Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Freddy]

I posted it when this first came up thousands of posts ago, and there were also links explaining that in Virginia, a 'magistrate' is at the bottom of the system (a paperwork position like Justice of the Peace elsewhere), while the judges on the Supreme Court are at the top, and hold very different qualifications.

I'll see if I can find them again.

Much appreciated.

 

[This is The End]

Well, that certainly explains why he was cussing about how "they always get away", and why he decided to pursue Martin personally.

Or actually "these ******** always get away". In Zimmerman's mind, Martin was already an ******** that was going to get away.

"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach, him personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

I guess Zimmerman had had enough of that.

That actually makes sense.

 

[Freddy]

I posted it when this first came up thousands of posts ago, and there were also links explaining that in Virginia, a 'magistrate' is at the bottom of the system (a paperwork position like Justice of the Peace elsewhere), while the judges on the Supreme Court are at the top, and hold very different qualifications.

I'll see if I can find them again.


ETA: This is the actual statement, and I notice that this differs from the media account.. they said it was his application to the actual police academy, not the short citizen's informational version. Zimmerman also neglects to mention that the charges were dropped in exchange for some sort of court ordered diversion. Maybe he filled out both apps.

http://www.scribd.com/heidi_vries/d...ation-for-the-Citizens-Police-Academy-in-2008

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything here. The failure to disclose the terms of the dismissal of the charge might be an issue, but that can't be concluded from the linked documents. It would depend on whether the question on the application required such disclosure. Even if he was supposed to mention it, I don't think that would really damage Zimmerman much if admitted. It's the kind of thing the prosecution wouldn't bother with if they felt they had a strong case. I think if they brought it up, a good defense lawyer could use their bringing it up to make the point that the prosecution's case is weak. If there isn't stronger evidence than that to attack Zimmerman's credibility...

 

[LTC8K6]

I didn't say denial of a prior bad act, I said making up a false sworn statement in order to get an exemption from that arrest and court ordered diversion on his application for the police academy.

As you said, making a false official statement could be allowed in at trial. I haven't seen where it says it has to be a major, or a felonious false statement. It is a matter of public record that Zimmerman gave false information in that sworn statement to the authorities. That might call into question *any* statement he makes to the authorities, such as what he said after the shooting.

Going to the trouble of writing and signing 'my father is a Supreme Court judge in Virginia' when he was nothing of the sort, is like saying 'My father is a General in the Army', when he is really a Sgt. Not a huge exaggeration, but still a sworn false statement.
Zimmerman can make an explanation and say he misspoke, etc, but I think it could come in, and along with it, the circumstances under which he had to make that statement.


Since none of this has happened yet, I don't know how it will shake out, and I'm just examining possibilities. I don't think it is 100% impossible for some of Zimmerman's past to come in.
Trayvon Martin's past (as much of what the media says as can be believed) seems pretty much off limits.

If GZ testifies, a sharp prosecutor (if there is one) could get him to open the door to his past, and the judge shouldn't keep the prosecution from using what Zimmerman has brought into the courtroom.

We'll just have to wait and see on this.

Doesn't it say "retired Magistrate Judge"?

Or are we talking a bout a different doc?

 

[Freddy]

Doesn't it say "retired Magistrate Judge"?

Or are we talking a bout a different doc?

My very cursory Google search (so take with a grain of salt) indicated that his dad was a retired Virginia Supreme Court Magistrate judge. I do not know what a "Supreme Court" Magistrate is, as opposed to other types of Magistrate Judges. Several news articles I found refer to the position, but all of them have to do with Zimmerman's dad. This was only a quick search, so draw no strong conclusions from it. I will continue looking into it. But I have found nothing suggesting that the job title does not exist. Given the publicity surrounding the case, I would expect someone would have noticed and said something if it were BS. It has been reported in mainstream outlets.

 

[Kaosium]

Hiya Johnny!

I'm sure you won't believe this, but I complimented you and linked your posts elsewhere because I thought you were doing a fine job maintaining an even keel keeping up your end and doing the best you could with what you had. However I'm not exactly sure that this is an issue where you'd be best off suggesting those who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists. You might want to recall who raised this as an issue, what they alleged and what happened to the 'evidence' they offered in support of that.

