Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[KatieG]

You'd have to show that GZ attacked TM. Not just mouthed off, but attacked.

Even then we've already seen that FL law still leaves room for Zimmerman to use deadly force.

One would expect signs of a fight on TM, and we've already heard there aren't any.

We've heard but we haven't seen the autopsy report on TM. I'm satisfied to wait until it's released.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If Zimmerman managed to wiggle off the sidewalk during the struggle, then we have TM moving after he's shot, then we have him rolled over for CPR, and maybe moved to see what's under him...

Why would he still be near the sidewalk?

Where's the white chalk silhouette showing us where his body was eh?

Incompetent police.....

 

[Xulld]

http://flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter776
If anyone cares to read the law vs some article, or opinion about the law.

 

[RandFan]

You'd have to show that GZ attacked TM. Not just mouthed off, but attacked.

Even then we've already seen that FL law still leaves room for Zimmerman to use deadly force.

One would expect signs of a fight on TM, and we've already heard there aren't any.

Let me ask you a question, if GZ had attacked Dominick Cruz, UFC, who do you think would show signs of a fight?

It's possible to do a piss poor job in an attack and get your head handed you. Having wounds would not demonstrate that you have been attacked.

 

[Freddy]

The City Manager released a statement to that effect a long time ago to try to calm down the cries of wanting an arrest.

This is another hurdle for the prosecution, imo. The SPD and the city manager have already basically said this was a legit self defense case.



http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that the police stated that they did not arrest Zimmerman because they did not have probable cause at the time to believe that the shooting was unlawful. That is why they cited the SYG law: it expressly forbids an arrest unless and until there is probable cause to believe the killing was criminal. It won't be much of a hurdle to say that there is evidence that was not available at the time that calls his story into doubt. At least assuming that is the case. Probable cause is not a very high bar to meet, so it wouldn't take that much.

That said, I am not at all impressed with the prosecution's case, based on the evidence they have presented so far. I can't see why they would hold back on producing "smoking gun" type evidence if they had it, especially as things started going to hell for them in the bond hearing. If they had evidence that strongly indicated guilt, why would they just sit on it and allow such a low bond (for a murder charge) to be set?

 

[LTC8K6]

From my above post:

I must confess that after many weeks of discussion, I don't really understand SYG. I get the principle of it, but not the nuance behind the it. Chief Lee stated GZ was released based on SYG. What am I missing here?

Based on what I do understand, or believe I understand about the SYG law, I don't think it's right to pen a law that allows someone to start a confrontation and when they begin to lose the fight can pull out a gun and shoot someone. If this is not the case in the matter we are discussing, then it's irrelevant to GZ.

It sounds like the loser just has to die then.

If I start a fight with someone over something stupid...let's say a parking space...

I'm angry about the space being taken and the other guy is taunting me, so I punch him. I started the fight. Prior, it was just an argument.

I'm armed, but my gun remains in it's holster. This is a fist fight to settle our differences over a parking space. There's no intent to kill anyone. When one person can't go anymore, the fight will normally end. Or, if one person gets knocked out, the other will normally stop, having won.

The other guy gets a good shot in and I go down. He then starts kicking me in the head and stomping me in the chest.

How long do I wait before I shoot him?

 

[RandFan]

The SYG law explicitly grants immunity from arrest to a homicide suspect claiming self defense, unless there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful. Sometimes probable cause is apparent from the observations of police in their initial response, and/or from the initial interview of the suspect. In that case, an arrest can be made at that time. Otherwise, the SYG law permits the police to continue investigating just like they would any suspicious death. If and when they have probable cause to believe the use of force was not in legal self-defense, they can arrest and prosecute. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Even in non-SYG jurisdictions, police will often wait until they have solid evidence against a self-defense claim before making an arrest. Once you make an arrest, the clock starts ticking on bringing charges, and various other procedural rights kick in automatically that the suspect would otherwise have to assert (most importantly, having a lawyer present when talking to police). Thus, it is not unusual for an arrest to be delayed for days or even weeks in a case like this. I think that in this case the police initially made statements that made it sound like this was all over, case closed (even though apparently they were still investigating). That made it reasonable to question what was going on.

