge to disallow the defense because the defendant did not try to flee - this has happened even in cases where the shooting was in the defendant's home; the Illinois Court of Appeals reversed the particular conviction I'm thinking of, but not before the accused went through the trauma and expense of being tried and convicted). Even if you acted reasonably and you're acquitted, you don't get reimbursed for the enormous costs of defending a homicide charge. It is a life-ruining experience even if you don't go to prison for defending yourself. Perhaps some SYG laws (they vary from state to state) swing the pendulum too far in the other direction, and if so that can and should be corrected. From what I have read, it appears that Florida's SYG law is the broadest such law in the country, so indicting SYG laws in general may not be fair, even if criticism of Florida's law as poorly drafted and overbroad is well justified.

While Florida's SYG law may make it more difficult to get a conviction, even that law by no means gives Zimmerman a free pass. In fact, I think he will likely be convicted of some form of homicide in spite of the SYG law.

 

[triforcharity]

Wait, one has to already not only be injured, but be significantly injured to be in fear for one's life?

Most of what you've said in the thread is very rational, but that's kind of odd.

EDIT: I've sniped the quote. The parts I cut out are worth reading even though they did have the bad luck of ending up on the bottom of the previous page.

EDIT 2: Also, it's not that I'm saying Zimmerman's claim to have been in fear of his life has merit, I'm saying that the fact his injuries were not severe are probably not good evidence of that.

I have to respectfully disagree.

How about this. You and I get in a fight. At some point, I start "winning" the fight.

During the fight, you get a bloody nose, and while we're on the ground wrestling back and forth, you scrape your head.

At what point would you consider your life to be in danger?

I'm just going by the scrums that I have been in, and received MUCH worse injuries that what Zimmerman appears to have, and never, not once, been in fear of my life.

Not just that, but he did not meet force with force. That is a KEY part of the Florida law.

Also, as an asside, I noticed in the police report that the officer who put handcuffs on Zimmerman made mention of the grass and moisture on Zimmerman's clothes. However, what it DOESN'T mention (and maybe it's in another report that is not public) is that there was blood splatter.

IF he was pinned down by Martin, and say Martin was choking him, and he was able to get his gun and fire at Martin point blank while Martin was on top of him, he would have been COVERED in blood on his front.

Nothing about that.

So, something tells me, (and again, this is just speculation) that Martin was at a distance. Like, more than 10' or so. If it had been point blank, Zimmerman would have had blood splatter on him. If he had shot him while Martin was on top, he would have been covered in blood. (Gravity would have forced Martin's now lifeless body to give out, falling on top of Zimmerman. Blood would be all OVER Zimmerman. Also, in the course of getting up, Zimmerman would have most likely rolled Martin off of him, which would have put him face up in the grass, not face down.


But again, this is just my speculation, and assumptions, based on my reasoning and understanding of the facts.

 

[sgtbaker]

Most of the time that is 72 hours, not a couple minutes or hours.

72 hours is the max but that doesn't mean that most of the time they hold them for that long. Zimmerman didn't try to deny shooting, was cooperative at the scene, and was helpful to law enforcement in the past. If he answered the questions that needed answering, there is no further need to hold him unless they had something to charge him with. Whether or not they should have charged him is open to debate, obviously. The point was, they did follow the proceedure that the post to which I was responding, claimed should have been done.

 

[Checkmite]

Interesting: Sanford city commission passes a vote of no confidence against the police chief.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting: Sanford city commission passes a vote of no confidence against the police chief.

Good.

 

[triforcharity]

The Sanford City council certainly threw a wrench into this whole thing.

 

[triforcharity]

72 hours is the max but that doesn't mean that most of the time they hold them for that long. Zimmerman didn't try to deny shooting, was cooperative at the scene, and was helpful to law enforcement in the past. If he answered the questions that needed answering, there is no further need to hold him unless they had something to charge him with. Whether or not they should have charged him is open to debate, obviously. The point was, they did follow the proceedure that the post to which I was responding, claimed should have been done.

You're correct. However, I cannot figure out how long Zimmerman was held for questioning.

I know I am beating a dead horse, but the problem is simple.

If the Sanford Police had done a thorough and complete investigation into this case, he might have been charged within that 72hr time frame with (at minimum) Manslaughter or negligent homicide.

But again, that is just my opinion.

 

[leftysergeant]

If the 911 tapes turn out to prove it was Trayvon's voice that certainly changes the credibility of Zimmerman, not that his story is credible so far based on the fact Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by so much.

