Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see how it's exaggerated. He's just repeating what GZ claimed. He also said medical records at the scene will substantiate the injuries claim.

link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/30/piers-zimmerman-bro-interview.cnn

You don't think "beaten almost into unconsciousness" is a bit of an exaggeration?

Then there is this claim" "This mythology, this fantasy that he chased anyone, He didn't chase anyone... he did not follow nor did he ever catch up to ..." Zimmerman is chasing TM on the 911 tape where he's breathing hard.

I can't listen to the rest of it again. It's just one lie after another and if this is GZ's actual story, the lies make it very incriminating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Physician heal thyself."

Sgtbaker said as much: She was only referring to Lefty's post.

I am talking specifically about Lefty's claim. Not the actual case.

I know it's hard to keep up in this tediously long thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

From the link these sentences appear to apply. I don't claim they are the only ones that apply.

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: ....

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force....

...No duty to retreat. ...

... There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

...Exceptions to Presumption of Fear.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:
a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

...Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

Both defendant and victim in this case had a right to be where they were.

So the case depends on two things, 1) where one determines the altercation began, either when GZ approached TM (GZ would be the aggressor), or when one of them caused the other to feel threatened (anyone in TMs position would logically feel threatened), or, when one of them made the first physical contact (we may never know).

And 2) if it was possible for GZ to get away rather than shoot.

Despite all the "stand your ground" references, this seems to be saying in a run of the mill fight you should first try to get away. If GZ was in his home, his vehicle, or if TM had committed some felony then other jury instructions would be applicable about no duty to flee. I don't see how 'no duty to flee' applies here. But if someone feels differently I'd like to hear their reasoning.

And given GZ outweighed TM, it's going to be hard to argue how TM was going to kill GZ or how GZ couldn't have gotten away. And this is where I think all the GZ family lies are coming from. They appear to know GZ's belief he was going to be killed is GZ's only defense. And given the circumstances it's my opinion all these exaggerations of GZ's injuries only serve to discredit his claims, not support them.

 

[bookitty]

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.

If Zimmerman's jacket was zipped at the time of the shooting, the police would have opened it when they searched him. Someone who has just shot an unarmed person would be given a thorough pat-down.

 

[sgtbaker]

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.

Yes but that only works if anyone here said anything close Zimmerman having a reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon, simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. I don't think anyone made that claim.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes but that only works if anyone here said anything close Zimmerman having a reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon, simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. I don't think anyone made that claim.

I think Zimmerman made that claim. That and 'he looks like he's on drugs', which was baseless.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think Zimmerman made that claim. That and 'he looks like he's on drugs', which was baseless.

I don't think the profiling issue is even questioned, here, though.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sustained calls for help from someone that his mother thinks is Martin.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes but that only works if anyone here said anything close Zimmerman having a reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon, simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. I don't think anyone made that claim.

But it is the underlying claim being made by Zimmerman (that of Martin being suspicious, not necessarily the specifics) that seems to get conveniently ignored by the "We can't know for sure what happened" camp.

This case is being treated as if Zimmerman and Martin were both walking down the street minding their own business, when point of fact, only Martin was doing that. Zimmerman was recklessly and irresponsibly following this kid around with a gun - for no good reason.

With the information we have at this point, Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor. Which, to me, seriously undercuts his claim to self-defense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It appears to say that starting the fight doesn't necessarily cancel your self-defense claim.

But there are exceptions to that:

...Exceptions to Presumption of Fear.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:
a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

TM had as much right to be there as GZ. But those instructions define residence and dwelling as something with a roof over it or an attached porch. I can't find a reference to being in one's own yard. All the community property in that community is technically everyone's yard.

OTOH, whether GZ did have a duty to retreat or not, the jury can consider that just because someone is hitting you is not automatically assumed to be life threatening:

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

It could come back to whether or not the jury believes GZ believed. Proving what someone believed or did not believe is a heavy burden for a prosecutor.


I'm still not convinced GZ's provoking TM does not apply. It's unclear how the court distinguishes between a crime committed "under duress or necessity" as opposed to "self defense". The former takes notice of provoking the attack:

1. The defendant reasonably believed [a danger] [an emergency] existed which was not intentionally caused by [himself] [herself].

It would seem to me without going through all those instructions that there is a difference between getting in a fight and shooting the guy and chasing him down and TM defends himself which is a reasonable scenario.

 

[Xulld]

I just want to say one thing really. This thing has not played out in such a way I feel I need to put my .02 in on the actual case.

Many things a person can do may make me feel threatened. However unless they have done something which is an actual threat of force, then force is not a reasonable reaction.

Person stares at me for a long duration with a scowl -------- > I feel threatened, however no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I look funny, with no amount of humor involved ------ > I feel threatened, but no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I am going to grab you by the neck and choke you like a chicken, but does so with a silly tone, and the person is known to me to be a kidder . . . I do not feel threatened, but someone who does not know this person may believe a threat of force has been issued.

A Person advances on me quickly, then reaches into their pocket while threatening my life ------ > a verbal threat followed by a physical act to carry out that threat has been issued. The right thing to do is vocalize that the person should stop, and if he does not then I have justification for a defensive attack if the person enters an area where that threat of force is viable. Given the potential for a weapon it becomes immediately clear my life is in danger.

