Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[Maisie]

I haven't read the whole thread yet. I just wonder how, after seeing the CCTV footage of Zimmerman arriving at the police station, he can say he was beaten so badly - yet there isn't a single mark on him

 

[Imdanny]

Did anyone see the new video of Zimmerman yesterday, where he comes out of the police car, is inspected by the cops, and then is escorted into the Station?

Yes.

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

This is an interesting video, notwithstanding Zimmerman's story about getting punched out and having his head smashed into the ground repeatedly (his story can be found in the Sanford police department's leaks to the Orlando Sentinel).

Click here:

http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55187066/world-news-328-trayvon-martin-case-video-of-zimmerman

 

[perry]

From CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57406183/video-shows-zimmerman-without-blood-bruises/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Once you get past the headlines you will find burried inthe story the following:

"The next day, detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene. They also discovered Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse.

For the next two weeks, lead investigator Chris Serino pursued a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman.

Police interviewed at least six witnesses. But none of them saw how the confrontation began or the shooting that ended it. On March 12, police gave the case to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. He told them they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman."

Folks: As much as we may have our own opinions on what likely happed. This story says that the State DA office said there was not enough evidence to prosecute (have a reasonable chance of a conviction).

My opinion is that the public outcry and subsequent actions may now have permanently destroyed the opportunity to gain the key evidence necessary for such a prosecution in the future (if such evidence exists). The police could have legitimately investigated the case quietly for years - in the hopes that someday they may hear a different story on what happened that night from Zimmerman (perhaps in a bar after a few drinks, etc).

I doubt that will now ever occur. Also, if the public outcry forces a premature trial where Zimmerman is found innocent due to the lack of evidence then you will likely have forever blocked actions to prosecute in the future.

Also, now with the publicity of the case Zimmerman will certainly have a large team of the best lawyers available for his defense – at no charge. Something he never could have afforded on his own if this was allowed to run the normal investigation sequence with charges brought months or years from now based on other evidence.


Note to AGBF (and others): I too watched the Simpson Trial. I came to the conclusion that the prosecution never came close to proving that Simpson did it; I was however convinced that police did not follow proper legal procedures (which is a fact) and most likely tried to frame Simpson in the attempt to ensure his conviction (the evidence was very strong for this). The fact that police did not follow proper procedures and appeared to frame Simpson warranted the "not guilty" verdict especially as the prosecution could not otherwise link Simpson to the murders except via circumstantial evidence.

I do see a lot of similarities in the two cases and the public outcry and people's opinions. I personally believe if separating the facts from the speculation, and that procedures count. I also understand that our criminal prosecution system is based on beyond a reasonable doubt and that means that some people are not prosecuted who are in fact guilty. That protects more innocent people of being prosecuted and punished for crimes they did not commit.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[Imdanny]

I forgot to add, the officers are not wearing gloves, and there are no moisture or grass stains on the back of the jacket.

I'd also like to repeat something I said before, the lead investigator signed an affidavit saying he did not believe Zimmerman's story and recommenced manslaughter.

The way I see it, Zimmerman's story is BS. I never did believe it. The lead investigator does not believe it. I'm glad this story has been exposed, yes, even though there are so many others we will never hear about.

This is a thread about Trayvon Martin, and we have focused relatively more time on George Zimmerman. I believe George Zimmerman's day is coming.

 

[beebrisk]

From CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57406183/video-shows-zimmerman-without-blood-bruises/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Once you get past the headlines you will find burried inthe story the following:

"The next day, detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene. They also discovered Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse.

For the next two weeks, lead investigator Chris Serino pursued a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman.

Police interviewed at least six witnesses. But none of them saw how the confrontation began or the shooting that ended it. On March 12, police gave the case to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. He told them they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman."

Folks: As much as we may have our own opinions on what likely happed. This story says that the State DA office said there was not enough evidence to prosecute (have a reasonable chance of a conviction).

My opinion is that the public outcry and subsequent actions may now have permanently destroyed the opportunity to gain the key evidence necessary for such a prosecution in the future (if such evidence exists). The police could have legitimately investigated the case quietly for years - in the hopes that someday they may hear a different story on what happened that night from Zimmerman (perhaps in a bar after a few drinks, etc).

I doubt that will now ever occur. Also, if the public outcry forces a premature trial where Zimmerman is found innocent due to the lack of evidence then you will likely have forever blocked actions to prosecute in the future.

