Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[GWCarver]

Well I think we have Grand Juries for cases like this, to take a look at what evidence is there and see if charges should be brought.

There was a Grand Jury scheduled for Zimmerman, but it was cancelled by Corey. I think she probably did that so Dee Dee couldn't be questioned.

In other forums, we have yet to figure out if the affidavit Corey signed will be part of the evidence available in the preliminary hearing, or if is just tossed and replaced with the prosecution's case elements. I'm guessing it is tossed or Corey wouldn't have signed it because I don't think she wants Dee Dee on the stand. Anyone out there know if Dee Dee can be called to testify at the preliminary hearing based on the affidavit only?

Odd that in the follow-on case after Knox, we have Crump playing the role of Maresca. At least he won't be questioning witnesses.

 

[Cylinder]

And this has what, exactly, to do with my comment about whether or not GZ's nose was broken, and if the severity of his injuries is particularly germane to the issue?

The point being that while the extent of injury is relevant there is no defining test for what extent of injury meets the statutory standard. It is very easy to contemplate two circumstances with the exact same injuries and different outcomes under the law. In fact, the law does not require injures at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

You would seriously attempt to subdue a gun weilding stalker by smothering him with your hands?

We don't know what happened. Why draw any solid conclusions?

If M tried to smother Z, and Z's nose was bleeding from a punch, it's reasonable to think there would be blood on the palm of one of M's hands, yes?

There will be evidence, in other words, to support or refute claims.

Maybe Martin simply isn't too smart, and thought he could smother Z before Z could kill him?

On TV, a person usually drops out almost immediately when you smother them.

Maybe Martin is pinning Z with his body, smothering with one hand, and trying to get the gun with the other?

Who knows? All we can do is list possibilities to explain claims, or to explain what evidence we do have.

 

[GWCarver]

The point being that while the extent of injury is relevant there is no defining test for what extent of injury meets the statutory standard. It is very easy to contemplate two circumstances with the exact same injuries and different outcomes under the law. In fact, the law does not require injures at all.

True. The law (Florida 776.012) says deadly force can be used when, "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..."

So, if the victim of an assault has already experienced great bodily harm, and has been screaming for help without any response, use of deadly force would be allowed under Florida law. I expect to see that confirmed by the court sometime in the future.

 

[LTC8K6]

There was a Grand Jury scheduled for Zimmerman, but it was cancelled by Corey. I think she probably did that so Dee Dee couldn't be questioned.

In other forums, we have yet to figure out if the affidavit Corey signed will be part of the evidence available in the preliminary hearing, or if is just tossed and replaced with the prosecution's case elements. I'm guessing it is tossed or Corey wouldn't have signed it because I don't think she wants Dee Dee on the stand. Anyone out there know if Dee Dee can be called to testify at the preliminary hearing based on the affidavit only?

Odd that in the follow-on case after Knox, we have Crump playing the role of Maresca. At least he won't be questioning witnesses.

In NC, the prosecutor simply wouldn't present DeeDee to the GJ. In NC the prosecution has total control over the GJ and what goes before it. They can present only one side of the case if they wish. There are no records kept of what happened with the GJ in NC, so you would never know that they did not present an important witness.

 

[crimresearch]

There was a Grand Jury scheduled for Zimmerman, but it was cancelled by Corey. I think she probably did that so Dee Dee couldn't be questioned.

In other forums, we have yet to figure out if the affidavit Corey signed will be part of the evidence available in the preliminary hearing, or if is just tossed and replaced with the prosecution's case elements. I'm guessing it is tossed or Corey wouldn't have signed it because I don't think she wants Dee Dee on the stand. Anyone out there know if Dee Dee can be called to testify at the preliminary hearing based on the affidavit only?

Odd that in the follow-on case after Knox, we have Crump playing the role of Maresca. At least he won't be questioning witnesses.

This affidavit?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/interacti...vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

Where is Corey's signature?
It is the investigator's statement of probable cause. Unless someone comes up with solid proof that something in there was deliberately fabricated, it isn't going anywhere, and any inconsistencies in it aren't going to be a big deal at trial. All it has to do is meet the 'any information, set of ... etc' hurdle.


The only affidavit signed by a prosecutor (under Corey) that I've seen, is a very short listing of the charges, also cut and dried.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88952000/George-Zimmerman-Information-Document

And it isn't getting 'tossed out' either.


Does anyone have a link to the so-called 4 page 'prosecutor's affadavit' that is purportedly signed by Corey and supposedly such horrible lawyering?

 

[Dan O.]

The point being that while the extent of injury is relevant there is no defining test for what extent of injury meets the statutory standard. It is very easy to contemplate two circumstances with the exact same injuries and different outcomes under the law. In fact, the law does not require injures at all.

I would say that the extent of injury is not relavent

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force [highlight]is necessary to prevent[/highlight] imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or​

...

 

[crimresearch]

True. The law (Florida 776.012) says deadly force can be used when, "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..."

So, if the victim of an assault has already experienced great bodily harm, and has been screaming for help without any response, use of deadly force would be allowed under Florida law. I expect to see that confirmed by the court sometime in the future.

As does the law in every state, pursuant to the landmark US Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Note that the injuries Zimmerman apparently sustained would not trigger that, which is why his claim to self defense rests on 'Martin grabbed for my gun'.

 

[quadraginta]

We are discussing the Trayvon martin case, I think.

