stand your ground or is it neighborhood watch death squad?

[Jamie B]

It wouldn't matter at this point if proof positive came to light that Treyvon was pointing an RPG at Zimmerman. He's going to be sent up for hard time. Not that he'll actually serve it unless they put him in solitary though.  He has been convicted in the court of public opinion, game over.

Yup. Zimmerman is completely screwed.
If he does avoid jail, I fear that he will succumb to 'an accident'.
If the SPD had thoroughly investigated the incident, Zimmerman would be standing on much firmer ground.
If this goes where I think that it will, he is going to be a poster child for a system and a society that has gone wrong.

[HankB]

My nickle bet is Zimmerman doesn't get convicted for the shooting, makes a mint off his book.
Al Charlatan will continue to protest.

Unless some actual evidence comes to light, if Zimmerman has competent counsel, I think you just may be right here . . . except Zimmerman will probably lose a civil case and get a big judgement entered against him. So any book proceeds will go to Martin's next of kin. (And their lawyers.)

And right now I've no idea what kind of case the DOJ might make against him . . .

[seeker_two]

Guilty or innocent he may not be convicted locally but I doubt that will stop the DOJ from charging him and getting a conviction.

Hope he gets a better deal than the LAPD officers in the Rodney King case.....

[makattak]

Unless some actual evidence comes to light, if Zimmerman has competent counsel, I think you just may be right here . . . except Zimmerman will probably lose a civil case and get a big judgement entered against him. So any book proceeds will go to Martin's next of kin. (And their lawyers.)

And right now I've no idea what kind of case the DOJ might make against him . . .

One of the most important aspects of castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws is civil immunity in self-defense cases.

I don't know the Florida law in this respect, but that may very well be the case here.

[MicroBalrog]

It is entirely possible Martin was not a nice person.

But the law is not don't kill nice people.

If Martin was a drug dealer - indeed if his pockets were stuffed with heroin, and he had additional baggies full of crack cocaine strapped to his leg under his pants, and then carried half a pound of weed in a bag on a necklace - he'd still have to be physically, aggressively attacking Zimmerman for it to be self-defense.

[makattak]

It is entirely possible Martin was not a nice person.

But the law is not don't kill nice people.

If Martin was a drug dealer - indeed if his pockets were stuffed with heroin, and he had additional baggies full of crack cocaine strapped to his leg under his pants, and then carried half a pound of weed in a bag on a necklace - he'd still have to be physically, aggressively attacking Zimmerman for it to be self-defense.

Yes.

Those who are "supporting" Zimmerman (I would think most of us are withholding judgement, but apparently that means "supporting" him since we aren't calling for his head) are saying that his version of events is quite plausible.

It is entirely within the realm of possibilities that a hot-headed youth decided he was not treated with the proper respect and attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Until there is evidence to the contrary (not possible interpretations of a phone call which De Selby will be along shortly to claim is the absolute TRUTH!!111!), I'm willing to defer to the judgement of both the police department and the prosecutor.

[Ron]

I just don't see the police not arresting and charging Zimmerman without a very good reason. They don't seem to be backing down or justifying their decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Maybe I'm just a dupe, but I still think most Police depts are reasonably interested in doing the right thing and following the law.


 It will all out in the end and we will know. Until then it is a pretty good mess.

[Jamie B]

Yes.

Those who are "supporting" Zimmerman (I would think most of us are withholding judgement, but apparently that means "supporting" him since we aren't calling for his head) are saying that his version of events is quite plausible.

It is entirely within the realm of possibilities that a hot-headed youth decided he was not treated with the proper respect and attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Until there is evidence to the contrary (not possible interpretations of a phone call which De Selby will be along shortly to claim is the absolute TRUTH!!111!), I'm willing to defer to the judgement of both the police department and the prosecutor.

Probably more accurate to explain that most of us are very, very cautiously giving him the benefit of doubt.

[BridgeRunner]

I just don't see the police not arresting and charging Zimmerman without a very good reason. They don't seem to be backing down or justifying their decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Maybe I'm just a dupe, but I still think most Police depts are reasonably interested in doing the right thing and following the law.

Trouble is the reason appears to lie in the stand-your-ground law's provisions regarding arrest in cases of claimed self-defense.  I have not read this or seen direct cites, friend of mine mentioned it.  Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can speak to this issue? (If it hasn't been addressed earlier in the thread)

[dogmush]

Trouble is the reason appears to lie in the stand-your-ground law's provisions regarding arrest in cases of claimed self-defense.  I have not read this or seen direct cites, friend of mine mentioned it.  Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can speak to this issue? (If it hasn't been addressed earlier in the thread)

This is FL's "Stand Your Ground" Law:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
 

776.013 deals with the specifics of defense in your home or dwelling.

