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

[TheHammer]

The Justice Department is investigating, but it may be difficult for them to make their case. It's a tough standard to nail someone on federal civil rights charges, and the "stand your ground" BS apparently makes prosecuting this guy ridiculously difficult in Florida.

Miami Herald

“The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident. With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids — the highest level of intent in criminal law.

“Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws.”

I would think that there is more than enough evidence at this point to destroy Zimmerman's self-defense story, considering "Several witnesses said they heard cries that sounded like a boy wailing — howling silenced by the crack of gunfire — and were shocked to hear police later portray the cries as Zimmerman’s. One witness said police ignored her repeated phone calls." Another thing I've read several times (not in this story) is that a witness was pressured to change her testimony by a cop on the scene from Martin crying out to Zimmerman crying out.

This story is getting a LOT of attention, so there's hope.

"Stand your ground" laws strike me as dangerous, because they make it easy for you to justify a killing as 'self-defense' when it was in fact 'fighting.' People can feel threatened and think "what if the scary person chases after me and attacks me?" in situations where that fear is totally irrational, and where all they would have to do to prevent violence is just back off instead of standing and sneering and going "go ahead, make my day!"

So having a law that violent idiots will understand to mean "It's okay to kill people when I feel threatened" will make for a lot of unjust and unnecessary killings.

Which is exactly what everyone with a brain was saying when these laws were passed written as they were. And now its finally happened. Hopefully it actually results in something getting changed with the law to at the very least NOT allow someone to provoke an incident and then claim self-defense after the fact.

[Flagg]

What is truly disgusting is this killer is going un prosecuted because of a gun law in FL called "Stand your ground"

The ability to defend yourself from an attacker with lethal force is something that many states have had on the books for way longer than they've had "Stand your ground" laws.

"Stand your ground" removes "duty to retreat" from the situation. A lot of criminal and civil cases were made against people defending themselves due to the ambiguous nature of what is considered "retreating." Another main point of this law was to remove civil action against those who had been found to have done no wrong. Namely, if you killed/injured someone in self-defense, and it was found to be justified (as in, you were not charged with a crime or were found innocent), you could then not be sued by the family/etc after the fact.

Are all circumstances that the FL Police seem intent on ignoring and making no effort to mitigate.

This is the actual issue at hand. With the evidence presented, at best, Zimmerman was affecting a (poorly thought-out) citizen's arrest. At worst, he decided to take it upon himself to strong-arm what he viewed as "an undesirable" then murder him when things went south.

"Stand your Ground" wouldn't even apply here as he's the instigator. Provided the prosecutors aren't waiting for more evidence or time to look at the evidence to make their case, through either incompetence, corruption, or just laziness, the police/prosecutors office are at fault for not acting.

The thing is, in Florida, you can only make a citizens arrest if someone is committing a felony. The worst this kid could have possibly been doing from this racist bastards limited POV is trespassing.

[Anguirus]

"Stand your Ground" wouldn't even apply here as he's the instigator. Provided the prosecutors aren't waiting for more evidence or time to look at the evidence to make their case, through either incompetence, corruption, or just laziness, the police/prosecutors office are at fault for not acting.

But he claims that Martin was the instigator, and local cops are backing him up. See how it works?

From here:

A 2010 review by The St. Petersburg Times found that rates of justifiable homicide tripled since the law was passed and that “twice a week, on average, someone’s killing was considered warranted.”

The paper reviewed press accounts of 93 cases involving 65 deaths in confrontations in which the new law could be applied and found that 57 of them resulted in no criminal charge or trial. In seven others that went to trial, the defendants were then acquitted.

In these cases, the Florida Supreme Court recognizes something called “true immunity.” That means, according to Emily Bazelon in Slate, that the assertion of the Stand Your Ground law can be enough for a judge to dismiss a case before trial even starts.