It would also show that he was committing felony obstruction of a police investigation by giving a false statement.

 

[leftysergeant]

While Florida's SYG law may make it more difficult to get a conviction, even that law by no means gives Zimmerman a free pass. In fact, I think he will likely be convicted of some form of homicide in spite of the SYG law.

This assumes, of course, that he lives long enough to go to trial. The best way he can assure that is not to address or approach anyone, ever, again, unless invited to do so.

By his own reasoning, anybody whom he accosts while he is the least bit upset is perfectly at liberty to blow a smoking hole in his chest because they know him to be a beligerant hot-headed SOB with no common sense.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not just that, but he did not meet force with force. That is a KEY part of the Florida law.

It is possiblle that Martin whacked him on the head with his iced tea when fat boy attacked him. This is not an illegal action, but perfectly meets the SYG standard.

Also, as an asside, I noticed in the police report that the officer who put handcuffs on Zimmerman made mention of the grass and moisture on Zimmerman's clothes.

It would be unusual for one of the combatants to remain standing after a tackle. A football player is usually going to check himself out for injuries before getting up off the ground. I do that after any bicycle accident. Fat boy might not have done so. Wet and grass is not relevant evidence.

However, what it DOESN'T mention (and maybe it's in another report that is not public) is that there was blood splatter.

Absolutely. Further, if the shooter was on the ground, there would be an identifiable upward-angled wound channel. If such is not in evidence in the autopsy report, it is time to bring the psycho in NOW.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

So this could be inexperience with murder cases, and not racism?

It could be inexperience with a shooter claiming self defense?

 

[LTC8K6]

Interesting: Sanford city commission passes a vote of no confidence against the police chief.

Is there evidence that the chief influenced the decisions in the case?

 

[LTC8K6]

You're correct. However, I cannot figure out how long Zimmerman was held for questioning.

I know I am beating a dead horse, but the problem is simple.

If the Sanford Police had done a thorough and complete investigation into this case, he might have been charged within that 72hr time frame with (at minimum) Manslaughter or negligent homicide.

But again, that is just my opinion.

And been out on bail in an hour anyway...

 

[leftysergeant]

And been out on bail in an hour anyway...

Without his gun and afraid to step out his front door. A small win for anybody who matters.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is there evidence that the chief influenced the decisions in the case?

Erm...Maybe Sanford PD is such a pile of dog poo that they do not bother with such trivialities, but in most civilized societies, the Chief of Police in any jurisdiction has a responsibility to ensure that all officers are adequately trained to gather relevant evidence from a crime scene or to preserve it for an outside forensic team.

Somebody screwed the pooch on that point, aand I would tend to blame the chief of the SPD.

 

[LTC8K6]

Erm...Maybe Sanford PD is such a pile of dog poo that they do not bother with such trivialities, but in most civilized societies, the Chief of Police in any jurisdiction has a responsibility to ensure that all officers are adequately trained to gather relevant evidence from a crime scene or to preserve it for an outside forensic team.

Somebody screwed the pooch on that point, aand I would tend to blame the chief of the SPD.

Yeah, at least one head always has to roll in order to get Sharpton and crew to leave. Might as well be the chief.

 

[sgtbaker]

So this could be inexperience with murder cases, and not racism?

It could be inexperience with a shooter claiming self defense?

Those are good questions but all I have are opinions. My opinion on what happened is pretty much what his neighbor said, in a recent interview. This was a perfect storm. There was a series of burglaries in the past year or so. Zimmerman had been taking an active role in crime prevention, in the neighborhood. The neighbor stated that the people that were committing these thefts were young black males thus causing Zimmerman to be hyper-vigilant to young black males (profiling). Zimmerman has a history with the police department. He allegedly thwarted a few burglaries and even helped to catch a burglar. The police see him as a good guy. The police arrive at the crime scene already biased against this "suspicious looking young black male "potential burglar" and low and behold, their buddy was involved. They followed basic proceedure; detain the shooter for questioning, but it seems like they just assumed that they knew him well enough that he just wouldn't do something like that. We don't know how long he was held, but we do know that by the time the police informed his father, the next day, he had already been released, without so much as a background check. Whether or not race was a factor, it's quite possible that suspicioun about this young black John Doe who "fit the description" of recent burglars, it still shows incompetence.

 

[LTC8K6]

This must be what the chief is talking about:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.