Trayvon Martin- Page 4
Trayvon Martin
#75Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/27/12 at 11:50pm
I am sorry, but the only reason we are even hearing about this - and the police doing any investigation, is because Trayvon's family contacted the press.
You have a young man dead in your morgue with his cell phone, and no attempt is made to contact his family. His family only finds out he is dead because they file a missing persons report and they then find out their 17 year old son is dead.
I generally have great respect for the police, and there are far more good cops than bad, but this PD stinks to high heaven. At some point, if the system is not working, you are left with no choice but to make some noise. There are contentions by witnesses that the police either tried to coach or ignore details of some witnesses. Zimmerman is not tested for drugs or alcohol, but Martin is (with no evidence of any). Zimmerman makes assumptions about Martin for reasons we can never be sure of, but based upon the 911 calls, it appears that he had some bias or prejudice against a type. After the arrest, Zimmerman was given every benefit of the doubt by the police, and Martin was given the benefit of every suspicion.
You have a man who directly contradicts the instructions of 911, has a history of calling 911, initiates whatever confrontation that might have occurred, and the result is that he shoots and kills a kid armed to the teeth with Skittles and Iced Tea.
Maybe all of the facts are not out there about both Martin and Zimmerman - but enough are out to force an objective third party to assess the situation and make a judgment of whether Zimmerman should be charged with a crime. This ONLY happened because the family did not sit back and hope the system would work.
Yawper
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/13/04
#76Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/27/12 at 11:55pm
They aren't unexplained. The Orlando Sentinel is really the paper of record on this case.
The domestic violence was not an arrest. He and his ex-fiancee filed petitions against each other and protective injunctions were issued in both directions. The injunctions both expired in August, 2006.
The resisting charges were officially dropped once Zimmerman completed a pre-trial diversion program, leaving no conviction on his record.
#77Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/27/12 at 11:58pm
The only real thing I want to know is simple:
How far apart in distance were these 2 people (BEFORE this incident occurred), and who made the first move, or uttered the first word towards the other person?
Yawper
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/13/04
#78Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 12:04amTiny, you probably aren't going to get that because, as far as the info released to date, no one witnessed it so only Zimmerman's version is available. Without sufficient evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story there's no case against him.
#79Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 12:05am
The resisting charges were officially dropped once Zimmerman completed a pre-trial diversion program, leaving no conviction on his record.
Did his having a retired judge for a father have anything to do with his qualifying for this double-speak-named "pre-trial diversion program"?
I don't understand how one can be arrested for "resisting arrest WITH VIOLENCE" and still qualify for such a candy-ass get-out-of-jail-scott-free program.
Or does one have to have a retired judge for a father?
What do you think would have happened to Trayvon Martin if he had "resisted arrest with violence"? Would he have been admitted to the "pre-trial diversion program"?
#81Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 12:18am
Trayvon's girlfriend was a witness. She was on the phone with him at the time Zimmerman began following Martin.
Her account undermines Zimmerman.
Who is telling the truth will be a question of fact for a jury to decide.
Yawper
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/13/04
#82Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 12:26am
No, PJ, no special connections are needed for Florida's diversion program. Many states have programs like this now.
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/948.08
YWIW, Trayvon's girlfriend was an audio witness only to a small time of that night's incident. She was not an eyewitness to anything.
#83Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 12:40am
Without sufficient evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story there's no case against him.
Actually, the burden of proof for a self-defense plea rests with the defendant, much like an insanity plea. It's an affirmative defense. He has to prove his story.
#84Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 12:48am
And? She is still a witness. Oral witnesses are still relevant and can be introduced at time of trial. Her account indicates that Martin was being followed/harassed by Zimmerman. If Zimmerman's unlawful conduct created the threat that he then used to justify killing Martin, it may undermine his ability to take advantage of the "Stand Your Ground" law. Her testimony, as well as the 911 tapes, undermine Zimmerman's account.
