Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[quadraginta]

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.

It isn't a matter of taking anything too seriously. I am honestly puzzled why your responses to my posts, even after I have taken pains to clarify the situation, continued to address something that I was not talking about at all, much less taking issue with.

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

No need. I know it. Don't use it. My skill with the scroll wheel has always sufficed.

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.

Good for you. I'm not irritated, I am curious. Your adamant persistence in belaboring a point I wasn't addressing to begin with, and ignoring the one I did make has piqued my interest. It doesn't seem like a rhetorical technique which bodes well for cogent discussion.

Telling me to "chill out" and put you on ignore doesn't further that end either.

 

[GWCarver]

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'.

Zimmerman didn't need to sustain injuries to trigger it. He just needed to "fear great bodily harm," and having already sustained it, IMO, he certainly would have reason to fear more of the same, or worse. So, his defense does not rest on his claim that Martin was grabbing for his gun. He has been quoted as saying Martin's last words were, "OK, you got it", stated twice. Although that sounds convenient, if accepted by the court or a jury, it could be seen as an acknowledgement by TM that he lost the fight for the gun.

I think Zimmerman's case would be stronger without those last words.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

Right now, I'm putting John in the same category as the '911 call from Trayvon Martin', 'surveillance videos' and so forth... if and when they appear in verifiable form, then things could change.

 

[crimresearch]

Zimmerman didn't need to sustain injuries to trigger it. He just needed to "fear great bodily harm," and having already sustained it, IMO, he certainly would have reason to fear more of the same, or worse. So, his defense does not rest on his claim that Martin was grabbing for his gun. He has been quoted as saying Martin's last words were, "OK, you got it", stated twice. Although that sounds convenient, if accepted by the court or a jury, it could be seen as an acknowledgement by TM that he lost the fight for the gun.

I think Zimmerman's case would be stronger without those last words.

None of that makes the least bit of sense. Parts of it repeat what I said, and other parts flatly contradict the law.

For the purpose of using deadly force in this case, a bloody/broken nose, and low level scalp injuries *by themselves* do not justify shooting someone.

This has been explained over and over, complete with links to the legal factors.

 

[Dan O.]

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

[qimg]http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimmtruck.jpg[/qimg]

I had pointed out some time ago that the same grey truck was parked on that corner in the google maps view. But I have discounted that as being George's truck since it is still there the next day after George had been walked through the scene and released.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/22/54738/3187

How will Corey get around John?

I did address that post. You have one witness claiming to have seen who was the aggressor based on clothing. We know how eye witness testimony isn't perfect.
You have another witness who saw a man straddling the dead person lying on the ground. You don't straddle a downed person you kneel beside them.

Weighing which of those two accounts is more reliable the second one is. Clothing to ID which person is which is less reliable than one person straddling a body. Clearly the second witness wasn't mistaking who was who.

By having a jury composed of people that believe one witness over the other for no apparent reason.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

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...'.

So, are you both saying that the severity (or lack thereof) of GZ's wounds is going to be a relevant factor in determining his culpability?

(Whoops! Almost forgot.

... in this case.

Gotta make sure to cross all the "i's" and dot all the "t's" around here. )

 

[GWCarver]

This affidavit?



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.



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?

Thank you for your response. I think you have answered my question. Corey read the probable cause affidavit at her press conference, which has her letterhead, but is signed by a couple of Sanford investigators. The charging document has her name at the bottom, but is signed by Bernardo de la Rionda. So, she didn't sign either of these documents. My apologies for indicating otherwise. I will post links when I can.

Because you say "it isn't getting tossed out", does that mean you think the probable cause affidavit will be entered into evidence at the preliminary hearing? I'm trying to figure out if that statement will be in evidence so the defense can get her in to testify. They might just be able to subpoena her, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

 

[Cylinder]

So, are you both saying that the severity (or lack thereof) of GZ's wounds is going to be a relevant factor in determining his culpability?

The severity of the wounds will be crucial for both sides to establish. The less severe the wounds, the more other factors come in to play. The more severe the wounds, the less other factors come in to play.

 

[crimresearch]

So, are you both saying that the severity (or lack thereof) of GZ's wounds is going to be a relevant factor in determining his culpability?

(Whoops! Almost forgot.

... in this case.

Gotta make sure to cross all the "i's" and dot all the "t's" around here. )

I'm saying that I think convincing a jury that Martin grabbed for a gun is going to be the critical factor.

Injuries may be brought in, but not as make or break evidence. They can establish a reason to believe GZ's whole narrative, but by themselves, they don't establish 'fear for my life'.

 

[GWCarver]

None of that makes the least bit of sense. Parts of it repeat what I said, and other parts flatly contradict the law.

For the purpose of using deadly force in this case, a bloody/broken nose, and low level scalp injuries *by themselves* do not justify shooting someone.

This has been explained over and over, complete with links to the legal factors.

