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

[sciguy]

Of course, attacking someone from behind while talking on your cell phone and asking him why he's following you is some mean ninja shit!

...according to the girlfriend of the victim. Zimmerman will, of course, simply claim that she lied, and as far as I know, there is no actual evidence to back her claims.

[Flagg]

Of course, attacking someone from behind while talking on your cell phone and asking him why he's following you is some mean ninja shit!

...according to the girlfriend of the victim. Zimmerman will, of course, simply claim that she lied, and as far as I know, there is no actual evidence to back her claims.

Except she has the phone logs saying she was on the phone with him minutes before he was murdered. And we already know Zimmerman is a racist liar, so she has far more credibility than he does.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What you're seeing is that tacit assumption that policemen are not murderers, while masked criminals are. Bewildering and incredibly stupid, especially the 'walk closer' ones, but would you rather live in a society where people didn't make that assumption?

I know. My point is that on one side you do have police abuse motivated by racism. On the other side, and from what I've seen on my job this is likely the biggest reason, you have excessive force motivated by stress created by the person not doing what they're told. (Which to me is a training situation and doesn't warrant termination or charges.)

Although I remember one occasion on which I accidentally made someone nervous just by walking closer to them (it was at some distance, and at night)- apparently just in case I was a burglar instead of a badly lost college student asking for directions. It simply did not register on my brain that I might be anyone to be afraid of.

Which I suppose was stupid of me, not realizing that. but it would be nice if we could all live that way all the time, wouldn't it?

Yeah, I think the world would benefit greatly from people putting themselves in the shoes of others.

[TheHammer]

Before this; typical reaction to a shoot in Florida by someone who wasn't a cop was for the PD to arrest everyone, put them in jail and wait for the courts to settle it 24 months later.

This was a major point in our CHL class back before Texas passed a castle doctrine: If you acted in self-defense, you were 99% likely to get arrested and charged, no matter how it presented. The first officer on the scene could be your best friend or worst nightmare as his initial assessment of the situation could determine most cases. "Did you retreat enough?" which was an extremely subjective criteria to define, was also the main point of most prosecution cases.

I recall on off-duty officer joking about a case he testified in where a man hid upstairs before opening fire on a home invader. The officer joked that the man should have jumped out his second-story window before fighting back and the prosecutor still would have asked "why didn't you run another 6 miles?"

Even all that aside, you still needed a lawyer (which can easily ruin you financially even if you win) and you still had to prove your innocence (that you acted lawfully) rather than the prosecutor proving you guilty. Even if found not-guilty: you were getting sued by someone, somewhere.

The whole point of "Stand your ground" is that if there's no evidence that you acted unlawfully, you could not be arrested or sued. Where I think Florida is running into issues is with the lack of a "provocation" clause which basically means you cannot actively go after someone (even if it's legal to do so), then claim self-defense when they fight back. But even in the Florida law, "Stand your Ground" doesn't apply if the other person in the situation was leaving the area, such as the victim here was. Zimmerman had a duty to retreat in this situation and he didn't do so.

I think there should be a very sharp line drawn about "stand your ground" actions taken within one's own home, and actions where you are out on public property. If someone has entered your home illegally you can be pretty well justified in fearing for your life. On the street things are much murkier and you should not be granted the same amount of leeway that the Florida law grants with its "legally entitled to be" clause...

[Eleas]

I think there should be a very sharp line drawn about "stand your ground" actions taken within one's own home, and actions where you are out on public property. If someone has entered your home illegally you can be pretty well justified in fearing for your life. On the street things are much murkier and you should not be granted the same amount of leeway that the Florida law grants with its "legally entitled to be" clause...

That's where the Castle Doctrine comes in. It already covers the specific case of home invasions (and apparently, in some states, personal motor vehicles as well).

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think there should be a very sharp line drawn about "stand your ground" actions taken within one's own home, and actions where you are out on public property. If someone has entered your home illegally you can be pretty well justified in fearing for your life. On the street things are much murkier and you should not be granted the same amount of leeway that the Florida law grants with its "legally entitled to be" clause...

Well, as stated earlier if Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head then it is a justified deadly force situation even if Zimmerman started the fight. A witness account describes this as happening. The other witnesses came into the scene after the gun shot. This case is looking very complicated at this point.

[TheHammer]

I think there should be a very sharp line drawn about "stand your ground" actions taken within one's own home, and actions where you are out on public property. If someone has entered your home illegally you can be pretty well justified in fearing for your life. On the street things are much murkier and you should not be granted the same amount of leeway that the Florida law grants with its "legally entitled to be" clause...