"Stand Your Ground" seems reasonable on the surface, and considering just how out of line Zimmerman was, it might not save his ass (it's certainly not meant to, according to the bill's architects here). But it is a damned strong defense that wouldn't normally be available, and it probably contributed to the feeling of the cops on the scene that their buddy could probably be off the hook.

[Scrib]

Does stand your ground even apply in this case? Zimmerman went after the boy after he had been specifically told not to by the police. The boy was unarmed, he was, he had no reasonable cause to believe that he was in danger nor did he react with appropriate force if he did, it's ridiculous. And honestly doesn't self-defense place the burden of proof on the shooter? Zimmerman was required to prove that the danger to him was life-threatening not have the cops claim that there wasn't any proof and let him go after he deliberately disobeyed them and pushed the situation. But hell, what does it matter? The cop didn't test Zimmerman or anything so we'll never know his state of mind at the time of the shooting.

Well, hopefully they can get him in civil court? I'm not that familiar with America's civil system.

Also, did anyone hear the operator saying "Oh God" when Zimmerman told him that the kid was looking at him?

[Anguirus]

And honestly doesn't self-defense place the burden of proof on the shooter?

Effectively, not anymore. Whatever stand your ground is supposed to do, in practice is is an exceptionally strong defense to the charge of manslaughter or second degree murder, so strong that it has annihilated cases before a trial can even begin. In practice, the shooter simply declares that he felt his life was at risk.

[Simon_Jester]

Why does that work? That sounds like the sort of thing that only works on account of some unexpected detail of how the law was written- someone screwing up and putting in a loophole.

And is this a problem in all states, or just a few states like Florida?

[Broomstick]

And is this a problem in all states, or just a few states like Florida?

Self-defense laws vary among the US states, so "just a few states" in the sense that you have to look at each state.

However, pursuing someone who is leaving the area is NOT self-defense! It is never self-defense, even in "stand your ground" or "castle-law" states (I live in the latter). As soon as the other guy starts to leave the justification for violence in self-defense goes away.

Of course, there's theory and then there's practice - in the real world, shit sometimes gets ignored, especially when the dead guy is a late-teen black man/boy out after dark.

[Anguirus]

Why does that work? That sounds like the sort of thing that only works on account of some unexpected detail of how the law was written- someone screwing up and putting in a loophole.

And is this a problem in all states, or just a few states like Florida?

I don't know about other states, I've just been reading post-Martin articles about the law in practice in Florida. Justifiable homicide cases have tripled. "Stand your ground" has been invoked as a defense, not always successfully, by gang members and fatal bar fights. Frustrated Florida prosecutors have told the press that "stand your ground" is an extremely successful defense when used by the survivor of a fight between two people that left one dead. As they say, dead men tell no tales.

We are "lucky" that this psychopath murdered a kid who was on the phone, surrounded by dozens of people. Or else there would be nothing at all.

[CarsonPalmer]

This is bothering me on a few levels tonight. The first is that I just finished student-teaching, and this kid could have been the same age as one of my students. The other thing is that I live down the street from a convenience store, and I've fairly often done exactly what this kid did-walk down to the store after dark, buy a pack of candy, and walk back while eating it. For the first time, I guess, I understand that concept of privilege-as a young white male in fairly good shape, I've never thought that something might happen to me; nobody's going to be bothering me for walking around at 9:30 in a safe neighborhood at night with a bag of candy, and I'll never have to warn my son not to do so.

But for a black kid-he might get shot. And a black parent has to worry about something like this.

Before anybody throws out counterexamples of how its unsafe to walk around the South Bronx at 9:30 at night, that's different-anyone is in danger in a crime-ridden neighborhood after dark. But that's not the point-everybody knows that. This applies to places that are supposed to be safe, places that are perfectly safe if you're white (the same thing applies of course, to being male instead of female).

[TheFeniX]

"Stand your Ground" wouldn't even apply here as he's the instigator. Provided the prosecutors aren't waiting for more evidence or time to look at the evidence to make their case, through either incompetence, corruption, or just laziness, the police/prosecutors office are at fault for not acting.

