Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[Jerry_Miah]

More supposition. Murder has not been established nor do we know that Zimmerman’s family is “well-connected”. Let’s not make wild assertions if we do not know what we are talking about.

Zimmerman’s father is a former State Supreme Court judge in Virginia. Pretty much the definition of a powerful daddy. Add to that the fact that the State Attorney overruled the investigating officer, who wanted to charge Zimmerman, and it adds up to corruption.

Look at it this way: If Trayvon had been carrying around a gun and shot Zimmerman, is there any doubt that Trayvon would be in jail right now awaiting trial?

 

[Bocephus]

Zimmerman’s father is a former State Supreme Court judge in Virginia. Pretty much the definition of a powerful daddy. Add to that the fact that the State Attorney overruled the investigating officer, who wanted to charge Zimmerman, and it adds up to corruption.

Look at it this way: If Trayvon had been carrying around a gun and shot Zimmerman, is there any doubt that Trayvon would be in jail right now awaiting trial?

No, because I reckon Trayvon would have been carrying it illegally…considering he’s a minor, without a CCP.

 

[Bocephus]

Glitches can be fixed. Operator error can be eliminated by replication. My concern at this time is reliability of the science. I am just saying that contradictory testimony of one person is not evidence that the science or the technology is deficient.

I’m not sure I want to rely on the technology to convict a person when another persons testimony is contradictory just because a person might lie.

 

[pnewton]

While I have said that charges should have been filed, I think those that are upset about this not happening need to bear in mind that what is happening is not all that different than if charges had been filed. Yes, he would have spent a few more hours in jail. However, he still would have been allowed to post bond. He still would have a right to an examining trial that would have determined if the charges should stand or be dismissed in the same way that a grand jury will do now, with the same burden of guilt: is there enough evidence for a trial. If there is not enough, then it would be dismissed then and there with no further trial, just like will still happen. I think that there will be a trial and charges should have been filed, but in reality, it would have mattered little legally. It would have avoided the appearance of partiality.

In fact, there may be some advantage to a grand jury handling this, in that the prosecutor will have more time to gather evidence before it is examined.

 

[EasterJoy]

While I have said that charges should have been filed, I think those that are upset about this not happening need to bear in mind that what is happening is not all that different than if charges had been filed. Yes, he would have spent a few more hours in jail. However, he still would have been allowed to post bond. He still would have a right to an examining trial that would have determined if the charges should stand or be dismissed in the same way that a grand jury will do now, with the same burden of guilt: is there enough evidence for a trial. If there is not enough, then it would be dismissed then and there with no further trial, just like will still happen. I think that there will be a trial and charges should have been filed, but in reality, it would have mattered little legally. It would have avoided the appearance of partiality.

In fact, there may be some advantage to a grand jury handling this, in that the prosecutor will have more time to gather evidence before it is examined.

Yes. It can be frustrating for the victim’s family to have to wait, but not only can rash arrest be a miscarriage of justice, but the prosecution can put itself at a disadvantage by charging a suspect prematurely.

Florida law appears to give anyone who feels he is currently the victim of a potentially deadly assault a lot of latitude in how they respond. That puts the police and DA in a difficult spot when self-defense is claimed.

 

[mary_bobo]

Zimmerman’s father is a former State Supreme Court judge in Virginia. Pretty much the definition of a powerful daddy. Add to that the fact that the State Attorney overruled the investigating officer, who wanted to charge Zimmerman, and it adds up to corruption.

Look at it this way: If Trayvon had been carrying around a gun and shot Zimmerman, is there any doubt that Trayvon would be in jail right now awaiting trial?

Did not know about Zimmerman’s father. However, that still is not a good nor prudent idea to make suppositions without all the facts. Perhaps the DA did not think the case was sufficient enough to bring to trial. I still maintain that we do not have all the facts. I have my own suppositions, but I think it more fair to wait on all the facts and not join the likes of Sharpton and Jackson and other publicity seekers and agitators until we have all the facts before us. Then, and only then, can we just fairly and charitably.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Look at this case: miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

It goes something like this: January 25, 2012: Two guys of similar age. One guy alledgedly steals a radio from the other guy, adds it to his bag of radios. Victim of the theft sees him, grabs a knife, and gives chase. When the owner of the stolen radio catches the thief, the thief alledgedly swings the bag of radios, weighing 4-6 lb, at the pursuing victim. The pursuing victim of the theft, feeling himself under deadly threat, stabbed the thief to death. The victim of the theft, now a perpetrator of a deadly stabbing, did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife!

