Zimmerman trial update

[suncat05]

I just received a notice on my news ticker that the state of Florida has now introduced Manslaughter as an additional charge in the Zimmerman trial.
Very strange happenings here. With this trial pretty much wrapping up, excluding any other surprises and awaiting closing arguments, this looks to me to be reaching for something that isn't there. If this charge was going to be a viable option it should have been introduced at the beginning of the trial, not the end of it.
Just my take on this. I suppose the state can do this, but this is very irregular.

[badrose]

Beat me to it and the judge is responsible.

Question, does the jury vote have to be unanimous here?

[badrose]

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us'

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justice/sanford-bill-lee-exclusive/index.html

Wouldn't surprise me if there was jury tampering as well.

[Darrell KSR]

Prosecution has the right to charge whatever charges they want. This is a big risk for them. If they include the lesser included charge, it gives the jury an "out" if they don't want to convict, and an ability to compromise.

On the other hand, it could give the jury the signal that the prosecution doesn't have its act together, is incompetent, and knows that they can't convict the defendant, and he will walk with a not guilty plea.

Risky move at this juncture. Might set Zimmerman free. (That might be the right result, I'm not positing on his guilt or not).

[badrose]

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us'

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justice/sanford-bill-lee-exclusive/index.html

Wouldn't surprise me if there was jury tampering as well.

[badrose]

As bigsky said in another thread, this is gangster stuff.

[suncat05]

This entire situation has been strange from the very beginning. And I still believe the state is reaching for something that isn't there with manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. I just do not see the intention of malice needed to convict on any of these charges.

I don't see anything here but self defense.

[Doc]

Prosecution has the right to charge whatever charges they want. This is a big risk for them. If they include the lesser included charge, it gives the jury an "out" if they don't want to convict, and an ability to compromise.

On the other hand, it could give the jury the signal that the prosecution doesn't have its act together, is incompetent, and knows that they can't convict the defendant, and he will walk with a not guilty plea.

Risky move at this juncture. Might set Zimmerman free. (That might be the right result, I'm not positing on his guilt or not).

I actually believe the opposite. Based on how trial progressed, I can't see any manner by which he was going to be convicted of Murder. Zero and Zip, and I'm one that believes he is the reason behind the death of the kid (and I don't even want to hash that out). Manslaughter is the most reasonable charge here and is one that at least the prosecution can win. So I don't see it as giving the jury a way out as much as giving the jury something that they can reasonably convict on. Without it then the jury does set him free w/o punishment.

[CitizenBBN]

I respect that the prosecution can pick whatever charge they want to try to bring, but the child abuse thing was absurd IMO. Re manslaughter I tend to take the defense attorneys' view that this can't be manslaughter b/c Zimmerman clearly intended to use deadly force against Martin. He didn't accidentally pull the trigger, he knew what he was doing and what the result would be.

IMO what the prosecution is asking for is a conviction of "imperfect self defense", which I don't believe is recognized in Florida law. Typically a ruling of "self defense" is a complete protection, you walk out of the court room, but in imperfect self defense you rule the person acted in self defense but that it was unreasonable for them to believe they needed to act in that way, i.e. using deadly force, so they're guilty of some lesser charge than murder, like manslaughter. The concept exists, but I don't believe it's Florida law, so they're trying to interject it conceptually where it doesn't belong statutorily. In most jurisdictions if the self defense is deemed unreasonable then there is no ruling of self defense and thus a murder conviction, at least as I understand it.

I guess that's up to the judge to allow or not based on Florida law, and may be basis for an appeal, but the child abuse thing I saw as almost insulting intellectually. shooting someone in a physical struggle isn't child abuse and no legislator foresaw such statutes being applied in this way.

[badrose]

I don't think this sees the light of day without Obama and his so-called Justice dept getting involved. It appeared the local law enforcement was not going to pursue charges. Yeah, Zimmerman should have stayed in the car but he violated no law by doing so. His pursuit of Martin caused him to resort to violence to the point that Zimmerman had to use his gun. Had he pulled it earlier Martin may have backed off and maybe even walked away.

