Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

What I'm saying is it's not a choice.

You can't pay attention to some applicable laws and not to others. If a law obtains, it obtains, and SYG clearly obtains here.

In fact, it's liable to be the critical statute in determining guilt and sentence (if any).

Furthermore, it's the only statute that is at risk of falling as a result of this case.

Again, you are citing the media hype as though it were bedrock legal doctrine.

I'll note that you've refused my request to actually read the laws that *do* apply (to which links have been repeatedly supplied), or the legal explanations.

I'll also note that you ignore the most basic fact, that by Zimmerman's own account, he wasn't standing any ground, he was attacked and fighting for his life (his claim, not mine), which falls under the other statute (also provided).

 

[WildCat]

No busted lip, either.

EMT's can clean up surface blood; but they couldn't make a broken nose (and related facial bruising) or fat lip invisible.

I'm just astonished at what people expect to see from a low-res surveillance video.

You can't even read the license plate on the police car, and the patches on the police uniforms look like one solid color with no lettering.

Seriously people, wtf?

 

[This is The End]

I never said the police report said he had a broken nose.

I can understand why they thought you said it. I read it as you saying that too. I see that it can be read both ways. Perhaps instead of "it is on the police report" you could have defined what "it" was. Perhaps: "it said on the police report that it was bloodied, not necessarily broken".

A photo would certainly prove whether he had a broken nose (as opposed to merely a bloodied one). Broken noses are...very conspicuous injuries.

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

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

It's on the police report, and medical records will be available in a trial but not released to the public.

 

[LTC8K6]

How long does it take for scalp lacerations to really show?

I see an injury to the back of his head in the video.

I was surprised at the headline on the video after I watched it.

I'm confident that the police documented injuries on Zimmerman, and that they will leak this info to counter the low-res video headlines.

 

[sgtbaker]

Well, how long does it take for a bruise to really show?

I know a black eye takes a while to develop.

I edited my original (unprofessional) assessment of the video. At 1:04, he looks down and you can see a lump on the back if his head, down by his neck and a line at the top of the back of his head. That could be a trick of the light or a wound, I can't tell. I doubt a bandage would stick to his head as it seems to be buzzed and not clean shaven.

 

[Piggy]

I'm pretty sure I said it correctly. So if what you say is the case, then I believe there will be no trial.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are saying it hinges on "who threw the first punch".

I disagree. That was covered in detail earlier in the thread.

As far as I understand it, if it can be determined that Z "provoked" the fight, then he does not have the right to end the fight in self defense. It does not necessarily matter if he didn't throw the first punch.

Whether or not Zimmerman goes to trial won't be decided by any determination of who threw the first punch, I'm sure of that.

State and defense aren't interested in that level of detail.

But as for that last statement, that is what remains to be seen.

"Provoking" a fight has consistently been frowned upon as an excuse for physical assault by the courts. So I would tend to diregard it.

And although we can't simply assume Zimmerman is telling the truth when he says that Martin turned the argument into a fist fight, in a courtroom we have to accept this as possible unless some evidence proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is why the trial cannot hinge on this point, if the jurors are performing their obligations correctly.

The thing is, Zimmerman's actions are protected (or not) by the law at the time, as written, even if he himself had no idea what the law was.

So even if he went in there spoiling for trouble, if the law as passed protects him, then it protects him.

Even if you accept the least charitable version of events which falls under the reasonable doubt standard, it's hard to peg him for murder.

That's why I'm thinking manslaughter, because he could have avoided the confrontation and would have to be grossly negligent not to see that his actions could have led to violence.

 

[WildCat]

Police use low-resolution surveillance video all the time in their investigations. Not good enough for you, though?

Don't worry, I'm sure close-up photos of the injuries were taken.

Well yes, you can tell who did what. You can't tell what color their eyes are, or count the pimples on their face.

You can't even read the license plate of the police car on that video, and look how blurry the "Sanford Police" letters on the car are, and they're probably 3" letters at least.

 

[RandFan]

I re-watched, and I do see a sizable goose egg on the back of his head.

What is the time stamp?

 

[Checkmite]

I'm just astonished at what people expect to see from a low-res surveillance video.

You can't even read the license plate on the police car, and the patches on the police uniforms look like one solid color with no lettering.

Seriously people, wtf?

