Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[amused]

CES - there are a couple of big Ifs in what I said up there.

[FBM]

Zimmerman will skate.
It's his word against a corpse, and as long as the forensic evidence does not contradict his side of the story the rule of reasonable doubt will free him.

Good point. That "beyond a reasonable doubt" part may be hard to accomplish in this case.

Well, if his story checks out, and if the forensics and witness testimony are consistent with his story, then there would be reasonable doubt.

Yeah, everything I've seen so far leaves open some reasonable doubt. The jury is may have a hard time here. Edit: and the prosecution. Looks pretty easy for the defense, so far...

[kiki5711]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-coo ... -shooting/

[Coito ergo sum]

CES - there are a couple of big Ifs in what I said up there.

Yes, I acknowledge that. My issue is more with your statement "so far the discussion implies..." -- that's not exactly right. So far, the allegation is by Trayvon Martin's attorney and Al Sharpton and a lot of other people adopting their view of it, that Zimmerman pursued and confronted. We don't know if that is what the prosecution will say, since they haven't said what their case is yet. And, the "discussion" can imply both lines of thinking. Neither is ruled out by the evidence.

However, what I do find strange is that folks will say "just listen to the 911 tape, and you will see that Zimmerman chased him down..." -- however, if we follow that advice and just listen to the audiotape, it does not seem to even fairly show that. If I were to judge the case just on the 911 audiotape I would have to find reasonable doubt, because if you listen to the tape there is no chase or pursuit on it, at least not after the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that." From the tape, we can't conclude anything of the kind.

There were a lot of jumps to a lot of conclusions here. Like the "see! he is a racist line" -- because people relied on a doctored transcript of the audiotape. Then they said he called Martin a coon, when he didn't. Then they said he wasn't injured, when he was.

It seems strange that after all of those parts of the discussion, that we still have people expressing alarm that anyone can be holding back judgment against Zimmerman.

[Coito ergo sum]

Zimmerman will skate.
It's his word against a corpse, and as long as the forensic evidence does not contradict his side of the story the rule of reasonable doubt will free him.

Good point. That "beyond a reasonable doubt" part may be hard to accomplish in this case.

Well, if his story checks out, and if the forensics and witness testimony are consistent with his story, then there would be reasonable doubt.

Yeah, everything I've seen so far leaves open some reasonable doubt. The jury is may have a hard time here. Edit: and the prosecution. Looks pretty easy for the defense, so far...

It's never easy. The guy is on the hook for up to life in prison if he is convicted of the murder 2. They may want to twist his arm to have him plead to manslaughter. That's a common prosecution tactic.

The prosecution has a lot of resources that Zimmerman does not have. Public sentiment is to the point of him being nearly lynched. People are giving out his address to have people harass him and his family. Spike Lee gave out an incorrect address and an elderly couple were driven from their home. This is serious business, and the forces of evil -- Sharpton et al - don't want justice -- they want a head on a platter. That's bad.

[Seth]

Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored the "stand your ground" law in 2005, said nothing in it allows people to "pursue and confront."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/justice/f ... index.html

I'm fairly certain that Zimmerman isn't claiming he pursued or confronted, and that his defense will be the opposite of that.

So far the discussion does imply that Zimmerman did pursue and confront. If the evidence supports that, and the law prohibits it, then the crime started when he stepped out of his vehicle, armed, with intent to pursue and confront.

What is the evidence that he stepped out of his car with the intent to "pursue and confront?"

It certainly is not "pursuing and confronting" to step out of a vehicle and ask somebody what they're doing in the neighborhood.

What you're doing is drawing conclusions from the evidence that are not the only reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence we are both looking at.

Further, if he got out of his vehicle, and then he called 911, and then the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that," and then he said "ok" and then he walked around for a minute and a half coordinating with the police, and then Martin came back after him, then "pursue and confront" is really out the window, isn't it? Based on those facts?