[CitizenBBN]

I actually believe the opposite. Based on how trial progressed, I can't see any manner by which he was going to be convicted of Murder. Zero and Zip, and I'm one that believes he is the reason behind the death of the kid (and I don't even want to hash that out). Manslaughter is the most reasonable charge here and is one that at least the prosecution can win. So I don't see it as giving the jury a way out as much as giving the jury something that they can reasonably convict on. Without it then the jury does set him free w/o punishment.

To me if it's manslaughter, it's involuntary manslaughter and the pivotal act wasn't him pulling the trigger, it was him getting out of the truck. By creating the confrontation he created a dangerous environment that could lead to great bodily harm, and that recklessness led to a death. The problem is that the prosecution didn't make that argument that I've seen (I've read a few stories, but not watched), and this isn't what they're asking the jury to consider. If they're saying the shooting itself is the source of the manslaughter then I don't see how that fits at all as there was clear intent to shoot Martin.

This goes to our discussion elsewhere of mens rea. Zimmerman clearly intended to pull the trigger and shoot and/or kill Martin when the struggle ensued, that's either murder or self defense. We could broaden it and look at his intent in other aspects of the event and if those were reckless or negligent but I didn't see that being done, so those versions of manslaughter are off the table IMO by the prosecution's choice. They did argue he needed to not get out of the truck, wrongly argued his gun was somehow inherently unsafe, etc. but never connected those dots IMO into a charge of involuntary manslaughter based on reckless or negligent behavior. Maybe this is exactly what they argued, but it isn't what I've seen reported. If they did then I think that's a viable charge to debate.

What they seem to be asking for is a verdict of imperfect self defense resulting in manslaughter, and I don't see that as being viable in Florida. Again, maybe it is, the media aren't known for their specificity in such things.

Personally were I to prosecute him for anything I'd have gone for manslaughter based on his reckless behavior, leading to a confrontation that was unnecessary that led to a death. I would have granted outright that once the confrontation began he had a right to defend himself with deadly force, it's silly to think anyone being punched in the face can make an omniscient real time calculation of whether they're going to be beat up or killed. I would have focused on why Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and created the situation, and that's when questions of his desire to be a LEO and his class background would apply.

They introduced some of that, but I didn't see a focused case here. I saw what I see in 95% of cases I follow, attorneys throwing whatever they can find against a wall and hoping something sticks. I think a more focused and logical case would have convicted him, but then again they may have been pressured to seek murder as a conviction, and this wasn't a murder IMO at all. Arguing he got out of the truck intent on killing Martin wouldn't work, arguing that he got out to play LEO would work, but that's not murder.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't think this sees the light of day without Obama and his so-called Justice dept getting involved. It appeared the local law enforcement was not going to pursue charges. Yeah, Zimmerman should have stayed in the car but he violated no law by doing so. His pursuit of Martin caused him to resort to violence to the point that Zimmerman had to use his gun. Had he pulled it earlier Martin may have backed off and maybe even walked away.

One could argue that he did act recklessly, and I made that case above, but that doesn't mean I think he should have been charged with it. I think I could win that case, but I'm not sure I'd have brought it. The idea that it's reckless is based upon the assumption that the person he thought was suspicious would attack him, and while in reality I think that's a very real possibility, I'm not comfortable with arresting people for confronting people who they think are acting suspiciously in their neighborhood when it was the suspicious person who was the physical aggressor and created a situation requiring self defense.

That's another step down the dark road of granting the criminal more rights than the innocent person trying to protect his property and in this case that of his neighbors.

What SHOULD have happened is Zimmerman is watching the area, Martin is acting suspiciously, Zimmerman confronts him, Martin says "I'm not doing anything wrong", they wait for the cops, who investigate and everyone goes home. That' is the societally desirable chain of events IMO, and the person who broke that chain seems to have been Martin. I would be uncomfortable putting Zimmerman in jail when he isn't the one who broke that chain.

At a personal level, accepting the realities of politics and the law and pressure on prosecutors and public opinion he should have stayed in the truck, but at a legal level I don't like the precedent that a concerned citizen watching out for his neighborhood has to remain impotent or face years in jail. That hands the home court advantage to the bad guys, and I that's more wrong than anything Zimmerman did IMO.