I am sure I have left out something, but this is the general concept behind threat of force and the force continuum.

Please any feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but this is why following in and of itself is not justification for an attack. It may be threatening, but no threat of force has been issued by action or word.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sustained calls for help from someone that his mother thinks is Martin.

Uh, you do know we are on page 97 of this thread, right?

 

[crimresearch]

I just want to say one thing really. This thing has not played out in such a way I feel I need to put my .02 in on the actual case.

Many things a person can do may make me feel threatened. However unless they have done something which is an actual threat of force, then force is not a reasonable reaction.

Person stares at me for a long duration with a scowl -------- > I feel threatened, however no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I look funny, with no amount of humor involved ------ > I feel threatened, but no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I am going to grab you by the neck and choke you like a chicken, but does so with a silly tone, and the person is known to me to be a kidder . . . I do not feel threatened, but someone who does not know this person may believe a threat of force has been issued.

A Person advances on me quickly, then reaches into their pocket while threatening my life ------ > a verbal threat followed by a physical act to carry out that threat has been issued. The right thing to do is vocalize that the person should stop, and if he does not then I have justification for a defensive attack if the person enters an area where that threat of force is viable. Given the potential for a weapon it becomes immediately clear my life is in danger.

I am sure I have left out something, but this is the general concept behind threat of force and the force continuum.

Please any feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but this is why following in and of itself is not justification for an attack. It may be threatening, but no threat of force has been issued by action or word.

Thank you for an excellent thumbnail of what the legal system refers to as the 'totality of the circumstances'.

That ties into the often discussed 'elements' of the crime, which include not only the act, but the thoughts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Zimmerman's jacket was zipped at the time of the shooting, the police would have opened it when they searched him. Someone who has just shot an unarmed person would be given a thorough pat-down.

I keep hearing about the red jacket masking blood. Dried blood is rust to dark brown, not red. You could see blood on a red jacket or shirt if there was enough of it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Uh, you do know we are on page 97 of this thread, right?

It's impossible to keep up.

It's not impossible to know what was going through Martin's mind. He was terrified and calling for help.

 

[boyntonstu]

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

 

[Xulld]

Thank you for an excellent thumbnail of what the legal system refers to as the 'totality of the circumstances'.

That ties into the often discussed 'elements' of the crime, which include not only the act, but the thoughts.

Thank you, I am a novice in regards to the law, the more I learn the more I realize how little I knew and how judgmental my previous opinions of the law where.

I appreciate the links, and the factual relevance that is presented in these kinds of threads. I hope anyone will correct anything I say which misrepresents the law so that I can correct my understanding.

 

[sgtbaker]

But it is the underlying claim being made by Zimmerman (that of Martin being suspicious, not necessarily the specifics) that seems to get conveniently ignored by the "We can't know for sure what happened" camp.

This case is being treated as if Zimmerman and Martin were both walking down the street minding their own business, when point of fact, only Martin was doing that. Zimmerman was recklessly and irresponsibly following this kid around with a gun - for no good reason.

With the information we have at this point, Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor. Which, to me, seriously undercuts his claim to self-defense.

That's not illegal. Profiling/flat out racism and following someone isn't a crime, under any law. It doesn't matter what inspired him to follow Trayvon. If (notice the if) Zimmerman's story is true, Zimmerman stopped following him and was heading back to his car, when Trayvon approached him, asked him if he had a problem, then attacked him. Again, if that story is true, then Trayvon was in the wrong, not for being black and wearing a hoodie, for confronting his follower with violence. The problem, that has been so since the beginning, is there is nothing to counter the aspects of Zimmerman's story that matter the most.

 

[crimresearch]

But it is the underlying claim being made by Zimmerman (that of Martin being suspicious, not necessarily the specifics) that seems to get conveniently ignored by the "We can't know for sure what happened" camp.

This case is being treated as if Zimmerman and Martin were both walking down the street minding their own business, when point of fact, only Martin was doing that. Zimmerman was recklessly and irresponsibly following this kid around with a gun - for no good reason.

With the information we have at this point, Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor. Which, to me, seriously undercuts his claim to self-defense.

Pretzel logic.

'We can't know' means just that. We can't know what constituted 'suspicious' in the minds of either person. Saying that is ignoring something that *you* can't possibly know either, and trying to assign those who point out the obvious to the 'pro-Zimmerman camp' is specious.
That doesn't just exclude the middle, it makes lace out of it.

We *can* point out that what Martin was doing would have been perfectly normal in our own minds (as a lot of people here keep saying, and you keep ignoring), but we have no mind reading machines or abilities that let us 'know' what another person was thinking.

The job of the prosecution will be to create a negative impression of what Zimmerman was thinking, the job of the defense will be to create a plausible alternative...

And the job of the jury will be to decide what *they* do or don't think was in the shooter's mind.

But saying 'We don't know' here and now is simply a rational assessment of reality, not some sort of 'camp'.

 

[bookitty]

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

Martin was visiting his father who lived in the gated community. Martin left the house to walk to a local store for snacks. He was carrying a bag of skittles and an ice tea when he was shot.

Your leading questions have been noted.