Thanks. I thought there was more to the law. I thought there was something about "no duty to retreat".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How do you get "likely" rather than they covered him up right where he died? It seems like you're just dismissing this evidence that contradicts Zimmerman without any evidence or rationale as to why they moved a murder victim onto the grass before covering him up. That may have happened, but there's zero evidence to suggest it. How you get that it's the MOST likely answer, rather than the simple explanation that this is where Trayvon died, is not clear to me.

Watch the video. 22 seconds in "the shooting happened in-between those two townhouses behind me."

That (body under a tarp ?? ) is not between the townhouses. I also can't tell how close it is to the middle side walk.

Along with the fact every map and report has the shooting occuring between the two rows of townhouses as well.

That's my rationale. What do you think ?

 

[crimresearch]

Wow, I have opinions. Yours are different.

And you are trying to pass your opinions off as legal facts, and to dismiss established facts as merely opinions.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If Zimmerman managed to wiggle off the sidewalk during the struggle, then we have TM moving after he's shot, then we have him rolled over for CPR, and maybe moved to see what's under him...

Why would he still be near the sidewalk?

I find that plausible as well. Frankly, I'm still not convinced that is TM body.

 

[johnny karate]

I have already supported that allegation with a multiple cite reply that was a direct response to you that you never challenged:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8193892&postcount=6151

Your prior failure to reply when combined with your recent attempts at ridicule show your tactics to be that of a dishonest troll.

Except that I didn't ask you to "support" your allegations, I asked you to provide evidence of them. If I want to see fantastical theories "supported" I can go to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories forum.

Let's start with this one:

Crump's PR use of the underage photo were critical to getting Mary Cutcher to say she Knew GZ was guilty...

Show me evidence that this happened.

Not a bunch of connect-the-dots, circumstantial nonsense, but actual evidence.

 

[Unabogie]

Watch the video. 22 seconds in "the shooting happened in-between those two townhouses behind me."

That (body under a tarp ?? ) is not between the townhouses. I also can't tell how close it is to the middle side walk.

Along with the fact every map and report has the shooting occuring between the two rows of townhouses as well.

That's my rationale. What do you think ?

Who are you going to believe, that reporter or your lying eyes?

Is that really what you meant to ask?

 

[KatieG]

It sounds like the loser just has to die then.

If I start a fight with someone over something stupid...let's say a parking space...

I'm angry about the space being taken and the other guy is taunting me, so I punch him. I started the fight. Prior, it was just an argument.

I'm armed, but my gun remains in it's holster. This is a fist fight to settle our differences over a parking space. There's no intent to kill anyone. When one person can't go anymore, the fight will normally end. Or, if one person gets knocked out, the other will normally stop, having won.

The other guy gets a good shot in and I go down. He then starts kicking me in the head and stomping me in the chest.

How long do I wait before I shoot him?

In your example, both men would show extensive injury. How would TM's body showing no signs of a fight, if indeed that's true, make him the attacker? I don't know, never been in a fight!

 

[Unabogie]

I find that plausible as well. Frankly, I'm still not convinced that is TM body.

That is much more plausible to me than the idea that they moved his body 10 feet or that he staggered up, off of Zimmerman (after being shot point blank in the chest) and then ending up so far from the sidewalk.

Still, Occam's razor says that if that's his body, then that's where he died. If that's where he died, Zimmerman was lying.

 

[Freddy]

Ahh, so without reading the law yourself, nor looking into case law which shows how it is interpreted, you accept what a person claims based solely on his authority as a police officer. Gotcha. (No snark here btw, just trying to understand the impetus of this opinion, correct me if I am wrong)


Ugggh, where to start.

I guess the best place to start is to explain there is no law called Stand your ground.

I am aware of this. Stand Your Ground is the popular title of a FLorida Bill amending Chapter 776 of the Florida Code, which deals with the justifiable use of force. I realize that the absence of the duty to retreat is not the same thing as the limited immunity from arrest and prosecution, but they both became law as part of the same bill, which was widely called the "Stand your ground" law. Apologies for any confusion that might have caused.

The second thing to understand is that the basic fundamentals of lawful self defense are past down from the supreme court which guides ALL state laws. So Florida is not different in this regard from any other state, and SYG is not the determining factor.

That is why I was talking about the immunity from arrest, and not the duty to retreat. It was passed as part of the same bill, which in its entirety was referred to as "Stand your ground" when it was debated and passed into law.

