Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

That's the problem with this law, it doesn't say that justifiable lethal force should be based on what is actually happening but rather it's ok based on what what the killer believes to be a reasonable threat.

That's one of the fundamentals that the entire legal system has been based on long before this case came along.

 

[Checkmite]

This is yet another interesting issue. From what I understand there was a hate crimes bill passed in 2009 that adds a heightened level of offense to racial/sexual-orientation or gender-based crimes. If our good friend George was truly muttering "****** coon" under his breath while "defensively" brandishing a gun and chasing down an unarmed boy who was trying to get away from him...then this may also be a hate-crime under that legislation.

Sucks to be you, Georgie Boy. But not as much as it sucks to be the child you killed.

There is reasonable disagreement over the whether he used that slur or said something else - but it's one for the jury to hear for certain, because regardless of whether the word was "coons", the other unambiguous words we can hear indicate that Zimmerman was in an agitated state while following Martin.

 

[crimresearch]

That's a big problem. The original writer of the law himself says it was not meant to apply to situations like this where a guy pursues another into a situation where hostilities result.

But obviously the language of the law isn't clear enough on that point, since the AG seems to think the protections of the statute apply to Zimmerman in this situation. So the law needs to be changed.

Given his comments on the matter, the drafter of the law should be up for an amendment clarifying the circumstances in which the law applies. Whether he would participate in such a push, or whether he will instead defend it from what some will doubtless call an attempt to "weaken it", remains to be seen.

'Obviously' needs to be changed based on a few days of media hype?

 

[Checkmite]

Is March too early for a nitpick of the year nomination?

Yes. Wait 'til you see what else we've got in store for 2012.

BTW, did you miss that wonderful debate over "follow/pursue/chase"?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

If he was on the phone to police, and muttered about a coon, and didn't have a Procyon Lotor leaping on his head from a tree he passed, he's incredibly stupid and going to jail forever.

 

[crimresearch]

You don't need to have any physical injuries to commit a "justifiable" killing under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. You just need a "reasonable" belief that lethal force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or someone else.

True, but that has nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground', that is a basic premise of self defense in the whole country, even before the US Supreme Court spelled it out.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is reasonable disagreement over the whether he used that slur or said something else - but it's one for the jury to hear for certain, because regardless of whether the word was "coons", the other unambiguous words we can hear indicate that Zimmerman was in an agitated state while following Martin.

That he was in an agitated state would support an argument that Z was not responding in a measured manner to any threat, nor was he acting rationally.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course it is. The only thing that matters is what was happening in reality, not in Zimmerman's' mind. Or do you think anytime someone is murdered, we should consider whatever justification their murderer manufactured as a mitigating factor?

I think we do ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.

 

[Checkmite]

'Obviously' needs to be changed based on a few days of media hype?

No; based on the lawmaker having to clarify how the law is supposed to work because it's not obvious in the law's language.

 

[EGarrett]

It means that if someone is a good enough liar (and no contravening evidence is found), then they have a chance of fooling a jury. Which is hardly news.

Fortunately, as I figured, this isn't the case. See my above post with links to information on "affirmative defense." If you admit to the killing, you have to PROVE that the justifying circumstances you're claiming actually occurred. Georgie-Boy has to go to court and prove that Trayvon aggressively attacked him, and even then he's going to have to answer for his own actions, including getting out of his car and chasing the boy while having a visible firearm, and explain why, in reality Trayvon isn't the one who was actually justified in attacking him.

It really looks like our little child-killer is in VERY hot-water, as are the police who were negligent and ignorant enough in their duties to let him go without investigation or arrest.

 

[Checkmite]

That he was in an agitated state would support an argument that Z was not responding in a measured manner to any threat, nor was he acting rationally.

I think that argument could be made by the prosecution, yes.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So would medical documents or mention in the police report. All of which have been conspicuously absent...

Do you blame that on Zimmerman, though ?

The 'leaked' police report does mention his injuries. The police also apparently have GZs clothes.

 

[Giz]

I don't think GZ had to be muttering anything under his breath (would be hard to prove anyway) in order to make the argument that this was a hate crime. As I mentioned in my poorly worded post from last night, GZ would never have thought of me as being "suspicious" (white, female, of a "certain age").

What do you think exempts you from suspicion? (Hint: it's probably being female and "of a certain age"... not necessarily anything to do with being white)

 

[crimresearch]

No; based on the lawmaker having to clarify how the law is supposed to work because it's not obvious in the law's language.

I doubt if there is any such change that would prevent the media from hyping it to that extent... as evidenced by the fact that SYG doesn't even apply in this situation (no 'ground' was stood), yet the notion that 'SYG let Zimmerman get away with murder' still runs rampant.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

What do you think exempts you from suspicion? (Hint: it's probably being female and "of a certain age"... not necessarily anything to do with being white)

So if say 99% of break-ins in the neighborhood had been committed by young men, he may have considered a young man walking the neighborhood at night worthy of observing?

