Trayvon and Zimmerman

[Enoch the Red]

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.

I don't think the judicial system works the way you think it works. Not every arrest or investigation leads to charges. To say nothing of actual crimes. There is, built into the judicial system, a great deal of latitude for police officers and prosecutors. If the prosecutor believes they have a clear cut case of self-defense they are under no obligation to bring charges against the victim. If a woman who is in the process of being raped wrestles a knife from her would-be attacker and kills him, you believe she should be arrested, charged, detained and/or required to post bond, all in the name of justice? And you don't see a problem with that?

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.

There are lots of people who aren't formally charged after causing the direct death of another human being. It's how the system is set up. If that's your complaint then you don't have to look all the way to the Zimmerman case to find something to complain about.

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

So how, in your opinion, should the system work? How long should the rape victim be held in jail before she is released? Is it after she makes bond? If she can't afford her bond, should we keep her there until after a trial to establish the 'facts'? How many individual agencies or departments need to establish that she was being raped, did act in self defense, and is no longer a threat to society before we allow the "victim" back on the streets?

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

I don't think conflate means what you think it means. Or, you don't know what an active shooter is.

[GGT]

I don't think the judicial system works the way you think it works. Not every arrest or investigation leads to charges. To say nothing of actual crimes. There is, built into the judicial system, a great deal of latitude for police officers and prosecutors. If the prosecutor believes they have a clear cut case of self-defense they are under no obligation to bring charges against the victim.

If a woman who is in the process of being raped wrestles a knife from her would-be attacker and kills him, you believe she should be arrested, charged, detained and/or required to post bond, all in the name of justice? And you don't see a problem with that?

Our system requires checks-and-balances, and adjudications using legal proceedings. In short, that means every homicide demands a thorough investigation, required by law, to sort out the facts. Rape victims who kill their assailants aren't automatically afforded innocence. Quid pro quo.

There are lots of people who aren't formally charged after causing the direct death of another human being. It's how the system is set up. If that's your complaint then you don't have to look all the way to the Zimmerman case to find something to complain about.

So how, in your opinion, should the system work? How long should the rape victim be held in jail before she is released? Is it after she makes bond? If she can't afford her bond, should we keep her there until after a trial to establish the 'facts'? How many individual agencies or departments need to establish that she was being raped, did act in self defense, and is no longer a threat to society before we allow the "victim" back on the streets?

I don't think conflate means what you think it means. Or, you don't know what an active shooter is.

[Enoch the Red]

Our system requires checks-and-balances, and adjudications using legal proceedings. In short, that means every homicide demands a thorough investigation, required by law, to sort out the facts. Rape victims who kill their assailants aren't automatically afforded innocence. Quid pro quo.

Okay? You realize that a thorough investigation does not necessitate a rape victim being brought up on charges, or a trial/grand jury investigation, right? Likewise, it can easily take place without the victim being behind bars.

[GGT]

Sure. But it also means something more than an interview, taking notes, doing a quick name search, and letting one party walk...or drive away.

[Enoch the Red]

Sure. But it also means something more than an interview, taking notes, doing a quick name search, and letting one party walk...or drive away.

So what does it mean?

[GGT]

That means your "story" of a guy picking up a hitch-hiker is no way to legislate homicide as self-defense.

[Enoch the Red]

That means your "story" of a guy picking up a hitch-hiker is no way to legislate homicide as self-defense.

So what is your alternative?

Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence do you think further investigation would find in cases like this? That it was an elaborate plot to murder a transient with a rap sheet the size my arm by a law abiding citizen who was trying to be a decent human being?

[Veldan Rath]

I think GGT does not trust the police, and there may be good reason, to handle thier job, which is to investigate. If they find something or not, they pester the DA, who makes the call.

Nice Boss Hogg reference, anyone not in a city is a corrupt hick apparently.

[ImAnOgre]

Hell, you shouldn't trust the DAs either.

This just happened in my home town.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22...torney-resigns

JOHNS CREEK, Ga. - A local assistant district attorney has resigned after being allegedly being caught going to a Johns Creek massage parlor while driving a county car.

Police in Johns Creek had Sapphire Spa under surveillance when they allegedly saw a Henry County government vehicle at the parlor. Photographs allegedly showed that the driver of the vehicle was Henry County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Williams.

