Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[stevew]

Just a bit of semantics, but I'm watching NBC report that George Zimmerman, the alleged killer of Trayvon Martin is free on bond. Even if Zimmerman never gets convicted, he will always be the killer....nothing to allege here.

[Ksyrup]

Yes and no.

From a purely legal standpoint, since we're pre-trial and nothing has been stipulated, it's incumbent upon the prosecution to prove every element of the crime. So he's still alleged to have shot the kid, technically.

Otherwise, I'm guessing the media is being cautious considering the term "killer" has a distinctly negative connotation without further explanation.

[stevew]

I see what you mean and I may have meant to write a few more sentences. I just hate it when the media beats around the bush like that. If they said "alleged cold blooded killer" or "alleged murderer" those things are in dispute. When Zimmerman is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, he's still a killer.

[JediKooter]

How is it still 'alleged' when he admitted to shooting him and apologizing for it?

[Glengoyne]

Somewhat related to the journalistic semantics of always using the word alleged to refer to a defendant in a court case, is the fact that there are now reports that he has pleaded not guilty.

I'm here only to mourn the apparently now deprecated use of the word pled.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm here only to mourn the apparently now deprecated use of the word pled.

Yeah, what is the deal with that?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Yeah, what is the deal with that?

It seems like five years ago or so, probably more like seven or ten, the journalistic world made the switch. It seemed to me like they did it overnight, because I distinctly remember thinking that they were wrong, only to Google and discover that the usage seemed rather pervasive.

I'm guessing something like the AP style guide made the change, and everyone has followed suit. The only thing is, this smells to me like one of those mis judged edge case rules or attempts at grammatical correctness that results in news anchors saying "an historic event".

[JediKooter]

And in the latest news: George Zimmerman's Wife Arrested on Perjury Charge - Yahoo! News

[chadritt]

Not unexpected at all. Im curious whether or not he even gets bail the next time around.

[JediKooter]

If he does, it will probably be in the 7 figures.

[chadritt]

Are they able to give him bail and an ankle monitor or something considering he hid a 2nd passport in addition to all the money last time? I mean, i get that they may not want him in prison the entire time but he made himself look like one heck of a flight risk.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Are they able to give him bail and an ankle monitor or something considering he hid a 2nd passport in addition to all the money last time? I mean, i get that they may not want him in prison the entire time but he made himself look like one heck of a flight risk.

Well, it's Florida, and if they do grant him bail, they'd probably tie a bunch of empty beer bottles around his ankle. But yes, for being innocent and standing his ground, he definitely sounds like a flight risk at this point in time.

[Matthean]

This time the black person shot and killed the unarmed person.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Looks like more guns would be the answer. Obviously.

If the guy walking his dog had a gun, and the employees at Taco Bell all had guns, this would never have happened.

(In the wake of Jon's boxing someone has to make this crap up)

[CraigSca]

So, the witness can't read the letter she allegedly wrote to Trayvon's mother? what the heck?

[Thomkal]

Attention News Networks:

Please stop covering the trial with non-stop coverage-it isn't that important.
And Fox try to show some class and stop insulting the witness by calling her in your graphic "star witness" in quotes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Attention News Networks:

Please stop covering the trial with non-stop coverage-it isn't that important.
And Fox try to show some class and stop insulting the witness by calling her in your graphic "star witness" in quotes.

You stay classy, Fox News!

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Attention News Networks:

Please stop covering the trial with non-stop coverage-it isn't that important.

Wanna lay odds on the ratings bump this will generate? I mean, it's no Arizona sex & murder case, but it should fare better than usual.

Yesterday's week to week total day
CNN up from 320k to 376k
MSNBC up from 308k to 342k
HLN up from 220k to 493k


CNN 10p ("Self-defense or Murder" vs Anderson Cooper)
Up from 339k to 586k

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Attention News Networks:

Please stop covering the trial with non-stop coverage-it isn't that important.
And Fox try to show some class and stop insulting the witness by calling her in your graphic "star witness" in quotes.

Add CNN to that list.