Moreover, it is NOT illegal, or even immoral, to "pursue and confront" someone that you believe may be involved in criminal activity. It is in fact the right of ever citizen to do exactly the same thing that a police officer would do in "pursuing and confronting" a person who is acting suspiciously. I'd argue that it's every citizen's DUTY to do so, in the interests of community safety. As Sir Robert Peel (a Brit) said, "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

The issue is precisely HOW one "confronts" a suspicious person. Take the police as an example. A police officer approaching someone who is "suspicious" but has not been observed doing anything actually criminal can be approached by the officer at any time. The officer, if he has no reasonable suspicion that the person is, is about to be, or has been involved in a crime can make a "voluntary contact" by saying (by way of SCOTUS-approved example) "Excuse me sir, do you have a moment that I might speak with you?"

This is fully permissible and voluntary because the person can say "no" and walk away.

On the other hand, if the officer has a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the person is, has been, or is about to be involved in a crime, he can initiate a Terry Stop (for the case Terry v. Ohio) which is an investigatory detention not amounting to an arrest but in which the suspect is not free to leave. It's a brief stopping of a suspect for questioning (the suspect is not required to answer) and identification (the suspect is required to identify himself) and while other officers do further investigation like interviewing witnesses.

The suspect in a Terry stop may be moved short distances only for safety (like out of a roadway or other place of hazard), may be patted down for WEAPONS only (no dipping into pockets to investigate suspicious bindles if the object could not be a weapon...this is a proscription often ignored by police in violation of civil rights laws), and may be handcuffed for the officer's safety, but only temporarily.

A Terry stop could last up to 2 hours in extraordinary circumstances, but the clock is ticking and officers have to be engaged in continuous ongoing investigation to justify the detention, otherwise it becomes an illegal arrest. Usually about 20 minutes is the practical limit for a legal Terry detention before it becomes an illegal arrest if there's no probable cause.

During any sort of voluntary contact or Terry detention, the officer can ask any questions he wants without Mirandizing the suspect, but the suspect is not compelled to answer, except for identification purposes.
ge
So, the question is not whether Zimmerman had authority to "pursue and confront" Martin, he did, because his authority to police his neighborhood by observing and questioning people he doesn't recognize is the same except that he has no authority to physically detain anyone based only on probable cause or reasonable suspicion. But he's completely free to "confront" anyone, so long as he does so in a peaceable manner that does not trigger the other person's right to self-defense.

And that is the crux of this case. If Zimmerman "pursued and confronted" Martin in a reasonable manner with the intent to ensure that Martin was not illegally trespassing in the private community and was not engaged in criminal activity, even if Martin perceived this approach as annoying or "racist" because had a right to be there (by invitation), unless Zimmerman's conduct rose to the level of a use, or threatened use of actual illegal physical force (like flashing his gun or laying hands on Martin), then no matter how angry or fearful Martin may have been, he would not be justified in jumping Zimmerman from BEHIND (if that's what actually happened) and attacking him. That would make Martin the aggressor, not Zimmerman, notwithstanding Zimmerman's PRIOR surveillance, following or approaching of Martin in any manner that could be construed NOT to be a physical attack justifying Martin's invocation of self defense.

It is just as likely that Zimmerman's actions were lawful and that he was in the process of exiting the "confrontation" by walking towards his truck as it is that he just shot Martin down. Moreover, based on the evidence I've seen so far, it's likely that Martin ran away from Zimmerman, who did NOT pursue him further but rather turned to talking on the phone with the police, only to find that Martin had turned around and had begun to approach him, at which point Zimmerman started for his truck, only to be hit from behind by an angry Martin who was retaliating for the perceived insult of questioning his presence in the community.

I find it entirely plausible that a 17 year old black teenager might become enraged at some white cracker "dissing" him and might decide to give the white guy a "lesson" in respect. It's not like that would be the first time that such a thing has ever happened after all.

It's easy to call Zimmerman a racist because he was keeping watch over his community and found a black teenager in a hoodie to be suspicious, but it's also plausible that Martin was an angry black youth determined to redress the disrespect he perceived aimed at him by Zimmerman.

That's what makes this such a difficult case. It hinges on the mental state of Martin, who can't speak for himself, and on the mental state of Zimmerman, who is not required to do so. Thus, the jury must infer a good many things from the evidence presented to it in coming to a just and reasonable verdict.

