Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[Aramike]

What I am saying is that the tracking, which he undeniably initiated, invalidated his qualification to claim self-defense under 776.012. With that provocation, he can only claim it under 776.041, even if I accept his claim that he was trying to break off (by the way, you DID not mention that part in your previous post) b/c of the short elapsed time.



Here's my opinion on the moral level. Given the end result, which was definitely at least partially his fault, he should have been subject to a most thorough investigation and court trial to define the elements of the case, instead of being allowed to walk off under the protection of 776.032.



I don't deny them that right. I did say he might get his day in court, did I? I wasn't being sarcastic.

For the "spirit" part, the lawmaker who made those laws in the first place did say how the police interpreted it sure wasn't what he meant.

I'll argue, further, that I am using the "Provocation" part of 776.041, which is written w/ interpretive room in comparison to the excessive detail elsewhere in the clauses in the sense that it was intended to. The vagueness ensures that unless the attacker hit you completely out of the blue, you'll have to take care to ensure that you hadn't provoked him. Otherwise, you may still win your day eventually, but only after sweating it out in front of police and courts, an experience unpleasant and costly enough to have its own deterrent effect.

It encourages the avoidance of maneuvers that may be considered provocative. If you are aware you are partially at fault in any confrontation, it encourages you to retreat. It gives the policemen an "out" to actually investigate suspicious cases like this one, rather than being forced to look the other way thanks to 776.032, which I don't think was the intent of that law either.

You can stand your ground, but be careful not to provoke people as well - surely, that is morally the correct thing as well.



Sure. As I said, he DOES have a case. If he establishes his affirmative defense and the jury weighs it and says it is self-defense, OK acquit him. But don't let him slither away under the protection of 776.032, his culpability in this business is not low enough that he qualifies, or should qualify for that. I suspect you even agree with this, or else you wouldn't be sayingStill I'm not certain we're on the same page. You cite FL laws as though they are clear-cut and singularly interpretted. I tend to disagree with you, especially regarding your definition of provocation.

Take away a step in this case: the 911 call. If you were walking your block, saw someone suspicious and followed them, were subsequently attacked and defended yourself, would you be guilty?

Better yet, you see that your door had been kicked in and entered your house as it was being burgalarized. The suspects attacked you and you killed them. Wouldn't you be even more guilty as it was more likely that your entering your home was a more clear-cut provocation? I mean, obviously entering your home when burglars MAY be there and MAY attack you would be enough to remove your right to defend yourself, correct?

Clearly the latter example would be ridiculous - its your home. But somehow what has been lost is how ridiculous the premise that following someone is a reasonable action for consideration of provoking an ASSAULT.

And worse, the premise that a 911 operator instructing that a person shouldn't be followed would somehow absolve Martin of guilt for attacking Zimmerman and remove Zimmerman's right to defend himself, is IRRESPONSIBLE.

[CaptainHaplo]

And worse, the premise that a 911 operator instructing that a person shouldn't be followed would somehow absolve Martin of guilt for attacking Zimmerman and remove Zimmerman's right to defend himself, is IRRESPONSIBLE.

Aramike, under "normal" circumstances your points would stand without question. However there is one point that is missed in your scenarios. Zimmerman was armed and suspected Martin was also armed, as well as likely impaired in his higher thought processes.

Because he knowingly carried, he automatically has a responsibility to the public (including Martin) to act with MORE restraint than normal. While your scenario's are nice, they don't accurately reflect the circumstance. Would a non-armed, law abiding citizen follow a "thug" they feel may be armed, high and "up to no good"? Highly unlikely. To be sure, they may call it in and report it, but giving chase is something most people would realize would put them in danger of being shot if the guy is truly whacked out and armed. Yet Z DID give chase - which had he been unarmed would have been questionable judgement - but would have been entirely legal. However, since he was armed - he took an action that was reasonably forseeable (based on his own "knowledge") to possibly result in an outcome where firearms could come into play. I say firearms - because remember he suspected Martin was armed.

This does not excuse Martin assaulting Zimmerman (if that is what occured). However, in mounting an affirmative defense Zimmerman runs the risk of making admitting legal culpability (as I feel he is based on what we know) because of his actions.

For us gun owners who choose to avail ourselves of our right to carry, zimmerman would be entirely innocent if this was a random assault on him, but his actions were the height of irresponsibility and contributed directly to the outcome. Had he acted responsibly as a carrier, he would have stayed in his truck the whole time. Whether he "went looking" for trouble or trouble simply "found" him, he put himself into a much more likely situation for that trouble to occur - and as a gun owner and carrier - I have to say that makes him responsible (in part) for the outcome.