But he claims that Martin was the instigator, and local cops are backing him up. See how it works?

I won't argue abuse of the system: cops and prosecutors being lazy/corrupt is bad going either way. Before the application of "stand your ground" laws, standard practice was to arrest and try pretty much every self-defense case as murder (or whatever they wanted to charge you with) and rely on the courts to figure it out. The burden of proof was placed on the self-defense claim, forcing you to explain why you had a gun (or whatever), why you were in that situation at all, why you didn't retreat X feet, why didn't you X, and justify why didn't you Y. With stand your ground, it's up to prosecutors to prove you weren't acting lawfully. The Florida law in fact comes out and says that with: "(e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat."

Also, even if you were found not-guilty, you were almost guaranteed to be sued by the "victim's" family afterward. So, you might still be alive after a violent attack and not in jail, but you could easily be financially ruined. Stand your ground amends this.

Stand your ground laws were meant to force police/prosecutors to actually investigate self-defense claims rather than just arrest everyone and call it a day. It was also meant to prevent people from being destroyed financially for defending their lives. It was not meant to let people walk after pulling a gun in a bar fight (which is illegal on so many levels).

The Ammended Florida law states the following:

(e)AAA person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

Unless I'm missing something, the Florida law still would not apply in the OP situation because Zimmerman escalated the situation himself, ignoring police orders, and could easily be shown to be stalking his victim (among other things).

I'm still leaning toward the prosecutors being lazy/incompetent and Zimmerman being a lying fuck.

[Anguirus]

^ I'm not qualified to assess the competence of prosecutors. All I'm relaying is their opinions of the law's impact on criminal justice in Florida and their profession.

I have read a few times now that it's the transcript of the phone call Trayvon made to his girlfriend immediately before he was attacked that is most damaging to his case. Of course, Zimmerman has not yet been arrested so it almost seems premature to talk about his case.

I may be out on a limb, but considering how the police treated the witnesses, it may be fortunate that they did not find the cell phone.

[TheFeniX]

^ I'm not qualified to assess the competence of prosecutors. All I'm relaying is their opinions of the law's impact on criminal justice in Florida and their profession.

Granted.

Also: Whoops. My link to the Florida Law is from Texas. I got my tabs mixed up. Let me dig up the Florida stuff again. Their law might actually be retarded.

Ah, Here we go

Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Moving on to:

The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity

The law is more vague when compared to Texas as it doesn't mention provocation, at least not from what I can see.

[Beowulf]

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Akhlut]

Irony of ironies: that means that if Trayvon had a gun on him, he'd have been justified in shooting George Zimmerman to death.

[Flagg]

Irony of ironies: that means that if Trayvon had a gun on him, he'd have been justified in shooting George Zimmerman to death.

If Trayvon had a gun he'd have been committing a crime in FL as he was underage, so the law wouldn't have been in play.

[Broomstick]

In that case he might have been committing a crime for carrying a gun while underage, but he would NOT have been guilty of murder if he had killed Zimmerman in self-defense. I can't imagine the penalty for underage gun carrying is anywhere near the penalty for murder/manslaughter.

[Aaron MkII]

Irony of ironies: that means that if Trayvon had a gun on him, he'd have been justified in shooting George Zimmerman to death.

Flipside; Zimmerman gets off scott free. Underage black male with firearm, doesn't sound promising given the institutional racism.

[Flagg]

In that case he might have been committing a crime for carrying a gun while underage, but he would NOT have been guilty of murder if he had killed Zimmerman in self-defense. I can't imagine the penalty for underage gun carrying is anywhere near the penalty for murder/manslaughter.

Umm, no. The Law doesn't even come into effect if you kill someone during the commission of a crime and there is no self defense statute in Florida, so it would be manslaughter at the very least.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Does stand your ground even apply in this case? Zimmerman went after the boy after he had been specifically told not to by the police.

