Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[jen_fla]

DNA evidence is virtually foolproof unless samples have been contaminated or deliberately switched. I guess there’s no law against jurors who refuse to use their God-given higher faculties…

casey anthony cough cough

 

[Bocephus]

It would come down to the reliability of the science versus the reliability of eye witness testimony (which to my knowledge, ain’t all that great).

An eye witness who was close enough to see who was on bottom/top is much better than a computer that only gives it a 50 percent chance.

Is this audio available? Do we know for sure only one person was screaming?

 

[Dawnia]

DNA evidence is virtually foolproof unless samples have been contaminated or deliberately switched. I guess there’s no law against jurors who refuse to use their God-given higher faculties…

Except that DNA doesn’t prove guilt or innocense alone.

 

[seekerz]

i totally agree that this wasn’t investigated as thoroughly as it should have been, but then again we don’t have exactly all the information the police had at the time.

i’d like to see how many witnesses have come forward with new information after this case garnered so much attention.

It’s not just witnesses coming forward. Call me crazy, but in my mind, this whole thing could be presented to a jury with just the timeline (recreated from 911 and personal phone calls), the area map and the recorded information. No need to call a single witness, honest or otherwise. I see the hardest part of the trial as the judge’s: finding 12 people on this continent who have not been unduly influenced by what they heard of this case.

 

[seekerz]

Except that DNA doesn’t prove guilt or innocense alone.

In some cases, it does. Men have been freed by sperm sample analysis after years in jail.

 

[jen_fla]

True, but they’d have one less question to answer in court: “Why didn’t you run/hide/stop pursuing/wait for the police?”

that somewhat falls under what is reasonable imho. if the duty on the victim is to run, then what if someone is coming at me with a baseball bat and i turn around to run, i’ve now just given them a chance to throw the bat at the back of my head. i don’t think we need to be creating any more hardships for victims of violent crime.

 

[Dawnia]

True, but they’d have one less question to answer in court: “Why didn’t you run/hide/stop pursuing/wait for the police?”

Yes, they would have to prove there was no means of escape. But pursuing, waiting for police…would not be part of that. Following someone has never been deemed as deadly force.

 

[jen_fla]

It’s not just witnesses coming forward. Call me crazy, but in my mind, this whole thing could be presented to a jury with just the timeline (recreated from 911 and personal phone calls), the area map and the recorded information. No need to call a single witness, honest or otherwise. I see the hardest part of the trial as the judge’s: finding 12 people on this continent who have not been unduly influenced by what they heard of this case.

so you’d try a case based on assumptions?

 

[jen_fla]

that somewhat falls under what is reasonable imho. if the duty on the victim is to run, then what if someone is coming at me with a baseball bat and i turn around to run, i’ve now just given them a chance to throw the bat at the back of my head. i don’t think we need to be creating any more hardships for victims of violent crime.

i’d also like to add, that the victim at that moment is the only person that can decide what will save their life. they have a right to do what is necessary to achieve that. the law doesn’t stop them from retreating either.

 

[seekerz]

Yes, they would have to prove there was no means of escape. But pursuing, waiting for police…would not be part of that. Following someone has never been deemed as deadly force.

Did I say that it was? Following someone qualifies as the opposite of escaping them.

 

[seekerz]

so you’d try a case based on assumptions?

Which assumptions? Facts: recorded ones. I forgot to include the surveillance video, hospital/emergency response records, and the voice analysis (if the science is proven reliable). And the grass-stained jacket - if it is available…

 

[seekerz]

that somewhat falls under what is reasonable imho. if the duty on the victim is to run, then what if someone is coming at me with a baseball bat and i turn around to run, i’ve now just given them a chance to throw the bat at the back of my head. i don’t think we need to be creating any more hardships for victims of violent crime.

Any reasonable jury can understand the situations in which it is not prudent to run. It’s not necessary for the law to absolve people of the responsibility to escape when it is feasible to do so.

 

[Bocephus]

Which assumptions? Facts: recorded ones. I forgot to include the surveillance video, hospital/emergency response records, and the voice analysis (if the science is proven reliable).

The surveillance video is worthless IMO.

 

[jen_fla]

Which assumptions? Facts: recorded ones. I forgot to include the surveillance video, hospital/emergency response records, and the voice analysis (if the science is proven reliable). And the grass-stained jacket - if it is available…

forgetting to add forensic audio results changes what you had said earlier. given your first post it would have been all assumptions.

 

[seekerz]

The surveillance video is worthless IMO.

That’s your opinion. It could be enhanced for a jury.

The video, together with the emergency responders’ recording referenced earlier on this thread, the presence or absence of medical records for the next day, any existing photos of injuries as well as photos of Martin’s hands, would give the jury more valuable information than any single eyewitness could give unless they saw the whole thing from beginning to end and told it all to the police from the very first, before all the outcry.

Add to all of this, a recreation of the shooting using ballistic information, and you have your case without need for any ‘he said, she said’.

 

[maryjk]

True, but they’d have one less question to answer in court: “Why didn’t you run/hide/stop pursuing/wait for the police?”

That would be assuming that Zimmerman took the stand.

He doesn’t have to, in addition, the jury can not use that he didn’t take the stand as an assumption of guilt.

 

[seekerz]

forgetting to add forensic audio results changes what you had said earlier. given your first post it would have been all assumptions.

How is any recorded fact: audio, video or printed - an assumption? We’d have Zimmerman’s story from the police report, in addition to any evidence that disproves it (I’m inclined to believe there’s plenty). Who needs witnesses? This is being presented as self-defense, right. All that is required is to prove the admitted shooter is lying about the attack.

 

[seekerz]

That would be assuming that Zimmerman took the stand.

He doesn’t have to, in addition, the jury can not use that he didn’t take the stand as an assumption of guilt.

My comment on ‘duty to retreat’ was a general one. Zimmerman, under FL law, had no such duty.

 

[jen_fla]

Any reasonable jury can understand the situations in which it is not prudent to run. It’s not necessary for the law to absolve people of the responsibility to escape when it is feasible to do so.

maybe i’m just super sleepy right now and can’t see the obvious, but can you give me an example where a victim’s life is in imminent danger and it is more feasible for them to run away?

if someone pulls a gun on me while i’m in a car, i could step on the gas and try to get away, but they also could shoot at my car. it would be up to the victim to decide which course of action gives them the greatest chance of surviving.

 

[Dawnia]

Did I say that it was? Following someone qualifies as the opposite of escaping them.

It is at the point when deadly force is used that matters, not the events prior to. At the point you shoot your gun, you must not have a reasonable means of escape to avoid being killed. Anything that happened prior to this point is irrelevant to whether you have a means of escape.