Prosecutor rules out grand jury in Trayvon Martin case

[makattak]

AJ, the fundamental problem for Zimmerman is that, on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him - having done that, to regain his right to self-defence against that person is nearly impossible.  Literally, he'd have to have done something as drastic as getting down on his knees and pleading with his hands in the air.   That's why it is a bad idea to chase when armed - if it turns out you chased the wrong guy, you are going to be in serious trouble.   It's so bad for his case that a defence which is sufficient to overcome the chasing, and at the same time beleivable, just isn't realistic.

The key here is the chasing - you chase someone who wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place, and you aren't going to be able to claim self defence if you end up shooting the guy.  Whether trayvon pounded him after the chase or even hid in the bushes and sprang out will only matter at sentencing time, it's not going to work for a defence.

The more this case goes on, the more it reminds me of the Scott Peterson case.  The media invented this impression that it was a close call, but in reality, the conviction was pretty much guaranteed from the day the body washed up.  There were tons of pundits carrying on about this or that legal matter, but it was 99 percent fluff.  No technicality or bs about satanic cults was ever going to work.

And today there's another similarity - zimmermans attorneys have withdrawn from the case.  Zimmerman, like peterson, is going to the media and apparently buying in to the stories told by throngs of online supporters (Peterson had a big fan club too.). 

This is a sure path to conviction folks.   Shouldn't be a surprise, but some will make it out to be when it happens.

What a load of unmitigated crap. Could you point me to the "felony chasing" statute in Florida?

[HankB]

For DeSelby to be correct - that there's a sure path to a criminal conviction for Zimmerman - something that's not currently in the public record is going to have to surface.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

But as of this writing, based on the current public record, the only thing Zimmerman is guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt is being (as AJ Dual wrote) a dumbass. With local, state, and federal law enforcement all out to find something, anything to hang on Zimmerman, if there's anything damning there it's almost certain to come to light in due course. For example, if Zimmerman's story is a fabrication, it will have holes in it - I don't think the guy's smart enough to concoct a story that's consistent with everything else on the spur of the moment. And once investigators find a hole, they'll proceed to widen it until they can drive a truck through, and then Zimmerman is off to the Graybar Motel - and if he's guilty of the worst, I doubt anyone here will shed a tear for him.

Unless he was telling the truth - which, not being inside either the investigation or Zimmerman's head, I don't know.

The special prosecutor is supposed to release additional information withing the next 72 hours - we'll see what's revealed.

None.  But he did admit to criminally assaulting an officer (that's a precondition for diversion) and was the subject of a restraining order.   Both criminal records that, though they dont make you a convict, are relevant to claims of being a non-violent person.

By that standard, Treyvon's background makes him a troublemaking druggie implicated in burglary and assault . . . (Which raises a question - have they ever released the results of the tox/drug screen from Treyvon's autopsy?)

[De Selby]

Mak, committing a homicide without justification is a felony (hope we don't need to cite the statutes for that.)

Here're the rules on justifiable use of force:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=%2D%3E2011%2D%3EChapter%20776

If you look at:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html, you'll see that there is no defence where you initially provoke the use of force.  Note that the statute doesn't require your provocation to be a felony; you just have to provoke it.  Once that happens, the burden is on you to "exhaust every reasonable means of escape"  or to "withdraw from physical contact" and indicate "clearly to the assailant" that you wish to withdraw and "terminate the use of force."

There's no question Zimmerman provoked the confrontation; he was chasing Trayvon because at the time he thought Travyon was "one of those aholes who always gets away" (Zimmerman's words.)  Chasing someone who is running away from you is something anyone reasonable should expect to result in a confrontation.  Indeed, Zimmerman expected a confrontation with a criminal according to the tapes.

His defence, if he were to have one, would be in "exhausting every reasonable means of escape" or that he "indicated clearly" to Trayvon that he wanted to withdraw.  To prove either would require something as drastic as getting on his knees and begging for no more.  Simply walking away after you can't find the guy you chased absolutely will not do it.

And, to make the point again, this is why it's always a terrible idea to chase people while armed. If a shooting happens, it will only be in the rarest circumstances that you retain your right to self-defence.

[De Selby]

What country are you in again?  Australia?  I'm certainly not up on the laws there, but that's (from an American perspective) just plain absurd.

I mean I know Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Yeah, I'm an American, and that's the American rule - which makes sense.  If someone starts chasing you in your own neighbourhood and you get scared, try to run away, and ultimately stop and pull your gun on him in fear, that guy can't then shoot you and claim self-defence.  The right-headedness of that policy should be too obvious to require explanation.

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, I'm an American, and that's the American rule - which makes sense.  If someone starts chasing you in your own neighbourhood and you get scared, try to run away, and ultimately stop and pull your gun on him in fear, that guy can't then shoot you and claim self-defence.  The right-headedness of that policy should be too obvious to require explanation.

It was Martin's neighborhood now?

