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

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I keep hearing people bringing up the Stand Your Ground law and I still don't see how it applies. It seems from the details that this guy pursued the kid and shot him.

[JPhillips]

The police chief sure sounds like a winner.

Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but, as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn't mean anything to anybody.

This about an investigation that missed or deemed irrelevant a call to 911 where Zimmerman admitted he was pursuing Martin because, "these assholes always get away", missed or deemed irrelevant Martin's call to his girlfriend where he said he was being pursued, missed or deemed irrelevant another call to 911 where a caller said a strange man was pursuing Martin, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's story that he was attacked by Martin being contradicted by his calls to 9/11, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's history of calls to 9/11 complaining about blacks.

I don't know the police chief and I hesitate to blame race when I don't know all the facts, but his investigation was somewhere between incompetent and a coverup. He certainly has no right to claim to be the victim.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, I keep hearing people bringing up the Stand Your Ground law and I still don't see how it applies. It seems from the details that this guy pursued the kid and shot him.

I believe it's more for the fight that ensued. Or is alleged to have ensued. I guess the circumstances leading up to the fight don't matter. Assuming there even was a fight. The guy had cuts and was injured, so it appears there was some kind of scuffle. Whether that resulted from him confronting the kid and the kid attacking him, or he snuck up on the kid and attacked him, either of which lead to the shooting, that's where the law is coming in. I think.

[Ksyrup]

FWIW (trivia, I guess), I went to law school with the guy representing the kid's family. Actually, both the guys who run that firm (Parks and Crump).

[flounder]

I saw someone make the point that if Martin had taken the gun and killed Zimmerman, he would have a defense based on Stand Your Ground. "Hey I was just standing there and this guy came at me with a gun."

[RendeR]

Zimmerman needs to go away. For a long time. He was told not to follow the kid. As a neighborhood watch member his defense ends right there.

he persued the kid, he instigated the confrontation and he shot the kid and killed him.

Thats premeditated. Put the bastard away.

You don't shoot someone without being threatened by lethal force to begin with. The kid was unarmed. There is no defense for this IMO.

Stand your ground my ass.

[spleen1015]

Even if this is a Stand Your Ground case, it doesn't become one if Zimmerman would have let the authorities handle the situation like he was told to do.

I hope the guy gets what he deserves, but I don't see it happening. He'll get off and serve no time, but will end up losing a wrongful death lawsuit instead.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This about an investigation that missed or deemed irrelevant a call to 911 where Zimmerman admitted he was pursuing Martin because, "these assholes always get away", missed or deemed irrelevant Martin's call to his girlfriend where he said he was being pursued, missed or deemed irrelevant another call to 911 where a caller said a strange man was pursuing Martin, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's story that he was attacked by Martin being contradicted by his calls to 9/11, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's history of calls to 9/11 complaining about blacks.

How did they "miss" all that? - it's all been made public and the grand jury now has the case.

And it's not against the law to be racist, or follow black people, or to disobey 911 operator instruction, or call 911 a lot. Once this case is prosecuted, and it probably will be, unless there's something else out there, defense counsel is no doubt going to attempt to exclude a lot of that evidence as irrelevant/prejudicial. There will be a fight over every piece of that stuff. I think the prosecution can probably get most of it in, but unfortunately, you don't get to charge and arrest and throw someone in jail forever just based on anger and emotion. And you don't get to admit evidence for the purpose of showing that someone is a bad guy generally. And you're not allowed to try to prejudice the defendant through the media. Though I do kind of wish the general public was so prosecution friendly all the time

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

and don't make a threatening move/gesture towards you.

I don't think we know that part do we?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Oh yeah... I forgot that the media hates white people. Thanks for the reminder!

Gee, I must have missed every death involving a gun making national news and draws so-called activists to town.

If Trayvon shoots Zimmerman, nobody outside of a 50 mile radius ever hears a word about it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Gee, I must have missed every death involving a gun making national news and draws so-called activists to town.

If Trayvon shoots Zimmerman, nobody outside of a 50 mile radius ever hears a word about it.

And if Trayvon had a weapon...ANY weapon, it would be the same way, but the kid wasn't doing anything wrong, or illegal or even suspicious. he was walking home. Neighborhood watch is NOT a police force, they are there to CALL the police in not to detain not to engage. This guy tried to play cop and killed an innocent kid. He needs to fry for it.

He committed a crime. period.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

A but the kid wasn't doing anything wrong, or illegal or even suspicious. he was walking home.

