Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

Perhaps an important consideration when speculating about blood evidence is that it's supposed to have been raining on the night of the shooting.

 

[MG1962]

I am a little ignorant here - but if there is evidence this was a racially motivated crime (one way or the other) and the Florida legal system does not act - Can the Federal government bring charges?

 

[Max_mang]

I have a few thoughts and some questions.

A while back in the thread many posters were saying there would be lots of blood spatter on GZ's clothes if he shot TM at close range (and some saying not). In the video he does not appear to have blood on his clothes.

It was mentioned by someone many pages ago that GZ's clothes may have been collected as evidence. Might he be wearing different clothes in the police department video than he had at the time of the shooting? When would they have taken his clothes?

It's been said the 'shot in the back of the head' claim is not correct and the 'shot in the chest' claim is correct. Is there any conclusive proof available to the public that says how TM was shot and killed? Do we really know this at this point?

 

[Information Analyst]

Keep in mind that at the time, I thought the video had been taken a few hours later. I did not know it had been taken so soon after the shooting.

That'll teach me to post before reading the next X pages of discussion of the video....

 

[Cylinder]

I am a little ignorant here - but if there is evidence this was a racially motivated crime (one way or the other) and the Florida legal system does not act - Can the Federal government bring charges?

18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts

(a) In General.—
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

[snip]

(b) Certification Requirement.—
(1) In general.— No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—
(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

(b)(1)(C) is what to look at here. The US government is claiming that they could try a defendant again in federal court because it didn't like the outcome decided by a state.

 

[Dan O.]

Thought this might need to be posted.

FLORIDA
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS
IN CRIMINAL CASES

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE page 62.

Thanks,

If this case ever makes it to trial, George is going to have trouble with at least one section of the jury instructions.

If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, ​

I'm sure the prosecutor would be pointing out the obvious fact that nobody would have gotten injured that night if George had just stayed in his truck and not grabbed his gun and gone chasing after Trayvon. And I'm sure that the defense will be fighting to keep that part of the instructions from being heard by the jury, arguing that the trouble George had with Trayvon being in his neighborhood which was sufficient for George to request police response is not applicable.

 

[Unabogie]

I have a few thoughts and some questions.

A while back in the thread many posters were saying there would be lots of blood spatter on GZ's clothes if he shot TM at close range (and some saying not). In the video he does not appear to have blood on his clothes.

It was mentioned by someone many pages ago that GZ's clothes may have been collected as evidence. Might he be wearing different clothes in the police department video than he had at the time of the shooting? When would they have taken his clothes?

It's been said the 'shot in the back of the head' claim is not correct and the 'shot in the chest' claim is correct. Is there any conclusive proof available to the public that says how TM was shot and killed? Do we really know this at this point?

The mortician confirmed on MSNBC that Trayvon was killed by a single shot to the chest with no visible exit wound.

The video in question was taken less than an hour from the time of the shooting. There's no evidence that I know of that police allowed Zimmerman to return home for a change of clothes. The red (looks like leather) jacket and grey shirt match the descriptions from witnesses as well.

 

[Cylinder]

Thanks,

If this case ever makes it to trial, George is going to have trouble with at least one section of the jury instructions.

If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, ​

I'm sure the prosecutor would be pointing out the obvious fact that nobody would have gotten injured that night if George had just stayed in his truck and not grabbed his gun and gone chasing after Trayvon. And I'm sure that the defense will be fighting to keep that part of the instructions from being heard by the jury, arguing that the trouble George had with Trayvon being in his neighborhood which was sufficient for George to request police response is not applicable.

There are no prior difficulties or no time lapse between difficulties claimed here, right?

 

[sgtbaker]

Yeah, really.



Role play this in your head. (You should have that sort of skills if you are going to play investigator like this.)

You are minding your own business and notice some dork following you for no good reason. You take off running. After running a certain distance, you think you have lost him, but WHUMP there he is again, clearly meaning to see that you don't lose him again. Are you going to compliment him on his nice threads or are you going to demand to know what his major malfunction is? I don't think I would be the least bit impressed that he was dressed nicely. Ted Bundy dressed nicely. (I actually once met that turd. He creeped me out a little bit, even before he is known to have started killing women.)

Gangs are often made up of a single ethnic group. A lot of them shave their heads because it is one less way for an opponent to hurt them when they go mano-a-mano.

Now, what is it about Z that should not have been threatening?

When Z demanded to know what Martin was doing there, but did not identify himself as part of Neighborhood Watch, don't you think it would look more like you were facing a banger staking out his turf?

