Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

[St_Francis]

You forget if you want to. Mothers like me, with children like Trayvon will NOT.

This is not just about one incident - this is about protecting our children from vigilantism. The right to defend property can NEVER justify killing people’s random stranger’s kids - no material possession is worth a life, even if you are honestly convinced that someone is ‘up to no good’. That is just outside the teachings of the Christ I know.

Zimmerman says that Martin approached him, spoke with him, then punched him in the nose and jumped on his fallen body and began to pound his head onto the sidewalk.

Eyewitnesses verify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot Martin and Zimmerman’s nose was broken, supporting his allegation that Martin had punched him. Other than those two things, there is no independent evidence supporting Zimmerman’s statement about those minutes, but there is also no independent evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s statement.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, if Martin attacked him, then this is not a case of vigilantism or of protecting property. It is not a case of killing random stangers’ kids. It is a case of self-defense, of shooting a person who was in the process of doing something which could cause serious physical damage or death.

 

[seekerz]

As quickly as you are to protect yours I’m sure Zimmerman was to protect his. After multiple burglaries he performed an unpaid service to stop further ones. You can beat on him for poor judgement all you want but to play Monday morning quarterback is unfair.

You know what is unfair? Dying because you went to the store. That is totally unfair.

And btw, what service was Zimmerman providing and why does pay figure into it? Should he have been paid for playing cops and robbers with somebody’s child? Nowhere in the rules of formal Neighborhood Watch is it advised that you carry a weapon, far less follow someone with it. So football puns fall flat here.

 

[vz71]

Race peddlers have emerged on both sides of the coin.

Truth.

But it is also true that I would not want to sit in the judgement seat of a jury that is influenced by either.

I wager you would not either.

 

[Lujack]

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think you are correct.

criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-definition.html
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion” or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

I’m not a lawyer either, so we’re on even ground.

Ah, I understand this now. Well in that case, it would depend on Zimmerman’s defense. He could argue both self-defense, but that even if it wasn’t self-defense he was still in a reasonable heat of passion (essentially arguing “Yes, I am guilty of manslaughter but I have not been charged with that”; not that I’m saying its an unreasonable defense to use).

I wonder, though, if the “killing caused by dangerous conduct” portion will come into play.

I’m going to assume (and perhaps assume wrongly) that the prosecutor has some more evidence to support the second-degree murder charge that will come out during the trial. I’d be surprised if it didn’t, but I could well be wrong.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You know what is unfair? Dying because you went to the store. That is totally unfair.

And btw, what service was Zimmerman providing and why does pay figure into it? Should he have been paid for playing cops and robbers with somebody’s child? Nowhere in the rules of formal Neighborhood Watch is it advised that you carry a weapon, far less follow someone with it. So football puns fall flat here.

You know, you’ve already consented to being biased about this case. Forgive me for trying to amend that.

 

[vz71]

The only “witness” that could refute it is dead. Remember?

That is one possibility.

But given what is known thus far, not likely.

The evidence will either show zimmerman guilty or it will show him not guilty.

Unfortunately his life is in danger no matter what the evidence says.

 

[Lujack]

Zimmerman says that Martin approached him, spoke with him, then punched him in the nose and jumped on his fallen body and began to pound his head onto the sidewalk.

Eyewitnesses verify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot Martin and Zimmerman’s nose was broken, supporting his allegation that Martin had punched him. Other than those two things, there is no independent evidence supporting Zimmerman’s statement about those minutes, but there is also no independent evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s statement.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, if Martin attacked him, then this is not a case of vigilantism or of protecting property. It is not a case of killing random stangers’ kids. It is a case of self-defense, of shooting a person who was in the process of doing something which could cause serious physical damage or death.

The complicating factor would be who initiated the confrontation, though. If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation in a way that threatened Martin, then Martin may have been acting in self-defense. Zimmerman isn’t allowed to start a fight, lose the fight, kill the winner and claim self-defense.

If he makes a self-defense case, I think that will be the key point of contention between the prosecution and the defense. I think.

 

[seekerz]

Zimmerman says that Martin approached him, spoke with him, then punched him in the nose and jumped on his fallen body and began to pound his head onto the sidewalk.

Eyewitnesses verify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot Martin and Zimmerman’s nose was broken, supporting his allegation that Martin had punched him. Other than those two things, there is no independent evidence supporting Zimmerman’s statement about those minutes, but there is also no independent evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s statement.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, if Martin attacked him, then this is not a case of vigilantism or of protecting property. It is not a case of killing random stangers’ kids. It is a case of self-defense, of shooting a person who was in the process of doing something which could cause serious physical damage or death.

