Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Again, that Probable Cause statement from the detectives is nothing more than a collection of what they've found out or been told up to that point.

It isn't a contract, or an ICR, it isn't the results of an investigation, it isn't the prosecutor's affidavit of 2nd degree murder charges, it isn't even testimony or evidence at this point.

Finding 'inconsistencies' in it, or basing conjecture on it, is meaningless.

Um yes, you keep saying that . Which is why I said just a few posts up "It's already been discussed that the affidavit doesn't have to even pretend to be even-handed."

And yes it may be meaningless from a legal standpoint, but that still doesn't mean I have to respect the way in which in was written. I expected something more professional on a case which the entire world is watching closely.

 

[crimresearch]

Um yes, you keep saying that . Which is why I said just a few posts up "It's already been discussed that the affidavit doesn't have to even pretend to be even-handed."

And yes it may be meaningless from a legal standpoint, but that still doesn't mean I have to respect the way in which in was written. I expected something more professional on a case which the entire world is watching closely.

No offense, but reading through a stack of PC statements would probably give you the idea that there was nothing so unprofessional about this one.

 

[Noztradamus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

Here is the complete, unedited phone call. Can you tell me what minute and second the dispatcher tells Zimmerman to wait for the officer? The only time I hear the dispatcher say an officer is on the way is right before he says, let me know if he does anything else.

19:12:39 Dispatcher: Okay, just let me know if he does anything okay…
19:12:40 Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
19:12:41 Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got ‘em on the way - just let me know if this guy does anything else.
19:12:46 Zimmerman: Okay.

When it goes to trial the prosecutor can argue that Z's "Okay" is explict agreement to the contract that Z will wait "here", ie in the seat of his truck, until the police arrive.

The defence can argue that "just let me know if this guy does anything else" is implict approval to vary the contract if George feels like acting Javert.

As his defence is dependent on portaying him as implusive and reckless, I don't like his chances.

 

[Travis]

I'm not really sure the exchange with the dispatcher is that important. Oh it might be a bit of a window into his mind but not much of one. If we are going to go that route I'd like to know why he thought Martin was on drugs.

 

[Freddy]

19:12:39 Dispatcher: Okay, just let me know if he does anything okay…
19:12:40 Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
19:12:41 Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got ‘em on the way - just let me know if this guy does anything else.
19:12:46 Zimmerman: Okay.

When it goes to trial the prosecutor can argue that Z's "Okay" is explict agreement to the contract that Z will wait "here", ie in the seat of his truck, until the police arrive.

The defence can argue that "just let me know if this guy does anything else" is implict approval to vary the contract if George feels like acting Javert.

As his defence is dependent on portaying him as implusive and reckless, I don't like his chances.

Contract? The dispatcher's advice is not legally binding, even if in the form of an imperative.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter much what the dispatcher told Zimmerman to do. If Martin initiated the struggle (as Zimmerman claims), then Zimmerman has a good self-defense claim even if the dispatcher had explicitly and forcefully told Zimmerman to stay in the car. And if Zimmerman is lying and he started the fight, it wouldn't matter if the dispatcher had explicitly told him to follow Martin.

The prosecution cannot win by discrediting Zimmerman's judgment. They must discredit his honesty. Because unless he is lying, he is not guilty of a crime under Florida law.

 

[lionking]

Contract? The dispatcher's advice is not legally binding, even if in the form of an imperative.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter much what the dispatcher told Zimmerman to do. If Martin initiated the struggle (as Zimmerman claims), then Zimmerman has a good self-defense claim even if the dispatcher had explicitly and forcefully told Zimmerman to stay in the car. And if Zimmerman is lying and he started the fight, it wouldn't matter if the dispatcher had explicitly told him to follow Martin.

The prosecution cannot win by discrediting Zimmerman's judgment. They must discredit his honesty. Because unless he is lying, he is not guilty of a crime under Florida law.

I simply don't understand how who started the altercation has any relevance at all (Phantom Wolf has said this often as well). Are people saying that if Martin took a swing at Zimmerman, Z was justified in killing him? Crap. Not that simple at all.

 

[Freddy]

I simply don't understand how who started the altercation has any relevance at all (Phantom Wolf has said this often as well). Are people saying that if Martin took a swing at Zimmerman, Z was justified in killing him? Crap. Not that simple at all.

Well, it would require more than just that Martin took the first swing; he would also have to have gained the upper hand. The point is that if you're being beaten, you don't have to assume that your opponent will stop before you are seriously injured or dead. But if you started the fight, that limits your right to lethal self-defense. So it matters who started the fight.

Self-defense rights are also limited if you are doing something unlawful. But disregarding the advice of a 9-1-1 dispatcher is not unlawful, and therefore does not limit Zimmerman's right to self-defense. So it all hinges on whether Zimmerman is telling the truth. The fact that he disregarded the dispatcher's advice does not affect his legal defense.

