Trayvon Martin Case (Zimmerman charged; 2nd deg. murder)

[Sea Skimmer]

It seems like it had to be a charge of second degree murder or nothing really. A manslaughter charge would be extremely hard to sustain since it would imply out of hand that Zimmerman did have some reason to think he could/should shoot Trayvon, and if the prosecution argued that they'd almost surely loose. Hell, avoiding that kind of ambiguous case was a major reason behind stand your ground laws being passed in the first place.

[Beowulf]

I'm not surprised at all. After the prosecutor dismissed the grand jury, this was pretty much a forgone conclusion. Considering how politically charged this case has become, not charging him would likely result in the Feds coming down. If there was still the grand jury deliberation to conduct, then it'd be possible for him to not be indicted by the grand jury, and the prosecutor could point at the grand jury as to why there was no charges.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Huh, well. I'm glad they threw the book at him. We really need a conviction in this case to preserve stand your ground laws in the US (though Florida's needs to be modified to be more in line with those of saner states which have more explicit limitations), and more importantly we need to send a message to all those loser goons on AR-15 and other places who fantasize about self-defence shootings endlessly that taking a human life is very serious business and should be the last possible recourse in any situation. Have your gun in one hand and use your other to throw over your wallet, so to speak--what's in it isn't worth killing someone over, only your life is, and anything short of your life being in mortal danger isn't a good reason to shoot.

We need to send a very firm lesson, that all of the self-proclaimed experts who talk about how you must draw and fire at once to be safe, about how you can't afford to just show your gun, the endless urgings to make a snap judgement, draw, and shoot, do nothing but take another human life, and how the reality is that most of the time when guns are lawfully used in self-defence they're drawn while a fight is already underway. Zimmerman, in pursuing this kid, went well beyond any measure of the law and from the moment it was clear he'd pursued Martin it was also clear he had committed some kind of felony. The longer he gets thrown away for the more, I hope, will be the quieting effect on certain segments of the US firearm owning population who have created a very bad climate in this country.

[aerius]

If they're going for murder 2 the prosecution needs to have some damn good evidence which we haven't seen yet or a nicely rigged jury, otherwise Zimmerman's going to walk. My guess is Zimmerman said something he shouldn't have to the special prosecutors and now he's going to get fucked.

[Flagg]

If they can convince the jury that the person yelling for help was Martin then it's kind of a slam dunk and easily falls into depraved indifference. But I'm positive they will allow the Jury to consider lesser charges.

[Dalton]

I think they have evidence and testimony as yet unseen. Aerius is right; and to dismiss a Grand Jury? Expect surprises. And Sean Hannity on the stand.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think they have evidence and testimony as yet unseen. Aerius is right; and to dismiss a Grand Jury? Expect surprises. And Sean Hannity on the stand.

On the stand? Literally? What the fuck, how is his testimony even relevant? As a character witness?

"I, Sean Hannity, have known this man since he was accused of the racially/paranoia motivated alleged murder of the unarmed Trayvon Martin and can attest that this person is not insane/a racist, and that the unarmed black kid who was outweighed by Zimmerman by 100 lbs MUST have somehow posed a credible threat to his life"

No, seriously, how in the fuck is that relevant at trial?

[Lonestar]

Possibly because Zimmerman contacted Hannity after he disappeared.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Possibly because Zimmerman contacted Hannity after he disappeared.

Ah, I missed that. Now the world makes sense. Now I suppose we will see if Hannity puts some sort of stock in the truth in criminal cases. Do we know if he is a prosecution or defense witness?

[Agent Fisher]

Uh, point of order, there was supposedly, only a ten pound difference between Martin and Zimmerman, along with Martin being taller than Zimmerman. I'm not saying that Zimmerman was not wrong in his actions, but the media pushing that picture of Martin smiling, from like five or six years ago? That isn't what Martin looked like anymore.


And Murder Two? Well, good luck, prosecutor, and I hope the jury is allowed to consider lesser charges. Cause unless they've got something rock solid, based on the evidence I've heard and seen, I'd say there is reasonable doubt.

[SirNitram]

Uh, point of order, there was supposedly, only a ten pound difference between Martin and Zimmerman, along with Martin being taller than Zimmerman. I'm not saying that Zimmerman was not wrong in his actions, but the media pushing that picture of Martin smiling, from like five or six years ago? That isn't what Martin looked like anymore.

Points of order should in some way be relevent, as a protip.