Well, as stated earlier if Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head then it is a justified deadly force situation even if Zimmerman started the fight. A witness account describes this as happening. The other witnesses came into the scene after the gun shot. This case is looking very complicated at this point.

Even assuming that is true, look at it from Martin's perspect. If Zimmerman was following him and armed with a handgun, wasn't Martin thus exercising his own rights to defend himself via the "stand your ground" law? Maybe he felt that if he let up for an instant, this armed man who had been following him for some unknown reason was going to blow him away. That's how I'd view it...

The person who provokes the incident shouldn't be able to use a "self defense" excuse to get off scott free whenever they bite off more than they can chew. As noted, you could essentially kill anyone by simply provoking a fight with them, letting them win sufficiently that you are injured, then blasting them and claim you were fearful for your life. In those instances, the provocateur should at the very least be charged with aggravated manslaughter, or second degree murder - and I'd err on the latter.

[sciguy]

Except she has the phone logs saying she was on the phone with him minutes before he was murdered...

Zimmerman won't contest the fact that they were on the phone, he'll simply contest the girlfriend's story about what Martin said. Also, even if we were to assume that the girlfriend is telling the truth, it still doesn't disprove Zimmerman's version; perhaps Martin was angrily asking Zimmerman why Zimmerman was following him as he grabbed Zimmerman from behind and attempted to put Zimmerman in a choke hold or something. Again, not what I think probably happened, but it's not fundamentally inconsistent with Zimmerman's claims.

And we already know Zimmerman is a racist liar, so she has far more credibility than he does.

How do we know he's a racist lair? It appears to be his word against the girlfriend's. Although I believe he probably is a racist liar and that the girlfriend is telling the truth, that's a long way from proof. There are witnesses who think they heard Martin pleading for help. Zimmerman claims it that he was the one yelling for help. Although some of the witnesses say that it didn't sound like Zimmerman, they didn't actually see anything. The one witness who actually saw the altercation says that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. Given Florida's self defense laws, that would make it damn hard for the prosecutor to prove that it wasn't self defense.

[Simon_Jester]

What you're seeing is that tacit assumption that policemen are not murderers, while masked criminals are. Bewildering and incredibly stupid, especially the 'walk closer' ones, but would you rather live in a society where people didn't make that assumption?

If the policeman has just ordered someone to the ground and holds a gun he probably means it. Walking towards him when he has given that order is suicidal in my opinion...

Like I said- incredibly stupid.

Although I remember one occasion on which I accidentally made someone nervous just by walking closer to them (it was at some distance, and at night)- apparently just in case I was a burglar instead of a badly lost college student asking for directions. It simply did not register on my brain that I might be anyone to be afraid of.

Which I suppose was stupid of me, not realizing that. but it would be nice if we could all live that way all the time, wouldn't it?

Yeah, I think the world would benefit greatly from people putting themselves in the shoes of others.

Well, what I meant was more like "wouldn't it be nice if we could live without being afraid of all the people who, when you get right down to it, we don't need to be afraid of? Who aren't actually out to rob or kill or trick or con us?"

Which I know is totally impractical, since it's not like dangerous people wear signs around their necks or anything. But it would make life a lot simpler.

[TheFeniX]

I think there should be a very sharp line drawn about "stand your ground" actions taken within one's own home, and actions where you are out on public property. If someone has entered your home illegally you can be pretty well justified in fearing for your life. On the street things are much murkier and you should not be granted the same amount of leeway that the Florida law grants with its "legally entitled to be" clause...

There is. Even if the "Stand your Ground" law wasn't in effect, Zimmerman's story (if taken at face value) would still be classified as self-defense: he was leaving the area (thus retreating) when he was attacked from behind, knocked down, and beaten with an attacker on top of him (that's deadly force and further retreat is almost impossible). That he originally provoked the incident is no longer relevant.

In this "he said / he said" situation, Zimmerman's story sounds like self-defense. The only difference is that under the pre-editied self-defense laws, he likely would have been arrested as a matter of course pending the investigation. As I said previously, this is more a case of police incompetence/corruption and/or lack of evidence, which would plague a self-defense case even without a Stand your Ground law.

The one witness who actually saw the altercation says that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. Given Florida's self defense laws, that would make it damn hard for the prosecutor to prove that it wasn't self defense.

If what he said is true, there should be some physical evidence of the attack. Abrasions, bruises, etc.

