Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

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

 

Trayvon sitting on him punching him in the face. This may have occurred after Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, as Zimmerman claims, or after Trayvon was assaulted by Zimmerman.

 

The evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself is absolutely there. What isn't there is evidence one way or another over who started the altercation, and with the way the law is written, the presumption goes to the only living witness. If Zimmerman had to prove Trayvon attacked him first, it'd be impossible absent someone who witnessed it, and even then eye-witness testimony has serious problems of its own.

[Y2HH]

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.

 

A phone witness isnt going to hold much water in a case like this. And I don't know where these witnesses came from, but the only person with any sort of visual on it seems to be backing Zimmerman, so his story is going to hold a lot more weight than people who heard some stuff.

[StrangeSox]

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?

 

I don't believe anyone saw Martin jump Zimmerman from behind. That's Zimmerman's story and the police statements are so vague that you have no idea what the witness statements actually corroborated.

[Y2HH]

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.)

 

You don't really need much ballistics education to recognize an entry/exit wound...they already know this, reported or not.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

A phone witness isnt going to hold much water in a case like this.

 

She's the last person to talk to Trayvon. If she is to be believed, it was literally less than a minute before his death and as he was being approached by Zimmerman.

 

 

And I don't know where these witnesses came from, but the only person with any sort of visual on it seems to be backing Zimmerman, so his story is going to hold a lot more weight than people who heard some stuff.

 

This person is backing that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him. That part really isn't important if you can't verify who started the confrontation. If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, has every right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force.

[StrangeSox]

You don't really need much ballistics education to recognize an entry/exit wound...they already know this, reported or not.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning that Martin was shot in the chest.

[Y2HH]

She's the last person to talk to Trayvon. If she is to be believed, it was literally less than a minute before his death and as he was being approached by Zimmerman.

 

 

 

 

This person is backing that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him. That part really isn't important if you can't verify who started the confrontation. If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, has every right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force.

 

Which comes down to live guy vs dead guy...take a guess who's going to win that argument, so long as he doesn't contradict himself (if he's actually guilty). I'm not taking sides one way or the other...none of us have any facts other than a bunch of hearsay.

[Y2HH]

I don't think anyone is questioning that Martin was shot in the chest.

 

The person I replied too did exactly that.

[Soxbadger]

y2hh,

 

I was using the simplest evidence. The fact is, there is no evidence. The police didnt really do an investigation, they didnt impound the car (the first thing they do basically with any arrest) so its unlikely that they went out of their way to do much else.

 

Who knows, more facts will come out. But to suggest he has to get away with it because he is the only witness, isnt true at all. And quite frankly my guess is that even if the evidence suggests he should be exonerated, he will be convicted.

 

Once public perception sets in, its going to be hard to defend. If Zimmerman's lawyer is smart, after he gets arraigned, he offers some sort of plea deal with a ton of community service.

[Soxbadger]

And no I didnt question it, I simply said that there is evidence that can defeat self defense even if there are no witnesses. I dont have access to the crime report, so I cant really tell what the evidence is.

 

But to argue that because there are no witnesses you cant defeat self defense, is just not true.

[Y2HH]

y2hh,

 

I was using the simplest evidence. The fact is, there is no evidence. The police didnt really do an investigation, they didnt impound the car (the first thing they do basically with any arrest) so its unlikely that they went out of their way to do much else.

 

Who knows, more facts will come out. But to suggest he has to get away with it because he is the only witness, isnt true at all. And quite frankly my guess is that even if the evidence suggests he should be exonerated, he will be convicted.

 

Once public perception sets in, its going to be hard to defend. If Zimmerman's lawyer is smart, after he gets arraigned, he offers some sort of plea deal with a ton of community service.

 

As it stands, the law as written is on Zimmermans side due to lack of evidence, despite you not wanting to accept that. Everything you said would apply in states without that law...but unfortunatly for your opinion here, the law exists where this went down.

[NorthSideSox72]

Btw, after second though, I'd like to know any legitimate situation where this would be applied, because that would be the worst possible thing you could imagine for emergency response. The absolute last thing you want in any sort of emergency situation is a delay in calling 911. If you are calling 911 and you think you can intervene in a situation before the police can arrive, but you suspect that the 911 operator will tell you not to intervene and you could face charges if you didn't listen...you won't call 911.

 

Which is of course, what darn well might have happened here if there was a next time. He already grumbled that these guys always get away. Next time, if the 911 operator says don't intervene...then why restrict your rights by calling 911?

Sort of an aside now, but... dispatchers are public safety officials. They are not cops or paramedics or firefighters, but they are still part of the public safety apparatus. They cannot compel you to act, however, if they have told you what the public safety department in question (in this case the police) wants, and you knowingly act otherwise, and that act causes interference to the responding agency... that is intereference with official acts.

 

Of course, this is one of those laws on the books that is almost never prosecuted, for multiple obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your idea of people somehow being less likely to call 911 because a dispatcher might give them instructions - which happens on virtually every 911 call, by the way - is ridiculous.

 

[Y2HH]

And no I didnt question it, I simply said that there is evidence that can defeat self defense even if there are no witnesses. I dont have access to the crime report, so I cant really tell what the evidence is.