Also, now with the publicity of the case Zimmerman will certainly have a large team of the best lawyers available for his defense – at no charge. Something he never could have afforded on his own if this was allowed to run the normal investigation sequence with charges brought months or years from now based on other evidence.


Note to AGBF (and others): I too watched the Simpson Trial. I came to the conclusion that the prosecution never came close to proving that Simpson did it; I was however convinced that police did not follow proper legal procedures (which is a fact) and most likely tried to frame Simpson in the attempt to ensure his conviction (the evidence was very strong for this). The fact that police did not follow proper procedures and appeared to frame Simpson warranted the "not guilty" verdict especially as the prosecution could not otherwise link Simpson to the murders except via circumstantial evidence.

I do see a lot of similarities in the two cases and the public outcry and people's opinions. I personally believe if separating the facts from the speculation, and that procedures count. I also understand that our criminal prosecution system is based on beyond a reasonable doubt and that means that some people are not prosecuted who are in fact guilty. That protects more innocent people of being prosecuted and punished for crimes they did not commit.

Have a great day,

Perry

Incorrect. The state does not have to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prosecute. The jury must find that the prosecution has proved the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to convict. Big difference.

 

[AGBF]

Note to AGBF (and others): I too watched the Simpson Trial.

Perry-

I have known you for years and you are one of the posters I generally most respect since I find you very thoughtful. You could not have been paying close attention to anything I actually said in my postings, however. I would never have said, in any posting, that I watched the OJ Simpson trial since I did not do so. I rarely, if ever, watch television and I never did so during the OJ Simpson trial.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Laila619]

Did anyone see the new video of Zimmerman yesterday, where he comes out of the police car, is inspected by the cops, and then is escorted into the Station?

Yes.

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

Gee, shocker!

If anybody believed Zimmerman was really threatened and injured by Trayvon, well I've got a bridge to sell ya...

 

[Imdanny]

This is an interesting video, notwithstanding Zimmerman's story about getting punched out and having his head smashed into the ground repeatedly (his story can be found in the Sanford police department's leaks to the Orlando Sentinel).

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/29/454814/infographic-george-zimmermans-story-v-surveillance-images/?mobile=wp

 

[ericad]

Did anyone see the new video of Zimmerman yesterday, where he comes out of the police car, is inspected by the cops, and then is escorted into the Station?

Yes.

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

Gee, shocker!

If anybody believed Zimmerman was really threatened and injured by Trayvon, well I've got a bridge to sell ya...

This is exactly why I only believe it if I witness it coming from the mouths of Law Enforcement via interview or direct quote. Media reporting CANNOT be trusted!

 

[iheartscience]

Did anyone see the new video of Zimmerman yesterday, where he comes out of the police car, is inspected by the cops, and then is escorted into the Station?

Yes.

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

Gee, shocker!

If anybody believed Zimmerman was really threatened and injured by Trayvon, well I've got a bridge to sell ya...

Ditto!

 

[perry]

Incorrect. The state does not have to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prosecute. The jury must find that the prosecution has proved the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to convict. Big difference.

While technically correct; the state will not waste their time and money charging a person and prosecuting unless they feel that they have a case.

In reality, the DA office probably decides the fate of 80-90% of all cases; and only a small percentage of crimes are charged and prosecuted.

In this case, the DA office is reported to have said that the local police did not yet have enough evidence to warrant a prosecution.


Have a great day,

Perry

 

[perry]

Note to AGBF (and others): I too watched the Simpson Trial.

Perry-

I have known you for years and you are one of the posters I generally most respect since I find you very thoughtful. You could not have been paying close attention to anything I actually said in my postings, however. I would never have said, in any posting, that I watched the OJ Simpson trial since I did not do so. I rarely, if ever, watch television and I never did so during the OJ Simpson trial.

Deb/AGBF

Deb:

OK you did not watch the trial of OJ Simpson (or portions of it), and I apologize for assuming so. Then on what do you base your previous statement that I was responding to:

OJ Simpson obviously murdered two white people and no, it wasn't OK with me. I was absolutely outraged that a jury acquitted him! I was very pleased that at least he was nailed on on the civil side when he was sued by Nicole Simpson's family.

As a person who did watch a good portion of the OJ Simpson criminal trial - my personal opinion is that all the prosecution proved was that OJ had the character of a person who could have killed those people, and had the opportunity. That's a long way from proof that he actually did so; and a lot of other people fit those criteria as well. Note that I have no idea if OJ did it or not. He could have; but, he also could not have.

