Trayvon Martin

[iamshack]

The problem IMO is that journalism these days is all about the editorial. We no longer care to read just straight facts, we want to read someone's interesting take on the situation, or a new argument about the same issues, etc. Blogs are making this problem even worse. (Note: I'm not saying there isn't a value to that, but when that's 99% of the source for news there's a problem where the actual facts have become nearly irrelevant).

 

That and for some reason we still have a pretty moronic populous that thinks Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity speak the truth.

And this happens in large part because they report it 24 hours a day and therefore have to come up with new ways to spin the same old things...so it gradually changes from factual to editorial and no one seems to realize it.

[Balta1701]

And this happens in large part because they report it 24 hours a day and therefore have to come up with new ways to spin the same old things...so it gradually changes from factual to editorial and no one seems to realize it.

And because money. Actual reporting expensive.

[Soxbadger]

This photo supports Zimmerman's story:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_...20419_wmain.jpg

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo...topstories.html

 

 

[Balta1701]

NBC News: Judge orders George Zimmerman's bond set for $150,000, and electronic monitoring in Trayvon Martin case. He will not be released today.

[StrangeSox]

We still don't know the most important part, which is who was the aggressor.

[Soxbadger]

We may never truly know who was the aggressor that night.

 

But the picture is evidence and gives off a different impression than the video from the police station, so it should also get the same discussion.

 

 

[Balta1701]

We may never truly know who was the aggressor that night.

 

But the picture is evidence and gives off a different impression than the video from the police station, so it should also get the same discussion.

I find it interesting that the affidavit filed in the case basically makes no effort to state either way what happened in the physical confrontation prior to the shooting, when that seems to me to be of vital importance to a self-defense claim. The filed document states that Zimmerman chased and confronted Martin, says that a physical confrontation began at that point, and that screams were heard and recorded by 911 operators that the state claims came from Martin. The state so far has seemingly made no claim about what actions happened during that confrontation other than the statement about the scream. Presumably they must have had access to crime scene medical reports such as this. Not sure what to make of it other than to note that the state's filing doesn't make it sound like they think what happened during the confrontation is a serious matter.

 

Witnesses heard people

arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard

numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon

Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as

Trayvon Martin's voice.

[iamshack]

I find it interesting that the affidavit filed in the case basically makes no effort to state either way what happened in the physical confrontation prior to the shooting, when that seems to me to be of vital importance to a self-defense claim. The filed document states that Zimmerman chased and confronted Martin, says that a physical confrontation began at that point, and that screams were heard and recorded by 911 operators that the state claims came from Martin. The state so far has seemingly made no claim about what actions happened during that confrontation other than the statement about the scream. Presumably they must have had access to crime scene medical reports such as this. Not sure what to make of it other than to note that the state's filing doesn't make it sound like they think what happened during the confrontation is a serious matter.

It's not unusual for the Prosecution to allege only the requisite facts necessary to bring the charges.

 

Sometimes they want to show as little of their hand as possible...or maybe they are still considering themselves which strategic direction to go in.

[StrangeSox]

It could be that their interpretation of the law means that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is invalid since he followed and wanted to confront Martin.

[Soxbadger]

You have to remember the charging papers are just the minimum necessary to get in the door. They arent going to bring up any facts that may hurt their case.

 

And their interpretation of the law has to be that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, otherwise they couldnt bring the charges.

 

Wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head definitely suggest that at some point Martin was on top of him.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

"Martin had the right to stand his ground against the armed aggressor Zimmerman"

 

You're right in that this new picture weakens the charge based on those videos that "he wasn't even attacked!" It was pretty silly at the time anyway.

[Balta1701]

You have to remember the charging papers are just the minimum necessary to get in the door. They arent going to bring up any facts that may hurt their case.

 

And their interpretation of the law has to be that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, otherwise they couldnt bring the charges.

 

Wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head definitely suggest that at some point Martin was on top of him.

Presumably though, the SP and investigators have these photos and others, right?

 

Consequently, at some level, even if they don't spell out the negatives in their affidavit, they have to know that this defense is coming and that these sort of photos will serve as evidence for the defense.