 

[curi0us]

Do you have any info on whether or not GZ was an MMA fighter?

And, I just let my husband cover my mouth and nose with his hand, pretty firmly, and I was able to manipulate it to the point I could bite the side of his hand, below the little finger. Using no hands, which I assume GZ had at the time of the shooting.

Heh, no fair you two proved me wrong by using an improper grip.

(You don't need your husband to test this.) Just cover your mouth with your palm and pinch your nostrils shut with your thumb and the edge of your index finger. The lower base of your palm should be close to resting on your chin with your nose naturally being in the space between your thumb and index finger. The thumb and finger squeezing the nose shut doesn't just block off the airway, it's also a grip for control that keeps the hand in position. As long as the hand is in that position there is no way to successfully bite it.

I don't know anything about GZ having any martial arts training (I am guessing not) but I mentioned MMA because it seems like a good realm for studying what fights and the injuries that go with them are like. It's obviously not a perfect match for a street fight between two amateurs but it's better then nothing.

 

[lionking]

Well, it would require more than just that Martin took the first swing; he would also have to have gained the upper hand.

People here aren't saying that though. Phantom Wolf in particular has been saying it all depends on who started the fight. This is irrelevent.

 

[curi0us]

People here aren't saying that though. Phantom Wolf in particular has been saying it all depends on who started the fight. This is irrelevent.

What's your real issue here Lionking?

Phantom Wolf's last post was seven pages ago and your argument that who started the fight is "irrelevant" is blatantly wrong. Both the innocent and guilty positions agree who started the fight is relevant.

Phantom Wolf has also not taken the position you described as being that "it all depends on who started the fight." That's a blatant strawman.

 

[Dancing David]

Not sure if serious. Sarcasm is hard to spot in print.

You won't be able to find out what really happened here. The trial will have more data points and be a likely place.

 

[Dancing David]

People here aren't saying that though. Phantom Wolf in particular has been saying it all depends on who started the fight. This is irrelevent.

It is a very complex situation, and involves very complex legal issues. Some of which will depends upon written law, some of which will depends upon interpreting case law.

So much will come of

-would a reasonable person have gotten out of the car and followed
-would a reasonable person have felt threatened by being followed
-would a reasonable person have responded to a perceived threat with violence (either party)
(parse and slice as fine as desired)

Then there will be the maze of written law and precedent.

 

[Dancing David]

What's your real issue here Lionking?

Phantom Wolf's last post was seven pages ago and your argument that who started the fight is "irrelevant" is blatantly wrong. Both the innocent and guilty positions agree who started the fight is relevant.

Phantom Wolf has also not taken the position you described as being that "it all depends on who started the fight." That's a blatant strawman.

No, who started the physical altercation mattering depends very much on perceived threats and perceived danger.

It could be that the jury will be instructed to look at only who threw the first punch.
It could be that the jury will be instructed to look at perceived threatening behavior and danger.

It is sometimes considered to view starting a fight as a legal response to situation of perceived threat.

Phnatons Wolfs statements were rather blanket assertions and had no subtlety to express the complexity of the situation.

If TM threw the first punch is not going to be the sole determinant, it will depends very much on the context.

"Unless he actually was attacked at which point he is legally entitled to defend himself regardless of how dumb his decisions up to then have been."

Actually and possible dumb choices that led up to a physical altercation can have a very strong bearing on a self defense argument. If the party that received the first blow is regarded as having created a situation where the other party would have reasonably felt threatened and the law states that a physical response is warranted, then no the person who made the dumb choice does not always have a legal right to defend themselves.

 

[crimresearch]

Well, it would require more than just that Martin took the first swing; he would also have to have gained the upper hand. The point is that if you're being beaten, you don't have to assume that your opponent will stop before you are seriously injured or dead. But if you started the fight, that limits your right to lethal self-defense. So it matters who started the fight.

Self-defense rights are also limited if you are doing something unlawful. But disregarding the advice of a 9-1-1 dispatcher is not unlawful, and therefore does not limit Zimmerman's right to self-defense. So it all hinges on whether Zimmerman is telling the truth. The fact that he disregarded the dispatcher's advice does not affect his legal defense.

Yep.

And of course Zimmerman's claim is not only that Martin started the fight by assaulting him, but that Martin was the one who tried to initiate the use of deadly force by grabbing a gun... in this case Zimmerman's own gun.

That covers the bases so well, it almost sounds like something someone would say if they had been rehearsed... or like something a person would say if it actually happened.

And there simply isn't enough out there right now to know either way.

 

[crimresearch]

No, who started the physical altercation mattering depends very much on perceived threats and perceived danger.

It could be that the jury will be instructed to look at only who threw the first punch.
It could be that the jury will be instructed to look at perceived threatening behavior and danger.

It is sometimes considered to view starting a fight as a legal response to situation of perceived threat.

