Trayvon and Zimmerman

[Hazir]

The self-defence law there that was actually used is the same (to my knowledge) self-defence laws that you and I have. SYG etc didn't come into play.

The issue is the rather odd usage of self-defence given that he appeared to start it but there's no proof.

Stand your ground is part of the definition of self-defense in Florida. You can't talk about the one without talking about the other. The reason why people talk about it not being used by defense lawyers is because that would see on Zimmerman's behaviour before the altercation. Of course they don't want jurors to decide whether or not this idiot should have stayed in his car. During the altercation it was fully in play as Zimmerman then is claiming self-defense.

[Hazir]

I heard an interview with one of the jurors this morning. She said she felt Zimmerman was guilty of nothing more than poor judgement. Uh. If a man's poor judgement directly causes an innocent's death, isn't that a rough definition of manslaughter?

Clearly not, if the immediate cause for Zimmerman to feel his life was at risk was the altercation that followed once he was out of the car. That flips around the whole equation. And that makes for a situation where the jury could not have come to another conclusion than that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense as Florida law understands it.

Under more regular definitions of self-defense of course Zimmerman could not have claimed it for the simple reason that he put himself in a situation that turned violent but that he could have fully avoided by simply calling the police and leave it at that.

[Enoch the Red]

Clearly not, if the immediate cause for Zimmerman to feel his life was at risk was the altercation that followed once he was out of the car. That flips around the whole equation. And that makes for a situation where the jury could not have come to another conclusion than that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense as Florida law understands it.

Under more regular definitions of self-defense of course Zimmerman could not have claimed it for the simple reason that he put himself in a situation that turned violent but that he could have fully avoided by simply calling the police and leave it at that.

I'm not sure I'm following this train of thought. Isn't that roughly the same logic used by people who say that a woman is responsible for being raped because she was wearing slutty clothes or walking down a dark alley, or drinking too much? I have little doubt that Zimmerman made some really bad choices that night, but I just haven't seen any evidence conclusively showing he instigated a physical altercation.

[LittleFuzzy]

And you say this after a case in which it would have been gross disregard for the law if the jury would have come to a different verdict?

Let's not forget how this all started; it was Zimmerman being unhappy with the fact that another asshole was 'getting away with it' (buying skittles and a soda no less) that ended in Martin's death. If you, in such a case, have no option of punishing Zimmerman for unlawful killing another person, there is a big hole in that law through which no justice is seeping out.

By the way, I am not in favor of that campaign to open a federal case; I have little doubt that Zimmerman was engaging in racial profiling, that in itself however was not why the gun went off.

Hell, I've said on here before that the Framers wanted local prejudices ameliorating *or exacerbating* the outcome of criminal charges, mostly with the intent of getting people off for thumbing their nose at central government. I'm not actually a fan of jury trials.

And no, it would not have been a gross disregard for the law for the jury to have come to a different verdict. They could have convicted on manslaughter. This is arguably the exact sort of situation manslaughter was designed for. And if I heard correctly, the jury requested further instruction on the lesser included offenses which tells me that there were some members who certainly wanted to go that route. They just weren't able to convince their fellows.

But Hazir, self-defense in an altercation is always going to be murky. It's not like Martin was compelled to drop Zimmerman and continue whaling on him. What little evidence there is indicates Martin was quite fully participating and we don't have evidence on just how the fight started. We know there shouldn't have been a situation where a fight could start in the first place and Zimmerman is entirely at fault for that but that doesn't necessarily mean even narrow constructions of self-defense can't apply. None of us were in that courtroom and certainly none of us were with the jury. This is why I try to avoid talking about specifics in criminal cases rather than legal principles and processes, because we don't really know.

[Hazir]

Hell, I've said on here before that the Framers wanted local prejudices ameliorating *or exacerbating* the outcome of criminal charges, mostly with the intent of getting people off for thumbing their nose at central government. I'm not actually a fan of jury trials.

And no, it would not have been a gross disregard for the law for the jury to have come to a different verdict. They could have convicted on manslaughter. This is arguably the exact sort of situation manslaughter was designed for. And if I heard correctly, the jury requested further instruction on the lesser included offenses which tells me that there were some members who certainly wanted to go that route. They just weren't able to convince their fellows.