These are not questions of law, but questions of fact. Such questions are generally reserved for a jury. That is my problem with what happened here - the determination of whether Zimmerman was telling the truth was never made by the DA. Indeed, the investigating cop wanted him charged with at least manslaughter. To me, that makes sense.
My problem is that the DA never made a reasonable attempt to determine if Zimmerman was telling the truth before deciding not to pursue charges. There was minimal investigation. Again, Zimmerman was given every benefit of the doubt, and Martin none.
If the jury does not believe that her/911 oral contemporaneous account of events is believable, both should be discounted or ignored. But, whether someone is telling the truth is not for the cops to decide - it is for the jury.
Yawper
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/13/04
#85Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 1:28am
YWIW, how do you know how much investigation was done? Just because the Martin's attorney says so? And it's not like the cops made this call on their own - there was a prosecutor involved.
----
"Actually, the burden of proof for a self-defense plea rests with the defendant, much like an insanity plea. It's an affirmative defense. He has to prove his story."
That's not the way the case law in Florida has been going. e.g.:
G.T.J. v. State of Florida
"[W]hen [a] defendant presents a prima facie case of self-defense, the
State's burden includes 'proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
act in self-defense.' " Fowler v. State, 921 So. 2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting
Thompson v. State, 552 So. 2d 264, 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)). This means the State
must overcome the defense by rebuttal or by inference in its case in chief. See State v.
Rivera, 719 So. 2d 335, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998 -).
It is true that ordinarily, whether a defendant engaged in a justifiable use
of force is a question for the fact finder, see Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 711 (citing Brown v.
State, 454 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), superseded by statute on different
grounds as stated in Thomas v. State, 918 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)), but "when
the State's evidence is legally insufficient to rebut the defendant's testimony establishing
the self-defense, the court must grant a motion for [dismissal][,]" id.; see also E.A.B. v.
State, 933 So. 2d 676, 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Geffkin v. State, 820 So. 2d 331, 335
(Fla. 4th DCA 2002); W.E.P., Jr. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1166, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001);
Rivera, 719 So. 2d at 337; Sneed v. State, 580 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Such motions must be granted because "a finding that the evidence is legally
insufficient is equivalent to a determination that the prosecution has failed to prove the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Brown, 454 So. 2d at 599.
Updated On: 3/28/12 at 01:28 AM
#86Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 1:51am
In order to present a prima facie case of self-defense and thus alter the burden of proof, Martin would require enough evidence to make the self-defense self-evident. It doesn't apply to every self-defense plea.
At any rate, wherever the burden lies, he still needs to be charged with a damn crime and have it put before a jury.
#87Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 2:36am
Yawper - fair question. All I know is that the lead detective investigating the case felt Zimmerman was lying - and thought he should have been charged with manslaughter - but the state's attorney refused to move forward with the case. The drug testing of Martin and not of Zimmerman shows what evidence they were looking for - that to back up Zimmerman's story. In my opinion, what we know of the process does not reflect well on the Sanford PD and the state's attorney.
There is no evidence of any attempt to continue the investigation until the Martin family went the media. Maybe there was an ongoing investigation about the killing of Martin - but color me doubtful - especially since they made no effort to contact the family of the then "john doe" in the morgue (despite apparently having his cell phone). Again, his family did not even know until it filed a missing persons report.
That state's attorney has since removed himself from the investigation to avoid a conflict of interest and an independent third party is now looking at the case. Maybe more facts will come out that are favorable to Zimmerman - but I personally cannot get beyond the fact that he instigated the contact after specifically being instructed by 911 not to do so.
Updated On: 3/28/12 at 02:36 AM
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#89Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 9:49am
Justified use of force to protect oneself or another, while a regular defense that must be disproven by the prosecution elsewhere (Including New York), apparently is an affirmative defense in Florida. Therefore, Taryn is correct that the burden of proof would be on Zimmerman at trial - if there is a trial - to prove that he was justified. Although, perhaps, as Yawper has cited some other cases to the contrary, this rule is more complex, with the burden shifting at certain points after a prima facie case is made.