Phnatons Wolfs statements were rather blanket assertions and had no subtlety to express the complexity of the situation.

If TM threw the first punch is not going to be the sole determinant, it will depends very much on the context.

"Unless he actually was attacked at which point he is legally entitled to defend himself regardless of how dumb his decisions up to then have been."

Actually and possible dumb choices that led up to a physical altercation can have a very strong bearing on a self defense argument. If the party that received the first blow is regarded as having created a situation where the other party would have reasonably felt threatened and the law states that a physical response is warranted, then no the person who made the dumb choice does not always have a legal right to defend themselves.

I can't see any judge instructing the jury to ignore the elements of self defense and only look at who threw the first punch.

Nor can I imagine them saying (in the context of this case) that a person's dumb decisions earlier in the evening strip them of the right to defend their own life later.

Would you be so kind as to give a cite?

 

[Mumbles]

Do you ever watch any MMA? A person with a broken nose and much worse can still offer a lot of resistance for an extended period of time.

The over the mouth/nose trick is a real MMA technique used in ground fighting when one guy is on the top of the other and is usually mixed in with punches. It's an intuitive move that disrupts a persons breathing and it is easy to imagine how in a mugging like situation an attacker might use it also to try to muffle a persons screams.

An interesting detail is that I suspect you can actually hear some muffled screams in the 911 audio. Some yells are very loud and others are much quieter, it's possible the volume variation is due to TM sometimes having GZ mouth covered.

Now is also a good time to point out the ridiculousness of Mumbles declaration that if TM had covered GZ's mouth with his hand then TM hands should have bite marks. Just put your own hand over your mouth and try to bite it to see how easy it is.

It's really amazing the sort of athleticism that some folks want to ascribe to Martin, considering that he was just some teenager walking down the street. He can dash across footballs fields in seconds, he has the fighting prowess of an MMA champ, he can sink into the smallest shadow and lie in wait silently. It's a wonder Zimmerman survived at all - I'd assume that Martin would have thrown a house at him.

And by the way, yes, it's actually pretty easy to bite someone in a street fight, if they actively stick their hand on your mouth.

As I've said, we don't have Zimmerman's actual account. We have a bunch of second-had reports, featuring all sorts of improbable behavior, ridiculous dialogue, and assertions that are contradicted by the evidence. It's best to give Zimmerman his day in court, and not rush off from the nonsense that his alleged supporters are spouting.

 

[sgtbaker]

I simply don't understand how who started the altercation has any relevance at all (Phantom Wolf has said this often as well). Are people saying that if Martin took a swing at Zimmerman, Z was justified in killing him? Crap. Not that simple at all.

It's not simply who started the fight, though.

In one scenerio, Zimmerman is following Trayvon and Trayvon is walking/running away. If that is the case than Zimmerman is not "defending" himself from Trayvon because Trayvon is not posing a threat by fleeing. In that scenerio, even if Trayvon threw the first punch, it would be Trayvon acting in self defense as Zimmerman's actions can be considered threatening.

In the other scenerio, Zimmerman did get out of the truck to follow but did decide to go back to the truck. In that scenerio, even if Zimmerman was at one point, a threat, his is no longer a threat because he now fleeing Trayvon. Trayvon now becomes the threat, following Zimmerman. Now, if Trayvon throws the first punch, after approaching a fleeing individual, it is assault and Zimmerman is defending himself.

There are, of course, other factors. I believe the prosecution is going with Zimmerman pursuing Martin and starting the fight, with Martin being the one screaming for help, and Zimmerman pulls out his gun and shoots. If that were the case, then it is clearly 2nd degree murder.

If they can only convince the jury that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin and it is unclear who started the fight but the end result was that Zimmerman shot Martin, it's one of the manslaughters (I forget which one), because Zimmerman, regardless of his intent, caused a wrongful death.

 

[sgtbaker]

Robert (?) Zimmerman, George's brother, said that on Pierce Morgan's show on HLN. I was flabbergasted to say the least.

Yeah, that was the same story that the detective that wanted to file charges (I forget his name) told Tracy Martin, the morning after Trayvon was killed, but that was not in the version of events the police gave in their statement.

 

[Dancing David]

I can't see any judge instructing the jury to ignore the elements of self defense and only look at who threw the first punch.

Nor can I imagine them saying (in the context of this case) that a person's dumb decisions earlier in the evening strip them of the right to defend their own life later.

Would you be so kind as to give a cite?

Thats not what I said

"who made the dumb choice does not always have a legal right to defend themselves"

as in the they provoked the fight and then ended up killing the other.

I made no blanket statements, it could go either way.

 

[RandFan]

The prosecution cannot win by discrediting Zimmerman's judgment. They must discredit his honesty. Because unless he is lying, he is not guilty of a crime under Florida law.

I'm honestly not sure. I hope that is wrong but many people seem to think that under Florida law SYG makes it likely. I don't think there should be laws that give a pass for negligence.