Trayvon Martin — Page 2

Zimmerman's actions will eventually result in him being charged.

Trayvon Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him while the whole thing happened (corroborated by phone records) and indicates Zimmerman was following Martin, and was clearly the aggressor. His calls to 911 clearly show his bias, using racial slurs and assuming that Martin was a criminal up to no good (for the record, Zimmerman lived in a community that was approximately 30% black, so even the leap of "this guys does not belong in my neighborhood" makes no sense).

It was freaking raining - and Trayvon put up the hood on his sweatshirt - and in return was shot dead by a wanna be cop who had a history of repeatedly calling 911 and violence, and was specifically told by 911 not to follow Trayvon.

If there had there been no calls or other witnesses, perhaps Zimmerman would get off. But I firmly believe there is enough evidence between Zimmerman's own word other witnesses to charge and convict him of 2nd degree murder, even with a "Stand Your Ground" law.

In my mind, they almost have to charge and convict. Otherwise, by my logic, Zimmerman's actions means that young black men in Florida are justified in shooting husky white men in pickup trucks - since they clearly post a threat to their safety.

I've seen this awful Examiner "article" three times on Facebook today.

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next

Oh, I know!

Unsurprisingly, Newt tries to score political points by condemning Obama's compassionate remarks ("If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.")

ABC News: Gingrich Calls Obama's Trayvon Martin Remarks 'Disgraceful'

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/gingrich-calls-obamas-trayvon-martin-remarks-disgraceful/

---

The Examiner is a content mill. Don't bother listening to any of its crap.

The Stand Your Ground law is...wow, I can't even imagine how much Florida prosecutors must hate that thing. It basically lets you off for murder so long as there are no witnesses. All you have to do is claim self-defense, and who's going to contradict you? Your conveniently dead victim?

henrikegerman wrote:

"There is certainly no reason for him not to be arrested now."

Actually there is and it has to do with Florida's speedy trial law. Once an arrest is made statutory time limits start ticking away. They have a limited number of days to get the case to trial. In this case, where there is no statute of limitations to bring a murder charge, it would be unwise for authorities to rush an arrest before they have everything they need to put forth a rock solid case. There's absolutely no need to risk a sloppy trial in this situation - screw up the trial and lose or fail to get the case to court timely and he walks away totally free.

Updated On: 3/25/12 at 08:18 PM

Law & Order: BWW

Can we get Marc Kudisch to play henrikegerman?

---

Thanks, Youwantitwhen. Interesting that in Florida, statutory speedy trial commences on arrest rather than arraignment.

However, you are leaving out a very important part of the statute:


(i) When Time May Be Extended. The periods of time established by this rule may be extended, provided the period of time sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension was procured. An extension may be procured by:


(1) stipulation, announced to the court or signed in proper person or by counsel, by the party against whom the stipulation is sought to be enforced;


(2) written or recorded order of the court on the court's own motion or motion by either party in exceptional circumstances as hereafter defined in subdivision (l);


(3) written or recorded order of the court with good cause shown by the accused;


(4) written or recorded order of the court for a period of reasonable and necessary delay resulting from proceedings including but not limited to an examination and hearing to determine the mental competency or physical ability of the defendant to stand trial, for hearings on pretrial motions, for appeals by the state, for DNA testing ordered on the defendant's behalf upon defendant's motion specifying the physical evidence to be tested pursuant to section 925.12(2), Florida Statutes, and for trial of other pending criminal charges against the accused; or


(5) administrative order issued by the chief justice, under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv), suspending the speedy trial procedures as stated therein.



You are also leaving out:
(k) Availability for Trial. A person is unavailable for trial if the person or the person's counsel fails to attend a proceeding at which either's presence is required by these rules, or the person or counsel is not ready for trial on the date trial is scheduled. A person who has not been available for trial during the term provided for in this rule is not entitled to be discharged. No presumption of nonavailability attaches, but if the state objects to discharge and presents any evidence tending to show nonavailability, the accused must establish, by competent proof, availability during the term.
(j) Delay and Continuances; Effect on Motion. If trial of the accused does not commence within the periods of time established by this rule, a pending motion for discharge shall be granted by the court unless it is shown that:


(1) a time extension has been ordered under subdivision (i) and that extension has not expired;


(2) the failure to hold trial is attributable to the accused, a codefendant in the same trial, or their counsel;


(3) the accused was unavailable for trial under subdivision (k); or


(4) the demand referred to in subdivision (g) is invalid.