The law is what it is, as are the jury instructions. They are available online.

What posters here have argued is what is of little relevance.

The law leaves room, even for an instigator, to legally use deadly force.

Okay. So the law "leaves room", which isn't the same as 'always'. But that's fine. I understand that, and I don't need your repeated instruction about it. I didn't to start with, and your belaboring of the point does not improve anything.

But that is neither here nor there. I can see that the topic is important to you, since you continue to insist on making it, but you haven't yet explained why you insist on continuing to make it to me, since, for one thing, I am not disagreeing with you in the first place, and for another, it is utterly irrelevant to my comment about the importance of the severity of GZ's wounds. A topic you have eerily failed to address at all, in spite of the fact that I keep pointing out it is the only one I made.

You have every right to discuss anything you like. I'm just wondering why you continue to cast your responses as if you are correcting me in some fashion when not only am I not disagreeing with you, but as nearly as I can determine we aren't even talking about the same thing.

 

[LTC8K6]

As does the law in every state, pursuant to the landmark US Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Note that the injuries Zimmerman apparently sustained would not trigger that, which is why his claim to self defense rests on 'Martin grabbed for my gun'.

That second line is far from resolved, imo.

 

[crimresearch]

That second line is far from resolved, imo.

Absolutely... some of what has been discussed so far will be relevant in tainting Zimmerman's overall credibility, because his defense rests solely on his word as to what happened in the last few seconds.

 

[quadraginta]

The point being that while the extent of injury is relevant there is no defining test for what extent of injury meets the statutory standard. It is very easy to contemplate two circumstances with the exact same injuries and different outcomes under the law. In fact, the law does not require injures at all.

You know, no matter how many times I try to parse those sentences they seem to keep coming out, "The extent of injury is relevant .. except ... in fact and under the law it isn't."

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay. So the law "leaves room", which isn't the same as 'always'. But that's fine. I understand that, and I don't need your repeated instruction about it. I didn't to start with, and your belaboring of the point does not improve anything.

But that is neither here nor there. I can see that the topic is important to you, since you continue to insist on making it, but you haven't yet explained why you insist on continuing to make it to me, since, for one thing, I am not disagreeing with you in the first place, and for another, it is utterly irrelevant to my comment about the importance of the severity of GZ's wounds. A topic you have eerily failed to address at all, in spite of the fact that I keep pointing out it is the only one I made.

You have every right to discuss anything you like. I'm just wondering why you continue to cast your responses as if you are correcting me in some fashion when not only am I not disagreeing with you, but as nearly as I can determine we aren't even talking about the same thing.

I think you need to chill out and stop taking things so seriously. This is just a meaningless discussion board on the internet. Nothing serious is going on here.

May I introduce you to this board's "ignore" feature?

You can ignore me if my posts irritate you. You can even ignore a whole thread. I had this thread on ignore for quite a while and have only recently come back to it when new info was released.

 

[crimresearch]

You know, no matter how many times I try to parse those sentences they seem to keep coming out, "The extent of injury is relevant .. except ... in fact and under the law it isn't."

Maybe I'm missing something.

The injuries that Zimmerman sustained in this case are irrelevant to the core question of self defense.

In a different case, a more severe set of injuries could be very important.

The claim that Martin grabbed for a gun overshadows broken noses and head lacerations.

 

[LTC8K6]

Absolutely... some of what has been discussed so far will be relevant in tainting Zimmerman's overall credibility, because his defense rests solely on his word as to what happened in the last few seconds.

Well, John should help him out. John saw Martin on top and heard Z screaming to him for help. John is likely the photographer of the back of Z's head and maybe of his bloody nose as well.

I think John knows what happened, and that's why he photographed Z's injuries.

But that is mostly speculation, of course.

 

[quadraginta]

The injuries that Zimmerman sustained in this case are irrelevant to the core question of self defense.

In a different case, a more severe set of injuries could be very important.

The claim that Martin grabbed for a gun overshadows broken noses and head lacerations.

I may have made the mistake of assuming that my repeated use of the phrase "GZ's injuries" adequately established that I was referring to this case.

If so, I apologize for the confusion.

 

[LTC8K6]

The injuries that Zimmerman sustained in this case are irrelevant to the core question of self defense.

In a different case, a more severe set of injuries could be very important.

The claim that Martin grabbed for a gun overshadows broken noses and head lacerations.

But we can see the injuries. We can't tell if Martin tried to get the gun.

 

[LTC8K6]

If Z's truck was videotaped where it was parked, it would seem like we could pinpoint it's position in the complex.

 

[Cylinder]

You know, no matter how many times I try to parse those sentences they seem to keep coming out, "The extent of injury is relevant .. except ... in fact and under the law it isn't."

Maybe I'm missing something.

There is no set standard other that of possessing reasonable fear. It's always relevant. It's not neccessary per se - but it is relevant.

That was the point of the example I used earlier. The same two levels of force could have very different outcomes once placed in context.

 

[crimresearch]

I may have made the mistake of assuming that my repeated use of the phrase "GZ's injuries" adequately established that I was referring to this case.

If so, I apologize for the confusion.

In this case, GZ losing a fist fight would be a very weak self defense claim.

He could try something like 'I was afraid that after he knocked me out, he would find my gun and shoot me while I was helpless', but the 'he grabbed my gun' is much stronger.

By themselves, the nose and the back of the head don't reach the threshold for 'fear for my life...'.