But Hazir, self-defense in an altercation is always going to be murky. It's not like Martin was compelled to drop Zimmerman and continue whaling on him. What little evidence there is indicates Martin was quite fully participating and we don't have evidence on just how the fight started. We know there shouldn't have been a situation where a fight could start in the first place and Zimmerman is entirely at fault for that but that doesn't necessarily mean even narrow constructions of self-defense can't apply. None of us were in that courtroom and certainly none of us were with the jury. This is why I try to avoid talking about specifics in criminal cases rather than legal principles and processes, because we don't really know.

I agree that we don't really know, there are a slew of narratives that all would fit the facts. Some making the notion of self-defense ridiculous, some making the claim entirely acceptable. That alone made it imperative that Zimmerman was acquitted. If it weren't for the fact that he literally went looking for trouble where there was none.

And no Enoch that is not the same as blaming a rape victim for dressing the wrong way. If you like your analogy much it would be the same as saying 'serves you right' to a wannabe rapist for being kicked in the balls during one of his attempts.

[Echovirus]

And if I heard correctly, the jury requested further instruction on the lesser included offenses which tells me that there were some members who certainly wanted to go that route. They just weren't able to convince their fellows.

You're right there, Fuzzy. One of the jurors that was on CNN last night said the first vote went: 3 not guilty; 2 manslaughter; and 1 second-degree murder. I guess the other three eventually changed their votes after they didn't get the clarification that was sought from the judge in regards to the manslaughter option. I'm sure I missed it either in this thread or elsewhere online, but did they ever say what was the exact part they needed explained regarding the manslaughter charge?

[Enoch the Red]

And no Enoch that is not the same as blaming a rape victim for dressing the wrong way. If you like your analogy much it would be the same as saying 'serves you right' to a wannabe rapist for being kicked in the balls during one of his attempts.

That would be true if Zimmerman did something provocative. Which is certainly possible. It's also possible he did not. Saying definitively one way or the other seems to presume an understanding that I don't think exists.

As you said, there are a slew of narrative possibilities, any number of which fit the facts.

[Hazir]

That would be true if Zimmerman did something provocative. Which is certainly possible. It's also possible he did not. Saying definitively one way or the other seems to presume an understanding that I don't think exists.

As you said, there are a slew of narrative possibilities, any number of which fit the facts.

One can choose to ignore the fact that Zimmerman didn't need to get out of his car to confront a teenager guilty of buying Skittles and a soda, I choose not to.

[Enoch the Red]

One can choose to ignore the fact that Zimmerman didn't need to get out of his car to confront a teenager guilty of buying Skittles and a soda, I choose not to.

As far as I know, (which is admittedly not much) his version of events is that he was returning back to his car without confronting Trayvon when he was jumped. Now, I don't personally think that's a very plausible or compelling explanation, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of what actually happened that night, and as far as I know there have been no witnesses that have come forward with details that would confirm or deny that story.

[Veldan Rath]

Zimmerman had every right to get out of his truck. Unwise? Perhaps. The act of getting out of his truck was not illegal. After that, what happened is an unknown.

[Flixy]

While I feel like he is at least responsible and guilty of something, fact is that without witnesses there is no way to know beyond reasonable doubt that he did anything wrong except ignore the police and go after him, which is not a crime in itself. And last I checked, reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction.

[Hazir]

Zimmerman had every right to get out of his truck. Unwise? Perhaps. The act of getting out of his truck was not illegal. After that, what happened is an unknown.

Neither is buying skittles and soda, walking home or using the hood of your sweatshirt in rain. I didn't know there was a constitutional amendment that gives you the right to be a nuisance to people who go about their life in a quite normal way. Could you tell me which one you are referring to?

[Hazir]

While I feel like he is at least responsible and guilty of something, fact is that without witnesses there is no way to know beyond reasonable doubt that he did anything wrong except ignore the police and go after him, which is not a crime in itself. And last I checked, reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction.

I doubt he would have made the Dutch standard for self defense. Zimmerman could not have gotten off in a Dutch court; he'd be in prison right now.

[LittleFuzzy]

I can't speak to Dutch self-defense standards of course but if Zimmerman's account of how Martin jumped him as Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle is accurate (and like Enoch, it doesn't sound particularly likely to me but maybe he and his lawyer were very convincing in that courtroom) then I would say the Dutch result would be the injustice. Because however stupid Zimmerman may have been he would also have been acting to defuse the situation he'd created, leaving Martin is the clear aggressor.