Well, it looks like this is going to be quite an experience. I take it you are rejecting the part of the law that doesn't require you to be hurt at all to use lethal force. If you have provided links to it, you can find it. Or, you can look at my previous post in which I quoted it. If you refuse to acknowledge it exists, then I guess there is nothing further to discuss.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm trying to figure out if that statement will be in evidence so the defense can get her in to testify.

I'm trying to figure out if that statement will be in evidence so the defense can get her in to testify. They might just be able to subpoena her, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

If you mean the girlfriend testifying at the immunity hearing, yes - either through direct testimony or deposition.

Peterson v. Florida

The trial court conducted a hearing at which the parties did not present live evidence but, instead, presented the deposition of an eyewitness-petitioner's and the victim's sister-as well as the deposition of the alleged victim.   After consideration of the evidence and the arguments, the trial court entered an order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.   The trial court correctly observed that no rule or procedure had yet been enacted to guide trial courts in deciding a claim of immunity brought under section 776.032(1).   The court nevertheless proceeded to recognize its role as finder of fact at this stage of the proceedings, “much in the same way that it does when deciding whether the state has proved a confession is voluntary.”   The court then determined that the testimony of the alleged victim was clear and reasonable, and “prosecution for attempted murder [would not be] precluded as a matter of law because the facts do not establish a self-defense immunity.”   The trial court further found that immunity had not been established as a matter of fact or law, and denied the motion to dismiss.

 

[crimresearch]

Thank you for your response. I think you have answered my question. Corey read the probable cause affidavit at her press conference, which has her letterhead, but is signed by a couple of Sanford investigators. The charging document has her name at the bottom, but is signed by Bernardo de la Rionda. So, she didn't sign either of these documents. My apologies for indicating otherwise. I will post links when I can.

Because you say "it isn't getting tossed out", does that mean you think the probable cause affidavit will be entered into evidence at the preliminary hearing? I'm trying to figure out if that statement will be in evidence so the defense can get her in to testify. They might just be able to subpoena her, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

No apology needed, I've been puzzled by several posters referring to the 'prosecutor's affadavit', and I really did wonder if there was a document I hadn't seen.

It is part of the record, just like the written reports by the police on the scence.

The defense can challenge with things like 'you said a gray sweatshirt, but the eyewitnesses said a white hoodie,' type stuff, but that's more likely to bore the judge than to sway the jurors.

 

[3point14]

You forgot the step where you have to trick them into grabbing your gun and threatening to kill you.... which appears to be the by the book defense Zimmerman is claiming.

From the description I had, that bit didn't seem to be necessary.

I will admit that I understand the law very poorly. That said, it seems pretty vague, so maybe I'm not alone.

 

[LTC8K6]

Right now, I'm putting John in the same category as the '911 call from Trayvon Martin', 'surveillance videos' and so forth... if and when they appear in verifiable form, then things could change.

John made a 911 call, didn't he?

 

[crimresearch]

Well, it looks like this is going to be quite an experience. I take it you are rejecting the part of the law that doesn't require you to be hurt at all to use lethal force. If you have provided links to it, you can find it. Or, you can look at my previous post in which I quoted it. If you refuse to acknowledge it exists, then I guess there is nothing further to discuss.

Not what I said.

The law doesn't require actual injuries, just a reasonable belief of *imminent* danger.

If that danger is of getting punched in the nose, then self defense allows people to punch and kick etc. until the threat stops... it doesn't allow stabbing or shooting.

If that danger is of getting shot or stabbed, then self defense allows use of force proportionate to that threat.

And there is room for pre-emptive use of force if the 'reasonable belief' can be established.

The way incidents happen in real life don't always lend themselves to neatly fitting into the written components of the law, thus the need for a trial.

In this case, we have multiple sections... following, questioning, some sort of physical contact, GZ's injuries, and the final section, alleged 'fear for my life'.
They feed into each other, especially to establish credibility and state of mind, but the lesser levels cannot totally cancel out the higher one.

There seems to be no reliable evidence to suggest that GZ's *life* was in imminent danger from getting hurt in the nose and the back of the head.

So the injuries AFAICS, aren't that important in this case.

 

[crimresearch]

From the description I had, that bit didn't seem to be necessary.

I will admit that I understand the law very poorly. That said, it seems pretty vague, so maybe I'm not alone.

That's why lawyers and legislators get the big bucks... to make it as hard to understand as possible.

 

[crimresearch]

John made a 911 call, didn't he?

I might have missed that one... isn't he the one that doesn't want to be part of the media frenzy?

 

[LTC8K6]

I had pointed out some time ago that the same grey truck was parked on that corner in the google maps view. But I have discounted that as being George's truck since it is still there the next day after George had been walked through the scene and released.

Yeah, you can see it still parked there in videos taken the next day.

It makes it unlikely to be his truck.

He could have left it there, but I don't know why he would.

 

[LTC8K6]

I might have missed that one... isn't he the one that doesn't want to be part of the media frenzy?

It's hard to say for sure that he made a 911 call, but it sure seems like it has to be him in one call.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/22/54738/3187