Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[AGBF]

It is on point, IMO. We have to offer equal protection of the laws in this country. That means that whether or not it's a capital crime the treatment of the accused has to be substantially the same. So because we have the death penalty we are as a society, more risk adverse toward putting innocents in jail

Well...this is getting off topic, but I am not the one who started to discuss the death penalty.

First, in some states (like California) the treatment of the accused can be quite different when he is accused of a capital crime.

Second, I think the notion that the United States in risk averse to trampling the rights of innocents is risible. Texas, for example, has a veritable assembly line running from the back of the jail house to the execution chamber!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Imdanny]

And, "You got me!" the boy said before keeling over dead.

Danny, this is a joke - right? (God I hope so!)

GlamMosher, well, kind of. It's not a joke they attributed those words to Trayvon Martin.

You're welcome to come to Hawaii! We don't have any bargains either though! bigsmile:

 

[mary poppins]

Ok help me out here.

In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that when a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss asserting that he was immune from criminal prosecution because his actions were a justified use of force under Florida statute 776.032, the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing and decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity. A defendant who asserts immunity has the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence (a much lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Thus, a defendant who establishes entitlement to immunity avoids being subjected to trial/jury.

The Florida Supreme Court specifically “reject[ed] the State’s contention that the pretrial hearing on immunity in a criminal case should test merely whether the State has probable cause to believe the defendant’s use of force was not legally justified.”

If the trial court denies the motion to dismiss, the defendant may submit the issue to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial. At trial, after the defendant makes a showing of self defense, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

So whether or not the use of force was justified is irrelevant in applicability of the Stand Your Ground immunity. WOW. That's really crazy. And (IMO) wrong.

So, if say in this case, Zimmerman's claims he was entitled to kill Martin due to the Stand Your Ground law, does that make him immune from being charged? Or should it go before an evidentiary hearing to determine?

I probably need to read the links, but to be honest even the above quotes make my head hurt trying to understand.

If relying on the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman's position would be that he is immune from criminal prosecution. The statute specifically provides for immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action and states that "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. If he is charged with a crime, his attorney may (and should) file a motion to dismiss on grounds of immunity under SYG. Under those circumstances, case law established that the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he is entitled to immunity. If Zimmerman fails to establish that he is entitled to immunity, the case would proceed to trial where he can still claim self defense.

Per the links I provided on page 2 and 12, defendants have successfully asserted SYG and their bizarre cases were dismissed by judges. No jury trial.

Not sure if that helps provide a better understanding. It can be confusing. The blog I linked to on page 12 provides a good overview.

 

[Gypsy]

It is on point, IMO. We have to offer equal protection of the laws in this country. That means that whether or not it's a capital crime the treatment of the accused has to be substantially the same. So because we have the death penalty we are as a society, more risk adverse toward putting innocents in jail

Well...this is getting off topic, but I am not the one who started to discuss the death penalty.

First, in some states (like California) the treatment of the accused can be quite different when he is accused of a capital crime.

Second, I think the notion that the United States in risk averse to trampling the rights of innocents is risible. Texas, for example, has a veritable assembly line running from the back of the jail house to the execution chamber!

Deb/AGBF

It's hard to speak in sweeping generalizations and be accurate. Yes, I'm aware of the CA laws, I live here. But CA is weird, and I don't think they've successfully fended off a constitutional challenge on equal protection grounds to those laws. And if they did there is an arguement about compelling public interest. That's always the balance.

Still and all, since you mentioned it: Texas scares me. I had a job offer there once and didn't take it cause honest to god, I don't know what their law makers are smoking.

I'm not pro-death penalty. Again, please don't confuse my statement of fact: "that the US allows the death penalty" to be confused with my personal view points on the subject.