[Veldan Rath]

Neither is buying skittles and soda, walking home or using the hood of your sweatshirt in rain. I didn't know there was a constitutional amendment that gives you the right to be a nuisance to people who go about their life in a quite normal way. Could you tell me which one you are referring to?

Nor is there law against being a dick, or just normally rude, overly bossy, verbally pushy, or asking someone watchoodoin?

Is that is enough to trigger a beat down on the douche being 'rude'?

Again, if Zimmerman's last name was Cruz, OR if he was also black this would NOT have made the news.

White Hispanic...is cable news playing CYA. Can I call President Obama a White African American?

[Hazir]

I can't speak to Dutch self-defense standards of course but if Zimmerman's account of how Martin jumped him as Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle is accurate (and like Enoch, it doesn't sound particularly likely to me but maybe he and his lawyer were very convincing in that courtroom) then I would say the Dutch result would be the injustice. Because however stupid Zimmerman may have been he would also have been acting to defuse the situation he'd created, leaving Martin is the clear aggressor.

Self defense overhere includes that you don't use excessive force. Using excessive force negates the claim to self defense. In its most basic the question would have been 'was it necessary that Zimmerman killed Martin?'.

Also, in The Netherlands neighbourhood watches that go any further than reporting suspect behaviour to to police are frowned upon, which means Zimmerman's getting out of the car already would have worked against him. He said - he said would have been heavily burdened for Zimmerman by the fact that Martin was dead and he wasn't. I won't even go into the gun issue.

Murder probably would have been a bridge too far.

[Aimless]

And no, it would not have been a gross disregard for the law for the jury to have come to a different verdict. They could have convicted on manslaughter. This is arguably the exact sort of situation manslaughter was designed for. And if I heard correctly, the jury requested further instruction on the lesser included offenses which tells me that there were some members who certainly wanted to go that route. They just weren't able to convince their fellows.

Well duh, they were never given the information they requested

[Dreadnaught]

If it weren't for the fact that he literally went looking for trouble where there was none. .

I'm sorry, but there is no basis for this statement. At the very least, it's hindsight to say there was "no trouble" with Martin. And it's arguably problematic that he confronted Martin in the first place, though that's debatable.

This whole narrative that Zimmerman maliciously got out of his car, drew his gun and hunted Martin like an animal has to stop. There's nothing in his personal history to suggest behavior like this and everything to suggest a gun came out when Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

We can argue the manslaughter thing until the end of time, but the case malicious murder (which is bring thrown around in the media with almost-libelous abandon) just doesn't add up.

[Hazir]

I'm sorry, but there is no basis for this statement. At the very least, it's hindsight to say there was "no trouble" with Martin. And it's arguably problematic that he confronted Martin in the first place, though that's debatable.

This whole narrative that Zimmerman maliciously got out of his car, drew his gun and hunted Martin like an animal has to stop. There's nothing in his personal history to suggest behavior like this and everything to suggest a gun came out when Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

We can argue the manslaughter thing until the end of time, but the case malicious murder (which is bring thrown around in the media with almost-libelous abandon) just doesn't add up.

I never said any of the things you claim I said.

[Aimless]

Overstated, but an interesting angle:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafai...ef=mostpopular

[GGT]

As far as I know he was initially taken into custody, but later released without being charged because the police believed his version of events. I think they probably believed his version of events because of his injuries, the fact that he was on the phone with the police before the confrontation, and that he was a known quantity to them.

Zimmerman volunteered to give an interview at the police station, he wasn't 'taken into custody' or arrested. You don't think that's bizarre after a homicide? Do you think it's appropriate for cops to simply release ANY shooter because they believed his 'version' of events, when the other 'version' is in the morgue? (That was the original outrage of this case, and that it took some 6 weeks to begin what should have been done that first night.)

What part of having your nose broken and your head beaten into the concrete wouldn't qualify legitimately as self-defense, or as a felonious act? Look, had Zimmerman shot Martin without any injuries what-so-ever I would be more inclined to think that there was something more insidious going on here, but I'm just not seeing it in the evidence.

The self-defence law there that was actually used is the same (to my knowledge) self-defence laws that you and I have. SYG etc didn't come into play.

The issue is the rather odd usage of self-defence given that he appeared to start it but there's no proof.

Repeating: you're both using your own definitions of self-defense....not Florida's legal definition. And that changed around '05 with legislation expanding Castle Doctrine/SYG. That removed the requirement to 'retreat', OR respond with equal force, AND changed the definition of perceived fear/threat.

