Trayvon Martin — Page 4

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.

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?

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"?

---

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.

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.

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

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

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

henrike - agree completely.

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.

That thought is what was behind my hypothetical, Robbie.

This law just seems designed to lead to tragedy.

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.

I 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.