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

[PeZook]

Really, even if he liked to suck off gangs of black men in his spare time it's kinda torturous to go from that to "Surely he tried hitting on Martin AFTER CALLING THE COPS ON HIM"

Of course, using it to poison a Florida jury is going to be another matter

[aerius]

Well this is getting fun...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/us/tr ... .html?_r=0

Relevant excerpt:

The hearing on Tuesday also chipped away at the credibility of a main witness in the case, called Witness 8, giving a boost to the defense. Witness 8 is a teenage girl who was on the phone with Mr. Martin shortly before Mr. Zimmerman shot him. The witness has said Mr. Martin told her that he was being followed by a man and was frightened.

Afterward, Witness 8 said she had been unable to attend Mr. Martin’s funeral because she had been ill and had gone to the hospital. The defense asked to subpoena her medical records. On Tuesday, just before the hearing, prosecutors told defense lawyers that there were none.

“In fact, she lied,” Don West, one of Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers, said in court, asserting that she had not gone to the hospital.

The testimony of Witness 8 is important because she described Mr. Zimmerman as the aggressor and said Mr. Martin had been trying to get away from him before he was killed.

“I think Witness 8 is a very significant, if not the most significant, witness,” Mr. O’Mara said.

If this article can be trusted, a key witness just perjured herself good.

[Lord Zentei]

When is the trial date, anyhow? It seems that this has been going on for a very long time already.

[aerius]

June 10th, assuming nothing else changes.

[Dominus Atheos]

Well this is getting fun...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/us/tr ... .html?_r=0

Relevant excerpt:

The hearing on Tuesday also chipped away at the credibility of a main witness in the case, called Witness 8, giving a boost to the defense. Witness 8 is a teenage girl who was on the phone with Mr. Martin shortly before Mr. Zimmerman shot him. The witness has said Mr. Martin told her that he was being followed by a man and was frightened.

Afterward, Witness 8 said she had been unable to attend Mr. Martin’s funeral because she had been ill and had gone to the hospital. The defense asked to subpoena her medical records. On Tuesday, just before the hearing, prosecutors told defense lawyers that there were none.

“In fact, she lied,” Don West, one of Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers, said in court, asserting that she had not gone to the hospital.

The testimony of Witness 8 is important because she described Mr. Zimmerman as the aggressor and said Mr. Martin had been trying to get away from him before he was killed.

“I think Witness 8 is a very significant, if not the most significant, witness,” Mr. O’Mara said.

If this article can be trusted, a key witness just perjured herself good.

It's not perjury since she didn't say it under oath, she just told it to the media.

[JLTucker]

It's not perjury since she didn't say it under oath, she just told it to the media.

It doesn't matter, really. They'll use that against her and say "well, she lied about going to the hospital, how can we be sure she didn't lie about Treyvon?"

[Simon_Jester]

Getting fundamentally honest information out of teenagers can be very painful; I feel sorry for that prosecutor right now.

[Flagg]

She lied about going to the hospital. BFD. The Zimmermans lied under oath about being dirt poor when they had racist throngs donating to his defense, so I'd take the little girl over the lying murderer any day.

[Lord Zentei]

Linka

George Zimmerman Waives Right To 'Stand Your Ground' Hearing In Stunning Twist To Trayvon Martin Case

In the year since it landed on the international news radar, the Trayvon Martin case has raised a global discussion about Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. But in a stunning twist of events Tuesday morning, George Zimmerman's attorneys waived their client's right to a scheduled April 22 hearing that was to be held under the law that has sparked so much debate, ABC news reports.

Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who is facing second-degree murder charges for the shooting of 17-year-old Martin, is awaiting trial set for June 10, 2013. His counsel's move waiving his right to the April hearing leaves open the opportunity for it to be rolled into Zimmerman's trial this summer, and gives the defense more time to prepare, an obvious concern after a motion to delay the proceedings was denied.

Martin was headed back to the home of his father's girlfriend shortly after 7 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2012, after a trip to the convenience store at the time he was killed. George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood-watch member, reported Martin to the police and told the 911 dispatcher that the teenager looked "suspicious." Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher not to follow Martin, but a few minutes after the police call, Martin lay dead from a gunshot to the chest.

Zimmerman admitted to police that he shot Martin, but claimed he acted in self-defense. He was later arrested and charged with second-degree murder.

This latest move comes after a string of setbacks for Zimmerman, when Florida judge Debra Nelson not only denied a trial delay but also ordered that the defendant must remain under 24-hour GPS monitoring while awaiting the proceedings.

Nelson was appointed to the case after the former Judge Kenneth Lester was asked to step down. Zimmerman's lawyers were also denied permission to question a young woman who is presumed to be the last known person to speak with Martin the night of the fatal encounter.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman's lawyers are investigating the young woman, who is known as Witness 8. Defense lawyer Don West said the witness "misrepresented" in a sworn statement that she missed Martin's funeral because she was hospitalized, however, prosecutors confirmed there were no medical records.

