Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[curi0us]

Rounding the time down seems rather unlikely, so I suppose there might be up to 59 seconds between the end of the call and altercation. That really doesn't say much then.

Just to make it even more unhelpful there are two numbers to consider, length and start time. By standard phone billing a length would be rounded up and according to reports a T-mobile start time is rounding down. So the call probably ended at 7:16 plus or minus 59 seconds with both extremes unlikely. (ABC had a photo of the T-mobile log showing the 7:12 start time but I've never seen evidence confirming the ~4 minute call length.)

Regardless of rounding according to TM's girlfriend the call end time is exactly when the fight started when (she believes) GZ pushed TM and his headset came off.

(There may be an issue with the T-mobile clock being out of sync with the 911 clock, if there isn't the GF's version of what happened seems very problematic for her credibility. GZ told the 911 dispatcher that TM ran at 7:11:40 and it looks like the girlfriends account covers that event but if she called at 7:12 (up 7:12:59) then she didn't actually have the conversation she reported.)

 

[Freddy]

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 highly relevant who started the fight. It is true that Martin starting it is not enough, by itself, for Zimmerman's self-defense claim to be good. However, if Zimmerman started the fight, the statute explicitly places a substantial additional burden on him in making out his self-defense claim.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
​

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
​

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
​

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

If Zimmerman started the fight, the law basically imposes a duty to retreat. If Zimmerman's account (as gleaned from other sources, including the police) is true, then he would meet that burden. If Zimmerman did start the fight, then he would have the burden of showing that he tried, unsuccessfully, to disengage from the fight. Or that he could not and was being pummeled on the ground. However, even though Zimmerman's defense does not depend on Stand Your Ground if his story is true, any evidence that Zimmerman started the fight is evidence that Zimmerman is lying. If the jury decides he is lying about any material aspect of what happened, then his goose is cooked. That's why it matters who started the physical fight.

If the jury is not convinced Zimmerman started it (which legally requires more than just following, even though that was a stupid thing to do), then I don't see how there isn't at least reasonable doubt. Hence my statement earlier that it will all hinge on whether the jury believes Zimmerman's account, and thus on whether the prosecution can point to material inconsistencies in his story. The stuff in the affidavit about ignoring the advise of the dispatcher is legally irrelevant, for better or worse.

 

[crimresearch]

It is highly relevant who started the fight. It is true that Martin starting it is not enough, by itself, for Zimmerman's self-defense claim to be good. However, if Zimmerman started the fight, the statute explicitly places a substantial additional burden on him in making out his self-defense claim.


[/INDENT][/INDENT]
If Zimmerman started the fight, the law basically imposes a duty to retreat. Zimmerman would then have the burden of showing that he tried, unsuccessfully, to disengage from the fight. If the jury is instructed on this question the way I expect them to be (assuming the prosecution produces at least some evidence that Zimmerman started it), then the jury's answer to the question of who started the actual physical fight could easily end up being the difference between conviction and acquittal. Especially because if they find that Zimmerman started it, that means they decided he was not telling the truth. In that event, I expect he would be convicted. If the jury is not convinced Zimmerman started it (which legally requires more than just following, even though that was a stupid thing to do), then I don't see how there isn't at least reasonable doubt. Hence my statement earlier that it will all hinge on whether the jury believes Zimmerman's account, and thus on whether the prosecution can point to material inconsistencies in his story. The stuff in the affidavit about ignoring the advise of the dispatcher is legally irrelevant, for better or worse.

I would agree that it is going to be relevant.

But I get the feeling that others here are claiming it is dispositive, and I feel that is overstating things.

Assuming that what the media had reported even vaguely resembles what ends up in court, it doesn't look like either of them were involved in a forcible felony, but possibly in mutual combat.

Mutual *fist fight* combat.

Once a gun was added to the equation, a new line was drawn.

What reasonable person is going to claim that they wouldn't feel 'in fear' in that situation if the other party pulled out a gun?

