Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

People saying that they would hope anyone in Zimmerman's circumstances would be prosecuted are not saying that anyone in Zimmerman's circumstances is guilty. What they are saying is that in a case with these circumstances there needs to be a trial.

Yes, sadly more than one person has made that argument. As has been pointed out many times now, fortunately our justice system doesn't work that way, and prosecutors are only supposed to prosecute people when they believe they have actually committed a crime. And if the evidence supports that GZ committed a crime, than by all means prosecute him. But not because "there needs to be a trial".

You know what though, they used to do a good job of that a hundred years ago or so, if a white woman had sex with a black man and it caused issues and a lot of people got upset about it and they "needed there to be a trial" they'd go out and lynch the black man and claimed he raped her.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

George lost his right to stand his ground by being the initial aggressor. If he had stayed in his truck he would have had a case but he choose to chase down Trayvon. I'm not buying George's claim that Trayvom attacked him from behind. His injuries simply do not support such a scenario. It's much more likely that George was facing Trayvon. Trayvon however could have turned and tried to run. If George had grabbed Trayvon to keep him from getting away, Trayvon would then have every right to deck George.

Why do you accept that claim over all others?

Please explain where you learned of the bolded claim, and why you believe it is the actual claim made by GZ.

The problem that I see s that there is a confession to the commission of the homicide. George can be found not guilty if he can successfully claim self defense. But unfortunately for George, he has little If any evidence to support his claim.

Why does he need evidence to support his claim self defense ? The state will have to prove it wasn't, and the state appears to have less evidence than GZ.

 

[Cylinder]

I think that there should be pretty much an automatic prosecution where a claim of self defence results in a death. To avoid prosecution there should be overwhelming evidence that deadly force was the only option.

So you're saying you think we should amend the Constitution?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I would point out that you're doing some selective quoting there and missing out the second part of what I quoted, but I'm not going to bother. You'd reply with something obtuse and snarky and roll your eyes again and neither of us would get any smarter as a result.

Yes, because I'm the one being difficult by playing games and claiming someone doesn't know the difference between being prosecuted and convicted. That's always a great way to "get smarter" and further discussion.

I see ample reason to bring this to trial, and apparently so do the police, but I really can't be bothered discussing it on this forum any more.

Promise?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

So you're saying you think we should amend the Constitution?

Maybe we don't even need prosecutors and police any more? When certain accusations are made, or certain conditions met, people should just automatically be prosecuted.

 

[Nessie]

So you're saying you think we should amend the Constitution?

If needs be. In the UK the majority of self defence claims are prosecuted and until recently all deadly force claims.

If you are going to end someone's life I think that needs to examined not just by the police, but the prosecutor/court system as well.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I think that there should be pretty much an automatic prosecution where a claim of self defence results in a death. To avoid prosecution there should be overwhelming evidence that deadly force was the only option.

Yup. When the State has nothing, let's go ahead and punish people uppity enough to presume to protect themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal feels. That sounds Just.

 

[crimresearch]

If needs be. In the UK the majority of self defence claims are prosecuted and until recently all deadly force claims.

If you are going to end someone's life I think that needs to examined not just by the police, but the prosecutor/court system as well.

That sounds rather extreme that in the UK, all uses of deadly force were prosecuted as crimes.

You have a dozen witnesses and video tape that a career criminal starts stabbing someone, and if the victim succeeds in defending themselves while the would be killer dies, the victims are automatically arrested and thrown in jail until they prevail against the prosecution at a criminal trial?

No middle ground, no hearing, arraignment, writs of habeas corpus, etc?

 

[Cylinder]

In the UK the majority of self defence claims are prosecuted and until recently all deadly force claims.

The vast majority of self defense claim are prosecuted and convicted in the US as well - since the vast majority are half baked, post hoc excuses for criminals who are caught red-handed, couldn't handle the strain of interrogation by police or thought they were smarter than a seasoned homicide investigator.

"It was self-defense. I went in to rob the guy and he drew on me."

 

[GWCarver]

O'Mara's motion for reconsideration, as well as the phone calls, are here:

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/29-release-of-zimmerman-phone-calls-from-jail

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

O'Mara's motion for reconsideration, as well as the phone calls, are here:

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/29-release-of-zimmerman-phone-calls-from-jail

Thanks for the link. Those are not short calls, I downloaded them all and the first one is 16 minutes. Feels very voyeuristic to listen in on them. Before someone misinterprets that, that's just my feeling when listening to them, I didn't say they shouldn't be released if they state has a legal right to do so.