 

[mary poppins]

Being an aggressor generally means being the first to use force or acting with an intent to cause another to respond physically. One who merely engages in conduct that creates an opportunity for conflict is not precluded from claiming self-defense. We know that Zimmerman had a gun, but we don't know that he was brandishing it while following Martin. Following someone, even with an intent to ask a question, alone likely does not qualify one as an aggressor. In short, setting a sequence of events in motion by acting aggressively does not necessarily legally make one an aggressor.

Even an initial aggressor may have the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If he withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates the withdrawal to the other person, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression escalates the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space or opportunity for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may assert the right to self-defense.

From the facts generally known now, Zimmerman may possibly successfully argue that he was not the aggressor. He can certainly claim he was following Martin so the police would know where to go when they arrived in the neighborhood, to ask a question or to prevent (by just being present) or be a witness to a crime. It's based on misconduct, not lack of judgment. Even if he was deemed the initial aggressor, he could argue that he withdrew from any supposed confrontation when he lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his truck. At that point, he claims Martin made comments (something to the effect of "Do you have a problem?" and then "You do now") and then punched him, thus escalating the matter. Martin could be the aggressor if he threw the first punch.

mary poppins-

If Mr. Zimmerman is prosecuted for a criminal charge I would hope that his lawyer could ensure that all of his rights remain intact. All of the points you made above sound extremely sensible to this (non-legally trained) mind. I support all the rights of a defendant. I have been saying that in the case of a death under these circumstances, that this case involved self-defense as the civilized world (as opposed to Florida) recognizes it is NOT self-evident...and that, therefore, the matter should be examined. I won't get into the wound analogy that trips Gypsy and me up again, but you get the idea!

Instead of the Constitution, let me go back a few years more in time (excuse me, but while some of you are lawyers, I studied history) to the Declaration of Independence. (Yes, I do know that Florida was not among the thirteen original colonies.) I believe that Trayvon Martin should have had the right to, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I am bothered by his having been deprived of them.

Deb/AGBF

My posts in this thread have been to explain state criminal law and procedure, and cite cases (via links) involving SYG. The last one you quoted here was in response to Imdanny's several inquiries about the section of the statute he referred to as exceptions/exclusions/exemptions (I don't remember the word he used to describe the section). Aggressor and provocation in a legal sense isn't necessarily the same as in an everyday understanding.

I have no idea how the underlined part of your post is responsive to mine or what point you are trying to make. Regarding "civilized world", the general self defense law I described is common to many states, not just Florida, and not just in SYG context. And then it appears, based on your reference to wound and Gypsy, that you are bringing up race again in response to my explanatory posts. What does race have to do with the nuances of self defense?

I already stated way back on page 5 that the Department of Justice and the FBI are conducting an investigation to determine whether the case can be prosecuted as a hate crime.

 

[Imdanny]

Well, I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that Zimmerman is being railroaded by a mob. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is Trayvon Martin's victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of so called reverse racism, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of the media. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim in this case, period.

Rather, I think for reasons that will be investigated by the FBI and the DOJ in full time, this case has been mishandled and swept under the rug. I believe that this is the way it would have stayed that way if Trayvon Martin's parents had not started their quest for justice.

As many times as some in this thread have said that race has nothing to do with this, and as many times as some in this thread have said or implied that Zimmerman is untouchable, and as much as you might personally insult us, we have the same information you do, and each of us has the right to form our own opinion. I think that much at least has been lost in this discussion.

It's kind of disappointing to me, but on the other hand political threads always seem to end in personal attacks.

Annette said it. We'll see what happens soon.

 

[biggerliz]

Well, I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that Zimmerman is being railroaded by a mob. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is Trayvon Martin's victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of so called reverse racism, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of the media. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim in this case, period.

Rather, I think for reasons that will be investigated by the FBI and the DOJ in full time, this case has been mishandled and swept under the rug. I believe that this is the way it would have stayed that way if Trayvon Martin's parents had not started their quest for justice.

As many times as some in this thread have said that race has nothing to do with this, and as many times as some in this thread have said or implied that Zimmerman is untouchable, and as much as you might personally insult us, we have the same information you do, and each of us has the right to form our own opinion. I think that much at least has been lost in this discussion.