Yeah, I know, Huffpost, yadda yadda. Google reveals several other sources for this, though.

[aerius]

Alleged murderer. Here's the fun part. The physical evidence which we know about so far supports Zimmerman's version of events, so even if the prosecution paints him as a liar, it does not matter nearly as much for their case. The physical evidence shows that his head was beaten against the ground, it shows that he shot Martin from point blank, and the ballistics are consistent with a shot which was fired while Martin was mounted on top of him. Even if Zimmerman perjures himself, the physical evidence stands and it takes priority over testimony. The case for the prosecution rests solely on witness testimony, discredit the witnesses and they are fucked.

Now, I've managed to find some transcripts and witness 8 didn't quite perjure herself, but only because the lawyer was damn smart and got 2 weasel words in the right place.

BDLR:_ Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?

Dee Dee:__I was goin’ to go, but…

BDLR:_ OK, what happened?

Dee Dee:__I didn’ feel good.

BDLR:_ OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?

Dee Dee:_ Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.

Gotta love that US media, it's been nearly a year and they still can't get their shit straight.

[Losonti Tokash]

Gee, that all sounds consistent with Martin defending himself against a lunatic with a gun.

[Flagg]

Gee, that all sounds consistent with Martin defending himself against a lunatic with a gun.

Just for that I'm donating $25 to George Zimmerman's defense fund!

[weemadando]

Yeah, so the options are:
Guy A has a gun and is following Guy B who A feels is suspiciously nigger-like, what with his skin colour and hoodie in his otherwise nice neighbourhood.

Then

1) B attacks A (because he's frightened of the guy following him or just hates whitey after listening to too much rap music) and B is able to beat the shit out of A before A shoots him.

or

2) A attacks B (because he's frightened of the black guy in his neighbourhood or because he just is a fucking idiot) and B turns the tables and beats the shit out of him, so A shoots him.

Those are the two versions of the scenario that I can see. It comes down to who starts a fight between a kid walking home and a racist vigilante with a gun who was following him. Who the fuck knows what really started it, but it's not like any party is coming away smelling like roses.

[aerius]

Thanks to Florida laws, it really doesn't matter who started it.
Once Martin got mount and started punching Zimmerman's head, it's justified shoot.

All the defence has to do is prove that the above happened prior to the shoot, the physical evidence (grass stains, wounds, ballistics, etc.) backs it up so by the letter of the law he goes free.

[Flagg]

Yeah, so the options are:
Guy A has a gun and is following Guy B who A feels is suspiciously nigger-like, what with his skin colour and hoodie in his otherwise nice neighbourhood.

Then

1) B attacks A (because he's frightened of the guy following him or just hates whitey after listening to too much rap music) and B is able to beat the shit out of A before A shoots him.

or

2) A attacks B (because he's frightened of the black guy in his neighbourhood or because he just is a fucking idiot) and B turns the tables and beats the shit out of him, so A shoots him.

Those are the two versions of the scenario that I can see. It comes down to who starts a fight between a kid walking home and a racist vigilante with a gun who was following him. Who the fuck knows what really started it, but it's not like any party is coming away smelling like roses.

Well that's why it's a second degree and not a first degree murder charge.

[weemadando]

It's also why I'm so fucking sick of both of the extreme sides of this case. It's pretty clear what happened in the end and it seems to be fairly clear from various undisputed statements what happened before. It's that one little middle part that matters to them - who started the actual physical confrontation, and as Aerius points out, under the law that we're dealing with it hardly fucking matters as what happened later (Martin seemingly getting the upper hand of the struggle and then being shot) negates it all.

[Sea Skimmer]

Thanks to Florida laws, it really doesn't matter who started it.
Once Martin got mount and started punching Zimmerman's head, it's justified shoot.

No the only thing that matters is who started the fight. If Zimmerman did, then he was engaged in unlawful activity at the time and the Florida stand your ground law does not apply at all. The crime is then first degree murder on the basis that the chain of events and confrontation was premeditated, given the pursuit Zimmerman engaged it. That's why this was a first degree murder case, and not second as would more normally be involved in a fatal street fight. If Martin started it then Zimmerman was justified in shooting under the law and will walk free.

The Florida law, and every other stand your ground law I've looked at the text of is the same on this. You do not get an automatic right to shoot anyone fighting you. Hard to enforce without witnesses of course.

[Flagg]

My undertsnading of self defense laws in Florida (circa 2003 and again in 2006) is that you cannot start a fight, lose or begin ot lose, and then kill the other person only to claim self defense. Now I left before the Stand Your Ground retardidity went into effect (or just after) but somehow I doubt you can still start a fight and then claim self defense.

