Martin/Zimmerman III

[ljkeane]

I don't want to defend Zimmerman because I think he was absolutely wrong to follow Martin. With that said, Zimmerman would have been unaware of whether Martin was a sissy or a championship fighter until after the fight started. I don't think we should presume that Zimmerman could not be threatened by someone smaller than him just because Martin was not armed. The human body is incredibly fragile and a well placed punch to the nose can kill anyone.

And very, very few people happen to be professional fighters and most people aren't very good at throwing a well placed punch. I've been punched more than a few times and haven't been killed so far. 99% of people are extremely unlikely to be able to overpower someone 7 stone heavier than them, so I'm not overly convinced by the 'he might possibly have been Floyd Mayweather Jr' argument about any reasonable assessment of the risks involved.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Robin,

That doesn't wash at all. The probable cause is the dead body with a bullet hole in it. Otherwise what is to stop people who want to murder people from just killing them and then claiming self defense afterwards in states with SYG laws?

Once more. A dead body with a hole in it, is not necessarily evidence of a crime. Florida's SYG basically permits the use of deadly force if a person reasonably believes his life is in danger or that he is in danger of being grievously harmed. If the police believed Zimmerman's account, they couldn't simply decide to arrest him just in case he wasn't telling the truth.

What we think should have happened because it seems right, is not necessarily what the law states. If you want to blame someone, blame the authors of a law so broad, it could apply if someone jumped out of the bushes and said boo!

[Prince of the North]

THIS. If the police had decided to perform a full body cavity search of Zimmerman at that point it would have been justified. This is a homicide, not a facking traffic stop.

Yes, this is what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread and maybe I wasn't clear. What I don't understand is how someone can be released "shortly" after they are taken into custody and the evidence gathering seemingly botched when the incident in which they shot someone was categorized as "Homicide-Neglig Mansl-Unnecessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act" by the police responding to the call? That just doesn't make sense to me :dunno:

[Robin Of House Hill]

I give up. Everyone can figure it out themselves.

http://en.wikipedia....your-ground_law

Florida

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) 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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

( “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

( In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[Sci-2]

Robin - I think what's confusing, to me at least, is that this seems to allow almost anyone to make a claim and get away with murder.

Perhaps it comes down to the shitty job of investigating the situation on the night in question?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I give up. Everyone can figure it out themselves.

http://en.wikipedia....your-ground_law

I agree with you that clearly the SYG legislation affected the manner in which the police handled this. What I don't understand is why. What rights of Zimmerman would've been trampled had they forced Zimmerman to go to a hospital to treat his wounds? Or to have documented Zimmerman's injuries with photographs? Or to detain and question him for even an hour?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in SYG that states that the police can't properly investigate a facking homicide case!

[Maia]

If I wake up in my home and find you standing over me and put a .38 cal high velocity hollow point in your brain, I've killed you, but have committed no crime.

Surely, it could be a crime too? Like, if you invited me into your house with the intent to murder me? I find the claim that such an occurrence shouldn't be properly investigated before the killing is ruled legitimate rather hair-raising, frankly.

Looking at that SYG law, the "reasonably" clause should necessitate alcohol/drug test, surely? Since a person can't make that determination under influence.

Another question is whether stalking of Martin wasn't an unlawful activity.

Yet another is whether evidence is congruent with being attacked in the first place - for which you need more than the killer's say-so. Etc.

[Crazydog7]

Oh they just couldn't be bothered to do an investigation happens more then we know I would think.

Well I think its fair to say that whatever happens we got all the facts we were going to get three weeks ago. I know that because we are aren't even talking about the events anymore we are talking more and more about what we would do in a given hypothetical situation.

Now the spin is all there is left. The last three "articles" I saw relating to the case were about what a given famous person thought about it. What bearing does that have on anything the last one that even mentioned Zimmerman was that be bought 80 dollars of stuff at the prison canteen. Agian what does that matter?