Depraved indifference is a very valid charge in this case.

[mookiemookie]

and suspected Martin was also armed

Based on what? The fact he was a black kid in a hoodie walking down the street at night? Zimmerman in his bail hearing, by his own admission, said he "did not know if he (Martin) was armed or not."

I find it hard to believe that the stand your ground law gives you safe harbor to blow someone away because there's a possibility that they maybe, could be, possible, might, sorta, in certain circumstances, but I don't know be carrying a gun.

[August]

I'd think there a distinction to be made between following and chasing. According to Zimmerman he followed Martin until he lost him, then turned back to his truck. It was after that when Martin approached him and the fight broke out. At that point Martin is not being pursued, he is doing the pursuing.

Now unless there is some evidence or testimony to the contrary it might just be that which gets him off the hook.

[CaptainHaplo]

I'd think there a distinction to be made between following and chasing. According to Zimmerman he followed Martin until he lost him, then turned back to his truck. It was after that when Martin approached him and the fight broke out. At that point Martin is not being pursued, he is doing the pursuing.

Now unless there is some evidence or testimony to the contrary it might just be that which gets him off the hook.

Ultimately I go back to the whole responsibility of the armed. We must - as licensed carriers, be MORE responsible, MORE restrained, MORE aware than the standard civilian. A failure to do so leads to bad things - and THIS is where Zimmerman failed. His lack of restraint (pursuit/following) led to a confrontation - which lead to death. That doesn't absolve Martin, but nothing excuses Zimmerman from his recklessness.

Based on what? The fact he was a black kid in a hoodie walking down the street at night? Zimmerman in his bail hearing, by his own admission, said he "did not know if he (Martin) was armed or not."

I find it hard to believe that the stand your ground law gives you safe harbor to blow someone away because there's a possibility that they maybe, could be, possible, might, sorta, in certain circumstances, but I don't know be carrying a gun.

It doesn't - and shouldn't. Both sides are oversimplifying. Martin may (we don't know) have some level of responsibility. It depends on who started the altercation. But either way, Zimmerman's actions BEFORE any altercation violate the standards required to meet the level of awareness and concern for the public safety that any legal gun carrier must have.

Every single concealed carry instructor in the nation will tell you that as a CCW/CHL holder, you are held to a higher standard. To quote one of the "commandments" of carrying:

Don’t’ let the gun make you reckless. Contrary to what anti self-defense people believe, the gun does not pull the trigger. If anything it is a constant reminder of danger and causes the holder to be more cautious. The “higher standard of care” permit holders are held to, demands an expectation to avoid situations and locations that could escalate into a confrontation. Don’t go looking for trouble, but realize it can appear anytime and anywhere.

http://www.defenseactions.com/defense-principles/the-10-commandments-of-concealed-carry

I will repeat: The “higher standard of care” permit holders are held to, demands an expectation to avoid situations and locations that could escalate into a confrontation.

Zimmerman did the exact opposite. It is this that defines his actions as irresponsible, rises to the the standard of depraved indifference - and makes him legally responsible for the outcome.

Is this "codified" if Florida law? Not really. But as a gun owner and carrier, I hold myself and my brothers and sisters in arms to the "higher standard" of care. Z flunks that test - and the results show WHY we have to hold ourselves to that.

[mookiemookie]

I will repeat: The “higher standard of care” permit holders are held to, demands an expectation to avoid situations and locations that could escalate into a confrontation.

Zimmerman did the exact opposite. It is this that defines his actions as irresponsible, rises to the the standard of depraved indifference - and makes him legally responsible for the outcome.

Agreed.

[Bubblehead1980]

I know you weren't. You were referring to everyone who believes Zimmerman might be guilty. You're right and they're stupid. It's the same limited thinking that always gets you criticized. You never consider that you might be wrong, and I'll continue to point it out until you learn to think critically rather than emotionally.


Limited? Emotional? Absolutely not.I have arguing about the legal aspects of this, which is what matters and why Zimmerman should not have been arrested and why he was not until the ignorant masses were stirred up and the case became political.Only then, did a "special prosecutor" arrest him, without going to a Grand Jury because she knew a grand jury would most likely find what the police and the SAO in Sanford found, no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.

Those who are limited and emotional are the ones who who do not give a crap about the law or the rights of the ACCUSED or that Trayvon was basically a thug or a wannabe one anyway or at the least an impulsive 17 year old, they just want his head because he shot a young black male, therefore he is automatically a racist because Trayvon could do no wrong.The ignorant masses I refer to are those who have ZERO understanding of the legal issues, they are just upset and want everyone to know about it.

