Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheGoldcountry]

Uhm, perhaps for shooting people?

That fact is conveniently forgotten by some, unfortunately.

 

[Kestrel]

Actually, I'd consider his actions egregious even if he didn't have a gun at all. Who on earth gets out of their car to chase someone that they find "suspicious", based on their walking down the street and looking around?

George didn't have a rational reason to be suspicious of Martin. He called the cops because Martin fit George's stereotype of a burlar. He was young, black, male and on foot. That was enough for George to decide that Martin was an *******. George ran after Martin because he didn't want this ******* to get away like all the others.

 

[johnny karate]

Sorry, didn't intend to come over as patronizing or anything.

Not at all.

I think putting his testimony under stress is reasonable, but if it does not crack under that or other evidence puts dents in it there is not much else to be done than taking it as it is. Because else we might end up putting Zimmerman in prison for what exactly?

Well, killing Trayvon Martin. Which he's already admitted to.

I agree that following Martin on foot instead of waiting for the police was somewhat reckless. As I said, this with carrying a weapon actually makes me feel he is responsible for what happened on a gut instinct.
But I also feel uncomfortable with the possibility him going to prison after he changed his mind and aborted his pursuit.
I feel quite in a bind as to what to make of this case.

I certainly respect your point of view, and want to make it clear that I'm not 100% convinced of Zimmerman's guilt myself. Nor am I demanding his head on a pike. I am willing to change my mind if and when more evidence comes in.

But... Zimmerman does admit to killing Martin. For me, the burden of proof then shifts to him to prove he did it in self-defense. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that he did.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Let me clarify- Zimmerman might be 100% correct with his testimony of events- I hope he is- but I think a dead boy requires investigation.

 

[rwguinn]

Let me clarify- Zimmerman might be 100% correct with his testimony of events- I hope he is- but I think a dead boy requires investigation.

And an investigation is ongoing.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

George didn't have a rational reason to be suspicious of Martin. He called the cops because Martin fit George's stereotype of a burlar. He was young, black, male and on foot. That was enough for George to decide that Martin was an *******. George ran after Martin because he didn't want this ******* to get away like all the others.

I and many others understand your frustration. None of us can read minds. Don't attribute motives to a man who hasn't admitted to things you are accusing him of.

 

[johnny karate]

With Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, Zimmerman is immune unless the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman was either the aggressor or did not hold a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Immune is clearly defined by the law: he cannot be arrested, detained or even charged with a crime related to the shooting. The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman. It's on the State.

In Florida, a trial jury does have to accept a prima facie claim of justification unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be untrue or unlawful.

I will certainly admit to ignorance as to how this will play out in a court of law, but it seems to me the fact that Zimmerman initially pursued Martin with a gun adds a wrinkle to this case. Based on that, I could see a scenario in which Zimmerman is shown to be the aggressor.

 

[Moss]

Let me clarify- Zimmerman might be 100% correct with his testimony of events- I hope he is- but I think a dead boy requires investigation.

Not trying to squabble with you but a shooting incident with someone dying needs investigation no matter what the age of the person shot is. Which is a pedantic way of saying I agree.

 

[Dancing David]

That being said: I'm quite aware that I am actually biased...

I am biased because my son is 17. He walks slowly while talking on his cell phone to his gf, he wear hoodies.

I am torqued that a young man apparently not committing any crime ends up getting shot.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I will certainly admit to ignorance as to how this will play out in a court of law, but it seems to me the fact that Zimmerman initially pursued Martin with a gun adds a wrinkle to this case. Based on that, I could see a scenario in which Zimmerman is shown to be the aggressor.[/QUOTE

Zimmerman will see his day in court. Is that enough, or do people really want to see him being killed?

 

[Kestrel]

I and many others understand your frustration. None of us can read minds. Don't attribute motives to a man who hasn't admitted to things you are accusing him of.

George's comment that "these ******** always get away" just before he ran after Trayvon gives some real insight into how George thinks. So does George's history of calling the cops to report young black male pedestrians as suspicious. George hasn't seen Trayvon commit any criminal act, nor any act that a rational person would find suspicious. Trayvon wasn't testing doors to see if they were locked or peering into windows, or carrying a crowbar in his hands. He was just a young, black male walking in George's neighborhood.

 

[Dancing David]

Probably the culture of "innocent until proven guilty" that pervades the mind of many fair-minded people.

yes and no, there is a medium size bar in a self defense claim. That will predominate at the trial, if there is one.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I am biased because my son is 17. He walks slowly while talking on his cell phone to his gf, he wear hoodies.

I am torqued that a young man apparently not committing any crime ends up getting shot.

I think most people here share your emotions. I know I do. But if Zimmerman is telling the truth, he deserves his day in court. He killed another human being. I doubt he's dismissed that.

 

[Dancing David]

Err, you do realize that something is going wrong when an innocent gets convicted because he was unable to verify this innocence via physical evidence or third party testimony?