The final thing that I am curious about and I'm sure will be discussed in depth when the lifetime orginal movies is made is how many other people were involved in the watch? I have yet to see one of those guys being interviewed saying "yeah I know Zimmerman he messed up here but he doesn't typically wander the streets with a gun"

something like that could really provide a human face at this point.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Later, Florida's prosecutor decided a crime had been committed and filed the necessary documentation for him to be arrested. He surrendered and is in custody. The prosecutor's affidavit is so "bare bones", I wouldn't be surprised if the case never goes to trial. The question I would pose, is whether it is in the interest of justice to yield to public pressure and charge someone with a crime when you know the evidence is insufficient for a conviction?

I've finally reviewed the Probable Cause affidavit and... the whole suspiciously partisan, right-wing line of attack against it is ridiculous. To allege, as a criticism, that it's "bare bones" is to miss the point entirely. Of course it's bare bones; the purpose of a probable cause affidavit is not to try the case, or for the prosecution to put forth all of their evidence. The purpose (in Florida, in this case) is to put forth just enough in the way of factual background to get the case into the criminal system. I'm not going to pretend it's a shining example of how to draft an affidavit; it's not. It's pretty mediocre as far as these things go. But on its face the allegations are sufficient to sustain a, perhaps somewhat weak, charge of second degree murder. And that's all it has to do.

Florida has a wonky second degree murder statute. It's "murder with a depraved mind" with a "depraved mind" existing "when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life." What's that mean in practice? Fucked if I know. But that's why we have juries - to make the absurd definitional calls that legal scholars can't reach a consensus on.

I posit this: if the prosecutor's office can prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, that he followed him in his car, left his car and pursued him on foot against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, that based on the testimony of Martin's girlfriend Zimmerman chased Martin down on foot while Martin tried to get away, and Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation (while Zimmerman was armed with a gun and Martin was not), with Martin screaming for help, and as a result of initiating that physical conflict, decided to shoot Martin in the chest killing him -- that you are within the realm of what a jury might find to be a "depraved mind showing no regard for human life." I'm not saying you're definitely there, and I'm not saying the prosecutor's office is going to be able to prove all of those things beyond a reasonable doubt, but if they can get there, I think a reasonable jury could find Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind. Alternatively, I also think a jury could make a finding of voluntary manslaughter. But I don't think the prosecutor's office is flying on a wing and a prayer, as certain segments of the media would have you believe.

[Robin Of House Hill]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in SYG that states that the police can't properly investigate a facking homicide case!

This horse is beyond having been beaten to death, but yes, the could have investigated, However, if they had no evidence to contradict what Zimmerman told them, they had no basis to arrest him. Without an arrest, they couldn't search him, unless they got a warrant from a judge. The first thing a judge would have asked is if they had reason to believe he'd committed a crime, why hadn't they arrested him.

Maia,

Which part of alcohol/drug testing strikes you as not being a search? The only reason police can do such thing in motor vehicle situations, is because driving isn't a right. It is a privilege, licensed by the state, and when you apply for that license, you are agreeing to be bound by that state's regulations. Zimmerman's following Martin doesn't rise to the legal definition of stalking.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

This horse is beyond having been beaten to death, but yes, the could have investigated, However, if they had no evidence to contradict what Zimmerman told them, they had no basis to arrest him. Without an arrest, they couldn't search him, unless they got a warrant from a judge. The first thing a judge would have asked is if they had reason to believe he'd committed a crime, why hadn't they arrested him.

Would anyone have cried foul had they arrested and searched him, given the circumstances? Do they have to arrest him to document his injuries with a camera? The whole thing smacks of negligence on the part of the police, SYG notwithstanding.

[felice]

they couldn't simply decide to arrest him just in case he wasn't telling the truth.

So the possibility that a suspect might not be lying is enough to make it impossible for the police to make an arrest? How do they ever manage to arrest anyone???