I think that who grabbed the gun first is going to play a much larger role than who spoke the first words or threw the first punch.

 

[Freddy]

I would agree that it is going to be relevant.

But I get the feeling that others here are claiming it is dispositive, and I feel that is overstating things.

Assuming that what the media had reported even vaguely resembles what ends up in court, it doesn't look like either of them were involved in a forcible felony, but possibly in mutual combat.

Mutual *fist fight* combat.

Once a gun was added to the equation, a new line was drawn.

What reasonable person is going to claim that they wouldn't feel 'in fear' in that situation if the other party pulled out a gun?

I think that who grabbed the gun first is going to play a much larger role than who spoke the first words or threw the first punch.

Sorry, I was editing when you quoted me. See the edited post. The point isn't even about the legal rules (mostly). As I said, even if the law imposes a duty to retreat due to Zimmerman starting the fight, he would meet that burden if Martin was on top of him beating on his head, or if Martin was first to grab for Zimmerman's gun. But the point is that if the jury thinks Zimmerman is lying about how the fight started, then he'll probably be convicted. "Mutual combat" may also mean Zimmerman is lying, assuming his account really is that he was attacked while returning to his truck.

So to the extent that one possible answer to the "Who started the fight" question would entail that Zimmerman is lying, the question could be dispositve. But I agree that if it is dispositive, it would be not be due to its influence on the resolution of a question of law, but a question of fact (more precisely, a question of witness credibility).

 

[crimresearch]

I agree.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

The girlfriend says that the phone got disconnected when the fight started. The only thing that would make this make sense is the phone screen broke. I question that, as there is no mention of a broken phone.

In my experience, a dropped phone will often disconnect because the fall jogs the battery out of alignment. It doesn't take a broken screen.

 

[Dcdrac]

In my experience, a dropped phone will often disconnect because the fall jogs the battery out of alignment. It doesn't take a broken screen.

First time I have heard of a broken mobile screen ON ITS own stopping a mobile working, as mentioned other things like the battery falling out, the power button getting pressed could have done it too or the call disconnect button getting pressed

 

[Dcdrac]

Years ago I did jury service and one of the cases involed a person supposedly hitting someone with their own mobile phone, and then giving it back to the victim after they had supposedly knocked them to the floor using the victims mobile.

 

[sgtbaker]

In my experience, a dropped phone will often disconnect because the fall jogs the battery out of alignment. It doesn't take a broken screen.

It's questioning things that we won't know unless it becomes a part of the trial and pretty meaningless for me to put it out in the first place. What kind of phone does Trayvon have? I saw someone mention before that even if the phone broke, there is still the SIM card. If he has Metro PCS, I know for a fact, they don't use SIM cards, they don't have any removable memory. They do this, specifically so a new customer must buy one of their phones. Also, only the higher end (high end Metro phone is an oxymoron), can connect to the computer. If the screen breaks on a Metro PCS phone, you are SOL. We don't call it Ghetto PCS for nothing.

 

[triforcharity]

Sgtbaker is right. Most phones, including Metro PCS, Sprint, et al. don't require SIM cards anymore. Blackberry doesn't, most LG's don't, most HTC's dont, iPhones don't, there are very few that do anymore. It's beginning to be an outdated technology.

However, even with a broken phone, there are ways to get information off of the phones. Specifically with iPhones, you can connect it to a computer, and get every piece of information off of it with a program similar to iTunes.

 

[sgtbaker]

Sgtbaker is right. Most phones, including Metro PCS, Sprint, et al. don't require SIM cards anymore. Blackberry doesn't, most LG's don't, most HTC's dont, iPhones don't, there are very few that do anymore. It's beginning to be an outdated technology.

However, even with a broken phone, there are ways to get information off of the phones. Specifically with iPhones, you can connect it to a computer, and get every piece of information off of it with a program similar to iTunes.