Also, the new Zimmerman Lawyer, Mark O'Mara, is not doing a great job so far. Thinkprogress with video: Link

This is not how you make a man seem sympathetic. 'It must be frightening not to be able to go into a 7-11'.

[aerius]

If they can convince the jury that the person yelling for help was Martin then it's kind of a slam dunk and easily falls into depraved indifference.

Nope. They have to prove that it wasn't self-defence in any way, in other words they have to come up with a solid explanation for Zimmerman's injuries and the grass stains on his back which contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events. Furthermore, they have to show that Zimmerman's belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable, and that he was not in fear of his life or at any reasonable risk of being maimed or killed.

The only sure way of getting a murder 2 conviction I can think of right now is if the ballistics don't line up with Zimmerman's story. Martin was supposedly shot from close range in the chest, if the ballistics say that he was shot from 50' away or if he was shot in the back and not the chest then it's a slam dunk. Unless they have that evidence or Zimmerman confessed to something in some way, they're not going to get a murder 2 charge to stick without a rigged jury.

[CarsonPalmer]

If they can convince the jury that the person yelling for help was Martin then it's kind of a slam dunk and easily falls into depraved indifference.

Nope. They have to prove that it wasn't self-defence in any way, in other words they have to come up with a solid explanation for Zimmerman's injuries and the grass stains on his back which contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events. Furthermore, they have to show that Zimmerman's belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable, and that he was not in fear of his life or at any reasonable risk of being maimed or killed.

The only sure way of getting a murder 2 conviction I can think of right now is if the ballistics don't line up with Zimmerman's story. Martin was supposedly shot from close range in the chest, if the ballistics say that he was shot from 50' away or if he was shot in the back and not the chest then it's a slam dunk. Unless they have that evidence or Zimmerman confessed to something in some way, they're not going to get a murder 2 charge to stick without a rigged jury.

Now unless I'm misunderstanding things, Zimmerman claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, though. He has to show the preponderance of the evidence that it was self-defense, if that's the tack he's going to go down. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I've always understood self-defense (and temporary insanity, and other affirmative defenses) to work.

Its different if its a home invasion; that's the purpose of castle laws, that they switch the burden of proof over to the prosecution. All they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman shot Martin with intent to kill, and then get the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence to shoot down his self-defense claim.

Alternately, they could try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the confrontation by threatening Martin in an unlawful way-if he started the confrontation in such a way that would have made Martin fear for his life, then he can't claim self-defense.

I'm not a lawyer, so that could be wrong, but that's how I've always understood self-defense to work.

[Flagg]

If they can convince the jury that the person yelling for help was Martin then it's kind of a slam dunk and easily falls into depraved indifference.

Nope. They have to prove that it wasn't self-defence in any way, in other words they have to come up with a solid explanation for Zimmerman's injuries and the grass stains on his back which contradicts Zimmerman's version of the events. Furthermore, they have to show that Zimmerman's belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable, and that he was not in fear of his life or at any reasonable risk of being maimed or killed.

The only sure way of getting a murder 2 conviction I can think of right now is if the ballistics don't line up with Zimmerman's story. Martin was supposedly shot from close range in the chest, if the ballistics say that he was shot from 50' away or if he was shot in the back and not the chest then it's a slam dunk. Unless they have that evidence or Zimmerman confessed to something in some way, they're not going to get a murder 2 charge to stick without a rigged jury.

Now unless I'm misunderstanding things, Zimmerman claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, though. He has to show the preponderance of the evidence that it was self-defense, if that's the tack he's going to go down. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I've always understood self-defense (and temporary insanity, and other affirmative defenses) to work.

Its different if its a home invasion; that's the purpose of castle laws, that they switch the burden of proof over to the prosecution. All they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman shot Martin with intent to kill, and then get the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence to shoot down his self-defense claim.

Alternately, they could try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the confrontation by threatening Martin in an unlawful way-if he started the confrontation in such a way that would have made Martin fear for his life, then he can't claim self-defense.

I'm not a lawyer, so that could be wrong, but that's how I've always understood self-defense to work.

No, you're right. He has to essentially prove that he was in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury and having Martin screaming for help until a gunshot goes off kinda blows that defense right out of the water.

[Broomstick]

Huh, well. I'm glad they threw the book at him. We really need a conviction in this case to preserve stand your ground laws in the US (though Florida's needs to be modified to be more in line with those of saner states which have more explicit limitations), and more importantly we need to send a message to all those loser goons on AR-15 and other places who fantasize about self-defence shootings endlessly that taking a human life is very serious business and should be the last possible recourse in any situation.