I don't know... how about the definition of the word "screwdriver"?

You do understand that "a screwdriver can be used as a burglary tool" and "a screwdriver is a burglary tool" are wholly different claims, right?

Not really in this case, unless you think there is something out there which is uniquely known as a 'burglary tool.' You'll find that everything else which can be described as a burglary tool could also be called something else. In fact, you will also find 'screwdriver' amongst the items that also might consist of 'lockpicking tools.' You may wish to investigate this for yourself, I don't expect you to believe me, and it would save us spending ten pages on it.

Why do you suppose innocent screwdrivers were banned at his high school? Do you think it is an irrational fear of screwdrivers or something?

Because the police were not brought in and the people who had their home broken into and their jewelry stolen apparently never reported it to the police since the jewelry was never determined to actually be stolen.

Then how on earth could they ever justify not returning TM his (or his 'friend's') merchandise? How dare they! Shouldn't the family of TM demand the return of the jewelry that was confiscated from his locker so they could return it to the 'friend?' Do you suppose that would be a wise idea? Or would it be more in their interests to avoid the jewelry getting media attention lest someone who might be able to prove it was theirs came forward?

Incidentally, off the top of your head roughly what percentage of property crimes do you suppose are resolved with the items being returned to the owners? Do you think it possible that many police stations have piles of stolen items that they confiscated from criminals that they must relieve themselves of at auctions and the such on occasion lest they become buried in them? Why do you suppose that is?

I don't recall saying or even implying he would "attack". It's the difference between Zimmerman suddenly deciding to completely cease his reckless and irresponsible behavior only to then fall prey to an unprovoked assault, and Zimmerman continuing with his reckless and irresponsible behavior and perhaps provoking the altercation himself.

They ended up on the ground struggling, one of them had to have initiated violence. Do you think being followed is a justifiable reason to do that?

I know it's a fun game to keep referring to Zimmerman's actions in the most innocuous terms possible

It may also be because people suspect those terms will turn out to be most accurate in the long term, or describe more likely possibilities than what others are suggesting.

so we can sweep under the rug the fact that what he was doing was actually reckless and irresponsible.

I agree that running after TM was a poor idea, if you live in a high crime area and call the police on someone who you think is acting suspiciously it would probably be best to let them take care of it.

If we couch it in terms of "just keeping an eye on Martin", why it sounds completely harmless and even somewhat heroic.

It also happens to be more consistent with the evidence and circumstances. Being as he knew police were about to arrive on the scene momentarily it strikes me as highly likely GZ just wanted to tell them where they might find him or where he went.

But it conveniently leaves out the fact that Zimmerman also happened to be armed, and both following Martin and being armed while doing it were two things Zimmerman as a neighborhood watch captain should not have been doing.

What does Neighborhood Watch really got to do with this case? What authority does that organization have over it's members? I'm truly puzzled here, it keeps coming up in my reading and I don't understand how it has anything to do with the case. If he was not a member of Neighborhood Watch how would this case be any different?

That being said, yes, I do find it plausible that Zimmerman was only attempting to keep an eye on Martin.

Quid pro quo: Do you think it's reasonable to assume that someone engaged in reckless and irresponsible behavior in one moment, would continue in that behavior in the next?

It's a different kind of reckless behavior in my view. Trying to follow someone secure in the knowledge the police would be there any moment is quite a bit different than attacking someone knowing the same thing. The idea that a man with a gun would initiate hostilities against a taller and more athletic opponent under those same circumstances seems damned unlikely to me. He might have gone 'full tilt,' I just don't see any real indications of that, either before or afterward. A snitch might sneak around hoping to catch the bully doing something bad secure in the knowledge teacher is nearby, but doesn't really want the bully to catch him alone with no teachers around!

However I will say this: I suspect it's less likely GZ would have followed if he wasn't carrying a gun. I also think the more people carrying guns is highly likely to lead to more people being shot, though it is possible ass-kickings and some crime might decrease somewhat. However any fight involving anyone with a gun by its very nature turns it into a potential life or death struggle.