Given what we know it sure looks like the PD fucked up and that the Stand Your Ground law would not apply in this case. There's a chance we don't know the whole story though...

The boy was unarmed, he was, he had no reasonable cause to believe that he was in danger nor did he react with appropriate force if he did, it's ridiculous. And honestly doesn't self-defense place the burden of proof on the shooter?

You could articulate a threat. An example would be - This guy came up to me and demanded my money. He said he'd kill me if I didn't give him my money and then reached into his waist band like he was grabbing a weapon. The Stand Your Ground law would apply. The problem with this situation is he reported it to police and in his report he didn't articulate why the boy was being suspicious and then ignored instructions not to follow him. I'm not sure how the PD concluded that he was justified under the Stand Your Ground law.

Zimmerman was required to prove that the danger to him was life-threatening not have the cops claim that there wasn't any proof and let him go after he deliberately disobeyed them and pushed the situation. But hell, what does it matter? The cop didn't test Zimmerman or anything so we'll never know his state of mind at the time of the shooting.

Yes. Zimmerman has to articulate how he was in fear of death or serious bodily injury. However, the PD still has to develop PC to arrest him for homicide. Which should have been simple given what we know. Of course, maybe we don't know the whole story.

Well, hopefully they can get him in civil court? I'm not that familiar with America's civil system.

Also, did anyone hear the operator saying "Oh God" when Zimmerman told him that the kid was looking at him?

Yeah, Zimmerman sounds like an idiot. I despise working with over zealous neighborhood watch morons like this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There are conflicting witness accounts.

Source

SANFORD, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

On Monday afternoon, a FOX 35 News crew met with Tracy Martin who said the victim in the shooting is her 17-year-old son, Trayvon, who was visiting from Miami.

"He walked out of the house to go to the store. He was going to the store," she said. "He doesn't know anybody here. He just came down here, so he was bored, so he walked down to the store. He was on his way back home. I'm living down here. He was sitting on the porch and this man killed him."

Police said the shooter, identified as 25-year-old George Zimmerman, surrendered immediately. He has been questioned, but no charges have been levied and no arrest made.

Neighbors tell us that the shooter patrols the community at night and is a member of the Neighorhood Watch committee; however, police are not commenting.

Even with this information it still doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.

[Flagg]

Well, hopefully they can get him in civil court? I'm not that familiar with America's civil system.

It's my understanding that you cannot be successfully sued under this law and part of the reason for its passage was due to people who killed in self defense later being sued for wrongful death after being cleared by the police.

[Broomstick]

In that case he might have been committing a crime for carrying a gun while underage, but he would NOT have been guilty of murder if he had killed Zimmerman in self-defense. I can't imagine the penalty for underage gun carrying is anywhere near the penalty for murder/manslaughter.

Umm, no. The Law doesn't even come into effect if you kill someone during the commission of a crime and there is no self defense statute in Florida, so it would be manslaughter at the very least.

Even criminals are allowed to defend themselves from imminent threat (though not during the commission of a felony such as robbery or assault, as they would be the instigators there). He might well be guilty of violating a gun law, he might be convicted and punished for having the gun, but he would not not guilty of murder/manslaughter if he used deadly force in genuine self-defense.

Over the years there have been several instances of people in Chicago violating gun laws (handguns being essentially completely banned for years in that city) yet not being prosecuted after using an illegal gun in self-defense, or being charged with gun-law violation and not murder. Granted, Florida isn't Chicago and vice versa, but "your gun isn't legal" doesn't automatically remove one's right to self-defense nor does it mean the defender will be charged with murder.

Stand your ground would not apply in the situation you describe, but if, hypothetically, Zimmerman was shooting at Trayvon that would be self-defense by any measure, whether in a stand-your-ground jurisdiction or not. As Trayvon was trying (apparently) to leave the area he would have fulfilled any duty-to-retreat requirements of such jurisdictions. Self-defense as a legal notion allows you to, essentially, break the law (by committing violence upon another or even killing another) to protect your own life. Local laws define the requirements to claim self-defense, but they don't grant the right as you seem to imply.

