Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[kiki5711]

and even if it sad so in the police report, who's words were they? obviously zimmerman, not the dead boy.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the emergency responders should be subpoenad to testify of what Exactly was the condition and scenario, once they arrived.

The police get statements from the emergency responders without subpoenas. They just interview them.

The police report in my opinion is not reliable because I think they knew this was going to be messy.

Well, the police are the ones who do the investigation. So, I'm not sure who else is supposed to be completing reports. In this case, the police investigation is being checked and double checked by a Florida special prosecutor, and an FBI team.

[Coito ergo sum]

and even if it sad so in the police report, who's words were they? obviously zimmerman, not the dead boy.

A witness came forward to corroborate that Martin was beating Zimmerman up.

[kiki5711]

well perfect than! this law is every man's dream.

I can now go to niggers/spiks neighborhoods and if I totally detest them, I can aggresively confront one in an alley, pick a fight, then when he fights back, I can shoot him and I'm scott free claiming self defense.

awesome!

[Coito ergo sum]

well perfect than! this law is every man's dream.

No. It just means that the facts may not be as you initially described them, and you may have been swayed by only part of the story, and the additional facts to which the police on the scene were privy may well have painted a different picture - one consistent with Zimmerman's story.

Think about it: Zimmerman lived in the neighborhood. He was involved in this incident and they had the 9/11 call. They had Zimmerman's story, which was corroborated by physical evidence on the scene including wounds. Somehow, he hit the back of his head on the ground. It was Zimmerman who placed the 9/11 call (surely if the guy wanted to gun down Martin, it would have been his interest to just do it without the call -- or, if he was using the call as cover, he could have made up anything, like that Martin was looking in windows and such). After the incident, Zimmerman did not flee. He cooperated with the Police and against the advice that most attorneys would give, he gave statements to the police. He allowed the police to examine him. After he was released, he went back to his house where he remains, available for the police to pick up anytime they need.

I can now go to niggers/spiks neighborhoods and if I totally detest them, I can aggresively confront one in an alley, pick a fight, then when he fights back, I can shoot him and I'm scott free claiming self defense.

awesome!

Zimmerman was technically a spic, short for hispanic.

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight? You're assuming that. Apparently, from the evidence we've been talking about, Zimmerman at most followed the guy through the neighborhood. I presume that Zimmerman has as much right to walk around the neighborhood as Martin, no?

[tattuchu]

"I then noticed that there was what appeared to be a black male wearing a gray sweater..."
-from the police report Ronja linked to.

Sorry for the derail, but what is it with people these days that they don't know the difference between a sweater and a sweatshirt

[kiki5711]

"I then noticed that there was what appeared to be a black male wearing a gray sweater..."
-from the police report Ronja linked to.

Sorry for the derail, but what is it with people these days that they don't know the difference between a sweater and a sweatshirt

very good find!

now compare zimmerman's words to the cops and actual tape on voice when he's talking to the dispatcher. Please tell me if there's some difference.

[Coito ergo sum]

"I then noticed that there was what appeared to be a black male wearing a gray sweater..."
-from the police report Ronja linked to.

Sorry for the derail, but what is it with people these days that they don't know the difference between a sweater and a sweatshirt

If this was England, it would have been a "jumper."

[Seabass]

"I then noticed that there was what appeared to be a black male wearing a gray sweater..."
-from the police report Ronja linked to.

Sorry for the derail, but what is it with people these days that they don't know the difference between a sweater and a sweatshirt

If this was England, it would have been a "jumper."

and made from only the finest threads and fabrics...

[Seth]

In my professional opinion, if I were on the ground, on my back, on concrete, with an assailant on top of me who banged my skull against the concrete even ONCE, I would most certainly reasonably believe I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, particularly if he was shouting at me that he was going to kill me. ONE BLOW like that can fracture the skull and cause death or permanent brain damage, much less multiple blows, and if I'm knocked unconscious by the first blow, then the assailant can proceed to kill me and I'll be helpless. In such a case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had a gun (which I always do) and I could draw and fire it, I would do so without any hesitation at all and I believe I would be perfectly justified in doing so.

All that's required is a "reasonable belief" that your life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. At that instant deadly force is authorized.