[CitizenBBN]

By way of example, I've heard people out behind my building late at night and walked around it to make sure the copper wasn't being stolen from my AC systems or other harm being done. That hasn't led to a confrontation but it could potentially do so. if I'm then attacked and I defend myself with deadly force, did I act recklessly to make sure my property isn't being stolen? Do I instead call the cops every time I hear a strange sound and they get to find out if it's a person or raccoon? Do I potentially waste their resources like that, call and hope they get here before my stuff is gone?

Once some guys were back there, they saw me as I looked around the corner of the building and left. Was just looking a reckless act if it had led to them confronting me?

I'm not at all comfortable with that being the standard. That's the same leftist standard of government dependence and self-un-reliance that is supported by those who want to ban guns altogether. It's a road to criminals running our country.

I prefer the standard that if you're creeping around people's homes at night and have no business there you may be confronted by an honest citizen, that honest citizen may be armed, and you may have to stand there and explain yourself to the police. You shouldn't have to endure a physical attack from that citizen either, but you may have to explain why you're on private property that is not your own. That standard is far better for society as a whole IMO, putting the burden on those who are engaging in the questionable and likely criminal behavior.

Those two guys behind my building that night weren't playing Dungeons and Dragons. The burden should be on them, the presumption of right with me as the property owner.

[Doc]

This entire situation has been strange from the very beginning. And I still believe the state is reaching for something that isn't there with manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. I just do not see the intention of malice needed to convict on any of these charges.

I don't see anything here but self defense.

I see plenty of scenarios where self defense didn't occur.

We know that Zimmerman was following Travon Martin, and we know Zimmerman brought the gun. We also know that gun killed Martin. We are supposed to believe that Martin instigated the attack for some unknown reason and then while getting his ass whooped, Zimmerman was able to get his gun out at shoot the kid. Plausible but in my mind not the most logical.

To me, I can more likely see where Zimmerman was following Martin, Zimmerman tried to stop him and Martin refused, and did so legally since Zimmerman had no authority. Zimmerman steps up the method to detain Martin, possibly by pulling his gun and it escalates there into the altercation where Martin was beating up the guy with the gun and Zimmerman was finally able to use his gun and kills Martin. Self defense? I guess, possibly even legally within the law but to me, when one goes looking for trouble and finds it, I don't think "self defense" fits. Of course that is my own opinion. Not a "legal opinion" per se.

Is that what happened, or was it scenario number 1, or something different? We will never know because there were only two people there and only one survived. Unfortunately we won't ever get Martins side because that was buried with him.

And just to be 100% clear, only because the typical approach is to misrepresent what I'm saying because I'm not "in the gun crowd", I do not believe the state proved their case. I don't believe Zimmerman will be convicted of murder and perhaps shouldn't be. However I don't believe he carries no blame in the death of a teenager. What I believe happened is what I believe. I don't expect to change anybody's mind because IMO those that believe he was an innocent victim of circumstances are not going to be swayed. Having followed the case in minimal interest, based on the limited amount of evidence I've seen and media reports, I don't have an adequate answer to what happened.

[Doc]

I don't think this sees the light of day without Obama and his so-called Justice dept getting involved. It appeared the local law enforcement was not going to pursue charges. Yeah, Zimmerman should have stayed in the car but he violated no law by doing so. His pursuit of Martin caused him to resort to violence to the point that Zimmerman had to use his gun. Had he pulled it earlier Martin may have backed off and maybe even walked away.

I agree on the federal agenda.

As for the other parts, who is to say Zimmerman didn't pull his gun earlier, well besides George Zimmerman? Who is to say that Martin being confronted by a guy with a gun who was attempting to detain him simply because he was walking through the neighborhood at night, didn't decide it was best off getting the first jump on him, and was able to get the upper hand before Zimmerman shot him? For me I have a hard time believing GZ allowed the altercation to even begin without pulling his gun. Why would he wait? Why would he not have it drawn from the get go? He brought if for a reason, that reason might have been to protect himself so if that was the reason, why would he wait until he was down on the ground with his head being bashed in to pull it?