[August]

Zimmerman did the exact opposite. It is this that defines his actions as irresponsible, rises to the the standard of depraved indifference - and makes him legally responsible for the outcome.

Is this "codified" if Florida law? Not really. But as a gun owner and carrier, I hold myself and my brothers and sisters in arms to the "higher standard" of care. Z flunks that test - and the results show WHY we have to hold ourselves to that.

Don't the two bolded statements contradict each other Hap?

[Tribesman]

Limited? Emotional? Absolutely not.I have arguing about the legal aspects of this
Yet you failed completely from the moment when with local expertise you claimed no charges could be brought in Florida at all and neglected to address when raised the simple fact that there were dozens of local examples both recent and currently ongoing which irrefutably shot your local legal "expertise" to bits.
So what that means is you are not arguing about the legal aspects of this you are just making stuff up to fit your agenda.

The ignorant masses I refer to are those who have ZERO understanding of the legal issues
:hmmm: So are you refering to yourself as masses now?

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubblehead - break down my arguement for depraved indifference since you disagree. If you don't mind, of course.


Just read it and not being insulting here, but you sound like a prosecutor stretching things to the point of being blatantly dishonest.To constitute depraved indifference, Zimmerman's conduct would have to so so deficient in sense of concern, so lacking in the regard for the safety of others, so blameworthy that it assigns the same criminal liability the law imposes on someone who commits the crime.Where is this lacking of regard? No where, Zimmerman was simply looking out for his neighborhood and calling the police while observing the subject of the call, no harassment, no attempts to detain or question him.Nothing he did that night constitutes depraved indifference.I have not heard anyone at school or even the talking heads in the media really say that thus far because they know it's bs.A great example of this is the obamacare arguments, the Solicitor General is arguing the case because it's his job but could barely do it with a straight face and could not keep his arguments straight because he knows the law is unconstitutional.This is a given, just like we can all agree there is gravity and there is a sky.Now, those who are not aware of the law and how things work may not see this but anyone, hell at pre law student knows this.Those who argue it is constitutional are simply saying to hell with the constitution aka the supreme law of the land, because it does not fit their political agenda, it really is a blatant case of intellectual dishonesty.Same thing here if they tried to argue depraved indifference, just does not hold water.





Look, Zimmerman lives in a gated community where multiple burglaries occurred and perhaps knew most or all people in the neighborhood, he was in the watch after all.I know everyone who lives in my neighborhood here at school and back home, if I see someone who have never seen before, it catches my attention but have not had a string of break ins so I don't worry about it.Now, if had a string of break in's, I would pay more attention.When I do see suspicious vehicles around, I put their tag number in my phone at times, just never know.I know of incidents where people I know personally did the same and it helped catch the culprit later on.Anyways, Zimmerman left to go to the grocery store and saw Martin, someone he did not know in his neighborhood.Zimmerman became suspicious and called the police while observing Martin.I suspect he did this since many times the police can't locate the "suspect" by the time they arrive.Zimmerman was giving real time information on someone he found to suspect.Now, this does NOT, I repeat does NOT constitute provocation.I will agree Zimmerman should not have left his vehicle but he did nothing illegal and did not provoke Martin.Provocation would have been chasing or attempting to detain Martin himself or harassing him verbally etc.

Now, listen to the entire 911 call, read the transcript, Zimmerman quit following/observing Martin when the dispatcher told him to.Zimmerman responded "Okay" and then continued talking for nearly two minutes.The dispatcher asked if he wanted officer contact, Zimmerman said yes and decided against meeting at his house in case Martin was still in the area.The dispatcher offered to have Officers to call him when on scene so he could meet with them.Zimmerman says he was walking back to his vehicle at this point during the call and when the call ended, Martin confronted him( I believe near his vehicle) Now, I believe this account as it fits with the timeline corroborated by witness statements to the police along with the physical evidence.Zimmerman says Martin then approached him, exchanged words and then he decked Zimmerman, which knocked him to the ground.Zimmerman suffered a broken nose in as well as injuries to the back of his head when Martin slammed his head into the pavement.Zimmerman absolutely had the right to fear for his life at this point, injured with a 6'2 young man on top of him beating him, he was able to pull his gun and shoot Martin ONE time(which showed a lot of restraint in my opinion), in the chest.A witness who observed Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, had called 911 and her call recorded screams for help which were most likely Zimmerman considering Martin was on top of him beating him, then a single gun shot follows not long after.Yes, Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman at close range.