I'm glad you were there & witnessed everything.

Truth is, you don't know what the fuck this allegedly innocent kid was doing. Neither do I, so how bout we find out before we make any judgments.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RendeR

He committed a crime. period.

Based on the comments from the attorneys here, as well as several who've been interviewed by both conservative and liberal-leaning news outlets, it's not clear that he actually did in the state of Florida. It sounds like the law is horribly written. Read what KSyrup and molson have said, or, say, this article. Zimmerman sounds like a real loser, very likely a bigot, and dangerous to society. But under Florida law, he may not be a murderer. In other words, even though he shouldn't have chased the guy down, once he was in a fight with him, he may be protected by this law. Ouch.


To the lawyers: if the above does prove to be true and Florida can't win a case against him, can the Feds do some "violation of civil rights" type thing?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm glad you were there & witnessed everything.

Truth is, you don't know what the fuck this allegedly innocent kid was doing. Neither do I, so how bout we find out before we make any judgments.

Wether he was doing anything or not, he had no way to threaten Zimmerman with deadly force. No weapon unless you think the kids skittles were gonna choke Zimmerman to death?

You don't shoot unarmed people. You don't threaten to shoot unarmed people when there are POLICE on the way (we know this from the calls, why the fuck is he still involved?)

Sorry Jon, this guy fucked up. I can judge that from what little is already known. Defend him all you want, he needs to burn. Deadly force is a LAST resort, not a pursuit and assault choice.

[Ksyrup]

Just an FYI, I believe the law in Florida is that a citizen's arrest can be made if someone witnesses or reasonably believes a felony has been committed. You can detain someone and then have to call the police. So theoretically, any of us are allowed to do more than simply call the cops. It doesn't sound like he saw anything more than a kid walking around, and even if he thought the kid was looking for a house to break into, that's not (yet) a felony. But in general, citizens do have limited law enforcement rights.

[molson]

One of the other interesting things in this case to me is how the 911 calls got out so fast. 911 calls are subject to public records requests, but I know in most states, the state doesn't have to release anything that's part of a current investigation. And in fact, there's some duty not to release stuff if it's a pending criminal case. Wouldn't be a nice advantage for a prosecutor if you could publicly release all of your evidence before anyone has had a chance to object to its admissibility, and before a judge has ruled on its admissibility?

All of that stuff getting out, and getting the entire potential jury pool riled up before there's even charges would not be looked at very kindly in normal circumstances, I don't think. And I wonder if that will cause any problems for the prosecution later.

Point is, they didn't have to release those recordings (unless there was some court order or something based on a public records request under Florida law, which might have its own crazy exceptions and loopholes). Releasing them, or them somehow getting out, only helps the prosecution of this guy, because the future jurors have now already made up their mind. Odd tactics from a racist police force (well, racist against blacks but not Hispanics I guess) trying to cover everything up.

[RendeR]

And before you go further down the "you don't have a clue" trail. i've BEEN a security officer, I've walked and driven streets looking for teh same shit Zimmerman was. Packing a .45 the entire time.

I've had broken bottles and knives pulled on me.

How many times did I shoot someone? 0
How many times did I DRAW MY WEAPON? 0

nothing about what Zimmerman did clears him of the crime of murdering that boy. he did it on his own choice, He followed him, confronted him and shot him. Those are facts.

And thats called murder in most states.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know what happened with the legislation, but I seem to recall a bill in Florida within the past 3-4 years that would have specifically exempted 911 calls from public records. I'm assuming it didn't pass.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

To the lawyers: if the above does prove to be true and Florida can't win a case against him, can the Feds do some "violation of civil rights" type thing?

They definitely have the authority to, if there's a crime that fits - they can prosecute him whether the state does or not. That's just a policy call, if there's a crime that fits (and I don't know the criminal federal civil rights statutes at all, but there could be one that fits)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

One of the other interesting things in this case to me is how the 911 calls got out so fast. 911 calls are subject to public records requests, but I know in most states, the state doesn't have to release anything that's part of a current investigation. And in fact, there's some duty not to release stuff if it's a pending criminal case. Wouldn't be a nice advantage for a prosecutor if you could publicly release all of your evidence before anyone has had a chance to object to its admissibility, and before a judge has ruled on its admissibility?

All of that stuff getting out, and getting the entire potential jury pool riled up before there's even charges would not be looked at very kindly in normal circumstances, I don't think. And I wonder if that will cause any problems for the prosecution later.