Have you any idea how bangers act when thery meet someone who might be a rival gang member? I have seen it going down, and it is pretty scarey. "What are you doing here?" is a very common greeting between them, just before the compost hits the ventilating device.

Are you with me so far? Are you looking at this from the perspective of Martin's probable life experiences?

Can you see why Martin might feel that punching this fool's lights out might be the only way to get out of that situation?

Okay, so now you have the pervert or banger or whatever this fool is on the ground, knocked a little goofy from hitting his head on the edge of the sidewalk and you notice that he has a gun. Are you going to feel safe going on about your business without taking that gun away from him? What do you expect him to do when he gets up? Do you even want him to get up at all? Do you want him to still have the gun when he gets up? I sure as hell wouldn't. I would feel pretty certain that if I walk away and leave that pile of crap sitting there, in pain and a bit humiliated and armed that I would probably not make it to the end of the next town house without catching a bullet in the back.

Can you see any line of thought that might pass through Martin's head that would make it a good idea NOT to take that wierdo's weapon?

Wait, so now, Zimmerman was a fat, stalker, psycho for profiling Martin because he is black and wearing a hoodie (fair enough), therefor, Martin was justified in profiling Zimmerman and attacking him because he's got a shaved head and is hispanic which could mean he's a gang banger?

 

[Max_mang]

The mortician confirmed on MSNBC that Trayvon was killed by a single shot to the chest with no visible exit wound.

The video in question was taken less than an hour from the time of the shooting. There's no evidence that I know of that police allowed Zimmerman to return home for a change of clothes. The red (looks like leather) jacket and grey shirt match the descriptions from witnesses as well.

Thanks, Unaboogie.

More sorta random thoughts:

Is there any evidence available that tells us whether Trayvon was shot at close range or from some distance? People were arguing several pages back about what 'point blank' range is, but I'm wondering if there is any official evidence available that estimates the range.

Is there any official word on whether GZ's zipped jacket was covering up a bloody shirt?

If GZ truly acted in self defense, is there some legal pressure for him to have tried to back off TM with the gun instead of shooting? He knew the police were on the way. Of course, if they were struggling for the gun that would make that point moot.

 

[MG1962]

18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts

(b)(1)(C) is what to look at here. The US government is claiming that they could try a defendant again in federal court because it didn't like the outcome decided by a state.

Thanks - so if the Florida system does not play by the normal rules of law then the case can be referred. Then advice that has been given previously has added weight - Let us hold back on our opinions till the case is heard in an open court where we will all get a chance to see all the evidence and let the case progress where it should

 

[crimresearch]

Yeah, really.



Role play this in your head. (You should have that sort of skills if you are going to play investigator like this.)

You are minding your own business and notice some dork following you for no good reason. You take off running. After running a certain distance, you think you have lost him, but WHUMP there he is again, clearly meaning to see that you don't lose him again. Are you going to compliment him on his nice threads or are you going to demand to know what his major malfunction is? I don't think I would be the least bit impressed that he was dressed nicely. Ted Bundy dressed nicely. (I actually once met that turd. He creeped me out a little bit, even before he is known to have started killing women.)

Gangs are often made up of a single ethnic group. A lot of them shave their heads because it is one less way for an opponent to hurt them when they go mano-a-mano.

Now, what is it about Z that should not have been threatening?

When Z demanded to know what Martin was doing there, but did not identify himself as part of Neighborhood Watch, don't you think it would look more like you were facing a banger staking out his turf?

Have you any idea how bangers act when thery meet someone who might be a rival gang member? I have seen it going down, and it is pretty scarey. "What are you doing here?" is a very common greeting between them, just before the compost hits the ventilating device.

Are you with me so far? Are you looking at this from the perspective of Martin's probable life experiences?

Can you see why Martin might feel that punching this fool's lights out might be the only way to get out of that situation?

Okay, so now you have the pervert or banger or whatever this fool is on the ground, knocked a little goofy from hitting his head on the edge of the sidewalk and you notice that he has a gun. Are you going to feel safe going on about your business without taking that gun away from him? What do you expect him to do when he gets up? Do you even want him to get up at all? Do you want him to still have the gun when he gets up? I sure as hell wouldn't. I would feel pretty certain that if I walk away and leave that pile of crap sitting there, in pain and a bit humiliated and armed that I would probably not make it to the end of the next town house without catching a bullet in the back.

Can you see any line of thought that might pass through Martin's head that would make it a good idea NOT to take that wierdo's weapon?