That's why I said the type of phone is important, in this. I don't think Metro has backup assistance, like the higher ends do. Regardless, this is all relevant, only if his phone was broken. A lot of information has been leaked and released and there has been no mention of a broken phone or irretreivable information so someone just stop me from talking about it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sgtbaker is right. Most phones, including Metro PCS, Sprint, et al. don't require SIM cards anymore. Blackberry doesn't, most LG's don't, most HTC's dont, iPhones don't, there are very few that do anymore. It's beginning to be an outdated technology.

ALL gsm phones require sim cards. Including iphones, phones made by HTC, lG, etc. It is not 'beginning to be an outdated technology'.

Mumbles is the one who claimed it was an iphone, BTW. I have seen no other claims of the type of phone. If it was an iphone, that would be slightly odd, since T-Mobile doesn't sell them, it would have to be an unlocked or jailbroken iphone. Not impossible, just makes it less likely.

ETA: T-mob was the carrier, based n the screen shot here:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T42Af6trMQK

 

[Dan O.]

In my experience, a dropped phone will often disconnect because the fall jogs the battery out of alignment. It doesn't take a broken screen.

So far, we don't have any information on a dropped phone. What we have heard is a second hand report that the headset may have dropped and the line went dead. This leaves the possibility that the call did not end at the time the altercation started but only after the girlfriend hung up her end to try and call back.

Did she say that call went straight to voice mail or only that Trayvon didn't answer?

 

[sgtbaker]

ALL gsm phones require sim cards. Including iphones, phones made by HTC, lG, etc. It is not 'beginning to be an outdated technology'.

Mumbles is the one who claimed it was an iphone, BTW. I have seen no other claims of the type of phone. If it was an iphone, that would be slightly odd, since T-Mobile doesn't sell them, it would have to be an unlocked or jailbroken iphone. Not impossible, just makes it less likely.

ETA: T-mob was the carrier, based n the screen shot here:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T42Af6trMQK

CDMA does not use SIM cards. Verizon, MetroPCS, and Virgin are CDMA not GSM.

ETA ah, the bill says TMobile to TMobile. With that out of the way... thanks

 

[Dan O.]

Sgtbaker is right. Most phones, including Metro PCS, Sprint, et al. don't require SIM cards anymore. Blackberry doesn't, most LG's don't, most HTC's dont, iPhones don't, there are very few that do anymore. It's beginning to be an outdated technology.

No phone requires a sim card. But the use is limited to dialing 911 or the equivalent emergency number. iPhones and at least some blackberrys do have sim cards.

 

[sgtbaker]

So far, we don't have any information on a dropped phone. What we have heard is a second hand report that the headset may have dropped and the line went dead. This leaves the possibility that the call did not end at the time the altercation started but only after the girlfriend hung up her end to try and call back.

Did she say that call went straight to voice mail or only that Trayvon didn't answer?

I've only read that he didn't answer. His father was the one that said it went straight to voicemail when he tried to call him.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No phone requires a sim card. But the use is limited to dialing 911 or the equivalent emergency number. iPhones and at least some blackberrys do have sim cards.

Pedantic for the win

Yes, any phone can dial 911 (USA) with or without a sim card. All GSM phones require a sim card to make any other calls.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

About the girlfriend

Interesting tidbit about the GF.

On March 27, Piers Morgan interviewed Florida AG Pam Bondi.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/27/pmt.01.html

BONDI: Well, what we've done is appoint a special prosecutor. And that's what she's doing. Conducting a thorough investigation because we need to get Trayvon's girlfriend to cooperate which I don't know if was happening previously. And they may have had good reason for that. But she's cooperating now. And again, a thorough investigation is being done to ensure that justice is sought for that family.

 

[Dcdrac]

while Sprint phones do not need a sim their ids are hardcoded into them I would love to see someone try and activate a Blackberry without a simcard in it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

while Sprint phones do not need a sim their ids are hardcoded into them I would love to see someone try and activate a Blackberry without a simcard in it.

Why does it matter ? What do I win if I do it ?