Jump to content

Trayvon Martin


StrangeSox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wanted to post this article on this ridiculous situation by Ta-Nehisi Coates:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...killing/254776/

 

s it happens, Trayvon Martin was on the phone when George Zimmerman was following him. The young lady with whom he was speaking, through her lawyer, talked to ABC News:

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

 

Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. "Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

 

The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.

ABC News verified that Martin did talk to the young lady by looking at his phone records. I don't know that they can corroborate the exact contents of the conversation.

 

Nevertheless, when you read this, it's worth remembering the tale Zimmerman told the cops:

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

This tale was broadly repeated by Zimmerman's father who claimed that his son had neither pursued nor confronted Martin.

 

We know that this is almost certainly fiction. We have Zimmerman's on the 911 call explicitly stating that he was pursuing Martin because, "These assholes. They always get away."And we now have someone on the phone claiming a "strange man" was following Martin.

 

Again, I don't know that Zimmerman will ever do a lick of jail time, or even see a court room. But what angers people is not simply that Zimmerman might get off, but that the Sanford police would conduct a shoddy investigation, claim it was thorough, and then claim that all who objected were compromised by prejudice:

Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but, as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn't mean anything to anybody.

This investigation wasn't one. It was a sham, an homage to the bad old days of Southern justice. Lee should resign.

 

Emily Bazelon has more on the actual laws in Florida, though the more I see of this, the less I think "Stand Your Ground" will save Zimmerman.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 09:43 PM)
Also jesus christ is Florida's "stand your ground" law terrible. Too bad nobody pointed this out repeatedly before it was passed.

In any of the what, 16 states that have passed that law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 08:50 PM)
In any of the what, 16 states that have passed that law?

 

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" is particularly god awful because it doesn't even require that you feel that your life is in danger before killing someone.

 

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

So, whatever a "forcible felony" may be, you now have the legal authority to kill someone to prevent it.

 

But that was sarcasm anyway, of course people heavily criticized these dumb laws.

 

 

 

edit:

OVALLE: Yeah. Correct. There's been cases and I've seen cases where they just will not file to begin with, or they will file, you know, the prosecutors will drop the case somewhere down the road before letting it ever get to a judge or a jury. And there's been a handful of cases and some very high-profile cases here in South Florida in which a judge has outright granted immunity.

 

BLOCK: I've seen the statistic, David, that in Florida reports of justifiable homicides have tripled since the law went into effect. Any contention about that number?

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/20/149014228/a-...-law-in-florida

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From people's reactions and what I read initially, I assumed Zimmerman was some retired old white guy not 28 and Hispanic.

 

Also, from what I've read on the law in Florida, it seems to be more of a problem with the law than the police response. That law seems so wrong, I wonder how anyone would be convicted of murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 04:36 PM)
From people's reactions and what I read initially, I assumed Zimmerman was some retired old white guy not 28 and Hispanic.

 

Also, from what I've read on the law in Florida, it seems to be more of a problem with the law than the police response. That law seems so wrong, I wonder how anyone would be convicted of murder.

 

How does a man with a gun standing over to a teenager dead from a gunshot wound not get arrested?

 

The city says

"Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense, which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony"

 

I'm curious to know what physical evidence and testimony that was. The shooter's testimony? The physical evidence that the victim was totally unarmed and in a location he had every right to be in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:57 PM)
How does a man with a gun standing over to a teenager dead from a gunshot wound not get arrested?

 

The city says

"Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense, which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony"

 

I'm curious to know what physical evidence and testimony that was. The shooter's testimony? The physical evidence that the victim was totally unarmed and in a location he had every right to be in?

The fact that the shooter was actually harmed in the exchange pretty clearly means that the shooter can say he felt taking the shot was in self defense. The fact that the shooter clearly initiated the conflict won't matter based on the reading of that Florida law...it's so vague that even if he wasn't injured he could have claimed it was self-defense, and the fact that he was injured in the process ought to make it even clearer.

 

That said, I didn't realize that I ought to have killed someone while I was in Florida last year. Usually most states have that being illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys need to step back a little bit from the ridiculousness. The statue is NOT that broadly written. It's still a factual question that would ultimately be up to a jury. If you're going to blame someone here, blame the state prosecutors for not bringing charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:19 PM)
You guys need to step back a little bit from the ridiculousness. The statue is NOT that broadly written. It's still a factual question that would ultimately be up to a jury. If you're going to blame someone here, blame the state prosecutors for not bringing charges.

Its written that the shooter needs to "reasonably feel" that he is threatened. That is extremely broad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems undisputed that Zimmerman used deadly force against an unarmed man. What is in dispute is whether he felt "reasonably threatened" by that unarmed man. How that isn't a question for a jury to decide in at least a negligent homicide context, I have no idea. That charge, at minimum, should have been close to automatic. Ironically, that it wasn't may only end up hurting Zim, because his chances of getting a fair trial may be diminshing as the publicity and cries for his head are escalating.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:29 PM)
Its written that the shooter needs to "reasonably feel" that he is threatened. That is extremely broad.

 

Welcome to every other area of the law where the standard is what a "reasonable person" would do/think. This guy should have been charged. Few jurors (i.e., the racist ones) are going to say that it was "reasonable" to fear someone if you have to go after them. At the very least a prosecutor should have taken this to a grand jury.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:40 PM)
Welcome to every other area of the law where the standard is what a "reasonable person" would do/think. This guy should have been charged. Few jurors (i.e., the racist ones) are going to say that it was "reasonable" to fear someone if you have to go after them. At the very least a prosecutor should have taken this to a grand jury.