It can be a slippery slope from being upset (or outraged) over a crime (or event); to assigning definitive blame for it. I am especially cautious about doing so based on press reports.

Perry

 

[GlamMosher]

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

He also doesn't look like a fat, out of shape 250lb dude (weight may be wrong, i can't be arsed going back to check). Or have any blood stains on his shirt from a broken nose (that's assuming he was cleaned up perfectly by the police as he didn't go to hospital). I am not saying he didn't get into a fight with Martin, it kind of ruins the argument that he was a fat slob and Martin was a fit football player. But we don't know that either of them was a fighter... other than Zimmerman having a record for violent crimes anyway...

His injuries must have been pretty minor to not even be visible later than night. I know bruises can take a while to show, but surely a cut deep enough on the back of his head to have required stitches (that he didn't get according to his lawyer) would be visible on a shaven head?

Has it ever been reported if Martin had injuries consistent with a fight?

 

[AGBF]

Deb:

OK you did not watch the trial of OJ Simpson (or portions of it), and I apologize for assuming so. Then on what do you base your previous statement that I was responding to (snip of quotation from my posting).

That would be written accounts of the trial, Perry. There is a long tradition of print reporters writing about famous trials to keep the American people informed before television was invented. There was even a classic movie made about H.L. Mencken, the reporter from the Baltimore Sun who covered the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. Great movie. Although William Jennings Bryan is made to look like a fool in the movie, he is a man I very much admire. Not for his views on the teaching of evolution (with which I disagree), but for his valiant populism. But I digress!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

Did anyone see the new video of Zimmerman yesterday, where he comes out of the police car, is inspected by the cops, and then is escorted into the Station?

Yes.

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

Gee, shocker!

If anybody believed Zimmerman was really threatened and injured by Trayvon, well I've got a bridge to sell ya...

And this is why I keep saying 'wait and see' before making up your minds. Today it's this footage, yesterday it was witnesses saying they saw Treyvon beat George, tomorrow it will be a paramedic saying that George was bleeding but they cleaned him up and the cops saying the video is grainy and doesn't show small details... and the next day the paramedic will be discounted as a racist and the day after that we'll find out the video was actually doctored.

I don't think ANYONE in this thread, including me, has said we BELIEVE George. So, no bridges needed. All we said is that there is a lot we don't know and to assume facts or fabricate stories based on assumptions is premature and irresponsible.

I think THIS video: http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/tv/Jimmy-Kimmel-Live/93/2216370620/Tue%2C-Mar-27%2C-2012/videos?skipTo=510&cmpid=FCST_hero_tv Is spot on. Watch it and image that the man is George. Does he walk away? Nope. Does he that it is somehow REASONABALE to match wits with a goose, like he's not a reasoning human being but a stupid animal instead? Yes.

Now imagine that the guy in the video above had a gun. That would be a dead goose. For no good reason and as a result of some seriously poor judgement. Sound familiar?

This is a case for stronger gun control laws if you ask me. Especially if the guy really did assault a cop. WHY did the state of Florida say it's okay for him to carry? Mace would have been a better tool for the neighborhood watch and the kid would be alive.

 

[perry]

Deb:

OK you did not watch the trial of OJ Simpson (or portions of it), and I apologize for assuming so. Then on what do you base your previous statement that I was responding to (snip of quotation from my posting).

That would be written accounts of the trial, Perry. There is a long tradition of print reporters writing about famous trials to keep the American people informed before television was invented. There was even a classic movie made about H.L. Mencken, the reporter from the Baltimore Sun who covered the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. Great movie. Although William Jennings Bryan is made to look like a fool in the movie, he is a man I very much admire. Not for his views on the teaching of evolution (with which I disagree), but for his valiant populism. But I digress!

Deb/AGBF

That is a reasonable reply, Deb. One thing I have learned though is that often reporters write their slant. A very interesting perspective is the story of The Three Little Pigs. I believe it was in the 80's when the Wolf's version came out. Now what is the truth on the Wolfs intent and why the houses fell down, etc.

If you study major industrial accidents (which I do for training) the Bhopal India chemical plant disaster is well known. There are three different major "studies" out there on the internet with three different conclusions on what really went wrong and who's fault it is. If you look at the group that sponsored the study and the conclusion you will see a connection that the group who did the study found someone else primarily to blame. Interestingly, as part of our nuclear plant root cause training a common exercise is for a group of us to analyze the same disaster and we come up with a differnt conclusion than all of those formal reports.