[kiki5711]

And Zimmerman was arrested for domestice violence twice and assault on a police officer.

Charges: ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL Statute Level Date
1. CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE 843.01 Third Degree - Felony 07/16/2005



Last edited Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:48 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
From the Orange County, FL Circuit Court Clerk of the Court Records page: [link to myclerk.myorangeclerk.com]
Record Count: 4
Search By: Party Exact Name: on Party Search Mode: Name Last Name: Zimmerman First Name: George Case Status: Closed Date Filed On or After: 01/01/2005 Date Filed On or Before: 01/01/2006 Sort By: Filed Date
Case Number Citation Number Style/Defendant Info Filed/Location/Judicial Officer Type/Status Charge(s)
2005-CF-009525-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Div 10
OKane, Julie H

Criminal Felony
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
2005-MM-010436-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Orlando
Miller, W Michael

Misdemeanor
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE
2005-DR-012980-O

ZUAZO, VERONICA vs. ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE M

08/09/2005
Div 44
44, TBA

Domestic Violence
Closed - SRS

2005-DR-013069-O

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE M vs. ZUAZO, VERONICA A

08/10/2005
Div 46
White, Keith F

Domestic Violence
Closed - SRS

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/sh ... z1rq6Vp89W

[Warren Dew]

Yeah, everything I've seen so far leaves open some reasonable doubt. The jury is may have a hard time here. Edit: and the prosecution. Looks pretty easy for the defense, so far...

Juries don't always get that "reasonable doubt" thing. Jurors sometimes take the position, "if he isn't guilty, why was he arrested?" That's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is. Making sure the jury understands "reasonable doubt" is often the biggest job of the defense attorneys.

[FBM]

The defendant's criminal history is irrelevant and inadmissible in a trial for an unrelated crimed, IIRC.

[kiki5711]

But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida’s SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force—including deadly force—against his attacker if he, “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm … or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It’s not just that you’re under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, or rape.

Second, it’s not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.

Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you’re attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.

And fourth, it doesn’t apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.

Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.

So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.

[FBM]

Yeah, everything I've seen so far leaves open some reasonable doubt. The jury is may have a hard time here. Edit: and the prosecution. Looks pretty easy for the defense, so far...

Juries don't always get that "reasonable doubt" thing. Jurors sometimes take the position, "if he isn't guilty, why was he arrested?" That's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is. Making sure the jury understands "reasonable doubt" is often the biggest job of the defense attorneys.

That's very likely, I think. But if one or two of the jury members get it and stand by it, it turns into a hung jury. Dunno. I'm out of my league on criminal law.

[Coito ergo sum]

Objection, your honor. Evidence of prior bad acts are inadmissible to prove action in conformity therewith. Since the purported evidence does not tend to show motive, plan, intent, lack of mistake, the evidence is inadmissible.

By the way, do you know what the outcome of those arrests were?

[Coito ergo sum]

The defendant's criminal history is irrelevant and inadmissible in a trial for an unrelated crimed, IIRC.

Yep. Unless the particular prior acts can be shown to prove or demonstrate motive (maybe they were other race-related crimes and racial motive was an issue here, for example), or they show common plan or scheme - like if it's a series of related events that are part of a larger plan. Stuff like that. That would allow the evidence in for a limited purpose, where there judge would issue a cautionary instruction to the jury as to what purpose they are to consider the evidence for.

[FBM]

In any event, both Zimm and Martin had some shady dealings in their past. If it were brought up in court, not sure either one would come out looking like a saint...

[kiki5711]

The issue is not whether Martin was violating the law at the time that Zimmerman approached him. That is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not once whatever confrontation ensued, Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that he was being confronted with imminent bodily harm or death warranting him to "stand his ground" and inflict equal force to repel the danger.

Mr. Martin's legitimate presence in the neighbor is not even a factor in the determinative issues in a possible grand jury investigation. It might have sentimental impact but it would be highly prejudicial to Mr. Zimmerman to factor it in to the process.