 

But to argue that because there are no witnesses you cant defeat self defense, is just not true.

 

It's not a simple self defense argument due to that law. In other states you'd be right, but not Florida.

[Soxbadger]

And Id love to cross the Defendant who said they didnt call 911, that is going to be a fun one in argument.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's not a simple self defense argument due to that law. In other states you'd be right, but not Florida.

I don't know where you are getting this. The Florida law at play here does not alter the fact that you can only act this way in self-defense. It absolutely applies. Just because there is no per se duty to retreat, does not alter the law as perversely as you seem to think. Zimmerman still cannot shoot Martin unless it is in defense of life/limb.

 

[StrangeSox]

It's not a simple self defense argument due to that law. In other states you'd be right, but not Florida.

 

Zimmerman's lawyer has said they'll be using a simple self defense claim.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know where you are getting this. The Florida law at play here does not alter the fact that you can only act this way in self-defense. It absolutely applies. Just because there is no per se duty to retreat, does not alter the law as perversely as you seem to think. Zimmerman still cannot shoot Martin unless it is in defense of life/limb.

 

or forcible felony

[Soxbadger]

It's not a simple self defense argument due to that law. In other states you'd be right, but not Florida.

 

I disagree with this entirely. The Florida statute simply says that the Police have to have probable cause that the person didnt act in self defense.

 

If it is shown that Martin was shot while he was on the ground and unarmed, that would be pretty compelling evidence that it wasnt in self defense.

 

If it is shown that Zimmerman created the situation or provoked the situation, its not self defense.

 

You dont need someone to see it, you just need "probable cause" to bring the charges.

[NorthSideSox72]

or forcible felony

Which is defense of life and limb, or however you want to state it, because that is the nature of a forcible felony. Not sure what you are arguing about here.

 

[StrangeSox]

A phone witness isnt going to hold much water in a case like this. And I don't know where these witnesses came from, but the only person with any sort of visual on it seems to be backing Zimmerman, so his story is going to hold a lot more weight than people who heard some stuff.

 

This is some god-awful writing by the local Fox station that started this whole anonymous witness thing:

 

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

 

No, he didn't. He said he came upon the fight with Martin on top of Zimmerman. He didn't see who initiated the fight as the headline implies.

[StrangeSox]

Which is defense of life and limb, or however you want to state it, because that is the nature of a forcible felony. Not sure what you are arguing about here.

 

Forcible felony includes carjacking and airplane piracy, which are not necessarily going to cause bodily harm.

[Y2HH]

I don't know where you are getting this. The Florida law at play here does not alter the fact that you can only act this way in self-defense. It absolutely applies. Just because there is no per se duty to retreat, does not alter the law as perversely as you seem to think. Zimmerman still cannot shoot Martin unless it is in defense of life/limb.

 

Point is that in states where this law doesn't exist, a self defense plea isn't quite the same as it is in THAT state. Without witnesses, the only evidence they have is Zimmerman's word. That's not going to be easy to defeat since there are no eye witnesses.

 

This post wouldn't exist if that law didn't exist...so why you're asking where I'm getting this...well, I have no idea where you're getting THAT!

[Y2HH]

I disagree with this entirely. The Florida statute simply says that the Police have to have probable cause that the person didnt act in self defense.

 

If it is shown that Martin was shot while he was on the ground and unarmed, that would be pretty compelling evidence that it wasnt in self defense.

 

If it is shown that Zimmerman created the situation or provoked the situation, its not self defense.

 

You dont need someone to see it, you just need "probable cause" to bring the charges.

 

There are no witnesses or evidence to show any of this. The only thing they'll get is ballistics, which can show how close he was when shot, and where the entry point was...that's it.

 

IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, but IMO this is in Zimmerman's favor right now DUE to the lack of evidence, regardless of the national attention.

[Soxbadger]

The evidence may be in his favor, but the public perception is not.

 

Ill take perception over evidence at any trial.

[Texsox]

BTW, nice conversations so far. I love it whenthe 'buster stays civil.

 

Next up, can almost all of us agree the law is wrong? Or at least was not intended for a situation like this?

 

It seems to me that Zimmerman's actions were more at fault than Martin's actions. Zimmerman had an option to report and drive home. It does not seem from a reading of the Florida law to be a legal requirement, but he could have. He didn't.

 

Martin's actions, walking quicker and trying to evade someone who was following him would be a reasonable action for an innocent person, and a guilty person. Zimmerman sees criminals where ever he goes. Yeah, it's easy to say he was predisposed because Martin was black and wearing a hoodie, but from what I've read about Zimmerman, he saw criminals everywhere.

 

So Zimmerman follows, correctly keeping the neighborhood safe from a potential threat.

Martin speeds up trying to get away (which may also look like trying to evade someone so he can commit a crime).

Stalker/concerned citizen versus criminal/scared stalkee

 

They both are now defending themselves against each other. Is Martin a thief/rapist/whatever and Zimmerman needs to be the hero and step in or is Zimmerman the criminal waiting to abduct Martin?

 

This is the sad part. It seems that by Florida law, they each can justifiably kill the other without penalty.