Your friend is probably refering to 776.032, which is part of our justifiable use of force laws, but not SYG:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Which as I recall was done because folks were getting punitivly tossed in jail for protecting themselves from lynchings.  By the time the "investigation" was completed their homes were burned down, jobs lost and family run off.

[T.O.M.]

This whole thing is just a white hot mess by this point.  And the biggest problem is that the truth will never truly be known.
Zimmerman screwed up.  I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.  He was following Martin in his vehicle.  He left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot.  How many times on this and other boards have we discussed not chasing the bad guy?  We're not cops.  Our job is to protect ourselves and our loved ones, not the neighbor's house. 
The question is that by chasing Martin, does Zimmerman still get to claim the protections afforded for self-defense and such?  If leaving his vehicle and starting the pursuit on foot takes away those legal protections, at what point in the process does he regain those protections?  Is this parallel to a home invasion, where the bad guy cannot claim self-defense at any point because he's resposible for creating the chain of events by his act of breaking down the door in the first place?  Or is this different in that there is a break in the chain of events that allows Zimmerman to regain those legal protections?
And, from the other side, let's assume Martin's side for a moment.  You're just an individual rightfully walking down the street.  Stranger is following in an old beater.  He gets out of the car and pursues you on foot.  You run.  He chases.  You stop running.  He tries to grab you.  What do you do?  Everyone here on this board is going to fight.  Many of us would continue the fight if the guy is headed back towards his vehicle.  Why?  He might have a weapon there.  If he produces a gun, you're going to grab for it.  I would think that if Zimmerman could claim the protections under "stand your ground", should nat Martin be able to make the sam eclaim when he's being followed then chased by a man with no legal authority to do so?
In a nutshell, we may have a situation where neither of these two is criminally culpable, but both may be morally culpable. now watch teh feds sweep in with a Civil Rights charge or something like that and throw my opinions out with the trash.

[HankB]

. . . let's assume Martin's side for a moment.  You're just an individual rightfully walking down the street.  Stranger is following in an old beater.  He gets out of the car and pursues you on foot.  You run.  He chases.  You stop running.  He tries to grab you . . . 

Hold it right there - I'm assuming this is a hypothetical, because WE DON"T KNOW if Zimmerman tried to grab Martin, or even how close he approached Martin.

I think most posters here (excepting DeSelby) recognize that there's a difference between following someone and assaulting or trying to unlawfully detain them. There's evidence of following (the 911 recording) but so far no evidence has been made public that Zimmerman actually initiated force against Martin. Even if Zimmerman said something to Martin, unless they were actual threats or fighting words, no law would have been broken. Now, Martin certainly could defend himself against an assault - which would be the case IF Zimmerman pushed him, hit him, or tried to grab him. But lacking a bona-fide threat, words alone (IF they had any - we don't know!!) would generally not justify initiating an assault of his own.

But we don't know what happened between the end of the 911 call and the eyewitness account of Martin beating on Zimmerman.

With all the attention, I'm willing to bet that law enforcement is trying to be rigorously exact in their investigation - and is probably trying very, very hard to make a case against Zimmerman in the hopes of forestalling riots and such by the usual suspects. Maybe it means something that they haven't succeeded yet, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Chris, I agree with most of what you say, except starting here:

He tries to grab you.  

To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence to support that Zimmerman caught up with Martin, or that he tried to grab Martin.  Not on the 911 tapes, not from the statement from the girlfriend about her conversation with Martin, and to my knowledge that has not been brought up.  I am NOT saying that Zimmerman's decision to follow (or chase, depending on what happened that night) Martin was a smart decision, nor a wise decision.  

Currently, the media is beginning to report that the police report, or at least part of it, has been leaked.  In said report, Zimmerman states that he was returning to his vehicle when he was approached from behind by Martin.  The two exchanged words (unknown what was said, if any of it falls into the "fighting words" legal definition), at which point Martin punched Zimmerman once in the face, knocking him down, then got on top of him and began slamming his head into the ground.  He also states that Martin tried to grab his gun.  Quoting from Mas Ayoob's blog at http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/03/23/george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/ -

The death weapon was a Kel-Tec PF9 semiautomatic 9mm pistol. It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism.  This would indicate, as could certain gunshot residue patterns or cuts in certain places if found on Trayvon Martin’s hand(s), that a struggle for a gun was taking place when the fatal shot was fired. This would clearly change the shape of the case. But – WE DON’T KNOW YET.