 

[sgtbaker]

Why do you accept that claim over all others?

I don't think it is a matter of accepting that claim, over all others, there is no other. There were only two people present, at the onstart of that confrontation. Personally, it's questionable. Legally, one doesn't have to prove they are telling the truth, the state has to prove they are not telling the truth.

Remember the witness that we heard intviewed by the prosecutor who was on the phone with Trayvom up to the start of the altercation? There is also still a possibility of confirmation from the forensics.

There may exist forensics to prove Zimmerman hit Trayvon, first. I have not seen it, nor have I heard whispers of such evidence. The only thing that DeeDee can testify to is that a fight occured. One person hit another. It's not like a punch to Trayvon's face is going to sound different than a punch to Georges face; no significant difference that DeeDee could hear over the phone.

Do you have any evidence that he didn't?

That's not up to the defense to prove. Constitutionally, it is supposed to work as an assumed truth, unless an investigation can prove otherwaise.

The problem that I see s that there is a confession to the commission of the homicide. George can be found not guilty if he can successfully claim self defense. But unfortunately for George, he has little If any evidence to support his claim

Again, not how our system works. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman's claim is false.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you are in fear someone may intend violence upon you, you can.

"Under Florida Law (784.011) assault is defined by word or act to do violence, coupled by an apparent ability to do so and committing some threatening act which present an intent to do violence. In other words, the aggressor in an assault situation need not physically strike another person to be guilty of assault."

784.011 - Assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Sure. There was never any question that there are other types of assault.

We all know there are threatening moves and mannerisms and words.

Like reaching for your waistband as if you have a gun. That's a threatening move. GZ mentions such from TM. However GZ doesn't really say it's threatening. To me, it would be.

Asking what a person is doing in an area would not be assault, I would guess.

You can certainly threaten to kill someone in such a manner that they believe it, and defend themselves.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Again, not how our system works. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman's claim is false.

You mean it doesn't work on the same basis that a lot of people here work on, that they don't like GZ and therefore don't believe him, and therefore he's guilty?

 

[tsig]

If this were a gun control thread, prejudices and agit-prop soundbites might be relevant.

This is however, a thread on a death and the ensuing legal/media activities. The issues would be the same had another item been employed.

Do you have anything to offer on whether or not an Hispanic man should be allowed to defend himself the same as anyone else?

The straw is strong with this one.

 

[bookworm]

It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense. That determination is/should rightfully be the job that a court is tasked with. In order to have the courts do its job, someone like GZ needs to be prosecuted. Rather simple really.

Do you really believe that any person who should have the misfortune to be attacked by someone while walking down the street and then kills that someone in the process of defending their own life should ALWAYS be prosecusted in a court regardless of the evidence that it was self-defense??? Really? That's an awfully big burden to put on a person who did nothing but defend themselves. The stigma of being labelled a murderer, the financial disaster, etc.

 

[bookworm]

So if someone attacks you because they mistakening fear for their life, you should not be able to respond with deadly force should you fear for your life during the attack?

Nope. Gotta suck it up and let them kill ya!

 

[Amazer]

Do you really believe that any person who should have the misfortune to be attacked by someone while walking down the street and then kills that someone in the process of defending their own life should ALWAYS be prosecusted in a court regardless of the evidence that it was self-defense??? Really? That's an awfully big burden to put on a person who did nothing but defend themselves. The stigma of being labelled a murderer, the financial disaster, etc.

I guess I wasn't exactly clear when I made that statement. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that it concerns a case of self-defense, it should be tried in a court of law. Even then, I'd ideally would like see all such cases reviewed by an independent party.

 

[GWCarver]

Zimmerman wanted Shellie to buy a bulletproof vest:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/new...-instructing-wife-transfers/?CID=happeningnow

 

[Dancing David]

While the other poster may have simplified it to "just a punch", I clearly did not.

Few people in this thread, including me, believe this was "just a punch".

That's been true from day one, and certainly true for me throughout this thread and others.

Why would I suddenly start treating it that way?

Perhaps it was this
"I can't punch you simply because I'm afraid of you because you are following me."