If the court finds that discharge is not appropriate for reasons under subdivisions (j)(2), (3), or (4), the pending motion for discharge shall be denied, provided, however, that trial shall be scheduled and commence within 90 days of a written or recorded order of denial.

* * *

Special attention should be paid to the sections which exclude for speedy trial calculation those periods for motion practice and hearings, and those periods in which the defense is not ready to proceed to trial. These are not counted in the 175 days in which the prosecution must be ready for trial. These periods, together, count for a great deal of the time in the pendency of any criminal matter.

* * *

Moreover, as I said, if the prosecution in this case truly believes that getting an indictment will take a great deal of time in this case such as delay in Mr. Zimmerman's arrest is important to the prosecution, they should be making that case.

But I highly doubt 1) that that is the usual mode of proceedings in Florida where someone shoots another person, 2) that there is any reason to believe that any foreseeable delay in the voting of an indictment in this case would necessitate a delay in arrest (this is not a complicated case involving the testimony of countless witnesses or the production of documents not yet in the control of the State). In fact as we know, the grand jury is scheduled to convene in the first week of April.

Well, then Sandra Fluke is the palest black person I've ever seen.

---

THE GERSHWINS' PORGY AND BESS Dons Hoodies in of Honor Trayvon Martin

---

"henrikegerman, ask yourself why the President of the United States only comments when a black person is involved? Remember the "Boston police acted stupidly" comment?"

Obama has commented when the police have acted stupidly. The police acted stupidly in this case and in the preposterous arrest of Professor Gates's returning home in Cambridge. Both cases have been extremely troubling from the standpoint of racial justice.

If you believe the police have acted irresponsibly and stupidly in not doing their job with respect to protecting the rights of a white American citizen, and would like the White House to comment on it, I'm sure the White House might be happy to oblige you.

If you can bring one to my attention, I might be happy to join you in asking for the White House to comment.

* * *

I would think the benefits of arresting George Zimmerman would be clear. It would deter the perception that someone might be able to kill someone, claim self-defense, and merely on the basis of his or her word, avoid arrest; in addition to alleviating the founded suspicion of racism involved in the way this case was handled. I don't believe that suspicion is moronic, but we can agree to disagree on that. You seem to suggest that Zimmerman is not a flight risk. Assuming you may in fact be correct, the next person who claims to kill someone in self-defense in Florida when first questioned by police at the scene of a killing, may in fact be a flight risk and evade prosecution.

As to Zimmerman not being a flight risk, I don't presume that he is a flight risk or is not a flight risk, but that is a determination that a court should make post-arrest. It is not a decision to be made by the police department.

Are you suggesting that if one of us posting on this thread was kllled, and upon responding, our killer had told the police that he or she was acting in self-defense, the police should simply say "ok, we'll be in touch with you?"

That's normally not the way it is done, Yawper. And I would think the reasons why someone who has killed someone is immediately processed for an arrest - and the reasons why under circumstances where the killing happened outside the person being questioned's home, where the person being question was armed, was ten years older and weighed more than a hundred pounds than the unarmed deceased, has been in trouble with the law in the past, was undisputedly the person who was approaching the deceased (rather than the other way around), and where there was no reason for the person to be approached in the first place other than he was, in general terms, "suspicious," the person should be immediately processed for arrest - should be clear.

The reason is justice.

Updated On: 3/26/12 at 01:38 PM

henrike - I did not want to get into a complete dissertation of the rather lengthy statute, which is why I used the phrase "can have as little" instead of something indicating that it was a hard time period. It is also why I linked to the entire statute so for those who actually wanted to get into the minutia, exceptions, carve outs and the like, they could.

"Obama has commented when the police have acted stupidly. The police acted stupidly in this case and in the preposterous arrest of Professor Gates's returning home in Cambridge."

With the economy in the toilet, I'm happy Obama has nothing better to do than comment on local police matters. He needs to watch himself because he could end up saying something that will prejudice a jury and not get someone a fair trial.

And no the Prof Gates incident was not the police acting stupidly. It was Gates refusing to cooperate when the police asked questions of a person breaking into a house.

And if anything was learned from the Duke lacrosse case, it's that people shouldn't jump to conclusions until all the evidence is in place.

---