There will a whole lot more than the verbal testimony of GZ, there will be the powder burns and other powder marks on his and the body of Trayvon. There will be the entry wound and path of the bullet. There will be the coroner's (not the mortician's) examination of Trayvon's body. There will be the police report of the state of GZ's wounds and clothing, and the same for TM body and clothing, there will be the forensic exam of GZ's clothes, and Trayvon's clothes and the crime scene. there will be discussing of the shoes and the material contained therein, there will be a discussion of the jackets and the pants. Discovery and evidence may require a painful process of determining what is grass stains, blood and mud and what is not. There will be a protracted discussion of where on whose body any evidence occurs.

I can guarantee that there will be a painfully dull going over of the position of the vehicle, the position of GZ and the alleged position of Trayvon, that will go on for a day or two. With pictures and diagrams, and then another day of expert testimony as to all those variables.

That is before we even enter the morass of witness statements, phone calls, positions, fields of visions, states of mind and reliability.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I think many people (myself included) are getting swept away by their emotions. I know that I'm angry about Trayvon, because I have a young nephew whom I care about deeply. One thing we need to recognize, is the system is working. Zimmerman is going to have his day in court.

 

[Moss]

There will a whole lot more than the verbal testimony of GZ, there will be the powder burns and other powder marks on his and the body of Trayvon. There will be the entry wound and path of the bullet. There will be the coroner's (not the mortician's) examination of Trayvon's body. There will be the police report of the state of GZ's wounds and clothing, and the same for TM body and clothing, there will be the forensic exam of GZ's clothes, and Trayvon's clothes and the crime scene. there will be discussing of the shoes and the material contained therein, there will be a discussion of the jackets and the pants. Discovery and evidence may require a painful process of determining what is grass stains, blood and mud and what is not. There will be a protracted discussion of where on whose body any evidence occurs.

I can guarantee that there will be a painfully dull going over of the position of the vehicle, the position of GZ and the alleged position of Trayvon, that will go on for a day or two. With pictures and diagrams, and then another day of expert testimony as to all those variables.

That is before we even enter the morass of witness statements, phone calls, positions, fields of visions, states of mind and reliability.

I hope it happens that way. Because anything else leaves a lot more doubt.
I freely admit that I got carried away on the "how do you prove your innocence in self defense" tangent. Sorry about that. I lost sight of what else is there because I went from just what is reported. Which is assuredly less than what LE and the prosecution has.

 

[crimresearch]

Are you as confused about the difference between a positive and negative claim as Newton's Bit appears to be?

Zimmerman isn't saying "I didn't do it". If so, then yes, the evidence would have to prove otherwise.

Zimmerman is saying "I did it out of self-defense". That is a positive claim. It requires substantiation.

Fallacies abound.

He is saying 2 things, one of them is 'I pulled the trigger'... that is an affirmative statment about the act.

He is also saying 'I did not commit a murder'.

Anyone making the more extreme assertion that he met the physical and mental requirements that the law spells out for murder, and that he did not meet the justification conferred by self defense, needs to be backing those assertions up with some proof...

And 'he had a gun' is insufficient. So are some of the other things suggested in this thread. All piled together, they might tip the scales one way or the other, but they aren't proof.


That applies either logically or legally.

 

[crimresearch]

With Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, Zimmerman is immune unless the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman was either the aggressor or did not hold a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Immune is clearly defined by the law: he cannot be arrested, detained or even charged with a crime related to the shooting. The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman. It's on the State.

Edit: reading a little further, Florida allows the aggressor to use deadly force if the aggressor has exhausted every means of escape. If Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him is true, then he was legally allowed to shoot Martin. This, however, is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman would have to prove that fact in court.

Please try to keep up. These have been debunked repeatedly over the last few thousand posts.

 

[johnny karate]

Fallacies abound.

He is saying 2 things, one of them is 'I pulled the trigger'... that is an affirmative statment about the act.

He is also saying 'I did not commit a murder'.

Anyone making the more extreme assertion that he met the physical and mental requirements that the law spells out for murder, and that he did not meet the justification conferred by self defense, needs to be backing those assertions up with some proof...

And 'he had a gun' is insufficient. So are some of the other things suggested in this thread. All piled together, they might tip the scales one way or the other, but they aren't proof.


That applies either logically or legally.

I was speaking strictly in terms of personal belief.

Zimmerman admits to killing Martin.

Zimmerman claims it was in self-defense.

That is a positive claim that requires substantiation.

My logic is sound.

 

[crimresearch]

When I referred to the "same benefit of the doubt", I was referring specifically to taking Zimmerman's account at face value. In a murder trial, the state must of course prove their case, but no one is required to automatically believe the suspect's version of events. Particularly in cases of affirmative defense.

Jurors are instructed as to the presumption of innocence, and who has what burden of proof. They aren't required to follow it... which can also be grounds for a mistrial or an appeal.