[Simon_Jester]

It's also why I'm so fucking sick of both of the extreme sides of this case. It's pretty clear what happened in the end and it seems to be fairly clear from various undisputed statements what happened before. It's that one little middle part that matters to them - who started the actual physical confrontation...

If Martin hadn't died, then whoever started the physical confrontation would be (justly) up on assault charges. When it comes to who died by violence, the question of who started the violence matters.

[Kamakazie Sith]

My undertsnading of self defense laws in Florida (circa 2003 and again in 2006) is that you cannot start a fight, lose or begin ot lose, and then kill the other person only to claim self defense. Now I left before the Stand Your Ground retardidity went into effect (or just after) but somehow I doubt you can still start a fight and then claim self defense.

You're correct. However, things become gray when the force being used by the defender begins to cross that threshold between reasonable and necessary to excessive and potentially deadly. Just because someone starts a fight with you does not give you license to rearrange the appearance of their face after they've been knocked down.

[Simon_Jester]

If all they have are their fists or a club, then defending yourself by knocking them down and then running away seems obviously right- if it's self defense, wouldn't you get out of there as soon as you have a safe chance of leaving the area?

If they have a gun... I can't shake the feeling that that makes things trickier. A reasonable person might think they are in danger of their lives, if they simply knock down and then run away from a man with a pistol. Would you mind going into more detail?

[Lagmonster]

If all they have are their fists or a club, then defending yourself by knocking them down and then running away seems obviously right- if it's self defense, wouldn't you get out of there as soon as you have a safe chance of leaving the area?

If they have a gun... I can't shake the feeling that that makes things trickier. A reasonable person might think they are in danger of their lives, if they simply knock down and then run away from a man with a pistol. Would you mind going into more detail?

This is something more of a 'human nature' thing, but I'm not positive that your average untrained young man is psychologically capable of rationalizing all this mid-combat. I'd wager that a lot of people haven't been in a serious fight in their entire lives, let alone against an opponent who has a loaded firearm on his person. The very existence of the weapon, in fact, probably changes the dynamic of the event to the point where both combatants aren't going to risk giving no quarter. After all, if one guy relents, the other one could take advantage of the lull and shoot him. If the other one relents, he could lose control of his weapon and get shot.

[aerius]

My undertsnading of self defense laws in Florida (circa 2003 and again in 2006) is that you cannot start a fight, lose or begin ot lose, and then kill the other person only to claim self defense. Now I left before the Stand Your Ground retardidity went into effect (or just after) but somehow I doubt you can still start a fight and then claim self defense.

You're correct. However, things become gray when the force being used by the defender begins to cross that threshold between reasonable and necessary to excessive and potentially deadly. Just because someone starts a fight with you does not give you license to rearrange the appearance of their face after they've been knocked down.

Yup, that's the problem. Under self-defence laws you're required to disengage as soon as it's safe to do so. If you continue to pummel a guy after that point it's no longer self-defence, you are now the one committing assault & battery and will be charged accordingly in a court of law.

Which brings me to the next point.

If all they have are their fists or a club, then defending yourself by knocking them down and then running away seems obviously right- if it's self defense, wouldn't you get out of there as soon as you have a safe chance of leaving the area?

If they have a gun... I can't shake the feeling that that makes things trickier. A reasonable person might think they are in danger of their lives, if they simply knock down and then run away from a man with a pistol. Would you mind going into more detail?

The problem here is concealed carry, the key word being concealed. We don't know when the gun came out and there's no way to find out or prove it, Zimmerman is the only one who knows and he ain't talking. We can't say if the gun was drawn before or after the knockdown, and without that you can't prove that Martin was in fear for his life and justified in beating Zimmerman's head into the ground. No proof, and Zimmerman walks whether you like it or not.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If all they have are their fists or a club, then defending yourself by knocking them down and then running away seems obviously right- if it's self defense, wouldn't you get out of there as soon as you have a safe chance of leaving the area?

If they have a gun... I can't shake the feeling that that makes things trickier. A reasonable person might think they are in danger of their lives, if they simply knock down and then run away from a man with a pistol. Would you mind going into more detail?

Yes, they are trickier and you are right. However, nothing I have read indicates that possibility is going to be backed by evidence or testimony. The evidence available could support a self defense claim for both. What I am saying is that the current evidence supports the reasoning that the police and the local DA decided not to charge Zimmerman. Meaning no corruption, folks.

If Martin would have shot and killed Zimmerman after taking the gun and claimed that he was defending his life from Zimmerman I wonder how this would have unfolded. Would Martin have been charged? If not, would there be claims of police corruption? Would there be claims of racism?

[JLTucker]

If Martin would have shot and killed Zimmerman after taking the gun and claimed that he was defending his life from Zimmerman I wonder how this would have unfolded. Would Martin have been charged? If not, would there be claims of police corruption? Would there be claims of racism?

Why wouldn't he be charged?