Bottom line: I think all of us would agree. Correction, I would hope all of us could agree that if one of our loved ones were to be gunned down dead when he or she was unarmed returning from a grocery store, that the shooter would be arrested, charged rather than let go, that our loved one's corpse would not be subjected to drug testing while the shooter was not, that our loved one would not be subject to a background investigation while the shooter was not, and that an arrest would be made and that his or her narrative of events would not be summarily credited.
Frankly, it is beyond my understanding how anyone could argue otherwise. Even police officers face criminal charges for shooting unarmed citizens in situations like these, let alone people on neighborhood watch.
George Zimmerman may or may not have been justified in killing Trayvon Martin. That is for the jury to decide. But the reason this case is infuriating is obvious. A shooter's word should not be summarily accepted under these circumstances.
Even if justification were a regular and not an affirmative defense in Florida, there is a difference between having sufficient evidence to present and let the trier of fact decide, and law enforcement or the prosecution deciding on their own to accept an armed survivor's word over the deceased's. Don't confuse weight of the evidence issues which must be resolved by the trier of fact with sufficiency issues.
Updated On: 3/28/12 at 09:49 AM
#90Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 9:53amThat's well summed up, Henrik. That's why I was interested to know the source of Yawper's confidence that the events unfolded as Zimmerman has claimed.
#92Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 10:25am
Here's a totally hypothetical question for the group.
What if that night, Martin had been armed and Zimmerman had not, but otherwise events unfolded the same way: Zimmerman observes a black youth, phones 911 and is told not to pursue him but does anyway. Martin, fearful because he's being pursued by someone who doesn't identify himself as a police officer (because he isn't one), turns and fires at Zimmerman.
Would Florida law consider that self defense, and would Martin be protected by the Stand Your Ground law?
(This isn't a trick question, btw. I'm genuinely curious to hear people's thoughts on this.)
#93Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 10:46am
I think it would depend on whether there was a genuine fear of death or great bodily harm.
Again, you would have to weigh what evidence there is available, how far Zimmerman was away from Martin, the threat, and the like. But, deadly force to combat an assumption, at least in my opinion, would not work. There has to be some evidence of a true threat of death or great bodily harm.
#94Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 10:51amBut can't you make the argument that the Stand Your Ground Law should apply to Martin? After all, he was behaving legally and was being pursued by a private citizen who was warned by the police not to go after the boy. Even if Martin tackled and punched the guy, wouldn't this brilliant law shield him since he was being chased in a threatening manner by someone who was NOT in any way, shape or form law enforcement?
#95Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 10:56am
That thought is what was behind my hypothetical, Robbie.
This law just seems designed to lead to tragedy.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#96Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 11:01am
The stand your ground law applies to everyone in situations where there is some claim of reasonable fear for safety. There is no reason why it should not have applied to Martin in the scenario Reginald has explained, given that it is - for better or worse - the law in Florida.
And if Martin had not been arrested simply based on his summarily credited story, no doubt Zimmerman's family would be extremely angry. As well they should have been.
The stand your ground law shouldn't be a panacea when it comes to preventing someone from being charged or arrested. It is a law to be applied, when appropriate, during litigation.
#97Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 11:05am
Robbie, I read the hypothetical Reg posted as Martin being a distance from Zimmerman. I read (maybe wrong) "turns and fires" as there being some distance between the two.
Again, agree with what henrike has said.
#98Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 11:12amI wasn't actually speaking in a hypothetical. I was asserting that, if we are to believe Zimmerman's account, wouldn't Martin have been acting within the law because he was being pursued in a threatening manner by someone who was not a law enforcement agent. Why should we give a pass to Zimmerman, who shot and killed a person he really had no right shooting and killing, but then turn around and say, 'But Martin attacked him!' Martin was the one being threatened...not Zimmerman.
#99Trayvon Martin
Posted: 3/28/12 at 11:16amI imagine the Zimmerman stance would be that he had "stood down" at that point and was returning to his vehicle and therefore no longer posed a threat to Martin.
Videos