Determining whether a particular person's belief was reasonable is a matter of investigation and, perhaps, for the triers of fact at a trial to examine and rule upon.

You're getting way off the trail Seth. Your talking phantom possibilities/probabilities....etc....and you must know that every case has to be investigated in different ways since they are all under different circumstances.

No, I'm talking about the legal standards that apply to the use of deadly force, something that I'm quite familiar with. I am telling you that I am thoroughly convinced by my years of experience and knowledge that if things happened as Zimmerman described, it is extremely likely that even at trial he would be acquitted for the reasons cited above. Moreover, in the US a prosecutor CANNOT lawfully send a person to trial unless the evidence before the DA, in his professional opinion, gives him a "reasonable likelihood of conviction." In other words, it would be a violation of Zimmerman's civil rights, and reversible error, for the DA to send him to trial without sufficient evidence of his guilt. That's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion that can get the DA disbarred.

It doesn't matter how political it gets, the whole point of the rule of law is to PREVENT people from being forced to stand trial if the evidence against them is so weak that a conviction is unlikely. The police only need probable cause to arrest, but the burden of proof that the DA must meet at trial is substantially higher, it's "guilt beyond any reasonable doubt," and the DA cannot lawfully proceed unless he has sufficient evidence to prove his case.

This is a fundamental protection our system offers to defendants who are PRESUMED INNOCENT before the court, precisely in order to prevent travesties and miscarriages of justice on the part of vindictive or politically motivated prosecutors who may abuse their enormous power and victimize people who are either innocent or against whom there is insufficient evidence to convict them at trial. That was what King George did, using trumped-up charges and prosecutorial discretion that placed absolutely no constraints on the prosecutor, who could subject someone to a trial in the flimsiest of evidence and send them to prison without proving their case. We in America take the presumption of innocence very seriously, for a very good reason, and we hold the DA to a very high standard of conduct because of the great power vested in him.

Even if the police had probable cause to arrest, if the investigation fails to reveal evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the DA MUST decline to press charges and the suspect MUST be set free.

That's just how our law works, and it works on the principle that it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be wrongfully convicted.

[Seth]

I think the emergency responders should be subpoenad to testify of what Exactly was the condition and scenario, once they arrived.

The police report in my opinion is not reliable because I think they knew this was going to be messy.

They will be, if the DA interviews them and they tell a convincing story.

[kiki5711]

In my experience with giving police reports of an incident and their initial description of what they saw, is 1/3 of the truth. The person left to be questioned, undoubtedly presents the scene in his favor to cover his butt.

And I am talking from personal experience.

The report from the police in addition to a statement given is very much a tiny fraction of what "really" happened. Zimmerman will say anything to make it sound in his favor, and by the time police comes, it's an opportunity to make it look like whatever would sound like the truth favoring Zimmerman.

The real facts don't come out until all evidence is put together to re create of what really happened which eventually will come out.

[kiki5711]

Zimmerman was technically a spic, short for hispanic.

Are you retarded or do you think I am? Why do you feel a need to point that out. Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows this already!

[kiki5711]

It doesn't matter how political it gets, the whole point of the rule of law is to PREVENT people from being forced to stand trial if the evidence against them is so weak that a conviction is unlikely. The police only need probable cause to arrest, but the burden of proof that the DA must meet at trial is substantially higher, it's "guilt beyond any reasonable doubt," and the DA cannot lawfully proceed unless he has sufficient evidence to prove his case.

I guess we will see how good the prosecutors are going to be.

[Seth]

well perfect than! this law is every man's dream.

Yes, it is. If I'm attacked I'm no longer required to retreat I can stand my ground and defend myself. That's exactly how it should be.

I can now go to niggers/spiks neighborhoods and if I totally detest them, I can aggresively confront one in an alley, pick a fight, then when he fights back, I can shoot him and I'm scott free claiming self defense.

awesome!

Wrong. The law is quite specific about "picking fights" and its effect on the right to self defense.

Here's one of seven specific Colorado laws regarding the use of force, including deadly force, for your edification:

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

As you can see, if you bothered to read it, things are not nearly as simplistic as you claim they are. I suggest you go look up the laws for Florida, which are similar, before you pontificate about what someone can and cannot do when it comes to the use of deadly force, because your ignorance on the subject is truly remarkable.