[makattak]

Yeah, I'm an American, and that's the American rule - which makes sense.  If someone starts chasing you in your own neighbourhood and you get scared, try to run away, and ultimately stop and pull your gun on him in fear, that guy can't then shoot you and claim self-defence.  The right-headedness of that policy should be too obvious to require explanation.

Thank you for your excellent advice Counselor. Next time I think someone is chasing after me, it's good to know that I am legally justified in drawing my weapon and confronting them. You are always so good at making things clear. (For those with a broken sarcasm detector, it should be pinging off the charts right now.)

Aside from your absolutely terrible advice, let me point out yet again that your scenario relies you extrapolations from your interpretation of a 911 tape. I know you may believe it wholeheartedly, but that doesn't make it a fact.

FURTHER, your reading of the Florida statutes is rather lacking, as you are focusing on 2(b) but not 2(a) which would be the applicable statute for the scenario you have concocted in your own mind:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
 

I bolded it in case you miss it again.

[De Selby]

Mak, you missed the relevant part of the bolding, which was covered in my post above: "exhausted every reasonable means of escape" is a necessary condition of having that section apply. 

How do you go about showing that you exhausted all reasonable means of escape when you've just given chase to someone who you think is a criminal, and said things like "these a-holes always get away!" on tape?

I've said before, and I'll say it again: every defendant just knows the law and knows how to beat the case, until he gets convicted.  And then there're those who just can't wait to show that crooked jury/judge/prosecutor who's who in the appeals after he's convicted. 

It shouldn't be a surprise to those who chase neighbourhood kids and shoot them that they end up in jail, but that's usually going to be the guy who is just certain he knows the law backwards and forwards.

Mak, you don't need to take my advice - ask a local Attorney whether you'd be covered on self-defence grounds in the same circumstances.  See what he tells you about the wisdom of getting out of your car to chase someone while armed.  Feel free to come correct me with what you get back.

[dogmush]

His defence, if he were to have one, would be in "exhausting every reasonable means of escape" or that he "indicated clearly" to Trayvon that he wanted to withdraw.  To prove either would require something as drastic as getting on his knees and begging for no more.  Simply walking away after you can't find the guy you chased absolutely will not do it.

Lets assume for a moment you're right.  I don't think you are, but let's run with it. And running with that, that giving up the chase and going back to his car wasn't indicating clearly enough.  Even if all that is true, lying on your back, bleeding and screaming for help so loud both the 911 operator and the guy inside his house can hear you is a pretty clear indicator that you want the fight to stop.  

So tell me, after Martin refused to stop beating him despite his screams for help.  At the moment he reached for his gun, lying there, bleeding with the attacker on top of him and not stopping, what "reasonable means of escape" did Zimmerman have?

[Perd Hapley]

De Selby,

Just wanted to give you a bit of encouragement. You might have thought no one noticed your hard work in smuggling in falsehoods (like the suggestion that Martin was on his home turf), but some of us have. Just remember, you have to be subtle, and when you are, people don't often notice your hard work. :)

[De Selby]

Dogmush, that's a good point.  Screaming for help while being hit might give you an argument, but ten seconds worth after you already started the fight still wouldn't guarantee you're in the clear.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, whether that was sufficient is a moot question, because it wasn't him crying for help.  That was Travyon Martin screaming on the tapes.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

[Fitz]

I agree with DeSelby on ONE part of his post:

The fact that Zimmerman followed/chased Martin is NOT going to help him at all.

Martin attacking him, and Martin attacking him after being chased for looking suspicious... well, those are two wholly different scenarios.

Still don't know if it's enough to get Zimmerman CONVICTED or not, that'll be up to the court.


And Fistful, correct me if i'm wrong, but that neighborhood was Dad's neighborhood, right? I was under the impression that he was at his dad's house in that neighborhood, left to get snacks/whatever, and came back when the incident happened?

[makattak]

Dogmush, that's a good point.  Screaming for help while being hit might give you an argument, but ten seconds worth after you already started the fight still wouldn't guarantee you're in the clear.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, whether that was sufficient is a moot question, because it wasn't him crying for help.  That was Travyon Martin screaming on the tapes.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

Very good job studiously ignoring the pertinent questions and asserting facts not in evidence. Unfortunately, any lawyer worth his salt would tear you and these falsehoods apart in court. I think you need more practice, De Selby.

Of course, I guess when "pound the table" is all you got, you pound as hard as you can.

[makattak]

To make your job of ignoring the question a little harder, allow me to quote and bold it for you:

At the moment he reached for his gun, lying there, bleeding with the attacker on top of him and not stopping, what "reasonable means of escape" did Zimmerman have?

I even italicized part in case you missed that bit of information that is backed up by two witnesses AND the victim. (And yes, Mr. Zimmerman is the victim. I'm through being wishy-washy, it's pretty clear he was attacked and is being further attacked now.)