The victim of the theft who became the victim of a deadly assault who became the perpetrator of a deadly stabbing had murder charges against him dismissed by a Florida judge last Tuesday. His attorney was a public defender.

The decision is being appealed as an abuse of judicial discretion, but this is where Florida law would seem to stand at the time being.

I came into this thinking “c’mon, why isn’t Zimmerman in jail?”, but after reading about this case, I had a far greater appreciation why Florida DAs might be hesitant to rush any of these cases into court. From their point of view, the law stands at a very disadvantageous place right now.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Here is an article from FoxNews:

(I haven’t read read the entire thread since I stopped posting on it two days ago----so if this has already been posted, my apologies).

foxnews.com/us/2012/03/31/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-no-signs-fight/

Some things:

Yes, I know the funeral director is not a coroner.

According to eyewitnesses, this happened NOT on the pavement but on a Lawn. Which sort of contradicts Zimmerman’s testimony, don’t ya think?

And who was screaming “Help” in a high-pitched voice? Most of the accounts I’ve said said it sounded like a YOUNGER man. But that is not PROOF, of course. :rolleyes

And how do we know Zimmerman supposedly stopped following Martin when told to? The “Yes?” That could be interpreted any number of ways.

Goldie Taylor on CNN is right: Just as there are people ready to convict, there are people ready to acquit.

I just (personally----again, PERSONALLY) think there is enough evidence to arrest the man. If he wants to plead self-defense, let a jury decide that.

Let’s not pretend this is just paranoid, overreacting black folk who want to make all of this about race.

 

[seekerz]

Did not know about Zimmerman’s father. However, that still is not a good nor prudent idea to make suppositions without all the facts. Perhaps the DA did not think the case was sufficient enough to bring to trial. I still maintain that we do not have all the facts. I have my own suppositions, but I think it more fair to wait on all the facts and not join the likes of Sharpton and Jackson and other publicity seekers and agitators until we have all the facts before us. Then, and only then, can we just fairly and charitably.

You seem to have a problem with the* likes* of the agitators. Just remember that the police investigation had already been conducted and that would have been the end of the matter were it not for the likes of Trayvon’s parents, the Twitterverse, Sharpton, Jackson and very many other people. I hope they keep the protests up and this does not become yesterday’s news until we have satisfactory answers. It floors me that the way those parents had their kid disposed of like so much _ _ _ isn’t causing at least as much outrage as the words of publicity seekers. No publicity, no justice it seems in Sanford.

 

[seekerz]

yes and let’s even say he is swinging madly in the air staring right at you, Lord help anyone that judges you for how you decide to save your life. if the law forced you to turn your back on him and run into the station and he was close enough to hit you from behind and you died, well that would be tragic.

if he wasn’t close enough to hit you with the weapon (and that includes hurling it at you) then most likely the threat was not imminent.

edit: i’d like to remove bolded statement. i didn’t realize how stupid it was until too late!

our justice system obviously needs to judge, but hopefully you get what i meant.

I do get what you meant. I think most people on a jury would be willing and able to put themselves in the place of the attacked person. However that person should have to prove they were in reasonable fear of imminent death. Juries can judge reasonableness too, as well as combativeness versus a person’s willingness/ability to escape danger.

What makes things dangerous is when a law removes that prerogative from a jury and allows the person to be the sole judge of what was reasonable/necessary.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not sure I want to rely on the technology to convict a person when another persons testimony is contradictory just because a person might lie.

Technology is also created and used by people - it is not autonomous. Just as it could be fallible, so could a witness’ observations or memory. In addition, a witness is one person, while scientific processes are generally (but not always) tested, retested and verified by numerous experts.

 

[seekerz]

Because you aren’t in imminent danger when you’re following him. It is not until the point where your life is in danger that is relevant for the purposes of determining escape, ie when he turns around and a gun is pointed at you. Unless you have your gun out pointed at him before he turns around, then he can use deadly force against you and he would have the burdon of proof for escape.

Just because you do something stupid, like follow someone who is armed, doesn’t take away your right to defend yourself if they threaten your life.