[Robin Of House Hill]

Robin - I think what's confusing, to me at least, is that this seems to allow almost anyone to make a claim and get away with murder.

Perhaps it comes down to the shitty job of investigating the situation on the night in question?

I suspect the logic behind SYG is that if you believe your life is in danger, you shouldn't be required to jump through hoops, extending the period you are in danger, before ending that danger. In practice, it does allow anyone to make that claim, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, they might literally, get away with murder. That's especially true if only two people were present and one is dead.

If this case goes to trial, I would be very interested in the police testimony regarding what they actually did, and how they perceived Zimmerman, his appearance, demeanor, what he said, etc.

[Crazydog7]

If this case goes to trial, I would be very interested in the police testimony regarding what they actually did, and how they perceived Zimmerman, his appearance, demeanor, what he said, etc.

And if they didn't keep careful records of that when it happened I'm sure they are manufacturing it now.

[Robin Of House Hill]

So the possibility that a suspect might not be lying is enough to make it impossible for the police to make an arrest? How do they ever manage to arrest anyone???

Have you ever heard of anyone being arrested for suspicion of lying? The presumption, in the lack of evidence to the contrary is that he spoke the truth. What would they have cited as evidence that he lied? The law in the US is heavily weighted to protect the people against the power of the state. You simply can't have cops arresting people because they think they may have done something.

Just because someone was killed, doesn't automatically mean someone is guilty. Life isn't always fair. It wasn't in this case, and there will be others in the future, I'm sure.

[Robin Of House Hill]

And if they didn't keep careful records of that when it happened I'm sure they are manufacturing it now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

[Thlayli]

Encountered a real-life situation yesterday morning. I'm an early riser -- I opened the door yesterday to check for the paper when what did I spy with my little eye but a hooligan in my car going through the glove box. I stayed in the door frame and asked if the young gentleman needed any assistance, only I think it came out, "Hey! May I FUCKING help you?!?!" I stayed outside long enough to see what direction this entrepreneur took off, and went inside to call the cops.

You know, like a smart person would. Dude could've been armed. I suppose I could have grabbed the hockey stick and confronted him, but I see that as an unnecessary escalation. Zimmerman behaved as a reckless douchebag and deserves whatever punishment comes down. If he gets off, the blame lies with either law enforcement or the SYG law.

Oh, when the dispatcher asked me whether the guy was white, black, Hispanic, etc., I was unable to answer -- his hood was up! No bullshit.

[Prince of the North]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Really, Robin?! From your own link (emphasis mine):

How to prove libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".

Yeah, I don't think Crazydog has anything to worry about here.

[felice]

Have you ever heard of anyone being arrested for suspicion of lying?

I've heard of the occasional* criminal lying about the crime they've just committed. Zimmerman should have been arrested for killing a kid, not for the possibility he may have lied about the details of how it happened.

The presumption, in the lack of evidence to the contrary is that he spoke the truth.

That's ridiculous. Police having to believe suspects unless they can prove they're lying would be utterly unworkable; anyone with half a brain can come up with a difficult-to-falsify explanation for why they're not guilty.

Just because someone was killed, doesn't automatically mean someone is guilty.

Determining guilt is exactly what a trial is for. The bar for skipping a trial in declaring somebody not guilty of any crime despite having killed someone should be very, very high.

* Ie virtually all of them

[Lord Mord]

Robin Hill,

This horse is beyond having been beaten to death, but yes, the could have investigated, However, if they had no evidence to contradict what Zimmerman told them, they had no basis to arrest him.

Insofar as that were even arguably true, then the law is even more backwards and shitty than we'd had any reason to suppose before. I have a hard time believing that's what it says, though, or how it was intended.

In any case, common sense says it should never be up to people to prove the dead ... unarmed ... juvenile wasn't doing anything to deserve being shot, but rather it should be up to the guy who did all the shooting to prove that he was justified.