Twenty-five or so years ago if you swapped the hoodie and the plumber-pants avec wedgied undies lower-half fashion choice for parachute pants and a Black Sabbath T-shirt, I walked around much like TM, 'cept I always had a buck knife or my dad's service utility knife on me. I doubt TM was actually trying to kill GZ, even if he said so like GZ reported: he was probably just trying to kick his ass. Even if he hadn't been shot he'd have had little chance of accomplishing that, though of course there's always the chance of a catastrophic injury especially when you're dealing with head shots, it's just not a probability in my view.


The answer to that is not reversing the burden of proof in self-defense cases nor is it trying someone for murder. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I do suspect we won't come up with it anytime soon. It's only going to lead to greater 'failures to communicate' which is why I did the 'bugout boogie.'

As Martin actually has no criminal record - for burglary or otherwise - and since he's not actually the one on trial, I doubt very much that the suspicion that he might have committed burglary at one time will be admissible as evidence.

Perhaps not, but it does support the suggestion that there might have been something about what he was doing which caused GZ to be suspicious and call the police to report his behavior.

Or like I said in another post: we could limit our discussion to that which will definitely or most likely be adduced as evidence of murder. I just suspect that would curtail the discussion somewhat.

And speaking of plausibility, how plausible is it that Martin was casing houses in his own father's neighborhood while walking home from the store?

You mean a place where he wasn't known and would be leaving, but temporarily had a safe haven? That might be the sort of circumstances that would temp a prospective burglar to 'multi-task.'

I'm not the one posting Youtube videos of Martin supposedly "refereeing" fights or the Twitter feed of his brother "proving" he assaulted a bus driver all in an attempt to portray Martin in a negative light. I'm sorry if offends your sensibilities if I wish to counter such attempts.

It was basically inevitable when they filed murder charges on GZ and people started insisting GZ attacked TM. Election year politics and Obama making a statement regarding TMs character also possibly influenced that: this is potentially a plutonium boat anchor politically for him unless it goes away really soon, is there any chance of that incidentally?

Have you looked into this prosecutor? Just surfing around aimlessly on the issue I came across suggestions of highly dubious decision making on her part regarding a woman in a domestic violence case and a twelve year-old. I haven't yet run down the whole story on them, and what I read was so potentially damning I'm reluctant to accept it without further study, but even if what I read was just somewhat true it ought to be cause for concern, and might lend insight into how this ended up as a murder charge.

 

[LTC8K6]

An ABC affiliate in Florida posted a statement from Kristi Wright, with the Department of Legislative and Public Relations in Virginia, which read:

"Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered "judges" and do not possess trial jurisdiction. More detailed information on the role of the magistrate in Virginia is available on Virginia's Judicial System Website."

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tra...dad-a-magistrate-in-virginia-court-system.php

I don't see it as a big deal that GZ wrote "Magistrate Judge" instead of just Magistrate.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I also saw on TV that he was a "magistrate judge", and it was explained that the title does not carry the meaning that most of us, or at least this layman, typically ascribe to it. Meaning I assume, that he's not a judge that sits on the bench with a gavel, for lack of a better way to describe it. Whether he was a supreme court magistrate judge I don't recall.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tra...dad-a-magistrate-in-virginia-court-system.php

I don't see it as a big deal that GZ wrote "Magistrate Judge" instead of just Magistrate.

Ya, on TV they said that was a 100% legit title for what he is.

 

[Freddy]

I didn't say denial of a prior bad act, I said making up a false sworn statement in order to get an exemption from that arrest and court ordered diversion on his application for the police academy.

Just noticed this. I talked about it as a "prior bad act" because the rules of evidence distinguish between prior convictions and prior bad acts for which the witness (which includes a defendant who testifies on his own behalf) was not convicted. The rules of evidence are different depending on which category we're talking about. That was my point. If he was not convicted of a crime in connection with the alleged false statement, then that makes it a "prior bad act" for purposes of the rules of evidence.

 

[Freddy]

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tra...dad-a-magistrate-in-virginia-court-system.php

I don't see it as a big deal that GZ wrote "Magistrate Judge" instead of just Magistrate.