It's kind of disappointing to me, but on the other hand political threads always seem to end in personal attacks.

Annette said it. We'll see what happens soon.

At the end of the day, we are all interested in justice. Some of us are interested in justice as defined by rules and laws. Some of us are interested in justice as defined by our personal moral code. We each bring our personal experiences to the discussion, but when professionals provide valuable input, we should be wise to listen to them, regardless of how we feel. The reason for that is because we do live in a civilized country with rules and laws. I believe in personal justice. However, when somebody mentions that if such a situation were to happen to myself, would I not want to be innocent until proven guilty? As people have explained, the legal system we have in place is designed with the foremost goal of preventing the innocent from being wrongfully accused and convicted.

As such, "I don't believe...". Since your first post, to your last, it has been explained again and again that our personal opinions do not matter in this legal case. It doesn't matter if we think this or that, feel this or that. Just because you feel Zimmerman is guilty, doesn't make it so. And just because somebody believes Zimmerman is innocent, doesn't make it so. Justice, in America, to protect the rights of OTHER innocent people, has to be obtained and doled out through the legal system. And as of today, it is apparent that opinions are easy to form, but the necessary facts are difficult to ascertain.

GYPSY and other gracious posters have inundated us with meticulous details regarding the legal system and what it takes to reach a guilty verdict. I thank them for educating us so!

 

[Karl_K]

Well, I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that Zimmerman is being railroaded by a mob. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is Trayvon Martin's victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of so called reverse racism, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of the media. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim in this case, period.

Hi Imdanny,
What several people are trying to get across is that you believing something and it being a legal reality are 2 different things.
The burden of proof is much higher and the rules of evidence much harsher in a court of law than a court of public opinion.
No one here thinks you don't have the right to feel that way, but that does not make a discussion of the legal aspects of the case invalid.
As I said earlier the legal case comes down to the true full facts of the case which none of us here have.

My personal opinion is that it was "manslaughter" under IL law, but it is not being judged under IL law.
The syg law provides a framework on how the DA has to pursue the case it is not stopping him from ever being charged if the full true facts support a charge.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

While I very much appreciate the lofty levels our learned attorneys have placed this case upon, in actual court cases I think the ideal may not come forth in the court system as much as they would have us believe.. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys twist the so called "facts" to present their side of an issue. When it comes down to it the defense doesn't care if his client is guilty or innocent, once the prosecution places charges, it also puts on blinkers. Justice is that nebulous concept that we aim toward, and have wonderful words that help us(the Constitution), but in fact we often fall short of. So, while you want to teach us about justice, I think there is no mad mob here and we enjoy being able to discuss a case in practical terms that we enjoy, bringing up issues we think are pertinent. But really, thanks, it good to be reminded of the ideal, but pubic opinion and our interest in what we see as justice is also important.

So, one of my questions has to do with the gun GZ was carrying. Where was it? In his belt" In a holster' If trayvon jumped him and knocked him down, sat on him hitting his head on the pavement(witnessess said grass) how did GZ get his gun out to shoot the kid.?
Doesn't seem possible to me if he was pinned down how could he reach the gun?

Annette

 

[Imdanny]

Well, I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that Zimmerman is being railroaded by a mob. I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is Trayvon Martin's victim, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of so called reverse racism, I don't believe Zimmerman is the victim of the media. I don'telieve Zimmerman is the victim in this case, period.

Hi Imdanny,
What several people are trying to get across is that you believing something and it being a legal reality are 2 different things.
The burden of proof is much higher and the rules of evidence much harsher in a court of law than a court of public opinion.
No one here thinks you don't have the right to feel that way, but that does not make a discussion of the legal aspects of the case invalid.
As I said earlier the legal case comes down to the true full facts of the case which none of us here have.

