Trayvon Martin Case

We're a few weeks into this issue, so I apologize if there is already a thread for this, but I couldn't find anything.

Full article

Let's just play Devil's Advocate for a moment, and wonder what the situation would be if a black man shot an unarmed white or hispanic teenager...

Clips of the calls. I am glad the feds are getting involved because this guy was a loose cannon. Worse he had a violent history that should have precluded him from fire arm ownership.

Actually, can we not?

Look, all the evidence that's been made publicly available points to the shooter having bias against black kids, having pursed Martin with the intent to confront him, the police department having their own troubled history with racism, conducting a substandard investigation, covering for the shooter, lying to the family, and the Sanford police chief--when pressed--claiming that it is he, not Trayvon Martin and his family, who is the real victim of racism.

The scene is ugly and bad enough as it is, do we really need to create hypotheticals to try and paint the players as better or worse than they already are? A young kid is dead, apparently because some yahoo who wanted to be a cop felt like shooting someone and had the backing of state law and a complacent police force to do so.

In Florida, a charge can only be expunged if there was no conviction to begin with, right? So if there was no conviction, then wouldn't the person charged be able to get a weapon anyway? I'm not clear on this.

While I totally understand your feelings, Chris, I do think that the hypothetical is both inevitable, makes the tragedy even greater and suggests (strongly) what is at play in this case.

The facts of the case are really very simple. Zimmerman is a self-appointed protector of his local gated community. The Homeowner's Association has no official Neighborhood Watch, but Zimmerman apparently took it upon himself to take up where they fell short. Over the last six months or so, he called the police about 50 times, citing everything from suspicious persons to open garage doors.

On the night in question, Zimmerman called the police to report that he was observing a young man who was suspicious because he was putting his hand in his waistband and had his hoodie up. On the 911 call, he can quite clearly be heard to say at different points: "Fucking coons" and "They always get away with it." When the person ducked into an alleyway, Zimmerman reported he was following. The police dispatch told him not to follow. He did anyway. The following facts about what happened next are not in dispute: Zimmerman approached what turned out to be Martin. Zimmerman weighs 250 lbs. Martin weighed 140. An altercation broke out. Zimmerman ended up with a bruised face and a cut on the back of his head. Martin ended up dead with a bullet fired from Zimmerman's gun. It is unknown whether Martin would have fired back, as at the time he was armed solely with a can of tea and a bag of Skittles. Multiple 911 calls have a voice begging and pleading to stop before the shots are fired; the voice ends abruptly.

Despite this fact, Zimmerman was not arrested. He was not given a breathalyzer. His gun was not taken into evidence. His clothes were not taken to measure blood spatter. These are all standard procedure in a homicide case. And the reason why they were not done, and why Zimmerman was not arrested, at least officially, is that the police did not have probable cause to make an arrest. Why did they not have probable cause? Because they did not have sufficient evidence to determine that his story, namely that he fired in self-defense after being placed in mortal peril by Martin, was incorrect. The basis for believing this story? Zimmerman's account. The evidence of eyewitnesses who disagreed with Zimmerman? Deemed insufficient after the police officers corrected the witness accounts.

Now that is terrible by any standard. It simply is not helped by the cold, hard fact that you and I both know to be true: Martin was black, and Zimmerman was Hispanic. Had those races been reversed, or had Martin killed Zimmerman, there is no way that an arrest wouldn't have been made.

I just don't see the point of hypotheticals. Do the facts of the case someone not impart the full weight of the tragedy?

That there are people who refuse to believe this incident had anything to do with bias on the part of the investigating officers, their department, and the shooter himself isn't news to me. That there are people who are going to insist that the shooting was somehow justified or, at worst, just accidental or a misunderstanding, likewise. I don't think constructing hypotheticals is going to win these people over. And I don't think the facts don't speak for themselves.

I just think it's unseemly, and serves no purpose. Obviously, others may disagree.

I think the only point being made was that had the situation been reversed, there would be no question about an arrest, wasn't it? That's how I read it.

Yes.

Source

So, based on my understanding of the legal status of self defense, Zimmerman should have been arrested even if the cops believed his story. This is where it becomes undeniable that there was a total failure in police work here. It should also be pretty obvious that a man using a gun on an unarmed teenager half his size was using inappropriate force regardless of the actions of the teenager.

In Florida you are not required to attempt to stand down. There is a hold your ground law, basically they now need to prove that this shooting was unjustified.

Stuff I've read said that wouldn't apply in this specific case, because he was specifically told by the 911 dispatcher to back off the situation. He wasn't just approached by Martin; he pursued him.

Source

The "Stand Your Ground" law basically shifts the burden of proof from the defendant having to prove he was acting in self-defense, to the prosecution having to prove that he was not - and the defense being able to throw a bunch of "reasonable doubt" shit against a wall and see what sticks. And since this deals with the person's perception of a danger or threat against him (and the primary witness to the incident is dead), there is a pretty large gap that the prosecution has to overcome in making that argument to a jury.

Even with that law, there should be a standard operating procedure for how a gunman is dealt with in any fatal shooting - just as all officer shootings (even non-fatal) have a trail of paperwork that needs completed and reviewed in the wake of an incident. That would include all the things that have been mentioned here - recording witness statements, taking possession of the firearm for various testing, taking a breathalyzer, etc. The assumption should still be that a person is dead, therefore a crime may have occurred, so record the facts of the case and let the lawyers deal with interpreting those facts to determine if a law was broken. Ultimately, collecting the facts and evidence helps the defense in cases in which self-defense was a clear and reasonable motive.

There's a difference between protecting someone's right to responsibly carry a weapon and defend their property, family and personal well-being vs. basically giving them a free pass to use it at will. Laws of this nature - and more specifically the way this police force interpreted it and put it into practice - really give gun carriers little disincentive from taking a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. Even if the assailant can't afford his/her own lawyer, there's a pretty good chance a gun rights activist group will make sure he/she has quality representation.

I don't see this as a very high percentage case for the prosecution. Unfortunately.

...or what he said (more succinctly than I).

Check.

Missy, bean. I agree this is obviously a murder case not a defense case. However it will take a bit longer than we would all like for justice to be done here due to police mismanagement of the facts and evidence. Also there have apparently been other less covered shootings due to this law so there is already some prescedent laid down. Sadly it does not look good.

I'm on my iPhone so let me get home to try and find some other cases before you jump on me for lack of sources please.

Therein lies the point, though. It's not an issue of the law, as you tried to state in your initial comment. It's an issue of police mismanagement. The law, as it stands, does not allow someone to pursue another person and then claim self defense; it merely allows them to stand their ground when someone else pursues them. Zimmerman is not covered by the law, and his 911 call should be enough to prove that.

That, and a dead kid.

Zimmerman should at least be charged with vigilantism while this case is being investigated. Obviously the local police have mismanaged the case so far so it is good that the higher ups are taking over the case. Hopefully there will be restructuring of the local police so ensure better management for future cases. It is a truly tragic case that shouldn't have lead to this point and lets hope that the police will be able to establish a proper timeline of events to be able to make the proper decision in court.

Missy, it is both really. As I said please give me sone time to find sources, but since the law has gone into effect there has been an increase in justifiable homicides in Florida, some of which are questionable, but that have otherwise happened because the burden of proof for this law puts it on the prosecutor. I get the feeling that you think I am trying to defend what happened when I am not. I am however saying that unfortunately this law, and the police bungling have seriously harmed what should be an open and shut murder case. The laws intent and how it has been employed differ in more than just this case.