 

So that takes me back to what I said when charged...if the SP has these photos and knows she can't prove her case, and brought the case anyway, that'd be incredibly irresponsible. Otherwise, they have to have some way around it, and between whatever the autopsy showed and the phone call records, they must think they can establish that Zimmerman remained the aggressor throughout the attack.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think that photo really changes the case at all. They don't have to contest that Martin got the better of Zimmerman and had him on the ground.

[Soxbadger]

Presumably though, the SP and investigators have these photos and others, right?

 

Consequently, at some level, even if they don't spell out the negatives in their affidavit, they have to know that this defense is coming and that these sort of photos will serve as evidence for the defense.

 

So that takes me back to what I said when charged...if the SP has these photos and knows she can't prove her case, and brought the case anyway, that'd be incredibly irresponsible. Otherwise, they have to have some way around it, and between whatever the autopsy showed and the phone call records, they must think they can establish that Zimmerman remained the aggressor throughout the attack.

 

Of course they have a way around it, simply arguing that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was defending himself. That really isnt the point I am making.

 

The point I am making is that there are multiple arguments that need to be made. One of those arguments that I believe will be important, is whether or not Zimmerman actually was fearful enough that using deadly violence was warranted in the first place. To me this was going to be the easiest way to convict Zimmerman, basically showing that he never really had enough fear to use a gun, thus SYG, etc is irrelevant as the fear was never there.

 

With that new evidence, it becomes more murky. If Zimmerman was actually having his head pounded into cement, it does lend credence to the argument that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

 

Now whether or not Zimmerman created that situation, is entirely irrelevant to this piece of evidence. What this piece of evidence will be used for, is to show Zimmerman's state of mind during the attack immediately proceeding the shooting. It further will allow the Defense to argue that Zimmerman's thought process may have been compromised because his head was being smashed into the ground, and people generally do not think as rationally or clearly when that is occurring.

 

SS,

 

I don't think that photo really changes the case at all. They don't have to contest that Martin got the better of Zimmerman and had him on the ground.

 

Well that is where I have to disagree.

 

Lets just assume that it is fact Zimmerman followed Martin. Lets say its even fact that Zimmerman did something threatening to Martin.

 

The question then becomes, legally, can Martin do anything he wants to Zimmerman? Or if Martin gets the upper hand and subdues Zimmerman, does he then have to stop? Does Martin have the right to kill Zimmerman, or does Zimmerman have the right to shoot Martin if he thinks Martin will kill him?

 

That is why "who has the upper hand" is important, that is why people keep saying Zimmerman outweighs Martin, etc, because if Martin had the upper hand, Zimmerman may have been justified in shooting Martin under Florida law.

 

As for changing the case, I assume the Prosecutors and Defense all have this information. I also believe this is the first time that the public has seen this photo. So it doesnt change the case, but it absolutely does show the facts in a different light.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think too many people were contesting that there was an altercation and that Martin may have had the upper-hand, though. Aside from some people making poor assumptions based on that video.

[Soxbadger]

I definitely think people have been trying to make it out that Zimmerman really shouldnt have been fearful and that he had no reason to use deadly force.

[Balta1701]

I definitely think people have been trying to make it out that Zimmerman really shouldnt have been fearful and that he had no reason to use deadly force.

And I think I was trying to say in my earlier post that this is one issue that the affidavit completely glosses over. It doesn't go into those specific details of the altercation in order to confront that point. Yeah, like you said they don't have to show all their cards, but I sitll find that intriguing.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well let's keep in mind here there are two sides - there's the media "let's hype this thing up like the next Rodney King" side and then there's the law where the cops and prosecutors know what's out there but aren't projecting anything other than the bare bones allegations to bring charges.

 

And to Balta's point, there are a lot of legal blogs out there that thought the affidavit they filed was weak sauce and didn't include nearly enough detail. I've seen federal indictment affidavits that are a hundred pages long. Pleading standards are different (and more is required generally in federal court), but still.

[Balta1701]

This does not raise confidence in the state's case.

Apparently expecting a routine hearing about whether the man accused of killing unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was too dangerous to be released on bond, they quickly discovered the matter was going to be anything but routine.

 

The first surprise came when the judge allowed defense attorney Mark O’Mara to pepper one of the law enforcement investigators with tough questions about what evidence was used to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 killing.

 

The second was when Zimmerman, 28, himself took to the witness stand to offer an unexpected apology to the family of the 17-year-old he killed.