My personal opinion is that it was "manslaughter" under IL law, but it is not being judged under IL law.
The syg law provides a framework on how the DA has to pursue the case it is not stopping him from ever being charged if the full true facts support a charge.

Hi Karl, thanks.

I didn't actually ever say or mean to imply that me believing it and the legal reality were the same thing, but if you refer to the original post, this thread isn't exclusively about the legal case. Nonetheless, I tried to discuss the statutes two separate times with two separate people who dismissed me as not being, well, in one case the poster was not willing to discuss the specifics, and in another, I was simply told not to cite what I wanted to, and referred to CNN.

After being told not to get my facts from the media.

I tried. So if lawyers want to act like members of an elite caste who get to dictate to the rest of us, ok. I'm not sure a single person in this thread even practices in this field, but I guess I've been told.

We can be interested in any, every, or no aspect of this. I'm interested in the truth of what happened that night. Some people are interested in insuring George Zimmerman's defense. That's fine with me. I never said he shouldn't have one. I, and others have said all along we want to see this in court.

 

[Imdanny]

http://m.freep.com/nationworld/article?a=2012204050441&f=2592

I thought this was interesting. According to this media report (caveat: I am not saying this is an accurate paraphrase, I do not have a transcript of the remarks attributed to Chief Lee), in the last paragraph, Cheif Lee said (again, allegedly) that Trayvon Martin went out of his way to confront the person tailing him (and no mention of the fact Zimmerman had no right to be "tailing" him) and mouthed off. I think this is remarkable. Trayvon Martin went out of his way to confront the man tailing him. It doesn't say Zimmerman went out of his way. Not a mention of the fact confronting a stranger who is following you might be a perfectly rational thing to do. And then "mouthed off" as if to authority.

I wonder what Cheif Lee actually said. I wonder if Cheif Lee did actually conflate Zimmerman with an authority figure. I wonder if he did use the words, "mouthed off."

 

[GlamMosher]

So, one of my questions has to do with the gun GZ was carrying. Where was it? In his belt" In a holster' If trayvon jumped him and knocked him down, sat on him hitting his head on the pavement(witnessess said grass) how did GZ get his gun out to shoot the kid.?
Doesn't seem possible to me if he was pinned down how could he reach the gun?

Annette

This is a very good point. GZ brother was on TV saying that TM made a move to get the gun and GZ was forced to shoot him.

I wonder too, if TM was on top of him bashing his head into the ground, how did TM end up face down in the grass with GZ on HIS back? They must have been standing or surely he would have fallen backwards from a seated position and shot at close range. If (and this is all my mind trying to visualise, so play long with me) TM was on top of him on the ground, GZ shot him, TM somehow DID fall forwards, surely that would be to fall onto GZ and wouldn't there be blood on GZ shirt?

 

[GlamMosher]

http://m.freep.com/nationworld/article?a=2012204050441&f=2592

I thought this was interesting. According to this media report (caveat: I am not saying this is an accurate paraphrase, I do not have a transcript of the remarks attributed to Chief Lee), in the last paragraph, Cheif Lee said (again, allegedly) that Trayvon Martin went out of his way to confront the person tailing him (and no mention of the fact Zimmerman had no right to be "tailing" him) and mouthed off. I think this is remarkable. Trayvon Martin went out of his way to confront the man tailing him. It doesn't say Zimmerman went out of his way. Not a mention of the fact confronting a stranger who is following you might be a perfectly rational thing to do. And then "mouthed off" as if to authority.

I wonder what Cheif Lee actually said. I wonder if Cheif Lee did actually conflate Zimmerman with an authority figure. I wonder if he did use the words, "mouthed off."

The lesson here is - don't confront someone following you and mouth off...in Florida.

I read on one of the links someone posted that when this law was brought in, leaflets were handed out at the airport saying not to get into any arguments in Florida. It does make you think. Any people from Florida here? Does this make you concerned for day to day life?

 

[GlamMosher]

And, "You got me!" the boy said before keeling over dead.