[Flagg]

In that case he might have been committing a crime for carrying a gun while underage, but he would NOT have been guilty of murder if he had killed Zimmerman in self-defense. I can't imagine the penalty for underage gun carrying is anywhere near the penalty for murder/manslaughter.

Umm, no. The Law doesn't even come into effect if you kill someone during the commission of a crime and there is no self defense statute in Florida, so it would be manslaughter at the very least.

Even criminals are allowed to defend themselves from imminent threat (though not during the commission of a felony such as robbery or assault, as they would be the instigators there). He might well be guilty of violating a gun law, he might be convicted and punished for having the gun, but he would not not guilty of murder/manslaughter if he used deadly force in genuine self-defense.

Over the years there have been several instances of people in Chicago violating gun laws (handguns being essentially completely banned for years in that city) yet not being prosecuted after using an illegal gun in self-defense, or being charged with gun-law violation and not murder. Granted, Florida isn't Chicago and vice versa, but "your gun isn't legal" doesn't automatically remove one's right to self-defense nor does it mean the defender will be charged with murder.

Stand your ground would not apply in the situation you describe, but if, hypothetically, Zimmerman was shooting at Trayvon that would be self-defense by any measure, whether in a stand-your-ground jurisdiction or not. As Trayvon was trying (apparently) to leave the area he would have fulfilled any duty-to-retreat requirements of such jurisdictions. Self-defense as a legal notion allows you to, essentially, break the law (by committing violence upon another or even killing another) to protect your own life. Local laws define the requirements to claim self-defense, but they don't grant the right as you seem to imply.

You realize that illegal possession of a firearm is a felony, right? If you're in possession of a firearm illegally you are in the commission of a crime, and therefore the law doesn't apply. You may be right about other self defense laws though, as it's been almost a decade since I took the classes that taught me about such laws.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's my understanding that you cannot be successfully sued under this law and part of the reason for its passage was due to people who killed in self defense later being sued for wrongful death after being cleared by the police.

That question was posed by Scrib. I didn't properly tailor my quote tags.

[Broomstick]

You realize that illegal possession of a firearm is a felony, right? If you're in possession of a firearm illegally you are in the commission of a crime, and therefore the law doesn't apply.

The laws regarding that usually are written with an eye towards, for want of a better term, "active" felonies such as the robbery or assault examples I gave. Having a bag of pot in your backpack means you're committing a felony, too, but I doubt you'd be denied self-defense if you killed someone attempting to rob you with a gun while wearing said backpack. You might be committing a felony by embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from your employer, but that doesn't eliminate your right to self-defense if someone breaks into your residence in the middle of the night, either.

As noted, jurisdictions vary. However, Chicago long had one of the toughest anti-gun statutes in the nation and there were instances where people used illegal firearms in self-defense and the authorities did not prosecute for murder despite the blatant illegality of said weapon (in at least one instance, a wheelchair bound lady in Rogers Park defending herself against a young man who had already raped her, she wasn't charged with anything at all).

Thus, I don't think you should assume that possession of a gun, or use of said gun in self-defense, would automatically invalidate the self-defense concept/right nor would it automatically result in some sort of prosecution. It could - but juries sometimes refuse to convict in such cases.

You may be right about other self defense laws though, as it's been almost a decade since I took the classes that taught me about such laws.

Self defense as a legal concept, at least in the US, can be complicated in practice. Self-defense courses usually emphasize that even if you do act in legitimate self-defense you might still wind up in court or having legal difficulties, and results vary from place to place. As a general rule, use the least amount of force required to do the job, and cease immediately as soon as the threat is no longer being a threat, but the devil is in the details AND how the authorities interpret the situation after the fact.