Now, the police have reported that what the Orlando Sentinel printed was consistent with their report of the investigation, and with the evidence they have passed on to the DA's office.  

IF (again, we DON'T KNOW this yet) this was the actual series of events, then Zimmerman HAD disengaged from Martin, and was returning to his vehicle when he now was confronted by Martin.  To me, this does not strike me as someone who was fearful for his safety.  Martin had a phone.  Why didn't he call 911 to report this strange dude following him around the neighborhood?  To me, that is the reasonable course of action.  Not returning and re-engaging the person you are allegedly afraid of.  Again, we don't know what words were exchanged during this second encounter.  But again, if these are the facts of the case, then Martin was the one who took the event from a verbal altercation to physical assault by punching Zimmerman.  Other than a very specific set of "fighting words" a verbal altercation DOES NOT justify a physical assault.  If he then got on top of Zimmerman and was slamming his head into the sidewalk, then Zimmerman did indeed have a reasonable fear for his life.  And at that point Stand Your Ground is immaterial.  He doesn't have an option to retreat, as he has his assailant on top of him.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

everything zimmermans claimed so far has not been contradicted by witness or evidence.  now lil martins boosters? can claim no veracity

[Jamisjockey]

everything zimmermans claimed so far has not been contradicted by witness or evidence.  now lil martins boosters? can claim no veracity

This.  I'm actually swinging around on my view on it as more has come out in the shuffle.

I'm still not a fan of Zimmerman's actions.  He put himself in the situation by pursuing Martin.  Martin had not commited any crime that Zimmerman had witnessed. 
In the end, its highly possible that Zimmerman's account is accurate.  But while he may have a very shaky legal high ground, I still don't believe he has the moral high ground in this shooting.


The fix, however, is in.  The race pimps and the DOJ will make sure he is either convicted of a hate crime, sued penniless in civil court, or if the NBP has their way....Killed.  
Justice will not be served, only mob rule.

[longeyes]

The critical facts aren't known yet.

What we do know is that this is becoming a circus populated by the usual freaks, gawkers, and hustlers, including those protected by the aegis of official power.

We're also learning that Trayvon might not have been the saintly youth initially depicted.

As for "accidents" we seem to be moving into an era of tragic "accidents."  One begets another.  This is what happens when reason sleeps.

[Jamie B]

This.  I'm actually swinging around on my view on it as more has come out in the shuffle.

I'm still not a fan of Zimmerman's actions.  He put himself in the situation by pursuing Martin.  Martin had not commited any crime that Zimmerman had witnessed. 
In the end, its highly possible that Zimmerman's account is accurate.  But while he may have a very shaky legal high ground, I still don't believe he has the moral high ground in this shooting.


The fix, however, is in.  The race pimps and the DOJ will make sure he is either convicted of a hate crime, sued penniless in civil court, or if the NBP has their way....Killed.  
Justice will not be served, only mob rule.

Yea, I have been in this camp.
Sadly, any pro-Martin witnesses or statements that miraculously appear at this point will be coached.
It will be easy to tell if the coach was Sharpton if they state that they were axed a question.

[MechAg94]

The critical facts aren't known yet.

What we do know is that this is becoming a circus populated by the usual freaks, gawkers, and hustlers, including those protected by the aegis of official power.

We're also learning that Trayvon might not have been the saintly youth initially depicted.

As for "accidents" we seem to be moving into an era of tragic "accidents."  One begets another.  This is what happens when reason sleeps.

I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing.  That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing.  That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman. 

bingo

i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart

[AmbulanceDriver]

bingo

i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart

WE HAVE A WINNER!

[roo_ster]

I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing.  That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman. 

bingo

i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart

This, with bells on it.

[zxcvbob]

Perhaps if the police investigation determined that Z is not guilty (not quite the same thing as innocent, but it's good enough) but we have all this political pressure from the usual race-baiters, the best path to justice is have the prosecutor encourage a grand jury to not indict.

[longeyes]

I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing.  That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman. 

Yes, I meant by US.

[Jamie B]

bingo

i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart

Very nice, CSD. That is almost poetic!

[De Selby]

I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing.  That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman. 

Well, they are investigating now - but the Sanford PD didn't send a homicide detective, didn't call the person trayvon was talking to at the time of the shooting, didn't drug test Zimmerman, and didn't even bother looking into the victim's phone to see who he was on the night.

Small wonder they didn't have much evidence.

Federal charges aren't realistic in this case.   State charges are a near certainty.  Of course, when he's convicted, we'll all just claim it was a railroading to dismiss the fact that he obviously broke the law.