It was outlined by the defense during closing arguments --- a person doesn't have to have any physical injury (not even a scratch on their pinky) to claim reasonable fear of imminent danger, bodily harm, threat to life and use self-defense, even if that's using lethal force first. ie, that concealed gun in your holster. No requirement to retreat, or fight back with less dangerous or non-lethal methods (returning punches, kicking, scratching, mace spray, using a knife or lead pipe, etc.)

It was reflected in the jury's instructions, including the vague definitions of perceived threat and 'reasonable fear' that justify self-defense using a lethal weapon. That's when 2nd degree and Manslaughter cancelled each other out, based on Zimmerman's perception of fear and threat, at the moment he drew and shot the gun. Leading events didn't matter, who confronted whom was irrelevant. The only (legal) requirement to justify self-defense, using a lethal method (gun), is perception of reasonable fear.

That's why FL's law is so bad. It's poorly written, and juries of lay people are practically ham-strung by its wording. Everyone knows that "reasonable doubt" is connected to evidence and burdens of proof by the prosecutors. But it's fairly difficult for juries of lay people to define "reasonable fear" or "imperfect self-defense"....when they've been given a list of legalese, but can't ask general questions from the court.

You're right there, Fuzzy. One of the jurors that was on CNN last night said the first vote went: 3 not guilty; 2 manslaughter; and 1 second-degree murder. I guess the other three eventually changed their votes after they didn't get the clarification that was sought from the judge in regards to the manslaughter option. I'm sure I missed it either in this thread or elsewhere online, but did they ever say what was the exact part they needed explained regarding the manslaughter charge?

New definitions of Self-Defense that can be applied to both 2nd degree Murder and Manslaughter. That juror said they were confused by the legalese....and when they couldn't get better instructions from the court....that was the basis for their "reasonable doubt" and not guilty verdict.

[RandBlade]

Repeating: you're both using your own definitions of self-defense....not Florida's legal definition. And that changed around '05 with legislation expanding Castle Doctrine/SYG. That removed the requirement to 'retreat', OR respond with equal force, AND changed the definition of perceived fear/threat.

None of which was at issue here. His version of events was that he was on the floor getting pounded on.

He couldn't retreat as he was on the floor with his attacker on top of him.
Lethal force was needed as his attacker was on him at the time.
The threat wasn't perceived but already happening as he was getting attacked at the time.

None of what was changed remotely changes things. Plain, regular, I'm being attacked right now and need to defend myself self-defence was all that was used. The problem being that we don't know what version of events is right.

It was outlined by the defense during closing arguments --- a person doesn't have to have any physical injury (not even a scratch on their pinky) to claim reasonable fear of imminent danger, bodily harm, threat to life and use self-defense, even if that's using lethal force first. ie, that concealed gun in your holster. No requirement to retreat, or fight back with less dangerous or non-lethal methods (returning punches, kicking, scratching, mace spray, using a knife or lead pipe, etc.)

Can I have a source on that being the defences arguments as all I've seen here is people showing news reports saying the defence was that he WAS injured.

The only (legal) requirement to justify self-defense, using a lethal method (gun), is perception of reasonable fear.

That's the same always. Reasonable fear is the trigger for self-defence here.

That's why FL's law is so bad. It's poorly written, and juries of lay people are practically ham-strung by its wording. Everyone knows that "reasonable doubt" is connected to evidence and burdens of proof by the prosecutors. But it's fairly difficult for juries of lay people to define "reasonable fear" or "imperfect self-defense"....when they've been given a list of legalese, but can't ask general questions from the court.

Reasonable fear has always been a requirement that's not new. Not that fear plays into it at all in this case given the argument is he was being attacked at that very moment.

[GGT]

Closing arguments from the defense team have several youtube videos, choose your own. Ditto for numerous articles regarding changes to Florida law regarding self-defense. I'm not going to do the research for you, Rand.

[RandBlade]

No need for research, there's plenty of links here with quotes saying SYG didn't come into it as there was no option to retreat and he was being attacked at the time.

[Enoch the Red]

Zimmerman volunteered to give an interview at the police station, he wasn't 'taken into custody' or arrested. You don't think that's bizarre after a homicide? Do you think it's appropriate for cops to simply release ANY shooter because they believed his 'version' of events, when the other 'version' is in the morgue? (That was the original outrage of this case, and that it took some 6 weeks to begin what should have been done that first night.)