Danny, this is a joke - right? (God I hope so!)

GlamMosher, well, kind of. It's not a joke they attributed those words to Trayvon Martin.

You're welcome to come to Hawaii! We don't have any bargains either though! bigsmile:

That is sad isn't it? That this has been turned into a b grade movie.

I have been to Hawaii twice, but some time ago now (BC). We love it there, and it will be our first holiday sans kids once we feel safe leaving them on their own in the house. I bet the shopping there is still way better than here!

 

[lulu]

Almost half of US states have some version of Stand Your Ground. And we are at our Florida home right now. I went to the Winn Dixie earlier and did not witness any shootouts. People kept their cool even though there was a big markdown on Lean Cuisine and supplies were low.

 

[GlamMosher]

Almost half of US states have some version of Stand Your Ground. And we are at our Florida home right now. I went to the Winn Dixie earlier and did not witness any shootouts. People kept their cool even though there was a big markdown on Lean Cuisine and supplies were low.

Maybe you were lucky there were no gun toting vigilantes out that were on a diet that wanted that last Butternut Squash Ravioli. (JK)

 

[lulu]

Love the butternut squash ravioli, but the chicken in peanut sauce is the best. I would have stood my ground for those.

 

[GlamMosher]

Love the butternut squash ravioli, but the chicken in peanut sauce is the best. I would have stood my ground for those.

 

[Imdanny]

"by Werner Lange

Florida State Prosecutor Norman R. Wolfinger, who was forced to recuse himself from the Trayvon Martin case after trying to derail it, has shown a “disturbing pattern of selective prosecution and institutionalized racism” over two decades. Among many intrigues involving race and power, “Wolfinger also failed to file any charges against two White security guards who shot and killed a 16-year old Black boy on July 16, 2005.”


Trayvon Martin and Crime in the Suites

by Werner Lange

“The abuse of power by Wolfinger to stop justice in Trayvon’s case ultimately failed.”

As material facts surrounding Trayvon Martin’s murder continue to emerge, it is increasingly clear that this sordid case of crime in the streets is compounded by crime in the suites, especially the one located in the State Attorney’s office for Florida’s 18th Judicial Circuit headed, for decades, by Norman R. Wolfinger, a prosecutor with a very troublesome track record on race relations and selective prosecution.

The latest and most glaring illustration of Wolfinger’s biased modus operandi was his attempt to derail a thorough investigation of Trayvon’s murder by the son of a retired state Supreme Court magistrate. For reasons yet to be revealed, Wolfinger took it upon himself to drive some 50 miles on the night of the murder to the crime scene in Sanford and personally intervene in this case which, as a result, remained secluded from scrutiny for weeks afterwards. An intent by one officer to at least charge the killer with manslaughter was quickly squelched and he was released, a miscarriage of justice that outraged the local Black community which was determined not to let this latest murder of a Black youth by a White gunman be swept under the rug. Some three weeks after Trayvon’s murder, the conspiracy of silence was broken, explosively, and Wolfinger was finally forced to recuse himself. The abuse of power by Wolfinger to stop justice in Trayvon’s case, unlike in so many previous instances over his long career as State Attorney, ultimately failed.

“Wolfinger did next to nothing in 1992 about an investigation he nominally headed into serious allegations of repeated physical abuse of suspects, mostly Black, by county drug agents.”