Considering Zimmerman's "fucking coons" comment, I wouldn't take much of what he says as gospel. But just being a racist doesn't make you a liar, especially in court.

[sciguy]

Considering Zimmerman's "fucking coons" comment, I wouldn't take much of what he says as gospel. But just being a racist doesn't make you a liar, especially in court.

Whether or not he actually said that is far from certain.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justice/f ... =allsearch

A top CNN audio engineer enhanced the sound of the 911 call, and several members of CNN's editorial staff repeatedly reviewed the tape but could reach no consensus on whether Zimmerman used a racial slur.

[Flagg]

Listen to it with your own fucking ears. The guy so clearly says "Fucking coons" it's not funny. If some CNN editors can't hear it then maybe that explains why they are dead last in Cable news.

[Simon_Jester]

Akhlut linked us to the footage of the call on the first page:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogal ... von-Martin

And he said that Zimmerman said "fucking coons" at... 1:54, I believe? Is that right? Or was it somewhere else?

[TheFeniX]

Listen to it with your own fucking ears. The guy so clearly says "Fucking coons" it's not funny. If some CNN editors can't hear it then maybe that explains why they are dead last in Cable news.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogal ... von-Martin
1:54 is where you hear Zimmerman say "fucking coon".

I don't know. "Fucking" pretty easy to make out. But "coons" almost sounds like "punks." There's a pretty clear "Puh" to start the second word and I can hear a pretty distinct "cks" at the end.

I pulled out the relevant part of the call and just recorded it with the Windows recorder. You can find it here (about 800k). Playing it over and over, I'm really hearing "fucking punks."

[sciguy]

Listen to it with your own fucking ears. The guy so clearly says "Fucking coons" it's not funny. If some CNN editors can't hear it then maybe that explains why they are dead last in Cable news.

You're full of shit. That recording is anything but "clear." He might have said "coons," or he might have said any number of other things. It's impossible to tell.

[Flagg]

Listen to it with your own fucking ears. The guy so clearly says "Fucking coons" it's not funny. If some CNN editors can't hear it then maybe that explains why they are dead last in Cable news.

You're full of shit. That recording is anything but "clear." He might have said "coons," or he might have said any number of other things. It's impossible to tell.

Yeah, I'm full of shit despite me and most others being able to clearly hear the word "coons". You're an idiot.

[Aniron]

Yeah, I'm full of shit despite me and most others being able to clearly hear the word "coons". You're an idiot.

It could be confirmation bias. I also heard "punks" as another poster here mentioned.

[Aaron MkII]

I can hear "fucking" and a "k" sound. But I don't hear all that well, there's lots of background noise too.

[Anguirus]

Something is wrong somewhere if briefly getting the upper hand in a struggle with a man who is stalking you through the streets is "using deadly force" and justifies his shooting you in the fucking chest.

Witnesses are always going to disagree with each other. Eyewitness testimony is frighteningly unreliable, let alone from a distance, at night. Personally, the allegations of police misconduct and witness tampering are of great interest to me as well, and I wonder what our resident police think of that.

It's also worthwhile to consider the histories of the two men. One was a paranoiac who habitually stalked black men around his neighborhood, the other was a squeaky-clean honors student. That doesn't preclude Martin throwing a few punches of course, but Zimmerman created the situation, possessed a considerable physical advantage, and has a violent criminal record.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. I'm listening with the speakers on my laptop instead of my desktop now, and I'm clearly hearing "fucking" now, and... yeah, that sounds more like "coons" than any other word I can easily think of, although "punks" is possible.

But it sounded a lot less clear last time, and that makes me wonder how much it might depend on the hardware you listen to the recording with.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Even assuming that is true, look at it from Martin's perspect. If Zimmerman was following him and armed with a handgun, wasn't Martin thus exercising his own rights to defend himself via the "stand your ground" law? Maybe he felt that if he let up for an instant, this armed man who had been following him for some unknown reason was going to blow him away. That's how I'd view it...

With what testimony or evidence would you back this?

The person who provokes the incident shouldn't be able to use a "self defense" excuse to get off scott free whenever they bite off more than they can chew. As noted, you could essentially kill anyone by simply provoking a fight with them, letting them win sufficiently that you are injured, then blasting them and claim you were fearful for your life. In those instances, the provocateur should at the very least be charged with aggravated manslaughter, or second degree murder - and I'd err on the latter.