Thus, I much prefer full transcripts if I am going to look at something; and I tend to hold of on final conclusions unless I am sure I am looking at sufficient data to know what the story really likely is.

Do have a great day, and I hope someday we can chat more. You are also one of the people I respect on this forum.

Perry

 

[Gypsy]

Incorrect. The state does not have to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prosecute. The jury must find that the prosecution has proved the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to convict. Big difference.

You'd think a reporter could get that right



To summarize what (in my opinion) every resident (not even citizen) of the US should know about our justice system:

You need probable cause to arrest. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "unreasonable... seizures" clause requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause before a defendant can be detained. Felony defendants arrested without warrants must receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours of their arrest. This means that if there is insufficient cause for arrest, the state is required to let the person go after 48 hours (usually).

They don't get take your word for it either. When a crime is brought against a person, they can either be Indicted by the Grand Jury (about 10 people and they are charged with evaluating the strength of the prosecutions evidence for probable case), or Charged by the District Attorney (state crime not federal) by a document that is filed with the court, called an information (in some jurisdictions). Once criminal charges have been filed with the Court, then the defendant charged is "arraigned" or, brought before a judge to plea to that crime. To make the probable cause determination in the case of a felony during the arraignment, the judge examines the complaint and decides 1) there was a crime and 2) that there is reasonable ground (probable cause) to believe that the defendant committed it. If the District Atty brought the charges the judge sets a preliminary hearing at this time, or the judge sets trial date if the Grand Jury Indicted. Defendants have a right to a "speady" trail, so the timeline of how soon the state is required to start a trail is usually one that is defined by the laws of the state.

In criminal court cases you need a unanimous jury verdict (12 people must be in the jury as well) of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the counts of the Indictment or on the Charges. The reason for this is "life" and "liberty" are at stake and it doesn't get more important than that (except maybe national security, but that's a different discussion). Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest and hardest standard of proof required in our judicial system as a result.

There are very strict rules of evidence in criminal cases. Much of what you see on TV and in the media about a case may not be admissible in court. This is one of the reasons why it is easy to convict a man in the media and hard to convict a man in court. There are standards of conduct by the police and by the prosecution (and the defense too) that the media is simply not subject to. And some evidence needs to be validated for it to be admissible in court (lab reports), especially if it is disputed evidence. Some cases are lost purely because evidence that proves guilt is incorrectly obtained, stored or presented.

In a civil court case, where one non-governmental entity brings suit against another entity you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence only (usually) or clear and convincing evidence. And civil cases (depending on the laws of the jurisdiction) are usually one or lost on the decision of a simple majority of a jury (not unanimous) and the jury does not have to hold 12 people (frequently 6 with alternates). Also in some civil suits you can ask the bench to rule, and waive a jury. This is a much lower standards because there is only "property" at stake.

Extra credit. Reasonable doubt: Can't define it shortly. Here's a pretty decent summary of how it works in Texas, for example: http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/january11/Definition-Reasonable-Doubt.htm

 

[Imdanny]

This is kind of a bombshell development. It turns out that there were no wounds, no bruises, and no blood on Zimmerman. His head is clean-shaven and so this is especially easy to see.

He also doesn't look like a fat, out of shape 250lb dude (weight may be wrong, i can't be arsed going back to check). Or have any blood stains on his shirt from a broken nose (that's assuming he was cleaned up perfectly by the police as he didn't go to hospital). I am not saying he didn't get into a fight with Martin, it kind of ruins the argument that he was a fat slob and Martin was a fit football player. But we don't know that either of them was a fighter... other than Zimmerman having a record for violent crimes anyway...

His injuries must have been pretty minor to not even be visible later than night. I know bruises can take a while to show, but surely a cut deep enough on the back of his head to have required stitches (that he didn't get according to his lawyer) would be visible on a shaven head?

Has it ever been reported if Martin had injuries consistent with a fight?

To the bold, yes, that is true, even though the media have been focusing obsessively on Trayvon Martin having had an empty plastic bag with marijuana residue. I'm reading story after story in which what you just said and the details thereof are simply omitted.

To your question, we have to wait for the autopsy report (and keeping in mind that Florida's system of medical examiners means they are specially trained doctors as opposed to a coroner system where the official might be a mortician with political connections- medical examiner system and coroner system are two entirely different ones- Florida has the best one). However, the mortician who handled Trayvon Martin's body has gone on record stating that there were no injuries to Trayvon Martin's hands, including his knuckles.