The Sapphire Spa is more than 60 miles from Williams' McDonough home. Johns Creek police say it was openly advertising escort services and adult massages online.

Just last week, five people were arrested and the business was shut down for allegedly offering sexual services.

On Thursday, authorities raided the parlor. Two people were arrested for operating a business with no license. Police were seen hauling out evidence and bringing in K-9 unites.

Sources tell FOX 5 that Williams was asked to resign.

Williams refused to talk to FOX 5 about the losing his job, or his alleged visit to the massage parlor. He is not facing criminal charges

[Dreadnaught]

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

And, until convicted, a suspect is innocent. Something that is being really really forgotten in the general media discourse here. Which I think is really what bothers me the most, beyond that I have very little sympathy for Zimmerman.

[Hazir]

And, until convicted, a suspect is innocent. Something that is being really really forgotten in the general media discourse here. Which I think is really what bothers me the most, beyond that I have very little sympathy for Zimmerman.

Given that there is no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman did kill Martin that is a fairly empty statement.

The discussion about the case is whether or not he has a claim to self defense, which then goes on to the core of the debate whether or not self defense as it is defined under Florida law doesn't make in too easy to claim self defense for somebody who's killed another person.

[RandBlade]

BBC is saying there's protests now about the not-guilty verdict (not too surprised, called that in the first reply). What really amuses me though is why the protests are happening now when we've known the verdict all week so why wait until Saturday before protesting? Kind of reveals it to not be a spontaneous outburst of anger but rather an organised protest.

Have you heard they've said Zimmerman is Not Guilty?
Not Guilty? That's outrageous! I'm so pissed off by that how dare they? We should protest!
Yeah lets protest!
Actually hold on, I can't right now. Got work today. You know in this job market I don't think I can really afford to today.
Same here actually, best not. Lets wait until the weekend.

[Aimless]

You're right that totally delegitimizes it and makes a mockery of protests

[RandBlade]

Not trying to delegitimise them. Just found it funny.

[GGT]

So what is your alternative?

The alternative to cops being judge and jury? They should coordinate with the legal side, especially when someone is killed.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence do you think further investigation would find in cases like this? That it was an elaborate plot to murder a transient with a rap sheet the size my arm by a law abiding citizen who was trying to be a decent human being?

Now you're adding details to your 'story'....but yes, murder victims deserve due process too. Even vagrants, transients, homeless, or people with rap sheets. You do realize that some people can appear to be "decent law abiding citizens", but prey on those vulnerable groups of people because they know cops will automatically believe their story, right?

And, until convicted, a suspect is innocent. Something that is being really really forgotten in the general media discourse here. Which I think is really what bothers me the most, beyond that I have very little sympathy for Zimmerman.

What bothers me about SYG laws is how they expanded Self-Defense definitions, removed the presumption of "innocence" for the dead person, and presumes the dead guy was "guilty" of something, because the shooter says so....even if the shooter was the instigator and provocateur. SYG laws are based on subjective feelings of fear and threat that are ultimately afforded to the shooter, especially when they shoot to kill.

[GGT]

Rand, there are different protests around the US. Many are complaining about SYG laws that have been enacted by half of the states, along with lax gun safety laws. Some are protesting about violence in general, but particularly gun violence. While others are protesting discriminatory bias that's entrenched in our criminal and legal systems.

[RandBlade]

They're planned protests, not spontaneous eruptions like Rodney King though.

[GGT]

And predominantly non-violent. Unlike the spontaneous eruptions after the Rodney King verdict. What's your point?

[RandBlade]

So, does anyone see riots like happening if Zimmerman is found guilty? Like with the Rodney King riots a few years ago?

The point is that its different.

[Dreadnaught]

Given that there is no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman did kill Martin that is a fairly empty statement.

The discussion about the case is whether or not he has a claim to self defense, which then goes on to the core of the debate whether or not self defense as it is defined under Florida law doesn't make in too easy to claim self defense for somebody who's killed another person.

I guess it depends on how you define "empty". t's pretty dangerous to have mobs in the media, the streets and government insisting that someone is a killer for 15 months before a court decides he's not a killer. It's pretty dangerous to have the federal government trolling for leads to re-try someone for a federal hate crime, even after they've been acquitted of any crime at the state level.