Zimmerman showed no depraved indifference, nothing he did that night was criminal or even approaching criminal or it's equivalent.Martin got angry and decided he wanted to fight, he attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself using a legally carried firearm.This was self defense and under stand your ground he should not have even been charged.This is why the police did not arrest him that night, this is why the SAO did not charge him after they reviewed the case.Again, only after the manufactured outrage occurred, did a "special prosecutor" get appointed to the case and again, the case is so weak, she didn't take it to the grand jury.This is not longer about the truth for them, it's politics and appeasing the ignorant masses who are locked in the mob mentality.

So in a nutshell....

Zimmerman showed no depraved indifference, nothing he did that night in anyway shows any criminal behavior or equivalent to that.Not his fault Martin attacked him, there was no provocation here, let's not blame the victim, who is Zimmerman.Zimmerman was a victim of Martin's attack and is now a victim of the government.Martin attacked him, Zimmerman had been decked, was on the ground with a 6'2 young man on top of him who had bashed his head into the pavement.Martin may not have been armed, but he sure showed indifference to human life.Zimmerman, not wanting to be dead or end up wearing a bib for the rest of his life, which another blow to the head could do, defended himself with his legally carried firearm which sadly resulted in Martin's death.Martin picked a fight with the wrong guy, it's sad because it was probably a stupid decision made by an impulsive 17 year old to fight, unfortunately he didn't survive or just walk away with an ass kicking to learn his lesson but that is how cookie crumbled so to speak.

[Bubblehead1980]

Yet you failed completely from the moment when with local expertise you claimed no charges could be brought in Florida at all and neglected to address when raised the simple fact that there were dozens of local examples both recent and currently ongoing which irrefutably shot your local legal "expertise" to bits.
So what that means is you are not arguing about the legal aspects of this you are just making stuff up to fit your agenda.


:hmmm: So are you refering to yourself as masses now?

Notice he was not charged by the police or the actual State Attorney's Office in Sanford, he was charged by a "special prosecutor" appointed by the governor who would not even go to the grand jury because she knew she they would not indict him, since there is no cause to do so.This is not longer about the truth, it is about politics for them.Anyone actually applying the law without political concerns would not charge him and they did not.

I will just ignore your insult, maybe one day you can actually make a point but that would be too much to expect from the likes of you.

[yubba]

Let's see, some of you guys rather be beaten to death, before you protect yourself, there are people out here on the street that don't have any reguard for human life at all, sunday morning a 50 something women was gunned down in a robbery here in central florida every day there is 2 or 3 shootings in the Orlando , Sanford area, that I call central florida, I know if I get knocked to the ground and someone is bashing my head in, I going to do what ever it takes to survive, a thumb to the eye, a thrust to the throat, a blade stuck in the ribs, and if I am carrying the 45, you got it , point blake should knock him clean off of me, love the effects of gravity.

[Tribesman]

Notice he was not charged by the police or the actual State Attorney's Office in Sanford
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

I will just ignore your insult,
That was your insult, it backfired on you.

maybe one day you can actually make a point but that would be too much to expect from the likes of you.
The point was made and yet again you failed to address it.

[CaptainHaplo]

.To constitute depraved indifference, Zimmerman's conduct would have to so so deficient in sense of concern, so lacking in the regard for the safety of others, so blameworthy that it assigns the same criminal liability the law imposes on someone who commits the crime.

If your going to cut and paste a legal definition Bubblehead - you really shouldn't ignore the rest of it that explains how it applies....

Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:
"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

I have highlighted the critically relevant portion....

I am not going to respond to the whole Obamacare thing - thats a red herring intended to divert the discussion.

As to whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life during the beatdown, that is a different question entirely. One that legally doesn't matter since the depraved indifference act was prior to - and thus the confrontation was a reasonably forseeable outcome. Therefore, Z holds a level of legal responsibility for the resultant death.

Don't the two bolded statements contradict each other Hap?

August, one would think so. However, no they don't. Just because something is not codified in the law does not mean it is not illegal. Let me give an example.... I will link the case after presenting it. A man decides to arm himself with multiple firearms, knives and other weapons - all readily visible. He then presents himself in the public view and begins to state his intent to beat, maim and kill. He is arrested and tried for "going armed to the terror of the public" - for which there is no law (Federal or in the State in question) forbidding such action. Yet the man was found guilty and the ruling upheld - on the basis of "common law" that had by state statute been deemed to no longer be in force.

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

So yes - you can be convicted of a crime even when no state or federal statute prohibits the act that is deemed a crime.

It is this case, in fact, that informs the legal basis for both the charge of "going armed to the terror of the public" and yet establishes the right of Open Carry in the State of North Carolina, in which I live.

I cannot speak for what is or is not codified in Florida law. However, it is not unusual for courts to find precedent outside their own jurisdictional history, and there is enough old english common law precedence to show that going armed requires a higher level of responsibility and precaution.

