Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[mistermack]

This prosecutor is from the same organisation. She's not going to say anything that makes the original prosecutor, or police chief look bad. She's going to have to work with them, and what's her chances of advancement, if she slags off her own department?

She's saying EXACTLY what I expected her to say.

How the fuck can people not see that?

[kiki5711]

That isn't true. The special prosecutor in her presentation yesterday stated unequivocally that the local Sanford police were investigating the crime, and that it is not at all unusual for it to take weeks to make an arrest.

well that would make sense if there was a question of who needs to be arrested. zimmerman admitted he killed martin. that in itself should have been the cause for arrest and jailed possibly bonded until trial to see if he's guilty of anything or not.

That isn't correct, and the prosecutor in her presentation explained that too. That is your misconception.

Zimmerman is not the only person who hasn't been arrested immediately in a self-defense situation. Not by a long shot. That is one of the areas where you're just dead wrong. You think that "that in itself should have been cause for an arrest" and you are wrong about that, and prosecutor yesterday explained in great detail why that is.

again, that would be the case in where the person denied any wrong doing, but zimmerman admitted of killing martin. what's there to question?

[Gallstones]

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?

Volitionally exiting a safer space--his car--and approaching a stranger then asking that stranger what they are doing in the neighborhood is very simply the definition of pursuit and confrontation.

His getting out of his car wasn't inadvertent or scheduled or routine. Zimmerman was told not to go after the person, he made a deliberate conscious decision to defy dispatcher instruction and left his car to go after the person. He did so not just to follow and watch but to confront. He behaved as an aggressor.

On the topic of carrying for self defense, the intention is that one resorts to using the weapon only when one's life is endangered by the volitional act of another party. It is not legal to incite another party so to then have to use your weapon on them. Zimmerman is guilty of the latter.

[Coito ergo sum]

There's one thing that still bothers me, and that's the possibility that the prosecution won't try very hard.

Holy crap, you folks are fucking amazing. You think that the prosecutor doesn't want a conviction? FFS....

I said this many pages ago, but it needs repeating.
It's the oldest trick in the book, for the police and prosecutors to charge an officer, and just not try with the case.

Oldest trick in the book, eh? Okay, I'll bite. What are the major examples of this old trick having been played in the past?

The result is that the officer gets declared innocent, and "cleared". It's a better result for them than no charge at all.

What officer? Any officers would be investigated by the internal affairs unit, and right now I'm not aware of any officer that needs to be "cleared." Who are you talking about? Do you know what you're talking about?

I've seen that happen in the UK, to such an extent that the prosecution delayed and delayed, and then said that they had overrun the time limit. And the officers couldn't be tried !!

How is that relevant here, since no officers are accused of anything?

Completely blatant, and yet they get away with it.

In this case, an acquittal would make the original investigation and reluctance to charge Zimmerman look justified. It wouldn't reflect so badly as a conviction.

An acquittal will cause riots, quite likely anyway, like when the cops were acquitted in the Rodney King beating case.

A conviction, though, doesn't reflect badly on the investigation, because it is not uncommon for investigations in self-defense cases to take six weeks. You folks THINK this is unusual because this is the only one you're familiar with, and you refuse to believe (or haven't bothered to listen to) the special prosecutor when she explained that yesterday.
/

Maybe the media focus on the case will put them off trying that. But if the interest dies off, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they just soft-pedalled and he got acquitted.

Translation: an acquittal means they soft-pedaled. Nice to have your preconceived notions all packaged and ready to go. Be prepared. Good motto.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

Volitionally exiting a safer space--his car--and approaching a stranger then asking that stranger what they are doing in the neighborhood is very simply the definition of pursuit and confrontation.

His getting out of his car wasn't inadvertent or scheduled or routine. Zimmerman was told not to go after the person, he made a deliberate conscious decision to defy dispatcher instruction and left his car to go after the person. He did so not just to follow and watch but to confront. He behaved as an aggressor.

On the topic of carrying for self defense, the intention is that one resorts to using the weapon only when one's life is endangered by the volitional act of another party. It is not legal to incite another party so to then have to use your weapon on them. Zimmerman is guilty of the latter.