That isn't even technically wrong. Omitting the word "magistrate" would make a substantive difference. But omitting the word "judge" does not change the meaning at all. "Magistrate Judge" is the same thing as "Magistrate." Both are correct. I'm not sure how it works in state courts, but in the federal system the difference is that "Judge" indicates an Article III Judge (i.e., part of the Judiciary branch), while a Magistrate Judge is an Article I Judge (i.e., part of the Executive branch). Article I Judges in the federal system preside over Administrative hearings, and their decisions can always be appealed to an Article III court.

(Article I and Article III refer to the respective Articles of the U.S. Constitution granting them authority.

 

[curi0us]

"This guy is acting real suspicious" Almost word for word from the 911 call. If I discount race, what else is left?

GZ had lived in a racially diverse area for many years. I would think he must have seen young black men he didn't recognize walking through the neighborhood without calling the police many times before. So it seems likely to me that there is more going on then just TM being profiled.

He also said, "these ******** always get away" and "He's looks like he's on drugs or something". He's determined that TM is doing something wrong.

Yes, I've read that article. It stated that GZ "spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home" When did GZ say that he saw TM peering into a neighbor's windows?

There are 263 units in that complex, many of them rented. How could one person possibly know everyone who lived in that complex from day to day?

GZ: "We've had some breaks ins > real suspcious guy> looks like he is up to no good >just walking around > looking about. "

That is what GZ said within the opening statement of his call. Then he later adds "looking at houses" but he never got a chance to really say much more cause as he was giving a physical description of TM the nature of the call shifted as TM started staring at GZ, then TM moved towards GZ, then TM ran.

The version of events where TM was just innocently walking home has been told to everyone by people who were not there and have no way to actually know what TM was actually doing. TM running from a guy who was just talking on his phone is honestly a weird move if TM was really just walking home. TM literally could have just kept walking home and nothing would have happened. When TM ran he lost GZ and could have easily made it home that way as well.

If someone was walking around and looking at houses where I live I could easily spot someone out of place by how/where they moved. There are natural paths people follow when walking and if someone repeatedly diverges from that path suspicion is warranted. If a person on a dark and rainy night was moving that way and then when they realized I saw them they ran away or course I would think they had some sort of criminal intent.

 

[Cylinder]

watch if you're not tired of Dershowitz yet

Prof. Dershowitz makes some great points. The thing I least understand about the probable cause affidavit is the lack of establishing the "depraved indifference" element for 2nd degree murder.

Florida 728.04

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Even taken on its face - which is how probable cause affidavits are taken - the state does not seem to establish any act "imminently dangerous to another" and "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life." Both elements are required by statute to by established.

I think you can establish that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin as one acting suspiciously, but this act is neither imminently dangerous or the product of actions that can be shown to be of a "depraved mind." In fact, Det. Gilbreath admitted that there was no evidence to point to any particular type of profiling to measure the depraved standard by.

Another act attributed to Zimmerman was that he "disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin." This act by itself certainly does not meet any reasonable criterion for "imminently dangerous" or as a product of "depraved mind."

Next, the state asserts that "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." O'Mara directly questioned Gilbreath on his basis for this claim:

O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used [thirty] words.

The last claim made by the state is that "Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest." Both sides agree on this fact. Certainly the act of shooting an individual is "imminently dangerous" but fails to describe any "depraved mind" element of this assertion.

What's really puzzling to me here is the lack of challenge to Zimmerman's reasonable fear claim. There's nothing in there that states "during the ensuing altercation and only after suffering superficial injury, Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest" or assuming the assertion that Zimmerman confronted Martin, something like "having oppurtunity to flee, Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest," especially being mindful of the state's previously demonstrated willingness to include assertions that are - by the state's own admission -unsupported by evidence. In fact, as discussed by Prof. Dershowitz, the state makes no mention of the justification claim which may, even taken by tiself, may cause this particular prosecution to fail.

It seems inexplicable to me that the prosecution, having anything close to strong or compelling evidence, presents a probable cause affidavit that arguably does not establish the elements of the crime, uses unsupported claims even in the defecient elements it does choose to allege and fails to contradict - or even mention - the central issue of the claim of justification.

 

[WildCat]

Doesn't it say "retired Magistrate Judge"?

Or are we talking a bout a different doc?

Been through this many pages ago, it only says what crim says it says if you paraphrase it to mean something it doesn't.