Early in his career, in 1985, Wolfinger refused to file any criminal charges against a man who shot and permanently blinded a 16-year old boy visiting his girlfriend after mistaking him for a burglar. Wolfinger also convinced the grand jury not to indict the shooter claiming that he had a right to use force to stop the boy from fleeing; subsequently, the parents filed a civil lawsuit and were awarded nearly $400,000 in damages by a jury. In 1986, Wolfinger refused to heed the demands from MADD to fire a colleague who pleaded guilty to drunk driving. In 1988, Wolfinger, a conservative Republican, refused to investigate a case of three fellow Republicans who were accused of violating state election law by contributing to each other’s political campaigns in Republican-controlled Seminole County. More sinister was Wolfinger’s refusal in 1991 to charge a Sanford City Councilman with a felony for buying $20 worth of crack cocaine because there allegedly was no criminal intent behind the purchase. In a similar case of failure to prosecute criminal officials, Wolfinger did next to nothing in 1992 about an investigation he nominally headed into serious allegations of repeated physical abuse of suspects, mostly Black, by county drug agents; the case went before a county grand jury which found that suspects had been indeed beaten by agents but ruled that evidence was insufficient to indict anyone. More recently, Wolfinger failed to file criminal charges in 2010 against a Deputy Police Chief found guilty of fixing traffic tickets since allegedly there was no financial benefit derived to the chief for the crime.

In a case hauntingly similar to the Trayvon Martin murder, Wolfinger also failed to file any charges against two White security guards who shot and killed a 16-year old Black boy on July 16, 2005. Travares McGill, who had no driver’s license, was in a parking lot of a Sanford apartment complex dropping off a passenger when the security guards approached him without identifying themselves and flashed a bright light into his face causing him to apparently panic and drive away. The guards, claiming self-defense, opened fire with their 9mm pistols and two bullets struck the youth in the back; one penetrated his heart and killed him. After two months of no action in this case by Wolfinger, the local NAACP held a protest meeting demanding the guards be brought to justice. Wolfinger responded by claiming he could not take action or even answer questions about the killing since he had not received a report about it from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. However, even after receiving that report, Wolfinger still declined to file charges against the guards, one the son of a former police officer and the other a police volunteer who had been accused of using racial slurs in an unrelated case. Four months after the killing of McGill, the county grand jury handed up indictments of manslaughter and shooting into an occupied vehicle against the guards. Both were found innocent of the charges in a short trial in 2007 before a Circuit Judge, but one guard was fined $377 for failure to possess a security guard license while on duty.

“Wolfinger sought the death penalty three times more often if victims were White than if they were Black or Hispanic.”

This disturbing pattern of selective prosecution and institutionalized racism by the State Attorney came to light over two decades when the results of a survey of Wolfinger’s racially differentiated calls for capital punishment were released. In first degree murder cased brought before him from 1986 to 1991, Wolfinger sought the death penalty three times more often if victims were White than if they were Black or Hispanic. In none of the three Seminole County murder cases in which the victim was Black did Wolfinger seek the death penalty; but in seven similar cases in which the victim was White, Wolfinger sought the death penalty four times. In one racially charged case, the 1990 murder of a White service-station manager by one White and two Black teenagers, Wolfinger sought the death penalty for only the Black defendants.

According to the official website of Wolfingers office, his mission as a State Attorney is “pursuing truth and justice, treating victims compassionately, and protecting the public”. If and when justice is finally served in the Trayvon Martin murder case, that self-serving statement will be exposed as convenient cover for crime in the suites.

Werner Lange is an Assistant Prof. of Sociology at Edinboro University of Pennslyvania. He can be contacted at werlange(at)earthlink.net."

http://blackagendareport.com/content/trayvon-martin-and-crime-suites


"1. What was the purported “conflict” that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 — after several weeks on the job — state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve “the integrity of this investigation,” adding he wanted to avoid “the appearance of a conflict of interest.” He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor’s office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel] "

http://thinkprogress.org/tag/trayvon-martin/page/2/


"EXCLUSIVE: Trayvon Martin Family Attorney Raises Questions About The Role Of George Zimmerman’s Father

By Judd Legum on Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 pm

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Martin family attorney Natalie Jackson raised serious questions about the role of George Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, in the case.

Specifically, Jackson pointed to Robert Zimmerman’s presence during police questioning of his son. The New York Times reported the following:

The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.

Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby.

Jackson noted that Robert Zimmerman was a retired magistrate judge who “issued warrants” and knows “what probable cause needs to be” to justify an arrest. His presence at the questioning, according to Jackson, was unusual and potentially inappropriate because “we don’t know what coaching went on.”