This is just not what the 911 tape reflects. You're wrong.

He was already out of his car and moving - you can hear the rustling - on foot when he tells the dispatcher he is following Zimmerman. The dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" and he says "o.k." and the rustling stops. Then he talks with her for another minute and a half and is NOT pursuing anyone, and he loses sight of Martin who he says on the audio "ran away."

At no point does he defy the dispatcher at all. You're just wrong about that.

Regarding Zimmerman being guilty of the latter, how do you know that? What evidence are you relying on?

[mozg]

That isn't true. The special prosecutor in her presentation yesterday stated unequivocally that the local Sanford police were investigating the crime, and that it is not at all unusual for it to take weeks to make an arrest.

well that would make sense if there was a question of who needs to be arrested. zimmerman admitted he killed martin. that in itself should have been the cause for arrest and jailed possibly bonded until trial to see if he's guilty of anything or not.

It also makes sense if you have a limited amount of time to lay formal charges after an arrest but you lack sufficient basis for those charges. You can't just arrest someone because you think you're going to formally charge them later and then hold them over in jail until you do - that's not the way the US justice system works.

[Gallstones]

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...

But your Honor, she dressed like a slut. She was asking for it.

[Gallstones]

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?

Volitionally exiting a safer space--his car--and approaching a stranger then asking that stranger what they are doing in the neighborhood is very simply the definition of pursuit and confrontation.

His getting out of his car wasn't inadvertent or scheduled or routine. Zimmerman was told not to go after the person, he made a deliberate conscious decision to defy dispatcher instruction and left his car to go after the person. He did so not just to follow and watch but to confront. He behaved as an aggressor.

On the topic of carrying for self defense, the intention is that one resorts to using the weapon only when one's life is endangered by the volitional act of another party. It is not legal to incite another party so to then have to use your weapon on them. Zimmerman is guilty of the latter.

This is just not what the 911 tape reflects. You're wrong.

He was already out of his car and moving - you can hear the rustling - on foot when he tells the dispatcher he is following Zimmerman. The dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" and he says "o.k." and the rustling stops. Then he talks with her for another minute and a half and is NOT pursuing anyone, and he loses sight of Martin who he says on the audio "ran away."

At no point does he defy the dispatcher at all. You're just wrong about that.

Regarding Zimmerman being guilty of the latter, how do you know that? What evidence are you relying on?

If Zimmerman stopped and the kid ran away how then did it occur that they fought and Zimmerman shot him?

[Coito ergo sum]

The kid came back.

On the tape Zimmerman is talking to the dispatcher and specifically states -- "he ran away" and then for about a minute and a half. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and was dealing with the dispatcher regarding where to meet the police. The only thing Zimmerman did was head up the street to find an address he could give to the police dispatcher.

It's not really an "if" that Zimmerman stopped. He said he was following the kid and you hear rustling as if he's moving hastily. Then the dispatcher says "we do not need you to do that." Zimmerman responds "ok" and the rustling stops and then Zimmerman says Martin ran off.

That is unequivocal on the tape.

Is it possible that after the 1 1/2 minutes more on the phone with the dispatcher that Zimmerman chased after Martin again? Sure, yes it is.

But think about it -- if Martin was leaving, and only had a "few dozen yards" to go to get to the father's girlfriend's house (that info from the Martin camp), then how in the world was Martin still in the area?

[Coito ergo sum]

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...

But your Honor, she dressed like a slut. She was asking for it.

That kind of thing is inadmissible too.

[mozg]

His getting out of his car wasn't inadvertent or scheduled or routine. Zimmerman was told not to go after the person, he made a deliberate conscious decision to defy dispatcher instruction and left his car to go after the person. He did so not just to follow and watch but to confront. He behaved as an aggressor.

Even if he did get out of his vehicle and follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said 'We don't need you to do that.', it doesn't mean much. The instructions given by a 911 dispatcher are not lawful orders, they are not legally binding, and a person is under no legal obligation to follow them.