Point is, they didn't have to release those recordings (unless there was some court order or something based on a public records request under Florida law, which might have its own crazy exceptions and loopholes). Releasing them, or them somehow getting out, only helps the prosecution of this guy, because the future jurors have now already made up their mind. Odd tactics from a racist police (well, racist against blacks but not Hispanics I guess) force trying to cover everything up.

Actually thats not the case in most states/counties AFAIK. Our local 911 calls are out almost within hours of the situation being reported at all. The only limitations being calls or information in calls that divulges someones identity directly.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RendeR

And thats called murder in most states.

OK, but in Florida, it might not. It may be justified under the law. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? not really whether the law or this guy is right or wrong, but whether he committed a crime. Ultimately, the law may determine he did. But that's far from clear right now.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't know what happened with the legislation, but I seem to recall a bill in Florida within the past 3-4 years that would have specifically exempted 911 calls from public records. I'm assuming it didn't pass.

probably a good thing IMO.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

They definitely have the authority to, if there's a crime that fits - they can prosecute him whether the state does or not. That's just a policy call, if there's a crime that fits (and I don't know the criminal federal civil rights statutes at all, but there could be one that fits)

Yeah, I'm thinking for the high profile cases where "justice wasn't served," you''ll see the feds step in if they have any reasonable basis for charging someone. The Rodney King case is one example.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

OK, but in Florida, it might not. It may be justified under the law. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? not really whether the law or this guy is right or wrong, but whether he committed a crime. Ultimately, the law may determine he did. But that's far from clear right now.

Thats only true if you think he was the one being threatened in some way. Stand your ground is a defensive resort. What was Zimmerman defending?


Meh, it will all come out in the wash. I'm personally offended by people like Zimmerman who think they have some right to act like the law because the government lets them pack a 9mil in his trousers.

[spleen1015]

You guys have seen the pictures of this kid. Without holding a gun, there is no way this kid could have been life threatening to anyone. I don't see how Zimmerman can prove that he was really threatened by this kid.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm personally offended by people like Zimmerman who think they have some right to act like the law because the government lets them pack a 9mil in his trousers.

That's all well and good, but your assertion that "he committed a crime. period" is very much up for debate. Did he do something morally wrong??? Based on what we've seen and heard so far, that's extremely likely. But did he do something legally wrong??? Obviously a whole lot of people trained in the law aren't so certain about that...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Thats only true if you think he was the one being threatened in some way. Stand your ground is a defensive resort. What was Zimmerman defending?


Meh, it will all come out in the wash. I'm personally offended by people like Zimmerman who think they have some right to act like the law because the government lets them pack a 9mil in his trousers.

That's to be determined, isn't it? I don't know what he was defending, if anything at all. He showed signs of being in a fight. The law allows him to defend himself. Whether he's entitled to use that law as a defense to having killed someone is for law enforcement and state attorneys to decide. I don't think it's an open-and-shut case just because you pesonally don't like it when people act like this guy did.

Like I said, in many states citizens are permitted to arrest people. Theoretically, this guy could be dressing up like Batman and patrolling the worst parts of the city looking for felons in action, and he could lawfully arrest them. And, I suppose, if they fought back, he could shoot them. I'm not sure that's how I'd spend my evenings, and maybe that scares you more than it does me, but that's more an issue with the law, not the potential outcome of this case, it seems.

[RendeR]

Its not the action that scares me, its the slippery slope that allowing that action creates. If you let them shoot people WHILE out looking for trouble whats next? random drive bys?

Oh shit we have that already too, luckily we don't condone those

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its not the action that scares me, its the slippery slope that allowing that action creates.

That's not what you said earlier.

Originally Posted by Render

He committed a crime. period.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That's not what you said earlier.

Glad someone else noticed, hate it when it's just me

[RendeR]

Indeed. he killed someone without cause. An unarmed person at that.

Did I miss somewhere that we don't call that Murder anymore? Kewl, i'll grab my shotgun and head downtown. I'm sure SOMEONE will look suspicious enough to follow around and shoot.

Zimmerman killed another human being without cause. You don't think we know that? fine, you go right on thinking that way. When more kids walking home keep getting killed by overzealous wannabe rentacops then you'll be quite happy I'm sure.

I've already said it will come out in the wash. my faith in any government system at this point is pretty low so this PoS will probably get off with nothing.