I guess you have access to the “eyewitnesses” you allege? Because in my universe there were somewhat confusing eyewitness accounts but nothing definitive offered by an identifiable person to support what you’re saying here.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, even if there was a fight - regardless of who was on top - that does not automatically put Trayvon in the wrong. Unless someone saw the whole confrontation and can support Zimmerman’s version of events, that’s all it remains: his version.

 

[gilliam]

Please don’t take this as rude, but are you reading at all what I’m saying? If George Zimmerman makes the affirmative defense of claiming self-defense, he is conceding that he shot Trayvon Martin with the intent of killing or seriously harming him. That is what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has to prove 2nd Degree murder. Not homicide, not accidental homicide, not self defence, or any of the other excusable homicides.

In claiming self-defense, Zimmerman is conceding that portion of the case and introducing self-defense. Since self-defense is an affirmative defense, he has to present evidence for that. His burden of proof is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but it exists-he requires a preponderance of the evidence. That’s the 51% (I know juries have to be unanimous to convict).

If you disagree with that, disagree with it by all means. Others have argued that the stand your ground law changes the burden of proof for self-defense cases. However, please read and understand what I’m saying.

Again, the prosecution has to prove it wasn’t self-defense. All Zimmerman has to do is claim self-defense, he doesn’t have to prove it.

IMHO, Zimmerman’s lawyers don’t need to plant a seed of doubt in 51% of the jurors. Just a handful. The State must convince 100% of the jurors that there is no shadow of doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder.

With all we know now, there are a lot of shadows out there. Maybe the bright light of justice will erase them, but they are there now. And to his credit, Zimmerman has been cooperating all along.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

You forget if you want to. Mothers like me, with children like Trayvon will NOT.

This is not just about one incident - this is about protecting our children from vigilantism. The right to defend property can NEVER justify killing random stranger’s kids - no material possession is worth a life, even if you are honestly convinced that someone is ‘up to no good’. That is just outside the teachings of the Christ I know.

Thank you. A million thank you’s for standing ground on what is right, while it seems that the most horrid up-is-down and war-is-peace talk goes on around us.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Forget the case. This incident is being used by professional, well-paid agitators to foment race violence. Many people are only too happy to comply. This is proven in the fake kiddie picture of the boy in question and a deliberate manipulation on the part of the media. This is what should be focused on and the cause of outrage.

Naturally, this is lost on most people.

where is the outrage when innocent people are killed by young black males? we don’t seem to have many press conferences everytime someone is a victim of violence from an african american male. i am sorry that trayvon is dead. i am not defending george zimmerman, because he has been arrested now and his case will be heard in court. but when i was watching al sharpton speak this afternoon, i wasn’t applauding. i wish we could have a press conference for everytime a white person was killed by an african american. like the two young foreign men whose parents a couple of weeks ago brought up the point that they never received a call from obama when their two sons were murdered by an african american male. this case like any other homicide case deserves to be looked at and investigated. i think it has been blown out of proportion. i hope that george zimmerman will get justice and the truth of what really happened that night will come forth. i am sorry the martin’s have lost their son, but if george zimmerman was acting in self defense - if trayvon was indeed pounding his head against the pavement - then i hope appropriate justice will prevail.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

---

You are just drinking the koolaid. No thinking. Just drinking. You know practically **nothing whatsoever **about this case.

NO ONE knows much about this case but it hasn’t stopped a lot of commentators and the general public from taking sides. It’s shameful. None of us knows what happened that night. NO ONE.

 

[seekerz]

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation in a way that threatened Martin, then Martin may have been acting in self-defense. Zimmerman isn’t allowed to start a fight, lose the fight, kill the winner and claim self-defense.

Thank you. With regard to self-defense, it matters not who was on top or on the bottom or how it ended. All that matters is who instigated the violent confrontation. The limited objective evidence we have, suggests that at the very least, Zimmerman was inclined to confront Martin but that does not necessarily mean he did so in a threatening manner.

 

[St_Francis]

Please don’t take this as rude, but are you reading at all what I’m saying? If George Zimmerman makes the affirmative defense of claiming self-defense, he is conceding that he shot Trayvon Martin with the intent of killing or seriously harming him. That is what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In claiming self-defense, Zimmerman is conceding that portion of the case and introducing self-defense. Since self-defense is an affirmative defense, he has to present evidence for that. His burden of proof is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but it exists-he requires a preponderance of the evidence. That’s the 51% (I know juries have to be unanimous to convict).

If you disagree with that, disagree with it by all means. Others have argued that the stand your ground law changes the burden of proof for self-defense cases. However, please read and understand what I’m saying.

This is what the Florida law states:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1)… (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.

It seems that that prosecution would bear the burden of proof in Zimmerman’s case, and that he would not have to provide it as an affirmative defense.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not a lawyer either, so we’re on even ground.