No. That would not be valid reason for deadly force. You'd have to either be injured to such a degree that retreat and defense was not possible or in a position where retreat and defense is not possible (such as someone straddling you).

On the other hand, Hammer, just because someone bit off more than they can chew with you doesn't give you the right to rearrange their face, curb stomp them, or seriously disfigure them.

[SVPD]

Listen to it with your own fucking ears. The guy so clearly says "Fucking coons" it's not funny. If some CNN editors can't hear it then maybe that explains why they are dead last in Cable news.

You're full of shit. That recording is anything but "clear." He might have said "coons," or he might have said any number of other things. It's impossible to tell.

Yeah, I'm full of shit despite me and most others being able to clearly hear the word "coons". You're an idiot.

Who exactly are "most" others? It is anything but clear. The only way it can be "clear" is if you want that to be what he said. I'm not saying he didn't say it, but it's far from clear that he did.

[Aaron MkII]

So how much weight does the 9/11 operator telling him not to pursue the guy carry?

[SVPD]

I think there should be a very sharp line drawn about "stand your ground" actions taken within one's own home, and actions where you are out on public property. If someone has entered your home illegally you can be pretty well justified in fearing for your life. On the street things are much murkier and you should not be granted the same amount of leeway that the Florida law grants with its "legally entitled to be" clause...

Well, as stated earlier if Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head then it is a justified deadly force situation even if Zimmerman started the fight. A witness account describes this as happening. The other witnesses came into the scene after the gun shot. This case is looking very complicated at this point.

Even assuming that is true, look at it from Martin's perspect. If Zimmerman was following him and armed with a handgun, wasn't Martin thus exercising his own rights to defend himself via the "stand your ground" law? Maybe he felt that if he let up for an instant, this armed man who had been following him for some unknown reason was going to blow him away. That's how I'd view it...

He might initially have been exercising his right to self defense, but that does not extend to getting someone down and then beating their head in. It might if they already did something or said something that expressed the intent to use deadly force against you, but if they didn't you can't just escalate to deadly force simply because they are armed.

The person who provokes the incident shouldn't be able to use a "self defense" excuse to get off scott free whenever they bite off more than they can chew. As noted, you could essentially kill anyone by simply provoking a fight with them, letting them win sufficiently that you are injured, then blasting them and claim you were fearful for your life. In those instances, the provocateur should at the very least be charged with aggravated manslaughter, or second degree murder - and I'd err on the latter.

First of all, unless I'm missing something, I've not yet seen where Zimmerman provoked the incident. He might have, but all that we're sure that he did was follow the kid, and then later, he shot him. There's a gap in there we're trying to ill in and so far have not been able to.

Following someone might be disturbing or alarming to them, but it isn't automatically a threat or an assault, nor a provocation. Furthermore, it's very dangerous to use "provoked the incident" as a standard. Does simple verbal provocation somehow justify the provoked person in beating the tar out of the loudmouth, or even killing him? The loudmouth can't defend themself at all without being guilty of assault or murder? I'd be interested to know if you therefore think it's ok for police officers to use any amount of force they want if someone "provokes" them?

[SVPD]

So how much weight does the 9/11 operator telling him not to pursue the guy carry?

A lot less than people think. Mostly, it makes him an idiot, but idiot is not equal to murderer. Following someone is not illegal, even if the police tell you not to.

See here's the thing. What matters is really not if he followed the kid, but the manner in which he did it. If he acted in such a way as to make Martin feel he was in imminent danger of assault, or did assault Martin, then Martin was within his rights to defend himself. We don't know for sure if this is the case, but given Martin's clean record, it's likely that Zimmerman did something that made the kid feel he was in imminent danger.

Once Martin has him down and is on top of him (assuming that is true) then all that becomes irrelevant. Mounting someone like that is an overwhelming advantage; hitting them in the head in that position is deadly force since you can basically just hit them until their skull caves in and a person unskilled in ground fighting will be unlikely to break the mount. At this point, the previous situation loses a great deal of its relevance. Self-defense does not allow simply beating someone who is already down just because "they started it". It especially does not allow you to carry things into the territory of deadly force. A person who is threatened with deadly force, even after they provoked someone with nondeadly force, has an excellent argument for self-defense, or at least for a much lesser charge than murder.

Now, if Zimmerman can be shown to have brandished the weapon in some fashion before the kid got him down (again, assuming that the kid did, indeed, get him down) then the prosecutor might be able to successfully argue that the kid was trying to get the weapon away, but that's getting into the weeds in a manner we simply don't have the facts to argue one way or the other.