[Lathum]

Maybe they think she looks like Starr Jones?

[sterlingice]

Or Bart Starr?

SI

[bob]

I didn't really pay attention to this this week - does anyone that did have any concept about which way this trial is going?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by bob

I didn't really pay attention to this this week - does anyone that did have any concept about which way this trial is going?

Zimmerman is going to walk.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by bob

I didn't really pay attention to this this week - does anyone that did have any concept about which way this trial is going?

So far the prosecution has looked worse than incompetent.
Barring a Mattlock style aha moment, I can't see Zimmerman doing time.

[Lathum]

To elaborate. The prosecutions witnesses have basically corroborated zimmermans story that Martin was on top of him beating him. An eye witness confirms Martin was on top if Zimmerman beating him an the first officer confirms the head wounds and that zimmermans back and backside were wet confirming he was on his back. Then there is the testimony of Martins
Friend that says Martin called
Zimmerman a cracker and the defense doing a good
Job of destroying any credibility she may have had. Not that she needed their help.

[saldana]

but self defense is an affirmative defense...Z has to prove that he had no other option (i believe this still i required, even under the stand your ground law, which only says you dont have to retreat). for a guy that says he intensely trains at an MMA school 3 times a week, is it reasonable that he should have been able to fight back or escape against a kid that they are arguing was stoned?

also, they havent even gotten to the dispatchers that told him not to be there in the first place.

the news reports are heavily slanted IMO in an effort to sensationalize the process for better ratings...from a legal standpoint, there is nothing that gives Z a pass yet that i have seen

[Lathum]

Ugh. iPhone.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by saldana

but self defense is an affirmative defense...Z has to prove that he had no other option (i believe this still i required, even under the stand your ground law, which only says you dont have to retreat). for a guy that says he intensely trains at an MMA school 3 times a week, is it reasonable that he should have been able to fight back or escape against a kid that they are arguing was stoned?

also, they havent even gotten to the dispatchers that told him not to be there in the first place.

the news reports are heavily slanted IMO in an effort to sensationalize the process for better ratings...from a legal standpoint, there is nothing that gives Z a pass yet that i have seen

Honest question. Why does Zimmerman have to prove anything? Doesn't the burden of proof lie with the prosecutor?

[molson]

This is a pretty decent summary of Florida self-defense law and how it applies to this case.

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

I disagree a little with their characterization of the "proportionality" part. Zimmerman didn't have only the right to respond with proportional force, he had the right to respond with deadly force if he had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of grave bodily harm. Which can be inflicted by an unarmed man. In other words, you can kill an unarmed person that's beating the shit out of you.

I think when states get too cute with self-defense statutes and make them this complicated, the jury will often just not really wrap their minds around it, and ultimately they'll make a moral judgment of everyone's behavior. Which I don't think is a bad thing, and it's recognized by a lot of states. In Idaho we just basically have a reasonableness standard. You can use self defense if the jury thinks the use and amount of force was reasonable under the circumstances. If the jury goes that way it might be worse for Zimmerman because it might make more important all of the pretense stuff (he's a neighborhood watchman, he's suspicious of black people, whatever exactly happened between when the phone call with dispatch ended and the incident (was Zimmerman actually continuing to "chase" him at that point?). I don't think any of that is relevant if the jury believes the witnesses that say they saw Martin on top. It doesn't matter how they got there, Zimmerman can defend himself at that point. But if they lean more towards a moral judgment/general reasonable person test, they might not like the fact that Zimmerman's racism and/or over-zealousness ultimately set the wheels in motion for his shooting of an unarmed kid

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by saldana

but self defense is an affirmative defense...Z has to prove that he had no other option (i believe this still i required, even under the stand your ground law, which only says you dont have to retreat). for a guy that says he intensely trains at an MMA school 3 times a week, is it reasonable that he should have been able to fight back or escape against a kid that they are arguing was stoned?

also, they havent even gotten to the dispatchers that told him not to be there in the first place.

the news reports are heavily slanted IMO in an effort to sensationalize the process for better ratings...from a legal standpoint, there is nothing that gives Z a pass yet that i have seen