Ah, I understand this now. Well in that case, it would depend on Zimmerman’s defense. He could argue both self-defense, but that even if it wasn’t self-defense he was still in a reasonable heat of passion (essentially arguing “Yes, I am guilty of manslaughter but I have not been charged with that”; not that I’m saying its an unreasonable defense to use).

I wonder, though, if the “killing caused by dangerous conduct” portion will come into play.

I’m going to assume (and perhaps assume wrongly) that the prosecutor has some more evidence to support the second-degree murder charge that will come out during the trial. I’d be surprised if it didn’t, but I could well be wrong.

From my extensive legal experience watching Law & Order , I think the manslaughter option would be a plea bargain, if the defense thinks the prosecutor has a strong case. Otherwise, providing reasonable doubt with a self defense case would suffice.

It’s hard to say what the prosecution or defense have in mind.

 

[Lujack]

The prosecution has to prove 2nd Degree murder. Not homicide, not accidental homicide, not self defence, or any of the other excusable homicides.

Again, the prosecution has to prove it wasn’t self-defense. All Zimmerman has to do is claim self-defense, he doesn’t have to prove it.

That isn’t the way that it works, though. According to Cornell Legal Information Institute page, self-defense is an affirmative defense, one in which “the defendant introduces evidence which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.” You don’t get the benefit of the doubt; you need to show evidence.

law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense

The issue that has been pointed out, though, is that they do have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t manslaughter, that Zimmerman was not in a “reasonable heat of the moment”. That may be an issue, but when it comes to self-defense, there is a burden of evidence placed on the defendant.

IMHO, Zimmerman’s lawyers don’t need to plant a seed of doubt in 51% of the jurors. Just a handful. The State must convince 100% of the jurors that there is no shadow of doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder.

You do know that I was using 51% to refer not to a majority of the jury but to a preponderance of the evidence, right?

 

[St_Francis]

The complicating factor would be who initiated the confrontation, though. If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation in a way that threatened Martin, then Martin may have been acting in self-defense. Zimmerman isn’t allowed to start a fight, lose the fight, kill the winner and claim self-defense.

If he makes a self-defense case, I think that will be the key point of contention between the prosecution and the defense. I think.

Yes, I understand that, and that is why I said “if what Zimmerman says is true…” We currently do not know of any evidence of who started the fight. It may be that what Zimmerman says is true, or it may be that it is not true. If it is not true, and Zimmerman started the fight, then he would be in the wrong.

 

[Lujack]

This is what the Florida law states:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1)… (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.

It seems that that prosecution would bear the burden of proof in Zimmerman’s case, and that he would not have to provide it as an affirmative defense.

This is where I differed with people on the other thread about this. That sections seems to refer to the burden of proof placed on law enforcement officials, whether or not they may arrest him; it doesn’t seem to alter the legal principle that if it goes to trial, you have to present evidence for self-defense. That’s especially the case since it explicitly removes the requirement to present evidence at trial for self-defense cases if home invasion was involved. That it specifically does that for home invasion and for nothing else seems to indicate that this is what they intended.

Others may know more than me, though.

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you. With regard to self-defense, it matters not who was on top or on the bottom or how it ended. All that matters is who instigated the violent confrontation. The limited objective evidence we have, suggests that at the very least, Zimmerman was inclined to confront Martin but that does not necessarily mean he did so in a threatening manner.

From what I’ve read, I’m wondering how the prosecution will prove who started the confrontation.

 

[seekerz]

where is the outrage when innocent people are killed by young black males? we don’t seem to have many press conferences everytime someone is a victim of violence from an african american male. i am sorry that trayvon is dead. i am not defending george zimmerman, because he has been arrested now and his case will be heard in court. but when i was watching al sharpton speak this afternoon, i wasn’t applauding. i wish we could have a press conference for everytime a white person was killed by an african american. like the two young foreign men whose parents a couple of weeks ago brought up the point that they never received a call from obama when their two sons were murdered by an african american male. this case like any other homicide case deserves to be looked at and investigated. i think it has been blown out of proportion. i hope that george zimmerman will get justice and the truth of what really happened that night will come forth. i am sorry the martin’s have lost their son, but if george zimmerman was acting in self defense - if trayvon was indeed pounding his head against the pavement - then i hope appropriate justice will prevail.

There should be outrage when anyone is killed by anyone of any color. Young, black maleness is not an indictable offense.

This specific case causes additional outrage for several reasons - all of which you are quite familiar with. Distractions and dilutions will not sway the discussion of the risks to those kids whose very appearance seems to make some people react to them as criminals. Sorry, but I take it personally when a grandma, in the middle of a meal, very openly clutches her bag and switches it to the opposite side of the table from my well-developed (and incidentally, very well-dressed) preschooler!