In an interview with Fox 35 Orlando, Robert Zimmerman, speaking of his son’s conduct, said “If a law enforcement officer presented those facts to me and requested a warrant, he would absolutely be denied.” Robert Zimmerman’s unusual role could help explain how George Zimmerman avoided arrest despite the recommendation of the lead homicide investigator that he be charged with manslaughter.

Seperately, Ben Crump, Jackson’s co-council, sent a letter to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General urging him to investigate a number of irregularities in the conduct of local authorities. Crump wrote that he believed “family members of shooter George Zimmerman were present at the police department” the night Trayvon Martin was killed.

Robert Zimmerman appeared to acknowledge he had spoken to the police and the state’s attorney in the case. In his Fox 35 interview, he said, “No one knew I was a retired magistrate judge. I didn’t mention it to the police. I didn’t mention it to the state attorney’s office.” He did not elaborate on the substance of his conversations with the police or prosecutors.

Jackson noted that Robert Zimmerman has made several claims about his son’s conduct that have turned out to be “not credible.” For example, in a letter to the Orlando Sentinel, he flatly stated that at “no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.” Subsequently, the 911 tapes were released and revealed that George Zimmerman acknowledged chasing Trayvon Martin."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/03/457593/trayvonmartin-family-attorney-questions-robert-zimmerman/

In light of the above pieces of this puzzle, I wonder if some of you who have argued that we should trust the justice system implicitly would like to reconsider? How about those of you who have stated repeatedly that if Zimmerman was not arrested, etc., it clearly must be because the State Attorney simply lacked evidence? How about those of you who have argued repeatedly that there is no institutional racism therefore there couldn't be any in the Trayvon Martin case?

 

[autumngems]

THe boy is dead, we will never know the truth for sure

 

[GlamMosher]

In light of the above pieces of this puzzle, I wonder if some of you who have argued that we should trust the justice system implicitly would like to reconsider? How about those of you who have stated repeatedly that if Zimmerman was not arrested, etc., it clearly must be because the State Attorney simply lacked evidence? How about those of you who have argued repeatedly that there is no institutional racism therefore there couldn't be any in the Trayvon Martin case?

It is pretty scary, Danny. How do people like that get away with things for so long?

 

[beebrisk]

"


In light of the above pieces of this puzzle, I wonder if some of you who have argued that we should trust the justice system implicitly would like to reconsider? How about those of you who have stated repeatedly that if Zimmerman was not arrested, etc., it clearly must be because the State Attorney simply lacked evidence? How about those of you who have argued repeatedly that there is no institutional racism therefore there couldn't be any in the Trayvon Martin case?

---THIS is why I reserve judgement. Imagine if we were to believe everything we hear and read? Institutional duping of the public is far more like it:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call-manipulated-nbc-309258

 

[GlamMosher]

---THIS is why I reserve judgement. Imagine if we were to believe everything we hear and read? Institutional duping of the public is far more like it:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call-manipulated-nbc-309258

I am sure we discussed this a few pages back?

The full phone call was posted here (and obviously everywhere) long before this abbreviated version appeared, so only those late to the story would have been duped.

Even if this has not a racial slant at all (the latest i read, he says he was saying it's "f*cking cold"...), it shouldn't change that he followed & shot a young lad, who was unarmed.

 

[Imdanny]

Showing what Zimmerman said in the first 911 call, the story the lead investigator told family Zimmerman gave, Zimmerman's father's story, Zimmerman's brother's story, the story Zimmerman gave according to police leaks to the Orlando Sentinal, and Joe Oliver's story.