Straw out the wazoo. I've made no claim that Martin did anything wrong.

You have no proof of what was going through either person's head and neither do I.

I can make an educated guess, factoring in experience and training, and you can make an uneducated one, factoring in your bias against Hispanics... and neither one of us will win the JREF $1 million.

As to what might have happened, what a jury might consider, and other random speculations, I've posted mine with supporting facts and correct legal cites dozens of times in this thread.
1> Using the facts available, Zimmerman will have a claim under 2(a), fear for his life.
2> To get a jury to believe that, he's going to need a lot more than 'I was losing a fistfight'
3> It looks very much as though the system has information that we don't.

You continue to spew 'fat slob', 'boy', 'banger', and other racially inflected Limbaughisms, while making factual misstatements about the law. Your claim that walking toward someone and asking a question is a felony false imprisoment is woo of CT levels.

And I'll note that in the new 'Walking' thread, you are taking exactly the opposite approach, and claiming that the victim of an attempted armed robbery 'provoked' the confrontation by *being* blocked by the robber...

That satisfies me that you are running a false flag operation.

 

[crimresearch]

I just found it odd considering the description of the events - Zimmerman's bloody nose and Martin's proximity when shot - that there are no obvious stains of any kind at all on the front of Zimmerman's shirt. The focus got shifted to a lack of grass stains on his back in the surveillance video but that could be hard to see on a red jacket. However, dark blood stains on the grey shirt should be pretty easy to spot and we get a couple different relatively long looks at the shirt. Perhaps Zimmerman's jacket had been zipped up at the time of the incident. I just found it perplexing that there's nothing there.

I would go with the red jacket zipped up and the dark shirt covered, and the grass being perhaps small cut pieces that were wiped off as they dried... I believe one of the cops at the sallyport brushes Zimmerman's jacket, and then wipes his hand on his pants.

There was a discussion earlier as to how much blood from the victim, and would it be a fine mist or a significant amount of liquid (which would vary according to proximity).
Like the speculation about blood from Zimmerman's head and nose, there just isn't enough reliable information to fill in the blanks definitively.

 

[varwoche]

Really?

Because Lefty's claim that an obviously Hispanic man in a nice jacket and shirt with short hair 'looks like a banger'(#3396), and there is a '90% chance' they'll kill you (#3645), would seem 'absurd' to me.

And definitely not the 'direction' I favor.

Just saying...

Whoa. I need to stop posting until I have the time to follow the thread more closely. Sorry about that sgtbaker!

 

[crimresearch]

Whoa. I need to stop posting until I have the time to follow the thread more closely. Sorry about that sgtbaker!

And I need to stop posting and spend less time following it.

 

[RandFan]

No Actually IDK, yes (VA law) and possibly.

One of the best posts of the thread.

 

[Checkmite]

Wait, so now, Zimmerman was a fat, stalker, psycho for profiling Martin because he is black and wearing a hoodie (fair enough), therefor, Martin was justified in profiling Zimmerman and attacking him because he's got a shaved head and is hispanic which could mean he's a gang banger?

I think that's the point. You can't both claim Zimmerman had a reasonable enough suspicion to do what he did based solely on Martin's appearance and behavior, and insist that it would not have been reasonable for Martin to feel threatened based on Zimmerman's appearance and behavior.

 

[RandFan]

I think that's the point. You can't both claim Zimmerman had a reasonable enough suspicion to do what he did based solely on Martin's appearance and behavior, and insist that it would not have been reasonable for Martin to feel threatened based on Zimmerman's appearance and behavior.

Sauce for the goose.

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks,

If this case ever makes it to trial, George is going to have trouble with at least one section of the jury instructions.

If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, ​

I'm sure the prosecutor would be pointing out the obvious fact that nobody would have gotten injured that night if George had just stayed in his truck and not grabbed his gun and gone chasing after Trayvon. And I'm sure that the defense will be fighting to keep that part of the instructions from being heard by the jury, arguing that the trouble George had with Trayvon being in his neighborhood which was sufficient for George to request police response is not applicable.

Except that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman was ever unarmed, and went anywhere to 'arm himself and renew'.

The police report clearly states that he had an inside the waistband holster with the gun.

And BTW, the defense doesn't get to 'fight' to keep the judge from issuing jury instructions.

 

[crimresearch]

18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts

(b)(1)(C) is what to look at here. The US government is claiming that they could try a defendant again in federal court because it didn't like the outcome decided by a state.

They've claimed that for a long time. And they are right.