I'm fairly sure my own experience in REAL life or death situations colors my judgement, and frankly, it should. Normal schmucks watching out for crimes shouldn't be carrying lethal weapons. They're the eyes and ears for the Police, they are not the enforcers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Zimmerman sounds like a real loser, very likely a bigot, and dangerous to society.

Or not ...

Samantha Leigh Hamilton, an auto-dealership employee who has lived on Zimmerman's street for about a year, said that she once left her garage door up and Zimmerman noticed it while out walking his dog. He notified another neighbor, who let Hamilton know.

"The only impression I have of George Zimmerman is a good one," Hamilton said Wednesday.

Hamilton said another neighbor, a black woman, would regularly inform Zimmerman when she was out of town so that he could keep an eye on her place. Hamilton said that when she moved into the middle-class, racially mixed community of about 250 identical townhouses, the black neighbor told her, "Hey, if you need anything, you picked a really good area, since George is part of our neighborhood watch."

My Way News - Was Fla. shooter a vigilante or good neighbor?

Incidentally, from a different AP article (not for SD but for those who keep mentioning the dispatcher's instruction not to follow)

Police pointed out that the dispatcher's comment "is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmermann would be required to follow." In other words, there's nothing there that precludes Zimmerman from acting as he did. (My guess from that phrasing being that the dispatchers aren't sworn/certified personnel & therefore cannot issue a lawful order)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Indeed. he killed someone without cause. An unarmed person at that.

Did I miss somewhere that we don't call that Murder anymore?

You said a "crime." How can there be a crime if a law hasn't been broken?

To be clear, based on what I think I know, I *hope* this is a crime, but I'm too logical a thinker to just jump in and declare definitively that

He committed a crime. period.

[BrianD]

Total side-point, but I am a bit disappointed by the 911 operator. "We don't need you to do that." That was the response to the answer that the guy was following the kid. I would like to see something more definite in that situation. "Do not follow him." "Starting an altercation could result in you being charged with a crime." Something. The wording of the response made it sound like the guy's choice...which didn't defuse the situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Indeed. he killed someone without cause.

Again, you're making an assumption that hasn't been substantiated.

I've already said it will come out in the wash. my faith in any government system at this point is pretty low so this PoS will probably get off with nothing.

Hey, a point of agreement, whaddya know. My faith in government systems tends to be so low that I figure he'll be railroaded no matter what the facts of the case turn out to be.

I'm fairly sure my own experience in REAL life or death situations colors my judgement, and frankly, it should.

Same here.

Normal schmucks watching out for crimes shouldn't be carrying lethal weapons.

Oops, we're back to disagreeing again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Total side-point, but I am a bit disappointed by the 911 operator. "We don't need you to do that." ... The wording of the response made it sound like the guy's choice...which didn't defuse the situation.

See above, it was his choice. The dispatcher lacks the authority to give anything resembling an "order".

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You said a "crime." How can there be a crime if a law hasn't been broken?

To be clear, based on what I think I know, I *hope* this is a crime, but I'm too logical a thinker to just jump in and declare definitively that

Yeah well. My opinion is law, didn't you get the memo?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or not ...

My Way News - Was Fla. shooter a vigilante or good neighbor?

Incidentally, from a different AP article (not for SD but for those who keep mentioning the dispatcher's instruction not to follow)

Police pointed out that the dispatcher's comment "is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmermann would be required to follow." In other words, there's nothing there that precludes Zimmerman from acting as he did. (My guess from that phrasing being that the dispatchers aren't sworn/certified personnel & therefore cannot issue a lawful order)

Possibly. But I'm smart enough to qualify my statements.

That said, it's up for debate. I tend to suspect "loser" at a bare minimum based on his eleventy billion calls to the cops and the general impression I get from the collection of statements about him. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people for whom at least *someone* didn't stuck up. It's not that I discount this particular statement, per se. It's more that the preponderance of the evidence seems to suggest "bigoted loser." I know enough people who'd say "I can't stand niggers, but Ben is a great guy," to know better than to take him being nice to one black person as evidence that he's some "JFK meets Jesus Christ" white boy.

[RendeR]

Yeah Jon, we never agree on much. You believe a free man should be able to carry around a way to kill another one just for kicks.

I think thats wrong when we have people to protect us from people like that in place called POLICE.

The right to bear arms is all well and good, I just don't see why it has to mean ANY and ALL types of arms.

Carry a shotgun, carry a rifle. Those are both perfectly good to defend yourself and to bring home dinner.

hand guns and anything with the ability to be automatic? Those are weapons of war. They are not necessary for day to day life.

