Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the police reports, two people said that they had seen Martin on top of Zimmerman. One of those people later spoke with TV news reporters but would not allow himself to appear on camera (gee, I can’t imagine why!), and the other was later contradicted by his mother. However, that night, the boy said that he saw that.
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.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. My point was that this is not necessarily a case of property protection or vigilatism as you claimed, because it might be that Zimmerman is telling the truth.

In fact, nobody can currently tell what sort of case this is until we know, and we may never know, all the facts.
 
"Zimmerman to plead not guilty to second-degree murder
Florida man charged in killing of Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman is in custody in Florida and will be charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, authorities announced Wednesday. His attorney said he would plead not guilty. "…

Excerpt from: msnbc.msn.com/id/47023276/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
 
St_Francis said:
In the police reports, two people said that they had seen Martin on top of Zimmerman. One of those people later spoke with TV news reporters but would not allow himself to appear on camera (gee, I can’t imagine why!), and the other was later contradicted by his mother. However, that night, the boy said that he saw that.

You are absolutely right. My point was that this is not necessarily a case of property protection or vigilatism as you claimed, because it might be that Zimmerman is telling the truth.

In fact, nobody can currently tell what sort of case this is until we know, and we may never know, all the facts.
Click to expand...
A neighborhood watch person following a ‘suspicious’ person while carrying a concealed weapon, is enough to say vigilantism to me, regardless of what transpired later.
 
seekerz said:
You forget if you want to. Mothers like me, with children like Trayvon will NOT.
Click to expand...
Knowing all of the irrelevent things that have come up concerning Trayvon, if any of my children turn out like that I would not have allowed him to do anything unsupervised.

He would likely find himself enrolled and shipped off to the most hard core military or religious boarding school I could find with orders that he not see the light of day until whatever senselessness he has within him ceases to be.
 
"Second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin shooting surprises legal experts

Legal experts expressed surprise that a Florida state prosecutor is seeking a second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman, the block watch volunteer who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a scuffle, given that he wasn’t arrested or charged the night of the fateful altercation."…

Blue excerpt from: usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/11/11147895-second-degree-murder-charge-against-george-zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-surprises-legal-experts?lite
 
Lujack said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they have the evidence they believe will get a conviction. It would be silly to go forward with a trial if you didn’t. But, there is no guarantee that any of the evidence they have (or the defense has) is admissible in court. If the police were negligent in their investigation of the case, that could open the door for the defense to challenge the evidence.
 
Dawnia said:
I’m sure they have the evidence they believe will get a conviction. It would be silly to go forward with a trial if you didn’t. But, there is no guarantee that any of the evidence they have (or the defense has) is admissible in court. If the police were negligent in their investigation of the case, that could open the door for the defense to challenge the evidence.
Click to expand...
It would seem they believe they have the evidence to get a conviction and it appears that Corey is a go-getter.

"Murder charge brought in Trayvon Martin case

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) – The neighborhood watch volunteer who shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was arrested and charged with second-degree murder Wednesday after weeks of mounting tensions and protests across the country.

…Legal experts said Corey must have compelling evidence against Zimmerman if she chose to charge him with second-degree murder…
…
…Corey has tried hundreds of homicide cases and is known for hardball tactics and her passionate devotion to victims’ rights. She said she met with Martin’s “sweet parents” and prayed with them.

“We only know one category as prosecutors, and that’s a `V,’” she said at the news conference, referring to victims, and making a V with her fingers."…

Blue excerpted from: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-11-18-27-48
 
Lujack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, good, I found a better source of information. What they are saying is that once the person has been charged, he or she can claim immunity by reason of self-defense. This would lead to a evidentiary hearing in which, yes, the defendant would present evidence that he or she was acting in self-defense, and would have to show that, not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the evidence. This would happen before the trial started, and if it was ruled that self-defense applied, the charges would be dismissed.
 