Are most people that show up at the station in the back of a squad car, in handcuffs, volunteers that aren't actually in custody?

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/2...t-of-shooting/

And even if you were right, not particularly? Was Zimmerman a flight risk? Was he indicating that he was unwilling to aid in the investigation? Was he denying being the shooter?

It reminds me of a story I heard from a firearms instructor about a friend of his who was traveling cross country. On this trip he happened to pick up a hitchhiker. Unfortunately, the hitchhiker pulled a knife on the guy and threatened to kill him. He ended up shooting and killing his attacker.The police took down his information, performed a brief investigation, had him fill out some paperwork and sent him on his way, same day. It was a pretty clear cut case of self-defense. Do you believe he should have been incarcerated until the prosecutors office determined that it wasn't going to press charges?

[GGT]

No need for research, there's plenty of links here with quotes saying SYG didn't come into it as there was no option to retreat and he was being attacked at the time.

Read the jury instructions for yourself @ http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/...y-Instructions, and note page 12 language.

When the FL legislature passed SYG law in '05, that forced new definitions of Self-Defense, Justifiable Homicide, etc. The intended purpose was to expand Castle Doctrine law from private homes to other venues, including gated communities and public streets. That's an important part of this you're either missing or ignoring.

If the defense team had decided to cite SYG law as justification for the shooting, that would have required a pre-trial hearing and other rigamarole. They also knew the SYG principle had already been incorporated into other legal language....particularly removing the duty to retreat and/or use non-lethal force first, before using a gun.

Are most people that show up at the station in the back of a squad car, in handcuffs, volunteers that aren't actually in custody?

And even if you were right, not particularly? Was Zimmerman a flight risk? Was he indicating that he was unwilling to aid in the investigation? Was he denying being the shooter?

It reminds me of a story I heard from a firearms instructor about a friend of his who was traveling cross country. On this trip he happened to pick up a hitchhiker. Unfortunately, the hitchhiker pulled a knife on the guy and threatened to kill him. He ended up shooting and killing his attacker.The police took down his information, performed a brief investigation, had him fill out some paperwork and sent him on his way, same day. It was a pretty clear cut case of self-defense. Do you believe he should have been incarcerated until the prosecutors office determined that it wasn't going to press charges?

That's a fairly frightening story, and reminiscent of backroad "justice" meted out by rural Sheriffs or Boss Hoggs.

Yes, I think he should have been arrested, charged, detained and/or required to post bond....before being sent on his merry way. Like I said, our police and legal systems are supposed to serve-and-protect victims as well as prosecuting criminals.

[Enoch the Red]

That's a fairly frightening story, and reminiscent of backroad "justice" meted out by rural Sheriffs or Boss Hoggs.

Yes, I think he should have been arrested, charged, detained and/or required to post bond....before being sent on his merry way. Like I said, our police and legal systems are supposed to serve-and-protect victims as well as prosecuting criminals.

Do you believe that by dying you are automatically a victim?

Also, is this your concession that Zimmerman was taken into custody, or are you still maintaining that he was strictly there voluntarily?

[Aimless]

Do you believe that by dying you are automatically a victim?

Until the facts have been established, a person who has been killed is a potential victim.

[Enoch the Red]

Until the facts have been established, a person who has been killed is a potential victim.

And what is required in order to establish the facts? Should a private citizen who shoots an active shooter be (I'm not sure that GGT quite has the order of operations right here) arrested, charged, detained and/or required to post bond?

[GGT]

Do you believe that by dying you are automatically a victim?

Homicide means there is a victim. They no longer have a voice, because they're DEAD. It's the duty of public agencies (coroners, medical examiners, police, detectives, lawyers, judges) to fully investigate on their behalf. That's true for vehicular deaths, battery/assault deaths, medically-related deaths, and gun-related deaths. The manner and cause of death matters, and shouldn't be automatically decided extra-judicially.

Also, is this your concession that Zimmerman was taken into custody, or are you still maintaining that he was strictly there voluntarily?

Zimmerman wasn't formally charged after causing (and admitting to causing) the direct death of another human being. That's my main complaint on the front-end, aimed directly at the Sanford Police Dept.

And what is required in order to establish the facts? Should a private citizen who shoots an active shooter be (I'm not sure that GGT quite has the order of operations right here) arrested, charged, detained and/or required to post bond?

IMO, establishing "facts", let alone guilt or innocence, shouldn't be decided by any one agency or department.

You're also conflating the term of "active shooter".