Trayvon Martin

[Y2HH]

 

But the initial reports of violent looting and shootings were seriously overblown. Frontline went into this on their investigation into the Danzinger Bridge shootings.

 

Thats because sensationalist media is sensational.

[StrangeSox]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-0...gated-community

 

Witnesses are saying Martin was the aggressor, not just that he struck him.

 

Not exactly. The brief witness statements they bothered to take don't contradict Zimmerman's claims, but they don't explicitly confirm them, either. The witness who say Trayvon on top of Zimmerman also doesn't say who initiated the contact. If Zimmerman had come up to Martin and accosted him, Martin had every right to self-defense.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think that's correct. The statute doesn't provide an affirmative defense but legal immunity. He is presumed to be acting in self-defense if he claims so unless the prosecutors can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not. The two legal-blog articles I posted a page or two ago went into this.

 

He would still have to prove the immunity applies. You can't just shoot someone and scream "IMMUNITY!" and expect the world to just accept your word. It's still his burden to establish that he was using self-defense.

 

Share the link. I'd be interested to see why other people think that wouldn't be the case.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I still haven't seen anyone report where, exactly, Trayvon was shot in relation to Zimmerman's truck.

[Y2HH]

And frankly, if a guy was following me around in a truck yelling at me or something like that, and I tried and failed to outrun him, that would seem like a reasonable thing to do if he stopped.

 

From what I gather, he had gotten away...and Zimmerman was heading back to his truck when it went down. So...what you just said doesn't add up...he WAS successful in getting away. Where you come up with him failing to outrun...I have no idea, because not a single report shows that.

[StrangeSox]

From what I gather, he had gotten away...and Zimmerman was heading back to his truck when it went down. So...what you just said doesn't add up...he WAS successful in getting away. Where you come up with him failing to outrun...I have no idea, because not a single report shows that.

 

That's Zimmerman's account of the story, not verified facts. It's contradicted by the statement from Trayvon's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him a minute before he was dead.

[Balta1701]

Not exactly. The brief witness statements they bothered to take don't contradict Zimmerman's claims, but they don't explicitly confirm them, either. The witness who say Trayvon on top of Zimmerman also doesn't say who initiated the contact. If Zimmerman had come up to Martin and accosted him, Martin had every right to self-defense.

And frankly, there's no way the 2 wound up in close proximity unless Martin approached Zimmerman, after the point that Martin was known to be trying to get away from his own phone statements. At some point he gave up the run and decided to turn and act. And from that point...they are both aggressors.

[Jenksismyhero]

Lol, at that report saying the Black Panthers offered up a bounty for Zimmerman. Nothing like fixing a crime with more crime!

[Steve9347]

This thread is as all over the place as all of these "reports" and "eye-witness accounts". We'll never know for sure what happened and what events led up to what happened. The arguments in this thread are ridiculous because no one here has any idea what they are arguing.

[StrangeSox]

He would still has to prove the immunity applies. You can't just shoot someone and scream "IMMUNITY!" and expect the world to just accept your word. It's still his burden to establish that he was using self-defense.

 

Share the link. I'd be interested to see why other people think that wouldn't be the case.

 

It was from prof. Volokh's post:

 

http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-d...ssor-exception/

 

b. Allowing convictions unless the defendant proves self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence: This appears to be the old common-law rule: While a murder defendant’s identity, intentional action, and the like have to be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, the affirmative defense of self-defense has to be proven by the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. If the jury thinks that, say, there’s a 40% chance that the defendant is telling the truth when he says he heard the victim threaten to kill, and reach for his waistband, then the defendant would be convicted of murder (or manslaughter, if that’s what he’s charged with).

 

This approach was upheld as constitutional in Martin v. Ohio (1987), but is now the law in only one state, Ohio. In all other states, once the defense introduces some evidence of self-defense, the prosecution must rebut that with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury thinks there’s a 40% chance that the defendant is telling the truth when he says he heard the victim threaten to kill, and reach for his waistband, then the defendant would be acquitted. The theory that “better that [say] 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted” extends to self-defense claims: “Better that 10 men who committed murder and lied about the need for self-defense go free than one man who killed in justifiable self-defense be convicted.” The worry about fake claims of self-defense has not been seen as serious enough to retain the old common-law/now just Ohio rule.

 

Zimmerman's wounds are sufficient evidence to claim self-defense.

[Y2HH]

That's Zimmerman's account of the story, not verified facts. It's contradicted by the statement from Trayvon's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him a minute before he was dead.

 

While nobody saw it go down but those two, the witnesses that did talk seem to be backing Zimmerman. Just saying. I don't know if they're making it up or what, but that's what is being reported.