This. It's all media-ratings driven at this point.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Honest question. Why does Zimmerman have to prove anything? Doesn't the burden of proof lie with the prosecutor?

ok, so again, i am not an expert on Florida law, but having read the link above, i feel pretty confident that i am right.

i will take this from the top even though i am sure pretty much everyone understands the basics...not trying to be insulting

normally, when entering a plea, you plead guilty (admitting you did it) or not guilty (claiming you didnt do it). If you plead NG, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did, and meeting that burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecutor (see marcia clark for examples of how to suck at this)

however, Zimmerman entered a plea of Not Guilty by reason of self defense. so, he is actually admitting that he killed Martin, but is saying that given the circumstances of the situation, he had no other choice. When you enter that plea, the focus of the trial changes significantly...the prosecution no longer has to prove that you killed anyone, only that you were not acting in self defense, and the burden of proof becomes the defendants...zimmerman's lawyers must now prove that the use of deadly force was a necessary means of defending himself...this is called an Affirmative Defense...the same thing will hold true for that whack job in Aurora, CO who is pleading insanity...his lawyers are admitting that he did it, but trying to claim that he didnt understand what he was doing because of some diminished capacity.

what i think is going to be the end for Zimmerman is that he was told NOT TO PURSUE Martin, and he ignored that dispatcher, which in the eyes of the law, made him the aggressor in the situation

[molson]

Originally Posted by saldana

what i think is going to be the end for Zimmerman is that he was told NOT TO PURSUE Martin, and he ignored that dispatcher, which in the eyes of the law, made him the aggressor in the situation

The jury could decide he was the aggressor initially (though I'm not totally sure the facts show that he continued to "chase" him after that dispatch suggestion, there's kind of a mysterious 2 minutes between the end of the call and the start of the incident, and I'm not sure how far from his car exactly shit went down), but you can lose the aggressor status if the other guy gets the better of you. Under Florida law, you can start a fight, but if the other guy turns the tables on you, AND you have a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm, you can still defend yourself. It's messy, because obviously Martin had a right to defend himself too. I'm glad I'm not involved in this case as a lawyer or on the jury.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by saldana

what i think is going to be the end for Zimmerman is that he was told NOT TO PURSUE Martin, and he ignored that dispatcher, which in the eyes of the law, made him the aggressor in the situation

Except that the dispatcher lacks the authority to give any order whatsoever, to Zimmerman or anyone else. I gather that the dispatcher is not a sworn officer - most aren't - and therefore has no more weight behind the comment than any other civilian. Carries the same weight as if one of us had said it to him here on the FOFC.

I think Zimmerman will eventually be convicted of something, but this isn't the grounds to pin that on.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except that the dispatcher lacks the authority to give any order whatsoever, to Zimmerman or anyone else. I gather that the dispatcher is not a sworn officer - most aren't - and therefore has no more weight behind the comment than any other civilian. Carries the same weight as if one of us had said it to him here on the FOFC.

I think Zimmerman will eventually be convicted of something, but this isn't the grounds to pin that on.

And Zimmerman wasn't a sworn officer either. What the dispatcher's comments do is reinforce the claim that Zimmerman put himself in a potentially dangerous situation, which erodes his claim of self-defense. If you enter a situation as a private citizen knowing it could bring danger to yourself, that makes it hard to claim self-defense. That's why I think it is more likely if there is a conviction it would be for manslaughter, and not murder.

[tarcone]

I have a question for all, about the Z following Martin.
If a suspicious character is wandering in your neighborhood. Suspicious enough that you called the police, would you follow the character? Wouldnt you want to see what he was doing and/or where he was going?
I can see myself following. And I dont carry a gun.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cartman

And Zimmerman wasn't a sworn officer either. What the dispatcher's comments do is reinforce the claim that Zimmerman put himself in a potentially dangerous situation, which erodes his claim of self-defense. If you enter a situation as a private citizen knowing it could bring danger to yourself, that makes it hard to claim self-defense. That's why I think it is more likely if there is a conviction it would be for manslaughter, and not murder.