[suncat05]

I have to disagree with your idea of how it happened, Doc. There are witnesses to the event, and no one has said anything about a gun until after the shooting happened.
And if a gun had been introduced into the situation as you suggest, there is a real possibility that there would have been an accidental discharge before Martin was shot, and the gun would have been the focus of the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman. None of the facts of the case have alluded to that.

There is nothing here but self defense. They both had a right to be where they were, but I believe that Martin became the aggressor, made the first aggressive actions, and in the ensuing physical altercation Martin tried to incapacitate Zimmerman to the point of becoming unconscious, at which time Zimmerman became fearful for his life and had to resort to using deadly force to stop Martin from seriously injuring or killing him. This is classic self defense.

[badrose]

If you're Martin and you see a gun in the other guy's hand, 1) you don't charge and attack and if you do you secure or dislodge the gun first and foremost. 2) you don't start hitting the guy's face and banging his head on the curb or pavement while the other guy is holding a gun in his hand. It only makes sense if the gun hadn't been pulled at that point.

Zimmerman was there that night because there had been break-ins in the community. The victim fit the profile of those who had committed those break-ins. He confronts Martin and pursues him believing it was his duty to do so. Kinda the purpose of his role as a watchman as he saw it. Martin becomes aggressive, little to no effort to relieve suspicion, just becomes aggressive. The proximity of the two must have become closer, at least enough to not allow Zimmerman to show his gun and warn off Martin. Must have happened quickly, which fits the description Zimmerman gave. Had Zimmerman not shot Martin, he may have been killed. Self defense.

[BigBlueBrock]

A lark that this ever went to trial.

[suncat05]

A lark that this ever went to trial.

Absolutely agree with you about that.

[blueboss]

If you're Martin and you see a gun in the other guy's hand, 1) you don't charge and attack and if you do you secure or dislodge the gun first and foremost. 2) you don't start hitting the guy's face and banging his head on the curb or pavement while the other guy is holding a gun in his hand. It only makes sense if the gun hadn't been pulled at that point.

Zimmerman was there that night because there had been break-ins in the community. The victim fit the profile of those who had committed those break-ins. He confronts Martin and pursues him believing it was his duty to do so. Kinda the purpose of his role as a watchman as he saw it. Martin becomes aggressive, little to no effort to relieve suspicion, just becomes aggressive. The proximity of the two must have become closer, at least enough to not allow Zimmerman to show his gun and warn off Martin. Must have happened quickly, which fits the description Zimmerman gave. Had Zimmerman not shot Martin, he may have been killed. Self defense.

Sounds like a very good closing argument to me.

[Doc]

If you're Martin and you see a gun in the other guy's hand, 1) you don't charge and attack and if you do you secure or dislodge the gun first and foremost. 2) you don't start hitting the guy's face and banging his head on the curb or pavement while the other guy is holding a gun in his hand. It only makes sense if the gun hadn't been pulled at that point.

Zimmerman was there that night because there had been break-ins in the community. The victim fit the profile of those who had committed those break-ins. He confronts Martin and pursues him believing it was his duty to do so. Kinda the purpose of his role as a watchman as he saw it. Martin becomes aggressive, little to no effort to relieve suspicion, just becomes aggressive. The proximity of the two must have become closer, at least enough to not allow Zimmerman to show his gun and warn off Martin. Must have happened quickly, which fits the description Zimmerman gave. Had Zimmerman not shot Martin, he may have been killed. Self defense.

Sorry but I have a hard time with a self defense argument when you are the instigator and end up shooting a person because you fight like a girl

[CitizenBBN]

Sorry but I have a hard time with a self defense argument when you are the instigator and end up shooting a person because you fight like a girl

I see your point, which is why I can see making a case for Zimmerman to be charged with "something", but Florida law I believe is like Kentucky, where just confronting someone, even calling them names or otherwise non-physically "provoking" someone doesn't make you the legal "instigator". The instigator in Kentucky is the person who takes the first physically threatening action, the proverbial "throws the first punch". Now with a jury we all know the black letter of the law isn't so black and white, but per Florida law the words "confronter" and "instigator" aren't interchangeable.