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/george-zimmermans-evolving-story.php

 

[Imdanny]

Eyewitness gives CNN interview (please click on link to video):

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/878129/trayvon_murder_eyewitness_says_police_refused_to_see_crime_scene/

 

[Imdanny]

Will the real George Zimmerman please stand up?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/461201/breaking-george-zimmerman-launches-website-features-vandalized-black-cultural-center/?mobile=wp

 

[Imdanny]

Zimmerman's Lawyers Withdrawl Counsel

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/10/exclusive-trayvon-martins-familys-attorney-responds-as-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-counsel/?xid=gonewsedit

 

[smitcompton]

Breaking News--- Zimmerman will be charged . The Special Prosecutor will have a news conference at 6 pm eastern time.


Annette

 

[AGBF]

On page 8 of this thread I stated that since Mr. Zimmerman had deprived Mr. Martin of his life, that I thought the federal government should use the Civil Rights Act to investigate whether Mr. Zimmerman had violated the civil rights of Mr. Martin. I said that the federal government had a long history of using this act in the South when southern laws made it impossible for black people to obtain justice under the laws of their own states and that it might be possible that Stand Your Ground would prove to be a law that, in this case, deprived Mr. Martin of his rights.

Gypsy said that she did not know if anyone had standing to bring such a suit.

Later on page page 12 of this thread the following discussing ensued:

Ok help me out here.

In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that when a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss asserting that he was immune from criminal prosecution because his actions were a justified use of force under Florida statute 776.032, the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing and decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity. A defendant who asserts immunity has the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence (a much lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Thus, a defendant who establishes entitlement to immunity avoids being subjected to trial/jury.

The Florida Supreme Court specifically “reject[ed] the State’s contention that the pretrial hearing on immunity in a criminal case should test merely whether the State has probable cause to believe the defendant’s use of force was not legally justified.”

If the trial court denies the motion to dismiss, the defendant may submit the issue to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial. At trial, after the defendant makes a showing of self defense, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

So whether or not the use of force was justified is irrelevant in applicability of the Stand Your Ground immunity. WOW. That's really crazy. And (IMO) wrong.

So, if say in this case, Zimmerman's claims he was entitled to kill Martin due to the Stand Your Ground law, does that make him immune from being charged? Or should it go before an evidentiary hearing to determine?

I probably need to read the links, but to be honest even the above quotes make my head hurt trying to understand.

From what I understand, it CAN go to an evidentiary hearing. I'm not sure if it's compulsory in every instance of the invocation of that statute though. Should be (IMO), but I don't know if it actually IS.

Must I repeat that the federal government used to use its powers to intervene when a black person was killed by a white person in a southern state with atavistic laws? Once there was a Civil Rights Act the federal government was able to sue white individuals who took the lives of black individuals-lawfully under the state laws of the south-based on their having deprived the black individuals of their civil rights...like the right to breathe while being black.

My point is that I have again and again said that the federal government could intervene in the case of Trayvon Martin and at least investigate whether his civil rights were violated. Since he lost his life in an incident that may have been started simply because of his race, his death has been due an investigation. That Florida did not, until now, decide to investigate it, is reprehensible.

I am very pleased to be able to quote these excerpts from a UPI report:

"WASHINGTON, April 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Justice Department will look at potential civil rights violations in the slaying of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

No state charges have been filed against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman; however, Holder told a civil rights group in Washington Wednesday the feds would be reviewing the case as well.
...

Murder is not a federal offense; however, the Justice Department can step in if it appears a slaying in some way violated the civil rights of the victim.

..."

It seems that the federal government can and will investigate whether Trayvon Martin's civil rights were violated, thereby ensuring that if Florida passes a law that allows all its citizens to shoot each other dead on sight, that they still have their federal civil rights. Something to be grateful for.

Deb/AGBF

 

[mary poppins]

Will be interesting to see what charges the state will bring.

Not breaking news on the feds. They've been involved in that capacity and purpose since March 26 or earlier. This on page 5:

President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

No decisions about whether to prosecute this case have been made yet. The Department of Justice and the FBI are conducting an investigation to determine whether the case can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The state is still making a determination regarding charges as well.