[Bubblehead1980]

The most aggravating thing about this case is it's pretty simple and has been made to appear more complicated than it is.The Police saw it was pretty open and shut, as did the SAO. This "special prosecutor" is not going to have some new evidence or anything at trial, essentially she is going to present an alternate unsubstantiated version of the case, attempt to paint Zimmerman as terrible person and attempt to twist the evidence which obviously shows a case of self defense against him.Basically, she will not be able to argue the merits of this case, just hope she can win on the emotions over the death of a 17 year old young man.Now, as a government employed attorney, she is a hack and this is her job but it is wrong, it is the force the government coming down on a citizen who did nothing but try to watch out for his neighborhood and protected himself when attacked.This is corroborated by witness statements and physical evidence.Simple case, but they want to complicate it as it allows them to create gray area where there really is none and possibly win.Doubt it will work, but we shall see.

[Platapus]

y (http://www.defenseactions.com/defense-principles/the-10-commandments-of-concealed-carry)

I will repeat: The “higher standard of care” permit holders are held to, demands an expectation to avoid situations and locations that could escalate into a confrontation.



Agreed.

Double agree.

When you carry a handgun, you literally have the power of life and death over people. Some people get off on that power. Dunno if Zimmerman was one of those people. But in any case, with this power, comes a greater responsibility to avoid confrontations. This is why I disagree with the wording of the Florida's stand your ground statutes.

I believe this case will come down to "who provoked who and when". Unfortunately, one of the key witnesses is dead.

Tryvon is innocent until proven guilty
Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.

About the only fact we know is that Zimmerman killed Tryvon. The rest is unknown.

I just wish the media would throttle back and allow the judicial system to work. The news media, depending on the channel, have already convicted Zimmerman or exonerated Zimmerman.

I highly doubt that all the evidence has been released to the media.

[nikimcbee]

I just wish the media would throttle back and allow the judicial system to work. The news media, depending on the channel, have already convicted Zimmerman or exonerated Zimmerman.

I highly doubt that all the evidence has been released to the media.

This.
I don't know how grand jury duty works in Florida, but I bet between grand jury selection and the regular jury selection process is going to be a total circus with the media coverage.

[Bubblehead1980]

If your going to cut and paste a legal definition Bubblehead - you really shouldn't ignore the rest of it that explains how it applies....


http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

I have highlighted the critically relevant portion....

I am not going to respond to the whole Obamacare thing - thats a red herring intended to divert the discussion.

As to whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life during the beatdown, that is a different question entirely. One that legally doesn't matter since the depraved indifference act was prior to - and thus the confrontation was a reasonably forseeable outcome. Therefore, Z holds a level of legal responsibility for the resultant death.



August, one would think so. However, no they don't. Just because something is not codified in the law does not mean it is not illegal. Let me give an example.... I will link the case after presenting it. A man decides to arm himself with multiple firearms, knives and other weapons - all readily visible. He then presents himself in the public view and begins to state his intent to beat, maim and kill. He is arrested and tried for "going armed to the terror of the public" - for which there is no law (Federal or in the State in question) forbidding such action. Yet the man was found guilty and the ruling upheld - on the basis of "common law" that had by state statute been deemed to no longer be in force.

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

So yes - you can be convicted of a crime even when no state or federal statute prohibits the act that is deemed a crime.

It is this case, in fact, that informs the legal basis for both the charge of "going armed to the terror of the public" and yet establishes the right of Open Carry in the State of North Carolina, in which I live.

I cannot speak for what is or is not codified in Florida law. However, it is not unusual for courts to find precedent outside their own jurisdictional history, and there is enough old english common law precedence to show that going armed requires a higher level of responsibility and precaution.

No cut and paste here job here buddy, depraved indifference is taught in pre-law and law school and it's really not that complicated.I can tell you really are misunderstanding or just taking the view because you want the depraved indifference argument to hold water and it just does not.

The obamacare argument was not a red herring, it's relevant to the this case in how some people who know the law will ignore it in order to suit their agenda.They get away with it at times because most people just do not understand it.

I understand the beatdown is technically irrelevant to depraved indifference argument but it is part of the case.Again though, arguing that Zimmerman could have foreseen that a confrontation would occur is ridiculous.One could legitimately argue that if he tried to detain Martin or chase him down or started a verbal confrontation but he simply called the police and observed him and when was told to stop, he did and returned to his car.There is no depraved indifference there my friend, period.