But hey, I'm not out shooting kids in the street, maybe I'm missing out on something fun.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Possibly. But I'm smart enough to qualify my statements.

That said, it's up for debate. I tend to suspect "loser" at a bare minimum based on his eleventy billion calls to the cops and the general impression I get from the collection of statements about him. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people for whom at least *someone* didn't stuck up. It's not that I discount this particular statement, per se. It's more that the preponderance of the evidence seems to suggest "bigoted loser." I know enough people who'd say "I can't stand niggers, but Ben is a great guy," to know better than to take him being nice to one black person as evidence that he's some "JFK meets Jesus Christ" white boy.

Ok this cracked me up. Thanks Ben =)

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Zimmerman killed another human being without cause..

Well, that's the crux of it, I’m sure he’d allege the cause was self-defense. It remains to be seen whether that alleged cause and how exactly he claims it went down is consistent with the 911 calls/physical evidence/anything he's already told police though. In this country, you do get to access all that evidence and then work your trial defense around it, which by design, makes it more difficult to convict people.

I get what people are saying, that from the facts here, there’s simply no plausible self-defense theory, and that might end up being true. But I guess I can at least hypothesize plenty of factual scenarios where self-defense might at least be on the table, at least with the gaps in the facts we have. I'd really love to know what he told to police at the scene - all of those statements would be 100% admissible, and I'd love to see how they line up with everything else we know now.

[lungs]

This guy saw fit to take the law into his own hands so maybe somebody else should take the law into their own hands and deliver justice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I tend to suspect "loser" at a bare minimum based on his eleventy billion calls to the cops and the general impression I get from the collection of statements about him.

The upset at his phone calls to cops probably boggles my mind more than anything else about the case thus far.

"close to 50 times over the past eight years " (I've seen the number 48 elsewhere, so that sounds about right here). That's only 6 times a year, once every 60 days ... for a guy who is obviously highly engaged in some sort of neighborhood watch program AND lives in an area with a crime rate twice the national average. But his phone calls are problematic somehow?

What happened to "being involved"? What happened to "being the eyes & ears"? What happened to "looking after your neighbors"? And if, as some insist, citizens aren't supposed to take action, what else are they supposed to do?

Hell Ben, I could make close to 50 phone calls a year to ACC PD just on stuff I see in my neighborhood (and I'm on the good side of town). Head up toward the Jr. Varsity & it would be easy to make 50 calls a week.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Yeah well. My opinion is law, didn't you get the memo?

Heh. Clearly you missed the memo that *my* opinion is law.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by lungs

This guy saw fit to take the law into his own hands so maybe somebody else should take the law into their own hands and deliver justice.

He's not that far from Miami.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The upset at his phone calls to cops probably boggles my mind more than anything else about the case thus far.

"close to 50 times over the past eight years " (I've seen the number 48 elsewhere, so that sounds about right here). That's only 6 times a year, once every 60 days ... for a guy who is obviously highly engaged in some sort of neighborhood watch program AND lives in an area with a crime rate twice the national average. But his phone calls are problematic somehow?

What happened to "being involved"? What happened to "being the eyes & ears"? What happened to "looking after your neighbors"? And if, as some insist, citizens aren't supposed to take action, what else are they supposed to do?

Hell Ben, I could make close to 50 phone calls a year to ACC PD just on stuff I see in my neighborhood (and I'm on the good side of town). Head up toward the Jr. Varsity & it would be easy to make 50 calls a week.

14 months, not 8 years.

[RendeR]

I could see that jon if there were just as many calls coming from the otehr members of the watch. We don't really know that though so we can't guage.

I've lived in this neighborhood for 6 years now, I've called the police 2 times, both times for very specific crimes occuring within my sight. I've seen/heard comments that many of his calls were simply suspicions. he didn't actually see anything at the time. Maybe thats hearsay, I don't know, but 50 calls to the police? that seems ridiculous even for a person standing watch all the time.

It screams paranoid overzealous and a few other terms to me. let me label this, IN MY OPINION. just so people don't jump the shark on it

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by mckerney

14 months, not 8 years.

Holy shit, all those calls in a YEAR? i had heard the 8 year thing too.... but in just over a year? thats fucking nuts.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh. Clearly you missed the memo that *my* opinion is law.

your opinion has been noted and will be considered in due course

[Ksyrup]

In Defense of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws | Cato @ Liberty