 

[Imdanny]

From CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57406183/video-shows-zimmerman-without-blood-bruises/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Once you get past the headlines you will find burried inthe story the following:

"The next day, detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene. They also discovered Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse.

For the next two weeks, lead investigator Chris Serino pursued a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman.

Police interviewed at least six witnesses. But none of them saw how the confrontation began or the shooting that ended it. On March 12, police gave the case to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. He told them they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman."

Folks: As much as we may have our own opinions on what likely happed. This story says that the State DA office said there was not enough evidence to prosecute (have a reasonable chance of a conviction).

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger's relationship to this case is an unanswered question.

"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/justice/2012/03/28/454206/trayvon-martin-5-unanswered-questions/

 

[iheartscience]

Just read that the mortician who prepared Trayvon Martin's body didn't see any signs of struggle on Travyon Martin's body.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-mortician/2012/03/29/gIQAaOwsiS_blog.html

Also, the lead detective didn't believe Zimmerman and was overruled by his supervisor and the state's attorney general, who was consulted with in person the night Zimmerman was arrested. Apparently this detective continued to investigate even after being overruled because he was so sure that Zimmerman was lying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-detective/2012/03/29/gIQA3NvAjS_blog.html

Here's a video report about some of the information above: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46887730#46887730

 

[Imdanny]

Now we've heard from the brother.

"- "If George was banged one more time he would be wearing diapers for the rest of his life and being spoon fed by his brother"
~ George's brother to Piers Morgan on March 29, 2012"

 

[minousbijoux]

...and now the world will watch as the story by Zimmerman, and his politically connected family, starts unravelling.

 

[GlamMosher]

From Australian TV:

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/weekend-sunrise/-/28787739/

(as an aside, my husband has the hots for Sammi the female host of Weekend Sunrise)

 

[Imdanny]

From Australian TV:

(as an aside, my husband has the hots for Sammi the female host of Weekend Sunrise)

 

[mary poppins]

I think the real question is the "stand your ground" law. My old law professor was quoted in Huffington as saying that this law isn't applicable to Zimmerman even under the broad terms of the law. If Zimmerman gave chase to Martin, it seems that the stand your ground defense wouldn't apply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html

It seems so, but Florida precedent in Miami-Dade and Broward counties says otherwise. The Stand Your Ground law has turned Florida into the wild, wild (south) west (in the east). Check out these crazy cases that don't even get to the jury because the judges dismissed or acquitted:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/2710297/stand-your-ground-law-had-a-sad.html

Uhh...I'm pretty rusty on my legal education here so please correct me if I'm wrong. (I have a JD but I don't practice law) Shouldn't this (Stand Your Ground defense) be a finding of fact for the jury instead of a judge? If so, isn't this unconstitutional? (I guess that's why the state attorney is appealing this decision).

Your memory of long-standing criminal law is probably correct on self defense, but more recent Stand Your Ground laws are game changers that provide complete immunity from criminal and civil prosecution, not just a defense. The result has been a material alteration of criminal procedure and frustration on the part of police and prosecutors.

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.

The Florida Supreme Court case, Clarence Dennis vs. State of Florida, is based on Colorado case law. More than 20 states have some form of the Stand Your Ground law.

 

[mary poppins]

I think this attorney’s blog providing analysis of both the Florida law before and after Stand Your Ground was enacted, and the Zimmerman/Martin matter based on the facts generally (supposedly) known so far (of course, we'll never know all of the facts), may help provide PSers with a better understanding of why there has been no arrest to date. Kurt Erlenbach’s statements in the comments section are pertinent, also.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/03/trayvon-martins-death-is-not-a-stand-your-ground-case/#comments


This article provides some statistics from an informal study regarding justifiable homicide cases pre and post SYG enactment, and some case descriptions.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

 

[Gypsy]

Mary, those were wonderful posts. I enjoyed them and learned from them, and they helped me understand a bit what the goal of these laws (which I still don't agree should exist really) are.

Thank you!

As to the Treyvon case... this is especially helpful (even if it makes me shake my head):" 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.'"

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.

And if this was previously decided by the Supreme Court this kind of goat rodeo was inevitable in some ways. And the Legislature's claims that they are appalled and dismayed and shocked doesn't quite ring true as they could have amended the law to contradict the Supreme Court if they disagreed with the interpretation. At least, that's what I get out of it.

 

[GlamMosher]

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.

 

[Gypsy]

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.

 

[AGBF]

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.

Deb/AGBF