I mean under your thinking, I could observe someone rob a bank and call the police on them, and if followed them but did not confront or attempt to apprehend etc but to give the police real time information on their heading etc, then they noticed me and confronted me and I shot them to protect myself if they tried to attack or did, you are saying I asked for it lol.They are the bank robbers.Different details but same thing in the martin case, you are saying Zimmerman is responsible for Martin attacking him lol, that is just ridiculous haplo.

[Aramike]

I will repeat: The ***8220;higher standard of care***8221; permit holders are held to, demands an expectation to avoid situations and locations that could escalate into a confrontation.

Zimmerman did the exact opposite. It is this that defines his actions as irresponsible, rises to the the standard of depraved indifference - and makes him legally responsible for the outcome.Herein lies the problem: he ALLEGEDLY did the opposite, if your premise is to stand to reason.

However I have a hard time stipulating that a concerned citizen should be allowed to follow a suspicious character only when UNARMED. In fact, I strongly disagree with that premise.

The part that concerns me is whether or not Zimmerman actually instigated the confrontation, and not simply by being "there". If that's the case, then I suggest we throw the book at the guy. However, Martin should be considered at fault if he did as Zimmerman suggested and simply attacked, and should not be absolved from responsibility for that action merely because Zimmerman was armed.

[Bubblehead1980]

This.
I don't know how grand jury duty works in Florida, but I bet between grand jury selection and the regular jury selection process is going to be a total circus with the media coverage.

Oh there will be no grand jury, the "special prosecutor" chose not to take it in front of them because she knows they would have likely failed to indict him, say reason the police did not and same reason the SAO in Sanford did not, no cause to arrest him under florida law.The "special prosecutor" is a political hack, this is not longer about the truth and justice, it's about appeasing the ignorant masses, it's politics.

[August]

August, one would think so. However, no they don't. Just because something is not codified in the law does not mean it is not illegal. Let me give an example.... I will link the case after presenting it. A man decides to arm himself with multiple firearms, knives and other weapons - all readily visible. He then presents himself in the public view and begins to state his intent to beat, maim and kill. He is arrested and tried for "going armed to the terror of the public" - for which there is no law (Federal or in the State in question) forbidding such action. Yet the man was found guilty and the ruling upheld - on the basis of "common law" that had by state statute been deemed to no longer be in force.

But the man in your example was found guilty of violating English common law, actual laws with penalties. Now while I doubt that such a legal shenanigan would stand constitutional muster these days, in any case the "commandments of carrying" are not the same thing as a law.

[Bubblehead1980]

Double agree.

When you carry a handgun, you literally have the power of life and death over people. Some people get off on that power. Dunno if Zimmerman was one of those people. But in any case, with this power, comes a greater responsibility to avoid confrontations. This is why I disagree with the wording of the Florida's stand your ground statutes.

I believe this case will come down to "who provoked who and when". Unfortunately, one of the key witnesses is dead.

Tryvon is innocent until proven guilty
Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.

About the only fact we know is that Zimmerman killed Tryvon. The rest is unknown.

I just wish the media would throttle back and allow the judicial system to work. The news media, depending on the channel, have already convicted Zimmerman or exonerated Zimmerman.

I highly doubt that all the evidence has been released to the media.

No, it is not unknown.Witness statements and physical evidence show Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman was injured and used his weapon to defend himself.Once again, when the law was being followed, Zimmerman was not arrested but politics began and he was arrested by a "special prosecutor" despite the laws protecting him.

I have noticed a lot less of the manufactured outrage and pre conviction of Zimmerman since some of the facts have come to light about Trayvon's troubles, the witness statements saying Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, photos of Zimmerman's injuries, it's not the "mean white guy shoots cute black kid" they tried to make it out to be.

[CaptainHaplo]

But the man in your example was found guilty of violating English common law, actual laws with penalties. Now while I doubt that such a legal shenanigan would stand constitutional muster these days, in any case the "commandments of carrying" are not the same thing as a law.

August - he was found guilty of violating a law that the state had already deemed to NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT.

Its like saying ok, there is a law that you can't ride the bus until after May 1. On June 1, you ride the bus, and are arrested for it and convicted - even though the law was deemed no longer in force.

English Common Law, at the time of conviction, had no legal weight, yet was used. Courts use "common law" all the time today as well to justify rulings. Trial courts, not so much - appellate and higher - all the time.

A perfect example is the "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public" in NC. You can be arrested for that just for having a firearm on your hip in the city (and anywhere in the state) I live in - even though there is no statute against it. That isn't in the 1800's - that is TODAY. And NC is a "GOLD STAR" rated OC state! For those of us who Open Carry, GATTOP is a known entity that must be dealt with.

The ECL "lives" on in the legal system - so just because there is no "codified" law that states a legally armed person must be more careful, etc - the legal requirement can (and in most jurisdictions, does) exist. Not to mention the moral and societal one. And yes, a court can use "societal responsibility" as a justification on a ruling....