Is it your further contention that if a 50 year old woman of any color had walked by, that he wouldn't have been torn as to whether to switch pursuit?

What healthy human brain would go in for such profiling?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Fortunately, as I figured, this isn't the case. See my above post with links to information on "affirmative defense." If you admit to the killing, you have to PROVE that the justifying circumstances you're claiming actually occurred. Georgie-Boy has to go to court and prove that Trayvon aggressively attacked him, and even then he's going to have to answer for his own actions, including getting out of his car and chasing the boy while having a visible firearm, and explain why, in reality Trayvon isn't the one who was actually justified in attacking him.

It really looks like our little child-killer is in VERY hot-water, as are the police who were negligent and ignorant enough in their duties to let him go without investigation or arrest.

Where do you come up with visible (and earlier brandishing) firearm ? I gather you don't think it matters in the least, but I wonder where you got that information that you keep repeating it ?

 

[EGarrett]

There is reasonable disagreement over the whether he used that slur or said something else - but it's one for the jury to hear for certain, because regardless of whether the word was "coons", the other unambiguous words we can hear indicate that Zimmerman was in an agitated state while following Martin.

I don't think GZ had to be muttering anything under his breath (would be hard to prove anyway) in order to make the argument that this was a hate crime. As I mentioned in my poorly worded post from last night, GZ would never have thought of me as being "suspicious" (white, female, of a "certain age"). I think the prosecution will have an easier time prosecuting this as a hate crime since the "stand your ground" law seems to be so vague, that yes, maybe in Florida you could burn down your neighbor's house because you had a "reasonable" belief that he or she was a Satan worshiper.

No chance at all that the muffled words on that tape *alone* are going to rise to the level needed for a hate crimes enhancement.

I don't know much of anything about the hate crimes legislation, and it may actually be a bad law, but I'm curious about how they determine what is a "hate crime" and what isn't, and how this would apply in this case if indeed Martin's race factored into Zimmerman's aggressive behavior.

That being said, regardless of whether he muttered that ridiculously stupid statement (and double-plus stupid if he said it on tape)...it seems quite clear that he was indeed in an aggravated mood while pursuing Martin. The real self-defense justification is probably on Martin's side.

 

[johnny karate]

I think we do ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.

How does this apply to justification? I wasn't talking about killing someone unintentionally, but rather killing someone based on a justification that has no basis in reality.

And how I was specifically referring to Zimmerman is in what prompted him to arm himself and follow Martin. He had no justification in doing so. Sure, he may have thought he did, but that is irrelevant. He should have stayed in his car, like the police advised him and the rules of his neighborhood watch program dictated.

 

[Piggy]

Fortunately, as I figured, this isn't the case. See my above post with links to information on "affirmative defense." If you admit to the killing, you have to PROVE that the justifying circumstances you're claiming actually occurred. Georgie-Boy has to go to court and prove that Trayvon aggressively attacked him, and even then he's going to have to answer for his own actions, including getting out of his car and chasing the boy while having a visible firearm, and explain why, in reality Trayvon isn't the one who was actually justified in attacking him.

It really looks like our little child-killer is in VERY hot-water, as are the police who were negligent and ignorant enough in their duties to let him go without investigation or arrest.

This case is likely to be very interesting, but like the OJ case, it will be interesting in ways that most folks aren't talking about.

The question before the jury in the Simpson case was what to do when the cops frame a guilty man. The jury decided, as I probably would have, that they had to acquit.

Personally, I find Zimmerman's account difficult to believe because it doesn't make sense to me that Martin would get into a shouting match with Zimmerman, but not a fist fight, then as Z was heading back to his truck, go jump on him then. And Z's injuries indicate a face-to-face confrontation.

So I think the jury is likely to have to decide if you can stalk someone who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous, confront them, get into a shouting match, have it escalate into a fist fight, and then if you start getting the worst of it, shoot someone to death.

Sounds like a bad precedent, because then what's to stop any bully from mixing it up with whoever they please? If they can beat up their victim, then they've won the fight... if they start losing, they can kill the guy.

If it does turn out that this is the crux of the case, I see Zimmerman going to jail for manslaughter... maybe 60 months?

 

[EGarrett]

Where do you come up with visible (and earlier brandishing) firearm ? I gather you don't think it matters in the least, but I wonder where you got that information that you keep repeating it ?

Just frustration and disgust. All I have seen to this point is that Zimmerman had the gun in a visible holster, I don't know when the gun actually came out and obviously we have only Zimmerman's testimony, which is about as reliable as a cotton-candy trampoline.