If you are right then the law is just ridiculous. You follow someone whom you know to be potentially dangerous (he is armed and you know it) and if you startle him and he turns on you, you have a right to claim self defense? If that is truly the law, then we can go back to ‘an eye for an eye’ and let it be every man for himself…

 

[ringil]

but I think it more fair to wait on all the facts and not join the likes of Sharpton and Jackson and other publicity seekers and agitators until we have all the facts before us. Then, and only then, can we just fairly and charitably.

You know there are agitators on the other side of the issue as well right?

 

[seekerz]

Then why did you say, so definitively that he had given no testimony. I repeat, we do not know that.

What do you mean? My commonsense tells me that if he had good reason to be suspicious, that would have been included in at least one version of what his defenders have related so far. To me, that it was not given after all this talk, means it did not happen.

 

[seekerz]

According to Z’s dad, Z did not pull his gun on M, and Z did not punch first. According to Mr. Zimmerman Sr., Martin approached his son and asked him, “Do you have a f…ing problem?”, to which Z replied “No”, and reached for his cell phone to call back 911. At this moment, M punched Z in the nose and Z fell to the ground.

According to Martin’s girlfriend however, it was Z who caught up with M, the two exchanged words, M asked Z “What are you following me for?”, and at that point Z must have pushed M, because the phone fell from Martin’s hand and went silent.

My understanding is that it does matter who made physical contact first, and whoever punched/pushed/shoved first, is to blame for starting the fight.

Is that what you heard George’s dad say? Because I seem to remember some Zimmerman on TV saying that Martin said something to the effect that George was going to die that night.

 

[seekerz]

Look at this case: miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

It goes something like this: January 25, 2012: Two guys of similar age. One guy alledgedly steals a radio from the other guy, adds it to his bag of radios. Victim of the theft sees him, grabs a knife, and gives chase. When the owner of the stolen radio catches the thief, the thief alledgedly swings the bag of radios, weighing 4-6 lb, at the pursuing victim. The pursuing victim of the theft, feeling himself under deadly threat, stabbed the thief to death. The victim of the theft, now a perpetrator of a deadly stabbing, did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife!

The victim of the theft who became the victim of a deadly assault who became the perpetrator of a deadly stabbing had murder charges against him dismissed by a Florida judge last Tuesday. His attorney was a public defender.

The decision is being appealed as an abuse of judicial discretion, but this is where Florida law would seem to stand at the time being.

I came into this thinking “c’mon, why isn’t Zimmerman in jail?”, but after reading about this case, I had a far greater appreciation why Florida DAs might be hesitant to rush any of these cases into court. From their point of view, the law stands at a very disadvantageous place right now.

It would be interesting to know what witnesses had to say (if there were any) because, as they say, dead men tell no tales. How do we know the victim/perpetrator didn’t simply hold up a thief, kill him and unload his booty? At the very least he might be guilty of disposing of stolen merchandise, no? And that behavior speaks volumes as to his credibility and character.

 

[mary_bobo]

You know there are agitators on the other side of the issue as well right?

There probably are, I have just not seen them. If they are agitating, they are just as wrong.

 

[mary_bobo]

What do you mean? My commonsense tells me that if he had good reason to be suspicious, that would have been included in at least one version of what his defenders have related so far. To me, that it was not given after all this talk, means it did not happen.

Now I am confused. The defenders have said a lot of things on both sidea. What I was referring to was the fact that we do not know what Zimmerman told the police the night of the incident. We have only heard what his supporters have said. Right?

 

[seekerz]

There probably are, I have just not seen them. If they are agitating, they are just as wrong.

Why would they be wrong, on either side, if they are exercising their freedom of speech without inciting violence or breaking any law?

Since when is agitation in and of itself wrong? People agitate everyday about things they are passionate about.

From the history we have been given of the Sanford PD, it looks like publicity may be the only way to get all the facts before us so that we can judge charitably.

Like I said, if it were my son, I’d take all the publicity I could get. That’s the least you can do when your child is dead and authorities won’t tell you why his shooter was not charged.

 

[seekerz]

Now I am confused. The defenders have said a lot of things on both sidea. What I was referring to was the fact that we do not know what Zimmerman told the police the night of the incident. We have only heard what his supporters have said. Right?

His father, his brother, his friends. I suppose he could have told police something different - nothing in this case would surprise me.