[CaptainHaplo]

Herein lies the problem: he ALLEGEDLY did the opposite, if your premise is to stand to reason.

He admitted to exiting his vehicle and pursuing Martin. He was in fact, out of breath from running if you listen to the 911 call. The moment he exited his vehicle, HIS action increased dramatically the risk to everyone in the area because HE was under the impression - based on the 911 call - that Martin was high and possibly armed.

Whether he stopped his pursuit or not, whether Martin attacked him or not, all are seperate legal issues. Depraved indifference looks at the actions of the defendant (zimmerman) and how those actions increased the risk of a bad outcome. Obviously, had he stayed in his truck and not pursued - the risk of a bad outcome would have stayed rather low.

However I have a hard time stipulating that a concerned citizen should be allowed to follow a suspicious character only when UNARMED. In fact, I strongly disagree with that premise.

2 issues here - one is the question of "follow" vs. "pursue". The second is does your action increase the risk to the public?

Z could have followed M in his truck - the shooting happened right beside one of the access roads in the apartment and was 70' from the Martin apartment. Z choose to exit the vehicle and RUN after Martin - this makes it a pursuit.

Whether you are armed with a firearm or not, lets say you pursue - ie CHASE someone. Lets say its in your car - and as you are speeding after them - lets use the drunk August and I discussed earlier - you lose control of your vehicle and hit another car - or a pedestrian - and cause a fatality. Your actions placed the public in danger - just as much as those of the person you were pursuing. Z did this by pursuing a person he thought was "high" - aka having a decreased ability for logical and rational thought - and possibly/likely armed. These factors would equate to an obviously increased risk to the public at large - yet he chose to pursue anyway. Had his suspicions been accurate, a shootout could likely have occured. He had a reasonably duty - whether armed or not - to not place himself into a situation where a confrontation was likely. The fact that he was armed simply increases that reasonable duty.

The part that concerns me is whether or not Zimmerman actually instigated the confrontation, and not simply by being "there". If that's the case, then I suggest we throw the book at the guy. However, Martin should be considered at fault if he did as Zimmerman suggested and simply attacked, and should not be absolved from responsibility for that action merely because Zimmerman was armed.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not absolving Martin. The evidence we have shows that had he kept walking another 70 feet, he could have been in the apartment with his family. A witness indicates he was the aggressor. Physical evidence shows that he was in process of inflicting at least injury on Zimmerman.

Martin has some responsibility for his own death. I do not deny that. But it is safe to say that he has paid heavily for his role in this. But regardless of Martin's actions - they do not absolve Zimmerman for his willful irresponsibility and blatent disregard for the safety of the public - which included Martin.

[August]

August - he was found guilty of violating a law that the state had already deemed to NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT.

Its like saying ok, there is a law that you can't ride the bus until after May 1. On June 1, you ride the bus, and are arrested for it and convicted - even though the law was deemed no longer in force.

Well your analogy isn't really valid since your use of the word "until" means that bus riding is actually specifically allowed after may 1st.

But yeah I understand the concept you're getting at Hap. However whether or not it was still in effect, it was still a law. Your concealed carry commandments do not enjoy even the status of a law no longer in effect. They are laws that have never existed and Zimmerman can hardly be convicted for breaking a law that has never existed.

Besides as interesting as this all sounds it's not going to happen here. Zimmerman will be tried on breaking Florida laws and that's all.

[Aramike]

Sorry, Hap. I get what you're saying but I'm not buying it. For one, it appears you're basing your argument on "evidence" that is circumstantial at best, and the timeline is still being questioned.

In the end, you lose me because your argument comes down to a premise I find flawed - that Zimmerman should have his freedom of movement through his neighborhood be different merely because he was armed.

If it is okay for Zimmerman to follow someone he deems suspicious while unarmed, the same should be true if he's legally carrying. I haven't read an interpretation of the law that suggests otherwise in a concise way. Moreso, it wouldn't make sense.

Whether or not I believe Zimmerman was guilty will be based upon one simple thing: did Zimmerman actually confront Martin. Everything else, to me, is a "crystal ball" argument.

[Stealhead]

This.
I don't know how grand jury duty works in Florida, but I bet between grand jury selection and the regular jury selection process is going to be a total circus with the media coverage.


I do not know the entire process but a good friend of mine was pinned(actually they asked him and he said yes but they can simply pick you) as a grand juror from what he told me they actually pick certain people to be on a grand jury pool for lack of a better term when a case comes along they call you in and they still run a selection process and you might get picked or you get picked as a back up or you do not get picked at all.My friend thus far has only been picked as a back up grand juror for a case though it was for some racketeering case the interesting thing is that the back ups have to be close at hand when on a grand jury.