 

The result was that the defense was able to paint the case against Zimmerman as one that was full of holes and also convince the Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to order him freed on bond as he awaits trial.

 

“I didn’t know we’d be trying the case,” prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda, apparently exasperated, said during the hearing.

 

Zimmerman’s defense hinges on his claim that he shot Martin in self defense. He has claimed that he was attacked by Martin during a run-in at the gated community in Sanford, Fla., where Zimmerman lived and Martin was visiting. O’Mara did most of his damage on Friday when he was allowed to grill Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the state attorney’s office.

 

Gilbreath and another investigator, T.C. O’Steen, were the two people whose names appeared on the bottom of the April 11 sworn affidavit prosecutors used to bring the murder charge.

 

The affidavit laid out the facts of what authorities believed happened the night of the shooting. The affidavit clearly showed that prosecutors weren’t buying Zimmerman’s story that he shot Martin in self defense.

 

But as soon as Gilbreath took the stand, he admitted he hadn’t brought any evidence or supporting documents with him to court that morning. He didn’t expect he’d need it.

 

“I was not planning on testifying,” he said.

 

The defense attorney spent some of the time focusing on a single sentence from the affidavit, which said: “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

 

The attorney wanted to know what evidence Gilbreath had to prove that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation. The investigator revealed he didn’t have any evidence that hadn’t already been made public. He said relied on two things.

 

The first was the 911 call that Zimmerman made before he killed Martin. In it, Zimmerman can be heard saying that he saw a “suspicious” person walking through the neighborhood. He said in the phone call that he was following the person, but he hung up before any confrontation took place. From the call, it wasn’t clear whether Zimmerman continued following Martin or had stopped.

 

The second was an interview investigators conducted with one of Martin’s friends five weeks after the shooting. The teenage girl revealed that she was on the phone with Martin when he was walking through the neighborhood that night and that she heard him being confronted by somebody. The call, however, went dead after she heard what she said she believed was the start of a scuffle.

 

O’Mara attacked the investigator, saying there was nothing about either of those things that proved Zimmerman was the one who initiated the struggle.

 

“You have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion?” he said.

 

Gilbreath struggled at first and finally replied.

 

“I don’t know,” he said. “I think I’ve answered the question.”

[The Sir]

You are right, I do truly feel terrible that the person who killed a 17 year old, is now dealing with the ramifications of that act.

 

Its called personal responsibility. If you dont want to have to deal with the fall out of shooting someone, dont do it. No one forced Zimmerman to shoot, and whether or not hes justified, acquitted, found to be St. Peter, he still has to live with his own actions.

 

If he is acquitted and other people want to break the law, there is nothing that society can do to stop them. So maybe he has to move to Canada, or maybe he just has to move to a different community. Either way, he has options.

 

There are consequences for shooting someone else, even if it is entirely justified.

 

This is atrocious. I really can't believe you're a lawyer.

 

You're endorsing lynch mob violence. Seriously. Would you say the same thing about the death of Raymond Gunn? Or any other black Americans who were accused of crimes and murdered by mobs instead of delivered to justice? They killed people although it was never proven in court! There are consequences for killing people so f*** 'em, they got what they deserved. Does that logic really fly with you?

 

Even more hideous, and please answer this...if I shoot an intruder, do his thuggee friends have the right to slaughter me? You, a "lawyer", just wipe your ass on self defense.

 

Your post is ludicrous. I can't believe you could actually write that. And judging from the beliefs I believe you hold about other past events listed above, it's incredibly hypocritical. What a surprise.

[Soxbadger]

I never have endorsed lynch mob violence.

 

I said that Zimmerman has to live with the ramifications, which include, him feeling responsible for the death of another.

 

I would think that you, as a soldier, understand that even if you are absolutely justified in killing another human, that it can stick with you and it can change your life. Those are the consequences that I am referring to.

 

Lynch mob violence is against the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

 

Please find any time I support vigilante justice.

 

Thanks.

[The Sir]

I never have endorsed lynch mob violence.

 

I said that Zimmerman has to live with the ramifications, which include, him feeling responsible for the death of another.

 

I would think that you, as a soldier, understand that even if you are absolutely justified in killing another human, that it can stick with you and it can change your life. Those are the consequences that I am referring to.