No, we really need a fair trial whether or not that results in a conviction. We need justice.

The Martin family were on the TV this morning saying that what they wanted was for Zimmerman to “account” for what he had done and stand trial for it. Obviously, on an emotional level they'd prefer Zimmerman be found guilty, but they aren't among the people publicly demanding a conviction before the man ever goes before a jury.

When I was being taught self-defense it was included, over and over and very firmly, that even when justified taking another human life has consequences and those can include jail time, a trial, charges, and financial costs.

I agree, some people act like saying “self-defense” is a get out of jail free card and there are far too many wannabe tough guys in the world. But going into this saying we “need” a conviction is disturbing. Throwing a man to the wolves is not how to maintain a civilization.

Zimmerman, in pursuing this kid, went well beyond any measure of the law and from the moment it was clear he'd pursued Martin it was also clear he had committed some kind of felony.

Really? Following someone is now automatically a felony?

No felony occurred until the fight started. It's not a crime to follow someone in public, even if it might be really creepy.

Really, Marina, I find it really disturbing that you think Zimmerman doesn't deserve a fair trial.

If they're going for murder 2 the prosecution needs to have some damn good evidence which we haven't seen yet or a nicely rigged jury, otherwise Zimmerman's going to walk. My guess is Zimmerman said something he shouldn't have to the special prosecutors and now he's going to get fucked.

Naw, I think they went for murder two in part to appease the frothing mob. They can't use murder one because it's clear this wasn't premeditated. This would also allow for bargaining down to manslaughter in exchange for Zimmerman pleading guilty, or for finding him guilty of a lesser charge. It's entirely possible, since this arrest occurred due to public outrage, that they used the highest level of charge they possibly could.

If they can convince the jury that the person yelling for help was Martin then it's kind of a slam dunk and easily falls into depraved indifference. But I'm positive they will allow the Jury to consider lesser charges.

^ This. It's very rare that someone in a situation like this faces just one charge.

Unless they have that evidence or Zimmerman confessed to something in some way, they're not going to get a murder 2 charge to stick without a rigged jury.

Again, an assumption that a conviction is the outcome really desired here. The point is (or should be) to put the man on trial and lay out all the evidence.

A lot of the unrest has come from people, mostly from outside the town in question, screaming about “But he wasn't even arrested!” There is a very real desire (aside from the desire to see Zimmerman hang outright) to see this go to trial. One of the grievances of black people in the US is that not only have white people literally gotten away with murdering them in the past, but in so many cases the killers were never arrested and never charged. This has improved in recent decades, but there is still a perception that if positions were reversed Trayvon would have been sitting in a cell from that night forward, no questions asked, and remained there until a trial. There really is a sentiment that white/non-black killers of black people should be treated the same as black killers of white people. That's why so many were shouting for an arrest (along with those calling for worse).

No doubt the authorities hope some, if not a lot, of the tension around the case will abate with this arrest and the charges. Of course, they may just be putting off a potential riot now for a potential riot after the trial is over. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[RedOktoberfest]

No, you're right. He has to essentially prove that he was in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury and having Martin screaming for help until a gunshot goes off kinda blows that defense right out of the water.

That's not true. The burden of proof rarely shifts to the defendant, and only a few states make this shift for self defense (Ohio is the only one I can name off the top of my head).

There's plenty of precedent for this in Florida. See:

Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 711. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that a defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State. Id. (citing Brown v. State , 454 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)).

When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction.

[eion]

Uh, point of order, there was supposedly, only a ten pound difference between Martin and Zimmerman, along with Martin being taller than Zimmerman.

No

Trayvon Martin was 6'1" and weighed 150lbs, according to his family (which was a lower stated weight and taller height than the police report gave him)

George Zimmerman is 5'9" and 190lbs, again according to his family (a 2005 police report reported his weight as 250lbs, but the police report on the shooting gave no weight)

So, George has slimmed down in 7 years, presumably via diet and exercise, and has almost certainly put on some muscle, and so with more weight (30 - 40lbs depending who's estimate you buy) and less height (lower center of gravity, etc.), probably had an advantage (however small) in any struggle with a teenager nicknamed "Slim".

[aerius]

Now unless I'm misunderstanding things, Zimmerman claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, though. He has to show the preponderance of the evidence that it was self-defense, if that's the tack he's going to go down. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I've always understood self-defense (and temporary insanity, and other affirmative defenses) to work.

Its different if its a home invasion; that's the purpose of castle laws, that they switch the burden of proof over to the prosecution. All they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman shot Martin with intent to kill, and then get the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence to shoot down his self-defense claim.