The down side is that when you are a grand jury member you have the "duty" for one full year in FL so it is bad news for most employed people as not so good for your almost always higer paying job and a case might last for months or longer.My friend is self employed so it was not such an issue for him.

Interesting side story I had another friend get out of jury duty by calling the court house the day of and claiming(lying) that he had lost his wallet(pure genius) and it worked I would not have believed him had I not witnessed him call the clerks office on his cell phone.In the old days in Florida the pool was from the registered voters in a county until they figured out that people where not registering to vote in order to avoid jury duty now they base it on drivers licenses as far fewer people will go without that in order to avoid jury duty.

[nikimcbee]

I did grand jury duty around five years ago for one month. It was some interesting insite to how the process works.

In Oregon, you only hear the prosecution side of the story. They must prove that a law has been broken and there is just cause to charge somebody with a crime. The GJ can vote the DA down.
We did have one case withdrawn due to a consistant story from the whitnesses.

[Tribesman]

it's relevant to the this case in how some people who know the law will ignore it in order to suit their agenda.They get away with it at times because most people just do not understand it.

Yet from your very first post in this topic and consistantly ever since you have shown that either you don't know the law at all or understand it.
Given your history on legal expertise in this topic and others it isn't that you are ignoring it it is simply that you don't know it.

No, it is not unknown.Witness statements and physical evidence show Trayvon attacked Zimmerman
Bull, witness statements and physical evidence show there was an incident, what they show is not yet established.

despite the laws protecting him.

once again you carry on with the same rubbish, there were 22 current cases mentioned long ago in this topic which trash your claim about that "protection"...though of course you ignore the legal aspects as they don't fit your agenda.

[CaptainHaplo]

In Oregon, you only hear the prosecution side of the story. They must prove that a law has been broken and there is just cause to charge somebody with a crime.

This is how the grand jury process works, it is in most cases a rubber stamp for a prosecutor because the GJ only hears one side and it needs only "just cause" to recommend charges.

This is also why the special prosecutor did not use a grand jury in this case. There is no specific florida statute that they could point to that says unequivically that Martin broke the law. This case, legally speaking, rests on very old common law precedence and plain ole common sense - neither of which are codified in florida statute. This is why the DA and police did not charge/arrest Z for the death of Martin. It violated no codiefied law. That however does NOT mean that no crime occured. It will be an interesting case, to be sure.

[nikimcbee]

it is in most cases a rubber stamp for a prosecutor
They (the DA) say that's not true:doh:, but in hind sight, it sure felt like a rubber stamp:shifty:. Some of it was good, but some cases were just a waste of time. I don't know why they would go through all of the fuss for the prosecution. (see failure to appear):dead:

[Platapus]

Why did Special Prosecutor Corey choose not not to use the Grand Jury?

Because she did not have to.

Supreme Court case Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) ruled that states could choose not to require Grand Juries and not violate the 5th and 14th amendment of the Constitution.

Florida statutes only require Grand Juries for specific crimes. In this context of this case, only if the Prosecutor wanted to levy First Degree Murder charges. Since she is only going for Second Degree Murder, no Grand Jury is required under Florida State law.

There are advantages and disadvantages for a prosecutor to choose whether to use a Grand Jury. Clearly people will have their own opinions and make their own inferences. But unless someone can penetrate the mind of Corey, that's all they will be: Opinions and inferences.

My opinion? I think she should have gone through the Grand Jury. But I am not a prosecutor in Florida nor, despite what has been opined here, do I have access to all the evidence.

Corey is calling the shots in this case. Upon her rests much of the accountability for the outcome. It will be an interesting case to observe.

[soopaman2]

Yes Platypus, I agree.

Very interesting case despite the outcome.

I see a Casey Anthony like overreach on charges here.
I am not always as articulate as I should be, but what I am saying is the prosecution is trying more for the max, than what is prudent.

Out of public outcry.

It will royally screw them in the end, just as it did with Miss Anthony. Who walked free in the face of malicious neglect for her child, because the prosecutor reached for the stars, tryin to be the next celebrity lawyer on court TV.

Maybe Coreys daughters will one day have a reality show like Bob Kardashians little girls do today. Or a show on right after Nancy Graces (tabloid...cough) show.

Justice is being corrupted by fame seeking. Whatever lawyer wins, will have a great TV career ahead of them.

I am at a point where I feel justice is corrupted on both sides. I feel bad for both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman, as well as their families.

Both deserve the truth, but we are far beyond that.