Work at my employer was disrupted last week by an anti-Zimmerman march through the office corridors conducted by employees, with the slogans and pamphlets focusing exclusively on race. There's really very little going on here about the technicalities of self defense.

What bothers me about SYG laws is how they expanded Self-Defense definitions, removed the presumption of "innocence" for the dead person, and presumes the dead guy was "guilty" of something, because the shooter says so....even if the shooter was the instigator and provocateur. SYG laws are based on subjective feelings of fear and threat that are ultimately afforded to the shooter, especially when they shoot to kill.

The defense was a standard self defense, which is generally based on a jury agreeing that the defendant had a reasonable subjective fear of imminent threat.

You can't build self defense laws around the idea that the defendant has to fear imminent harm and have that harm actually be 100% real. Otherwise folks would walk around threatening people with toy guns, then suing them when people fought them back.

[GGT]

The defense was a standard self defense, which is generally based on a jury agreeing that the defendant had a reasonable subjective fear of imminent threat.

You can't build self defense laws around the idea that the defendant has to fear imminent harm and have that harm actually be 100% real. Otherwise folks would walk around threatening people with toy guns, then suing them when people fought them back.

What is it with people ignoring facts about FL's SYG laws? The new law removed the duty to attempt retreat, and allows use of lethal force first, instead of meeting force with equal force. That's basically applying Castle Doctrine law (for home protection) to public places. There's nothing "standard" about that, and explains the demonstrations against SYG laws and how they're applied.

I've not heard about any "Anti-Zimmerman" marches, but if there are that's just dumb. The protests I've read about surround criminal profiling with racial bias, inequalities in the criminal justice system, and SYG laws written so that practically any lethal shooting can be justified with Self-Defense.

[RandBlade]

GGT for the umpteenth time that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

The defence argued successfully to the jury that there was no option to retreat. And that the force was necessary.

So why keep bringing up these red herrings?

[Wraith]

What's the point of a tragedy if you can't exploit it to further your political agendas?

[GGT]

GGT for the umpteenth time that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

The defence argued successfully to the jury that there was no option to retreat. And that the force was necessary.

So why keep bringing up these red herrings?

Because (for the umpteenth time) that is new and different legal language under Florida SYG legislation of '05. The kind of legalese that favors gun owners/shooters over the unarmed. Even minors doing nothing wrong by walking home, in the rain, with a hooded jacket. And why citizens are marching or protesting against SYG laws, and how they're applied.

Prior to this new legislation, the defense would have been required to prove a different set of standards and requirements, and lethal force would have been a last resort.

[RandBlade]

Prior to this new legislation, the defense would have been required to prove a different set of standards and requirements, and lethal force would have been a last resort.

Totally irrelevant since they argued it was a last resort

[GGT]

Totally irrelevant since they argued it was a last resort

Rand, you should probably bone up on US news, especially SYG legislation and how it redefined use of lethal force in self-defense.

No, the defense did not claim shooting was Zimmerman's last resort, and wouldn't have to under SYG language! The litmus test for using a gun (even shoot-to-kill) is a 'reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or threat to life'. That's why people are protesting the legislation.

[Dreadnaught]

Reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or threat to life is a self defense, not a Stand Your Ground defense. A SYG defense revolves around whether you walked away from a confrontation or simply decided to fight on the spot because you wanted to stand your ground.

EG, had Zimmerman drawn his gun or threatened Trayvon in some way, Trayvon attacked him and somehow killed Zimmerman, then there could have been a "Stand Your Ground" defense for Trayvon Martin.

SYG is a semi-irrelevant sideshow, which is partly why I gave money to ALEC soon after this all blew up.

[GGT]

Reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or threat to life is a self defense, not a Stand Your Ground defense. A SYG defense revolves around whether you walked away from a confrontation or simply decided to fight on the spot because you wanted to stand your ground.

EG, had Zimmerman drawn his gun or threatened Trayvon in some way, Trayvon attacked him and somehow killed Zimmerman, then there could have been a "Stand Your Ground" defense for Trayvon Martin.

SYG is a semi-irrelevant sideshow, which is partly why I gave money to ALEC soon after this all blew up.