Alternately, they could try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the confrontation by threatening Martin in an unlawful way-if he started the confrontation in such a way that would have made Martin fear for his life, then he can't claim self-defense.

I'm not a lawyer, so that could be wrong, but that's how I've always understood self-defense to work.

No, you're right. He has to essentially prove that he was in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury and having Martin screaming for help until a gunshot goes off kinda blows that defense right out of the water.

Good thing neither of you are lawyers, for the reason that RedOktoberfest just explained.

Seriously, the sheer amount of ignorance and bullshit that I keep seeing from various people in this thread is pretty saddening. Y'all supposed to be smart people yet many of you are going on pure emotion and gut feeling instead of looking at the facts. You think he's guilty and will grasp at any straw you can find to make him guilty, regardless of the actual laws in effect.

[Flagg]

Florida has some backwards ass laws. And calling people ignorant followed by using the term "ya'll" is hilarious.

[Simon_Jester]

It's funny, but aerius still has a point. I jumped to conclusions based on the doctored video footage myself, and I don't want to get fooled again by this case. I know what I'm pretty sure happened, but I'm not going to call it a miscarriage of justice if things don't go exactly like I expect, not without seeing the evidence for why they didn't.

[Beowulf]

Let's throw out any usage of Stand Your Ground. There are essentially two stories here. The first is Zimmerman's story:

He was following a suspicious looking character he'd not seen before. He lost track of him, got out of his car, and as he went back to his car, was attacked from behind by said suspicious character. He reasonably felt in fear of his life, and could not escape. He cried for help, which was not forthcoming. So he pulled out his pocket pistol and fatally shot his attacker.

The second is whatever the state is going to claim happened such that Zimmerman should not have reasonably been in fear. The state must prove that some essential element of the story is untrue, such that a reasonable person would not have been in fear of grave bodily injury or death. Until and unless the state proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt, we must assume him not guilty of murder (he's not innocent. He did kill Trayvon Martin). This is a reasonable state of affairs in Western jurisprudence, where the state must prove their case, rather than the accused having to prove their innocence.

I don't know what narrative the state will put together that will attempt to show that a reasonable person in Zimmerman's place would not have been in fear. I don't know exactly what evidence they have to back up their narrative. I very much think there has been far too much jumping to conclusions in this thread, mostly in the direction of him being guilty.

Flagg, sniff my taint.

[SVPD]

Uh, point of order, there was supposedly, only a ten pound difference between Martin and Zimmerman, along with Martin being taller than Zimmerman.

No

Trayvon Martin was 6'1" and weighed 150lbs, according to his family (which was a lower stated weight and taller height than the police report gave him)

George Zimmerman is 5'9" and 190lbs, again according to his family (a 2005 police report reported his weight as 250lbs, but the police report on the shooting gave no weight)

So, George has slimmed down in 7 years, presumably via diet and exercise, and has almost certainly put on some muscle, and so with more weight (30 - 40lbs depending who's estimate you buy) and less height (lower center of gravity, etc.), probably had an advantage (however small) in any struggle with a teenager nicknamed "Slim".

No, he has not "almost certainly" put on any muscle, nor necessarily slimmed down due to diet and exercise, and furthermore, Martin was known to be a football player. Police report estimates of weight are usually not very accurate becuase they're either taken off an ID in which case the weight listed may be several years old and is generally whatever you tell the person at the place you get the ID, or they eyeball it, or ask the person.

Any assumptions about muscle, diet, excercise, or advantages in hand to hand combat are just that - assumptions, and having an advantage doesn't mean you automatically win.

[aerius]

Here's the arrest affidavit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89112477/Affi ... ree-murder


And some commentary on said affidavit
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... hical.html

I mostly agree with the commentary, if this is all they got the case is going to get tossed out so fast that your head will spin unless they get a crooked judge & jury. As far as I can tell they're either prosecuting it to appease public pressure knowing full well that the case will get thrown out or they're fishing for a manslaughter conviction and hoping that Zimmerman or his lawyer will bite and do a plea bargain for manslaughter.

[weemadando]

Even if it goes to trial, get 12 scared old white folks on the jury (not hard for any competent defence attorney in Florida I'm sure) and you'll never get a conviction.

[Dalton]

Even if it goes to trial, get 12 scared old white folks on the jury (not hard for any competent defence attorney in Florida I'm sure) and you'll never get a conviction.

The prosecution is also involved in jury selection.