You can clearly distinguish the man's facial features, the distinctive shape of his nose, his eyebrows, his hairline.

Again, police use even lower resolution surveillance footage routinely as evidence. Or have you never seen a news report about a bank robbery or convenience store hold up? They not happen where you live?

 

[sgtbaker]

Double Action Only. They are cocked by the trigger at the moment of firing. That is the only way they can be cocked.

I was speaking in hyperbole but you got me there. I just meant I don't think he was playing Riggs, leaning up against the wall and army crawling through the grass with his weapon drawn.

 

[LTC8K6]

I edited my original (unprofessional) assessment of the video. At 1:04, he looks down and you can see a lump on the back if his head, down by his neck and a line at the top of the back of his head. That could be a trick of the light or a wound, I can't tell. I doubt a bandage would stick to his head as it seems to be buzzed and not clean shaven.

It's too late. The story that the arrest video shows no injuries on Zimmerman is now ubiquitous.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What is the time stamp?

About 1:00 give or take a few seconds

 

[often mrunderstood]

Wounds GZ could have obviously inflicted on himself.......

That's what the 911 call "sounded" like to me!

 

[RandFan]

Let me go on record...

He could have been injured. If so it sure isn't severe.

 

[This is The End]

OK let's back this up. Warning: This is a hypothetical. I am not saying that Z started the fight in reality.

In Florida, if you start a fight are there legal ways that you can end the fight in a self defense shooting?

In other words. You start a fight. You realize at some point you are losing the fight. Or perhaps the fight starts being more serious than you intended. You shoot the other person and they die. Is it at all possible that is a legal self defense in Florida?

 

[WildCat]

You can clearly distinguish the man's facial features, the distinctive shape of his nose, his eyebrows, his hairline.

Again, police use even lower resolution surveillance footage routinely as evidence. Or have you never seen a news report about a bank robbery or convenience store hold up? They not happen where you live?

What's the plate number of the police car?

 

[LTC8K6]

He could have been injured. If so it sure isn't severe.

Well, as an aside, do you have to wait until you are severely injured?

 

[LTC8K6]

OK let's back this up. Warning: This is a hypothetical. I am not saying that Z started the fight in reality.

In Florida, if you start a fight are there legal ways that you can end the fight in a self defense shooting?

In other words. You start a fight. You realize at some point you are losing the fight. Or perhaps the fight starts being more serious than you intended. You shoot the other person and they die. Is it at all possible that is a legal self defense in Florida?

Not really.

It might mitigate your charge or sentence, depending on the exact circumstances.

 

[Piggy]

Again, you are citing the media hype as though it were bedrock legal doctrine.

I'll note that you've refused my request to actually read the laws that *do* apply (to which links have been repeatedly supplied), or the legal explanations.

I'll also note that you ignore the most basic fact, that by Zimmerman's own account, he wasn't standing any ground, he was attacked and fighting for his life (his claim, not mine), which falls under the other statute (also provided).

But there's no reason for us to review those laws, because we both are saying they apply. Why spend the time?

As for SYG, I don't know why you think that "Zimmerman's own account" is the only thing we need to concern ourselves with here.

If Martin felt that he was threatened by Zimmerman in a place where he had a right to be -- which is difficult to argue against -- then Martin had a SYG right, so he was justified in trying to disable Zimmerman, which is problematic for a defense.

So SYG will come in that way.

It will also likely come in on the Zimmerman side because the confrontation was in a public place and Zimmerman pursued Martin with a weapon. If not for SYG, it could be argued that Zimmerman had an obligation to remain in his vehicle if he suspected that Martin posed any sort of threat (contrast SYG with retreat laws).

So it's likely going to come into this case one way or the other, and probably from both ends.

The media is calling this one correctly.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm just going by links provided earlier in the thread. I'll try to find them....

ETA: I believe it was in the links to the Florida conceal carry rules... I can't seem to find it.

Unless I am miseading your post, you seem to be saying that the person who initiates a confrontaion can then be legally killed, and they lose the right to self defense because they 'started it'.

If they started it by kicking in a door, or committing a forcible felony, that's one thing, but if they just started it by asking 'What are you doing here?', or even with mild physical contact...

Then no, you won't find a link that says they have no right to defend themself should the other party suddenly escalate to deadly force.