In Florida, reasonable fear of imminent harm or threat to life was a justifiable homicide defense, but it required a duty to attempt retreat and/or use non-lethal force first. Castle Doctrine (on your own property, in your home) removed those requirements. SYG laws expanded Castle Doctrine to public places which changed legal definitions, and jury instructions, on justifiable homicide and manslaughter.

ie, no duty to retreat or attempt non-lethal force first. Your "Castle" is no longer where you live, with specific boundaries, but becomes your very body/person....and anywhere you go in public places. With your loaded gun and a concealed weapon permit.



Look, this has been written about extensively in FL news, and explains why the Zimmerman jury came up with a not-guilty verdict. Based on how the laws were written (after SYG) the only legal requirement for using a gun first is "reasonable fear". That means any confrontation, even verbally, with no physical contact or injury, can mean"reasonable fear". That is subjective, with no clear instructions from the court about what "reasonable" fear means, or what a "reasonable" person would do. The jury defined that using their own subjective common sense and life experience.

Jeez, it was part of the defense team's opening and closing arguments! Zimmerman didn't need to have a scratch on his body to claim that "fear" of Trayvon Martin, or justify using his gun. Jurors asked for more guidance on Manslaughter (which contains SYG language) but the court threw it back in their lap. Do ya get it yet?!



For this case, it couldn't be proven that Martin has his own "reasonable fear" of Zimmerman following/confronting/threatening him. It didn't even matter (legally) who made the initial physical contact. It could have been Zimmerman grabbing at Martin's tea and candy in his pocket, shoving him around, or throwing his phone to the ground. I don't know about you, but if my 17 year old son had a creepy strange man following him on a dark and rainy night that did that, and he tried to run, then hide, I'd say his fear was 'reasonable' and a punch in the nose was justifiable.

The problem with Florida law is that Martin would have been justified in using a gun instead of his fist, first, using his subjective "reasonable fear". But wait --- no, he wouldn't! Because 17 year olds can't buy guns and get concealed weapons permits. And there's more! Even if you're an adult and own a gun legally, and use it in your own home against an abusive spouse with a restraining order...and put a warning shot in the ceiling because there's a 'reasonable' chance he'll try to kill you....neither Castle Doctrine nor SYG laws apply to your self-defense. And you can get an absurd 20 year minimum mandatory sentence when no one was actually shot, injured, or killed.

Seriously, Dread, if you gave money to ALEC (that wrote this robo legislation along with the NRA and sold it to some 30 state legislatures) you should ask for a refund.

[Flixy]

Look, this has been written about extensively in FL news, and explains why the Zimmerman jury came up with a not-guilty verdict. Based on how the laws were written (after SYG) the only legal requirement for using a gun first is "reasonable fear". That means any confrontation, even verbally, with no physical contact or injury, can mean"reasonable fear". That is subjective, with no clear instructions from the court about what "reasonable" fear means, or what a "reasonable" person would do. The jury defined that using their own subjective common sense and life experience.

As far as I know, reasonable is commonly used in laws, and I don't see a problem with that. It's a decent legal yardstick that can be changed according to the circumstances. And of course you have to go with reasonable fear instead of actual threat - if someone points a fake gun at you, you're not in any danger, but you certainly have reason to feel threatened.

SYG and duty to retreat are, in this case, not that relevant, because at some point Zimmerman was allegedly (IIRC also seen by a witness) on the ground with the kid on top of him, and at that point he feared his life. He couldn't retreat, so he was legally allowed to shoot, under 'normal' self defense. Though I suppose it might have made an impact on the mindset, i.e. without laws like that, encouraging this behaviour, it might not have happened, but that's impossible to prove.

The point is, nobody knows what exactly happened, therefore legally he has been found innocent. I am curious that a lot of protest seems to come from posters who generally would be outraged by convictions based on flimsy evidence... Was this death preventable by Zimmerman's behaviour? Yes. But lacking any proof that he murdered Martin, it's logical to acquit. The only thing proven that Zimmerman did wrong was follow/confront him in the first place, which is not illegal.

Second part is interesting, yes, to show some problems with these laws (and mindset): Martin would likely also have been in his right to use a gun from his end.

[GGT]

Martin couldn't give his account of events...because he's dead.

Zimmerman wasn't required to avoid using his gun, but was legally justified in using his gun based on his "suspicions" and "fears". Instigators and provocateurs have a degree of "reasonable fear" that no victim is afforded, especially after their own death.

It's bad legislation, with holes big enough to drive a truck through.