 

[Dan O.]

What's really puzzling to me here is the lack of challenge to Zimmerman's reasonable fear claim.

Has Zimmerman officially made such a claim?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Did the girl friend say he went under an awning or something to get out of the rain. I heard that long ago but do not know if it was true? If it is that could cause suspicion.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html
(BEGIN LIVE SPEECH)
BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR FAMILY OF TRAYVON MARTIN:

She relays how he went to the store. When he came out from the store, he said it was starting to rain, he was going to try to make it home before it rained. Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain. He was trying to get shelter. So he tries to get out of the rain
And unbeknownst to him, he is being watched. He is a kid trying to get home from the store and get out of the rain. That's it. Nothing else. So, he stands under that apartment building for a few minutes, the rain kind of dies down. He then goes, and he has his hoodie on because it's raining and he goes back to walking

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything here. The failure to disclose the terms of the dismissal of the charge might be an issue, but that can't be concluded from the linked documents. It would depend on whether the question on the application required such disclosure. Even if he was supposed to mention it, I don't think that would really damage Zimmerman much if admitted. It's the kind of thing the prosecution wouldn't bother with if they felt they had a strong case. I think if they brought it up, a good defense lawyer could use their bringing it up to make the point that the prosecution's case is weak. If there isn't stronger evidence than that to attack Zimmerman's credibility...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8149605#post8149605

In VA, a magistrate is an independent judicial officer appointed by the Executive Secretary for the Supreme Court of Virginia. Responsibilities include conducting criminal and civil judicial hearings.

Note - 19th district is where robert zimmerman was a magistrate

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=8150638&highlight=magistrate#post8150638

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/hr/magistrate.htm

Magistrate Positions

Magistrate, Full-Time
Region 5 – 19th Judicial District – Fairfax

The Commonwealth of Virginia has an opening for a magistrate for Fairfax County. The magistrate is an independent judicial officer appointed by the Executive Secretary for the Supreme Court of Virginia. Responsibilities include conducting criminal and civil judicial hearings. This is a full-time position that consists of rotating shifts including weekends and holidays. Applicants must be residents of Virginia.

Duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

Conducting neutral and impartial hearings related to search warrants, arrests, temporary detentions, and bail
Conducting legal research and analysis
Ascertaining and applying facts to relevant legal principles
Maintaining order and decorum in highly charged, sensitive circumstances
Receiving and accounting for money

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here is something that potentially contradicts Zimmerman.

Over at DailyKos, they took a still shot from a video of the crime scene.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/23/1085878/-Trayvon-Martin-Crime-Scene-Photo

In it, you can see that Trayvon's body is lying a good 10 feet from the sidewalk (I'll grant that the exact distance is hard to ascertain from this photo).
...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/politicsnation/46828740#46828740

Tracy martin on politics nation walking through the crime scene.

At about 1:30 he says "his feet were [like] on the sidewalk"

So much for that theory...

ETA: Odd. Like Brandi Green said on a different video ... about 1:50 he says "we was sitting out on the the back" . This was weeks later ... why would he say that ?

 

[eeyore1954]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html
(BEGIN LIVE SPEECH)
BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR FAMILY OF TRAYVON MARTIN:

She relays how he went to the store. When he came out from the store, he said it was starting to rain, he was going to try to make it home before it rained. Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain. He was trying to get shelter. So he tries to get out of the rain
And unbeknownst to him, he is being watched. He is a kid trying to get home from the store and get out of the rain. That's it. Nothing else. So, he stands under that apartment building for a few minutes, the rain kind of dies down. He then goes, and he has his hoodie on because it's raining and he goes back to walking

Thank you for the link.

 

[RandFan]

Even taken on its face - which is how probable cause affidavits are taken - the state does not seem to establish any act "imminently dangerous to another" and "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life."

Agreed.

It seems inexplicable to me that the prosecution, having anything close to strong or compelling evidence, presents a probable cause affidavit that arguably does not establish the elements of the crime, uses unsupported claims even in the defecient elements it does choose to allege and fails to contradict - or even mention - the central issue of the claim of justification.

From my understanding it's not inexplicable but it is rather cynical.