I've never, ever seen a statute that defined 'disobeying the orders of the 911 operator' is a crime.

[laklak]

I'm just going to repost what I said at RatSkep, I'm too fucking lazy to type it all in again.

The case was never clear cut, despite what everybody apparently "knows". There is a paucity of hard evidence (unmonitored cell phone conversations are not hard evidence and in this case may not rise above hearsay), you have multiple witnesses, none of whom can agree on exactly what happened and none of whom was actually at the crime scene, and there were only two direct witnesses, one of whom is dead. Zimmerman was known to the police, absolutely. Did that color how they treated him? Pretty likely, IMO. His demeanor on the phone, judging from the 911 tapes and the transcripts of his previous calls, was measured and calm. He was not raving, frothing at the mouth or hurling racial epithets. Does a neighborhood watch member get treated differently? Probably, again because he's known to the police, they've dealt with him before and they've probably formed a personal opinion of him. That's human nature, not institutionalized racism. Not that I think racism couldn't be involved here given the rather checkered past of the Sanford Police Department in that regard.

Whether he would have been charged in the absence of a public outcry will never be known, however, given the cloudy circumstances I don't see how things could have moved much more quickly.

Now the state faces a rather daunting challenge - getting this man a fair trial given such overwhelming negative publicity. FFS even the president commented on it, I'd imagine the first thing his lawyers will do is argue for a change of venue, maybe to McMurdo Station, maybe they haven't heard about it there yet.

Couple this with the charge, 2nd degree murder, which is notoriously difficult to prove because it all hinges on his state of mind. It's a relatively small step from "in the heat of the moment" to "in fear for his life", isn't it? The special prosecutor is a bit dodgy too, she's been accused of grandstanding several times and has a reputation for draconian tactics. She was last seen demanding the death penalty for a 12 year old girl, not exactly the paragon of prosecutorial probity we probably need in a case this notorious.

So no matter how you look at it this is far, far from finished.

[Gallstones]

His getting out of his car wasn't inadvertent or scheduled or routine. Zimmerman was told not to go after the person, he made a deliberate conscious decision to defy dispatcher instruction and left his car to go after the person. He did so not just to follow and watch but to confront. He behaved as an aggressor.

Even if he did get out of his vehicle and follow Martin after the 911 dispatcher said 'We don't need you to do that.', it doesn't mean much. The instructions given by a 911 dispatcher are not lawful orders, they are not legally binding, and a person is under no legal obligation to follow them.

I've never, ever seen a statute that defined 'disobeying the orders of the 911 operator' is a crime.

I think you totally missed my point.

[kiki5711]

His demeanor on the phone, judging from the 911 tapes and the transcripts of his previous calls, was measured and calm. He was not raving, frothing at the mouth or hurling racial epithets.

And you perceive this tone of voice as innocence ?

To me it sounds like he's talking to the dispatcher, even toned, and wheeling/spinning other ideas in his mind at the same time.

Bottom line is zimmermen started the wheels in motion when he determined in his mind that martin looked suspicious, on drugs, or a robber.

With this kind of thoughts in motion it escallated into full confrontation with Martin, ending with Martin dead.

Zimmerman cannot take back the time and say "ughh I didn't mean it to end this way"! Too late. It did.

According to witnesses that were closest to the area (right in their back yard) they said it was a young boys voice yelling for help and not zimmermans and after the shot heard the help yelling stopped immediately.

They came out and asked what's going on? They saw zimmerman on top of martin, martin face down.

[HomerJay]

That isn't true. The special prosecutor in her presentation yesterday stated unequivocally that the local Sanford police were investigating the crime, and that it is not at all unusual for it to take weeks to make an arrest.

well that would make sense if there was a question of who needs to be arrested. zimmerman admitted he killed martin. that in itself should have been the cause for arrest and jailed possibly bonded until trial to see if he's guilty of anything or not.

That would make a nonsense of the florida syg law. Clearly for it to be self defence there must be an admission of killing but the law INDEMNIFIES the killer against arrest if it's self defence and no probable cause. There needs to be more probable cause than just a body - there's going to be a body in every case.