And here in lies the rub...to date the prosecution has not brought forth charges of manslaughter, only of murder 2...if i understand fl law correctly if acquitted of murder 2 manslaughter can not be subsequently retried.

I am not sure there is a FL statute that over rides defense doctrine if he was the initial aggressor then began losing....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

If you enter a situation as a private citizen knowing it could bring danger to yourself, that makes it hard to claim self-defense.

I have the right to go outside to investigate a suspicious noise, if I'm attacked in the process then I've lost none of the self-defense element.

Otherwise you couldn't leave the house to go to the store and eventually claim self-defense since you're exposing yourself to risk of being attacked.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And here in lies the rub...to date the prosecution has not brought forth charges of manslaughter, only of murder 2...if i understand fl law correctly if acquitted of murder 2 manslaughter can not be subsequently retried.

I am not sure there is a FL statute that over rides defense doctrine if he was the initial aggressor then began losing....

In Florida, juries are presented lesser charges as well.
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=475

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have the right to go outside to investigate a suspicious noise, if I'm attacked in the process then I've lost none of the self-defense element.

Otherwise you couldn't leave the house to go to the store and eventually claim self-defense since you're exposing yourself to risk of being attacked.

Yes, but then you can invoke the castle doctrine, because that is your house. As for the other portion, it is reasonable to assume that you can safely make a trip to the store and back, as that is the normal outcome of such an event.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, but then you can invoke the castle doctrine, because that is your house. As for the other portion, it is reasonable to assume that you can safely make a trip to the store and back, as that is the normal outcome of such an event.

And if Martin weren't a lowlife, this could have ended just as routinely.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And if Martin weren't a lowlife, this could have ended just as routinely.

But, at the point of the incident occurring, where did Zimmerman get the info to determine if Martin was a lowlife or not? Walking at night while wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of tea and a bag of candy isn't much to go on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

But, at the point of the incident occurring, where did Zimmerman get the info to determine if Martin was a lowlife or not?

Wrong point. Zimmerman is entitled to his suspicions, the lowlife part (that I referenced) is what brought self-defense into play.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I have a question for all, about the Z following Martin.
If a suspicious character is wandering in your neighborhood. Suspicious enough that you called the police, would you follow the character? Wouldnt you want to see what he was doing and/or where he was going?
I can see myself following. And I dont carry a gun.

An unarmed black person wearing a hoodie does not qualify as suspicious to me. And even if it did, at most I would call the police and let them know and certainly wouldn't follow him if the dispatcher said not to do that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wrong point. Zimmerman is entitled to his suspicions, the lowlife part (that I referenced) is what brought self-defense into play.

And Martin wasn't also entitled to be suspicious of someone following him?

[Lathum]

My understanding is later in the call the dispatcher asked him what direction Martin was heading in. The defense supposedly will state Martin couldn't have known that unless he followed him.

[Coffee Warlord]

You know. I check the witness recaps, and after almost every one, I seriously have to check to see if it's still the prosecution calling these witnesses. Their testimony seems rather more useful for the defense.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

My understanding is later in the call the dispatcher asked him what direction Martin was heading in. The defense supposedly will state Martin couldn't have known that unless he followed him.

And the defense argument will be that Martin doubled back to find Zimmerman to confront him right after Zimmerman's phone call with dispatch ended. I'm not sure if the geography of the events is conclusive either way. It will be interesting if Zimmerman testifies.

[PilotMan]

The prosecution must go home and cry at night.

[Coffee Warlord]

I now absolutely believe the district attorney had no desire to try this case. They knew it was shit - but there was far too much outside pressure to not press charges. So, here we are, going through the motions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I now absolutely believe the district attorney had no desire to try this case. They knew it was shit - but there was far too much outside pressure to not press charges. So, here we are, going through the motions.

I suspect this isn't far from the truth. In my mind, it's fully possible that Zimmerman went too far that night, but I suspect that the original reason given for him not being arrested is why the prosecution is going to lose: there's not enough evidence to contradict his story.