 

Lynch mob violence is against the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

 

Please find any time I support vigilante justice.

 

Thanks.

 

You said:

 

If he is acquitted and other people want to break the law, there is nothing that society can do to stop them. So maybe he has to move to Canada, or maybe he just has to move to a different community. Either way, he has options.

 

That's not talking about his personal guilt. That's talking about the threat of vigilantes. And yes, we can stop that s***. Or at least punish the person responsible. If Zimmerman is acquitted, that's it. Anyone who takes his punisent upon himself will go to prison for a very long time.

 

Sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's what it sounded like. Guilty thoughts? Yeah, all killers, justified or not, have to deal with guilt. But as for physical penalties, they answer to the law alone. Not to some madman.

 

Also, no one forced him to fire? Umm, if as some evidence suggests, Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the concrete, then Trayvon forced him. But this is for the jury to figure out.

 

That's the thing. I'm not a Zimmerman supporter. I'm a supporter of justice. True justice, not Al Sharpton justice. Give the man his trial. If he's guilty, he's caged for life. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR CALL. Also, I think it's idiotic to automatically assume that race is involved because a light guy shot a dark guy. The guy's not a freaking Klansman; supposedly, he's volunteered to tutor black youths. Either way, its totally possible that this was simply a tragic, unnecessary situation that spun out of control for reasons not at all related to skin color.

[Soxbadger]

Right you took 1 post completely out of context in a thread where I posted maybe 50 times?

 

Everyone who was part of the debate understood that I was saying, if someone wants to break the law and kill Zimmerman, there is no way that we can feasibly stop it. You cant give Zimmerman secret service or Presidential protection, if someone really wants to kill Zimmerman, they are going to be able to. That does not mean you shouldnt prosecute the person who kills him, it does mean that we as a society can not protect everyone from every random threat, therefore if he feels unsafe in his community, he can move somewhere else where no one will know him.

 

But as for physical penalties, they answer to the law alone. Not to some madman.

 

Maybe you should read my posts sometimes, seems you are agreeing with me.

 

Also, no one forced him to fire? Umm, if as some evidence suggests, Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the concrete, then Trayvon forced him.

 

Disagree, Zimmerman always had the choice to get beaten to death. May not be a smart choice or the best choice, but non-violence is a choice.

 

As for the facts, you should again read my posts, where I showed evidence that Zimmerman's head was being smashed into the ground.

 

Give the man his trial. If he's guilty, he's caged for life. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR CALL.

 

Again read my posts, I support this as well.

 

Also, I think it's idiotic to automatically assume that race is involved because a light guy shot a dark guy. The guy's not a freaking Klansman; supposedly, he's volunteered to tutor black youths. Either way, its totally possible that this was simply a tragic, unnecessary situation that spun out of control for reasons not at all related to skin color.

 

And finally once again you should really read my posts.

 

Sorry but its clear you just picked a single sentence in a post, took it completely out of context, and then decided to make a big argument about it. Go through the threads, I consistently state that everyone deserves a fair trial and not to believe what you read in the newspaper or what prosecutors say. Let alone supporting nonsensical vigilante justice.

[The Sir]

Fine. Then I misread you and I apologize. But I'm not going to read every post in this thread and that particularly was vague enough to be interpreted in different ways. Whatever.

 

The choice to shoot or be beaten to death? Some choice. I personally won't fault him for making the choice I'd make and would make 1,000 times again.

 

Props to you for looking at the evidence. I honestly didn't expect so much out of you. Its sad that this is a partisan issue at all. A guy gets kiltled? Fine. Try the killer. The end. What needs to be partisan there?

[Y2HH]

Disagree, Zimmerman always had the choice to get beaten to death. May not be a smart choice or the best choice, but non-violence is a choice.

 

This deserves the oft overused, but suddenly very applicable "Billy Madison", edited for Internet purposes, of course:

 

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

Seriously, as a lawyer, I'd expect a greater show of rational thought than this. That's simply NOT a choice, so let's not pretend it is, whether you preface it by saying, "May not be a smart or the best choice"...no, it's neither because such a choice is no longer part of the equation. In a situation that has already escalated into inescapable violence, there is no longer a choice for one party to choose non-violence. This is nonsensical in every regard.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Y2HH