The portion of the law that is regularly refereed to as stand your ground removed the burden of retreating from the standard self defense law. That is it, it does not outline the requirements of prosecution, that is already laid out by the supreme court.

I don't expect anyone coming to a 200 page thread to read everything that has been said so far, but I have explained this exact point in an earlier post. We are not in disagreement.

The very fact that Zimmerman has now been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder should in and of itself PROVE that Florida law does not prevent the PA from filing charges if they think they have a case, really almost without regard to the actual evidence.

I have also said exactly this in an earlier post, not that I fault you for not having read the entire 200 page thread. I pointed out that the hurdle for overcoming the immunity is to show probable cause, and that if the prosecution can't do that then there is no way they could prove the exact same thing under the much higher "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. So the self-defense-friendly amendments to Florida law don't prevent prosecution except in cases where a conviction would not be realistic in any jurisdiction.

It is possible through the actions of the PA, and police that a person arrested without probable cause could file a civil rights violation, but that is a different story.

Well, it's sort of a different story, in that it would be a civil suit. However, it is relevant here to the extent that it explains why an arrest would not be made initially (though there are several other reasons why police would wait and gather more evidence before making an arrest).

So we don't really disagree, except that you take exception to my using the phrase "stand your ground" to refer to the entirety of the bill that eliminated the duty to retreat from Florida self-defense law. I do agree that interchangeable use of the phrase is a source of confusion, so I will try to be more precise in the future.

Cheers.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That is much more plausible to me than the idea that they moved his body 10 feet or that he staggered up, off of Zimmerman (after being shot point blank in the chest) and then ending up so far from the sidewalk.

Still, Occam's razor says that if that's his body, then that's where he died. If that's where he died, Zimmerman was lying.

100% serious question. If that is the case, why was he not immediately arrested, if he was obviously lying ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that the police stated that they did not arrest Zimmerman because they did not have probable cause at the time to believe that the shooting was unlawful. That is why they cited the SYG law: it expressly forbids an arrest unless and until there is probable cause to believe the killing was criminal. It won't be much of a hurdle to say that there is evidence that was not available at the time that calls his story into doubt. At least assuming that is the case. Probable cause is not a very high bar to meet, so it wouldn't take that much.

That said, I am not at all impressed with the prosecution's case, based on the evidence they have presented so far. I can't see why they would hold back on producing "smoking gun" type evidence if they had it, especially as things started going to hell for them in the bond hearing. If they had evidence that strongly indicated guilt, why would they just sit on it and allow such a low bond (for a murder charge) to be set?

I think the statement overall is supportive of Zimmerman. I expect it to be used in his defense.

 

[johnny karate]

I am very reticent about arguing Martin's character, so I won't.

I was interested in this claim because I haven't seen it before, so here it is:

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds. Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend. “Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

I'm not sure how believable that is. What is being described is tantamount to grand larceny, but he was only suspended for vandalism? Either that "investigator" is lying or he's terrible at the part of his job that requires actual "investigation". And the fact that he calls a screwdriver a "burglary tool" instead of just, you know, "a screwdriver" indicates a certain amount of bias.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Who are you going to believe, that reporter or your lying eyes?

Is that really what you meant to ask?

uhm, no.

 

[Freddy]

Thanks. I thought there was more to the law. I thought there was something about "no duty to retreat".

There is, but that provision isn't really in play here. If Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he clearly could not have gotten away at the time he fired. If he is lying, then he is likely guilty of a crime whether or not there is a duty to retreat. It would depend on what he were lying about, but whether he were guilty of a crime would not depend on the duty to retreat, even if he had such a duty. The presence or absence of a duty to retreat is doing no work in this case either way.

Also, see my post immediately preceding this one. "Stand Your Ground" has been used both to refer to the specific provision eliminating the duty to retreat, and to the Public Law that made several amendments to the justifiable force statutes, one of those amendments being the "Stand your Ground" provision. The immunity from arrest was also codified at the same time, although there may have been a common law basis for it as well.

I was using the term in the more general sense, i.e., to refer to Florida's justifiable use of force statutes. This has been the cause of considerable confusion, so I will try to be more specific and only use "stand your ground" when I am talking about the duty to retreat. It's inconvenient, but I will cite the code sections directly from now on, so that things will be more clear.