It's abundantly clear to me that if the shooter himself was injured then he's easily surpassed that standard. Who initiated the conflict really doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:43 PM)
It's abundantly clear to me that if the shooter himself was injured then he's easily surpassed that standard. Who initiated the conflict really doesn't matter.

 

Come on. If you and I get into a fight, i'm injured, we separate and later on I come after you it's reasonable that i'm in fear of serious injury or death? That's not "reasonable" fear or what a "reasonable" person would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:56 PM)
I know that murder is typically a state and not a Federal offense, but are there any grounds on which the Feds can go after him if the state refuses?

 

I think so (maybe). The feds could conceivably charge him based on a deprivation of Martin's civil rights. IIRC, that's what happened to the cops who originally walked on the state charges connected to the Rodney King beating.

 

I can't see that happening, though. I just read that a grand jury's being convened. He'll be indicated for something.

 

Edit: On the other hand, those King charges may have been conspiracy based, which might not be possible since Zim acted by himself.

Edited by PlaySumFnJurny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:57 PM)
Come on. If you and I get into a fight, i'm injured, we separate and later on I come after you it's reasonable that i'm in fear of serious injury or death? That's not "reasonable" fear or what a "reasonable" person would think.

That isn't the scenario at hand, though. There was clearly an brief altercation in which zimmerman was injured and martin was killed.

 

Why have justifiable killings in florida tripled since this law was enacted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:57 PM)
Come on. If you and I get into a fight, i'm injured, we separate and later on I come after you it's reasonable that i'm in fear of serious injury or death? That's not "reasonable" fear or what a "reasonable" person would think.

Depends a whole lot on what the actual circumstances. At the very least...it would be really hard to try you if you and I got into a fight on a street and you shot and killed me.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Even if you start the confrontation, you don't have a duty to retreat, and you have every reason to believe that by killing me you can prevent a response that would cause you bodily harm.

 

For this case to actually go to trial under that Florida statute, I can't see how it would be possible to convict if he were injured. He's already suffered bodily harm. The only thing you could really try him for is some version of assault if you think he both initiated the confrontation and struck the dead kid first...but now you're trying to figure out exactly who did what in a case where the only other eyewitness is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:02 PM)
I think so (maybe). The feds could conceivably charge him based on a deprivation of Martin's civil rights. IIRC, that's what happened to the cops who originally walked on the state charges connected to the Rodney King beating.

 

I can't see that happening, though. I just read that a grand jury's being convened. He'll be indicated for something.

 

Edit: On the other hand, those King charges may have been conspiracy based, which might not be possible since Zim acted by himself.

 

This was individual on individual. Civil rights/discrimination laws only cover states/state entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:14 PM)
Depends a whole lot on what the actual circumstances. At the very least...it would be really hard to try you if you and I got into a fight on a street and you shot and killed me.

Even if you start the confrontation, you don't have a duty to retreat, and you have every reason to believe that by killing me you can prevent a response that would cause you bodily harm.

 

For this case to actually go to trial under that Florida statute, I can't see how it would be possible to convict if he were injured. He's already suffered bodily harm. The only thing you could really try him for is some version of assault if you think he both initiated the confrontation and struck the dead kid first...but now you're trying to figure out exactly who did what in a case where the only other eyewitness is dead.

 

Under your reading of this statute, I could just start punching people in the face, and so long as someone looks at me funny in response, I can shoot them dead.

 

In this case you've got a third party that is going to offer evidence that Zimmerman was the attacker. That information, along with everyone else, should be given to a grand jury to decide if there's enough to indict him for murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, the justifiable force statute is premised on the fact that YOU (the shooter) are not doing something illegal. I'd say starting a fight is an illegal activity (battery) making this entire statute inapplicable. Since there's some pretty strong evidence out there that the dead guy was being followed and harassed, it's entirely proper (and reasonable) for a jury to conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl, engaged in criminal activity (battery) and was therefore not afforded the protection of the statute. That's why my point 2 comments ago about punching people in the face to justify killing doesn't work.

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:26 PM)
Civil rights/discrimination laws only cover states/state entities.

 

Section 1981 specifically applies by its terms to "nongovernmental discrimination." It is invoked in civil suits against private entities all the time. I'm pretty sure a conspiracy by private individuals to deprive someone of their civil rights could be criminally prosecuted, but I'm certainly no expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:43 PM)
Section 1981 specifically applies by its terms to "nongovernmental discrimination." It is invoked in civil suits against private entities all the time. I'm pretty sure a conspiracy by private individuals to deprive someone of their civil rights could be criminally prosecuted, but I'm certainly no expert.

 

Yeah but it has to apply to other protected activities, usually employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:42 PM)
And by the way, the justifiable force statute is premised on the fact that YOU (the shooter) are not doing something illegal. I'd say starting a fight is an illegal activity (battery) making this entire statute inapplicable. Since there's some pretty strong evidence out there that the dead guy was being followed and harassed, it's entirely proper (and reasonable) for a jury to conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl, engaged in criminal activity (battery) and was therefore not afforded the protection of the statute. That's why my point 2 comments ago about punching people in the face to justify killing doesn't work.

 

I was gonna say, isn't this is all based on an affirmative defense (self-defense)? Which then includes, obviously, that the defendant didn't instigate the incident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...