[Fitz]

We may get more facts soon...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/us/in-trayvon-martin-killing-tough-choice-looms-for-prosecutor.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

[CNYCacher]

on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him

You are describing the scene that you imagine in your head when you listen to the tape.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him


nope


and see if you can clear up your earlier fiction   i can understand you are a bit harried  so much fiction so lil time

[Ben]

I just wanted to interject and ask people to please keep this discussion civil. It's an important topic, and we have diametrically opposed opinions here. I'd like to see the thread stay open and not be shut down like the other threads were.

[dogmush]

Dogmush, that's a good point.  Screaming for help while being hit might give you an argument, but ten seconds worth after you already started the fight still wouldn't guarantee you're in the clear.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, whether that was sufficient is a moot question, because it wasn't him crying for help.  That was Travyon Martin screaming on the tapes.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

I've read that, and find it lacking in credibility.  CSD's link sums it up nicely:

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/eight-outrageous-media-falsehoods-the-trayvon-martin-shooting

Within days of the shooting Sanford police played the 911 recording of the struggle to Trayvon Martin's father. He was asked in the screams came from his son. The father of Trayvon Martin said they did not come from his son. Police made this information public on March 16th. The eyewitness who made the 911 call also told police and the media that it was Zimmerman who was screaming.

Despite all of this the media continues to relentlessly push the easily disprovable falsehood that the screams are coming from Trayvon.

Most recently the media has trotted out two people described as "audio experts" to make claims that the screams are from Trayvon. Both “audio experts” admit they have never even heard a sample of Trayvon Martin’s voice. They also admit that they have only heard the low resolution recording of Zimmerman’s 911 telephone call. In order to believe this new media lie, we would have to believe that two guys who have never heard Trayvon’s voice and have only heard a low resolution recording of Zimmerman over the telephone, are somehow a better judge of whose voice it is than the boy’s own father!

The linked page has links to the Father's statement.

[sumpnz]

DeSelby - First, they don't have a recording of Trayvon's voice to compare it to so they can't say for certain it was Trayvon.  All they can say right now is they think it's not Zimmerman.  Which contradicts all the other evidence (at least that's been made public).  Other plausible explanations, even if it is Trayvon's voice, include that he could have started screaming once he realized Zimmerman was drawing his gun and the struggle over that had started.  Bottom line - the audio analysis is not really helpful to either side and probably is not admissible as evidence anyway.

Second - your standard for what it takes to satisfy the requirement to break off a provocation and regain the ability to claim self defense is still patently absurd.  Once Zimmerman turned around and started walking back to his vehicle and was no longer in pursuit of Martin he satisfyed the requirements to regain the legal right to self defense.

Let's use a bar fight as a proxy example.  2 dudes down the pub get agro.  Fists fly.  One guy (Dude A, lets he's even say the "one that started it") manages to break free and goes outside.  He starts heading away from the bar and does nothing further to provoke Dude B (further provocation would mean things like yelling "fighting words" or threats to "get his boys" and come back).  After he gets a tenth or two of a mile away from the bar Dude B then pounces on him and starts wailing away.  Now, both dudes were stupid, and morally both are at fault and neither deserves much sympathy.  But the law (you know, that pesky set of written rules that govern the legal response to the incident) says that Dude A, if he pulls a weapon and kills Dude B, is legitimatly able to claim self defense.  Now, in this example Dude A can still down for the original assault inside the bar.  But not for killing Dude B later after being jumped.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I'm not without empathy for the parents though that gets less and less as their story mutates and I sense exploitation . I have less tolerance for the sob sisters who distribute blatant untruths. There are those both inside the media and out

[Perd Hapley]

And Fistful, correct me if i'm wrong, but that neighborhood was Dad's neighborhood, right? I was under the impression that he was at his dad's house in that neighborhood, left to get snacks/whatever, and came back when the incident happened?

As far as I know, yes, he was visiting his father, but lived with his mother in another neighborhood.  I'm not saying he was doing anything wrong by being there. But to say he was a "neighborhood kid," as if GZ should have known who he was, just seems like another intentional distortion.

[Perd Hapley]

The linked page has links to the Father's statement.

It also has a link to one of those kinder-gentler-Aryan web sites.   That's where they're getting their info on the touched-up pictures of M and Z.

[Perd Hapley]

Discusses some general principles, and Florida law, on duty to retreat, self-defense, etc.:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-defense-the-quantum-of-proof-the-duty-to-retreat-and-the-aggressor-exception/

[dogmush]

Yes, but I'm not referencing that link, our even that point. The part I'm talking about goes back to WESH Orlando. One of the local news stations.  

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, but I'm not referencing that link, our even that point. The part I'm talking about goes back to WESH Orlando. One of the local news stations.  

Sorry if it looked like I was trying to use that against you or your comment. I don't even think the racial views of the web site in question make them wrong about the photographs. It just seems like something we should be aware of.