rlg94086 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that set in NY? You have to watch CSI:Miami to get the scoop on FL 😛
 
pnewton said:
I do not see how this can be anything but manslaughter, unless we have either testimony, physical evidence or a confession to show the Zimmerman completely disengaged from Martin and then shot him in the heat of the moment. That is unlikely.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he will plea bargain for manslaughter and no jail time.
 
rlg94086 said:
From what I’ve read, I’m wondering how the prosecution will prove who started the confrontation.
Click to expand...
I gather they are going to try and use the girlfriend’s testimony, but I would expect the defense to go after that as heresay and not admissible.
 
seekerz said:
A neighborhood watch person following a ‘suspicious’ person while carrying a concealed weapon, is enough to say vigilantism to me, regardless of what transpired later.
Click to expand...
If the prosecution goes with that they will lose. They would need something much more compelling.
 
seekerz said:
A neighborhood watch person following a ‘suspicious’ person while carrying a concealed weapon, is enough to say vigilantism to me, regardless of what transpired later.
Click to expand...
rlg94086 said:
If the prosecution goes with that they will lose. They would need something much more compelling.
Click to expand...
… except that Zimmerman was told to refrain from following Trayvon.
Come to think of it, why was he following Trayvon? Any reason? No reason?
 
seekerz said:
A neighborhood watch person following a ‘suspicious’ person while carrying a concealed weapon, is enough to say vigilantism to me, regardless of what transpired later.
Click to expand...
You are making certain assumptions about Zimmerman. You are assuming that Martin was not acting suspiciously, as Zimmerman told the police on the first phone call; you are assuming that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin; you are assuming that any of the following Zimmerman did was in pursuit of Martin rather than, as he said to the dispatcher, {to see where Martin was going or to find an address to give the police} (re-checked the transcript and noticed he didn’t say that) .

The problem is that the scenario you present has Zimmerman doing a lot of assuming about Martin. You seem to suspect Zimmerman of assuming that Martin, *merely *by being a young black man in a hoodie, was suspicious enough to call the police for, chase him down for, and initiate a confrontation in such a way that Martin was justified in punching him in the nose and beating his head on the sidewalk.

So you are saying that Zimmerman was wrong to make all these assumptions about Martin with no evidence, but istm you do not have sufficient evidence to justify your own assumptions about Zimmerman.
 
St_Francis said:
Oh, good, I found a better source of information. What they are saying is that once the person has been charged, he or she can claim immunity by reason of self-defense. This would lead to a evidentiary hearing in which, yes, the defendant would present evidence that he or she was acting in self-defense, and would have to show that, not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the evidence. This would happen before the trial started, and if it was ruled that self-defense applied, the charges would be dismissed.
Click to expand...
Thank You! Now the judge throwing out the car stereo case makes sense.😃
 
catharina said:
… except that Zimmerman was told to refrain from following Trayvon.
Come to think of it, why was he following Trayvon? Any reason? No reason?
Click to expand...
I would think that would be pretty explainable. If you report someone suspicious, following the person to stay aware of his location makes sense. Otherwise, the police may not be able to locate the suspicious character when they show up. Again, the following of Martin is not a strong argument for the prosecution. They would have to prove Zimmerman’s intent was malicious.

Also, I’m not clear on whether he continued to follow Martin; stopped after being told it wasn’t needed; gave up after he lost sight of him; etc. maybe there is some clearer evidence that will be presented to clear that up.
 
Dawnia said:
Isn’t that set in NY? You have to watch CSI:Miami to get the scoop on FL 😛
Click to expand...
You guys can joke all you want, but the prosecutor in the murder jury I served on said this is a real problem. People watch these shows and think there really is such a thing as a “tire tread database” that cops can just pull up any old time. So reasonable evidence becomes doubtful when prosecutors can’t show juries all the flash-bang investigations and tie it all up in a neat bow.
 
catharina said:
… except that Zimmerman was told to refrain from following Trayvon.
Come to think of it, why was he following Trayvon? Any reason? No reason?
Click to expand...
Zimmerman was not obligated to obey the dispatcher. No one knows what he saw that night. Please stop speculating!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top