[StrangeSox]

And frankly, there's no way the 2 wound up in close proximity unless Martin approached Zimmerman, after the point that Martin was known to be trying to get away from his own phone statements. At some point he gave up the run and decided to turn and act. And from that point...they are both aggressors.

 

To be fair we don't have an actual recording of Martin's call (I bet the NSA does!!!), so we don't know what he said. We only know he was on the phone with her moments before being shot.

[StrangeSox]

While nobody saw it go down but those two, the witnesses that did talk seem to be backing Zimmerman. Just saying. I don't know if they're making it up or what, but that's what is being reported.

 

Several of the witnesses have explicitly stated that they don't agree with Zimmerman's story.

[Balta1701]

This thread is as all over the place as all of these "reports" and "eye-witness accounts". We'll never know for sure what happened and what events led up to what happened. The arguments in this thread are ridiculous because no one here has any idea what they are arguing.

Whatever the exact events were...the only way that this guy could be charged with murder would be for the Florida stand your ground law to not exist.

 

Thus, either this is what the law writers wanted, or this is collateral damage of a law that is having other positive benefits.

[Y2HH]

This thread is as all over the place as all of these "reports" and "eye-witness accounts". We'll never know for sure what happened and what events led up to what happened. The arguments in this thread are ridiculous because no one here has any idea what they are arguing.

 

Right, and unfortunately the only things we know are what's being reported...and who knows if the reports are accurate. It's mostly speculation, but that doesn't make a discussion ridiculous.

[StrangeSox]

Whatever the exact events were...the only way that this guy could be charged with murder would be for the Florida stand your ground law to not exist.

 

Thus, either this is what the law writers wanted, or this is collateral damage of a law that is having other positive benefits.

 

No, he could be charged today if the prosecutors wanted. But they would have to clear a hurdle showing that his self-defense claim was not reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

edit: Volokh's posts touches lightly on the whole cost-benefit analysis of self-defense laws:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-d...ssor-exception/

Edited March 26, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

This thread is as all over the place as all of these "reports" and "eye-witness accounts". We'll never know for sure what happened and what events led up to what happened. The arguments in this thread are ridiculous because no one here has any idea what they are arguing.

 

This is true. That story that was just posted was the first I heard about some eye witness testimony that corroborated Zimmerman's version. Two days ago there weren't any witnesses.

 

[Y2HH]

Several of the witnesses have explicitly stated that they don't agree with Zimmerman's story.

 

Where?! Report I just posted says the opposite.

[Jenksismyhero]

It was from prof. Volokh's post:

 

http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-d...ssor-exception/

 

 

 

Zimmerman's wounds are sufficient evidence to claim self-defense.

 

Well, i'd argue the injury itself isn't enough. He'd still have to show what caused it.

[Balta1701]

No, he could be charged today if the prosecutors wanted.

Oh, don't give me the "You can get them to indict a ham sandwich" statement, you know what I meant.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Where?! Report I just posted says the opposite.

 

What witnesses are there?

 

There's the anonymous guy who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and ran inside to call 911.

There are a couple women who said it was Martin, not Zimmerman, yelling for help and saw Zimmerman was sitting on top of Martin (post-shooting)

 

And there are now vague references to witnesses who saw Martin attack Zimmerman at his truck?

[StrangeSox]

Where?! Report I just posted says the opposite.

 

Report you just posted had a sentence saying "much" of his story has been corroborated by witnesses according to the police, who are taking a beating over this thing.

 

But no one has come forward who witnessed the beginning of the confrontation which is the most important aspect. The closest we have are the statements by the girl Trayvon was on the phone with moments before which contradict Zimmerman's story. Her statements do not contradict those of the other witnesses who heard someone shouting for help or who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.

[Soxbadger]

Zimmerman's wounds are evidence.

 

Depending on what side you are, they can be used to tell quite different stories.

 

Without crime scene evidence, its just hard to guess at. Was Martin shot while on top of Zimmerman? This would be the first question a ballistics expert is going to need to answer.

[Y2HH]

Well, i'd argue the injury itself isn't enough. He'd still have to show what caused it.

 

The injury isn't enough if there were eye witness accounts or video...but there isn't so it's a living guys word versus a dead guy. You can't convict with that complete lack of evidence.

[Soxbadger]

Except for people are committed of murder without any witnesses based on evidence all the time.

 

If the evidence shows that Zimmerman shot Martin in the back, its going to be hard to argue self defense. (Not saying thats what the evidence will show, from what I can tell there hasnt been a ballistics recreation yet.)