At law, if Martin was the first to make a physically threatening move, the first to take things from a confrontation to a physical fight, then he's the instigator.

that's NOT the case in every state from what I've read though, fwiw. I haven't tried to get a degree in it but as stuff passes through that covers conceal carry and defense laws in states I try to read it, and there is a pretty fair amount of variation. Some states of course have retreat clauses, Florida did have one, but apparently in some jurisdictions the person who starts the confrontation is the "instigator", so if he hurls insults at someone and provokes a fight in which he then uses deadly force to defend his life, he may not be able to claim self defense as he is the legal instigator.

From what I can tell the South is generally the same, no requirement to flee in order to use deadly force and the instigator is the person who commits the physical act that threatens great bodily harm, whether he was provoked into it with words etc. or not.

Would love for our lawyers to chime in on the above crude summary to know how far off I am in it. My read of Ky law comes from the ccdw class DVD, which beats on when yo are justified in using force. The class is heavy on teaching the self defense law and justification (and lack of it), which I really support.

[badrose]

It seems to me there was very little dialog between them. Martin seemed to have no patience for it, not willing to talk or wait for the police to show up and sort things out. Such things allow for non-violent outcomes. Unless you believe Zimmerman was going to shoot Martin regardless then the blame falls squarely on Martin as he committed the first physical contact and bodily harm. Zimmerman had every right to walk around there the same as Martin.

[badrose]

This is disturbing.

http://www.infowars.com/twitter-flooded-with-new-wave-of-riot-threats/

[BigBlue92]

I see plenty of scenarios where self defense didn't occur.

We know that Zimmerman was following Travon Martin, and we know Zimmerman brought the gun. We also know that gun killed Martin. We are supposed to believe that Martin instigated the attack for some unknown reason and then while getting his ass whooped, Zimmerman was able to get his gun out at shoot the kid. Plausible but in my mind not the most logical.

To me, I can more likely see where Zimmerman was following Martin, Zimmerman tried to stop him and Martin refused, and did so legally since Zimmerman had no authority. Zimmerman steps up the method to detain Martin, possibly by pulling his gun and it escalates there into the altercation where Martin was beating up the guy with the gun and Zimmerman was finally able to use his gun and kills Martin. Self defense? I guess, possibly even legally within the law but to me, when one goes looking for trouble and finds it, I don't think "self defense" fits. Of course that is my own opinion. Not a "legal opinion" per se.

Is that what happened, or was it scenario number 1, or something different? We will never know because there were only two people there and only one survived. Unfortunately we won't ever get Martins side because that was buried with him.

And just to be 100% clear, only because the typical approach is to misrepresent what I'm saying because I'm not "in the gun crowd", I do not believe the state proved their case. I don't believe Zimmerman will be convicted of murder and perhaps shouldn't be. However I don't believe he carries no blame in the death of a teenager. What I believe happened is what I believe. I don't expect to change anybody's mind because IMO those that believe he was an innocent victim of circumstances are not going to be swayed. Having followed the case in minimal interest, based on the limited amount of evidence I've seen and media reports, I don't have an adequate answer to what happened.

Anyone can see plenty of scenarios where self defense didnt

[BigBlue92]

Crap. Hate this tablet. Not going to recreate that post.

[KeithKSR]

I see plenty of scenarios where self defense didn't occur.

We know that Zimmerman was following Travon Martin, and we know Zimmerman brought the gun. We also know that gun killed Martin. We are supposed to believe that Martin instigated the attack for some unknown reason and then while getting his ass whooped, Zimmerman was able to get his gun out at shoot the kid. Plausible but in my mind not the most logical.

To me, I can more likely see where Zimmerman was following Martin, Zimmerman tried to stop him and Martin refused, and did so legally since Zimmerman had no authority. Zimmerman steps up the method to detain Martin, possibly by pulling his gun and it escalates there into the altercation where Martin was beating up the guy with the gun and Zimmerman was finally able to use his gun and kills Martin. Self defense? I guess, possibly even legally within the law but to me, when one goes looking for trouble and finds it, I don't think "self defense" fits. Of course that is my own opinion. Not a "legal opinion" per se.

Is that what happened, or was it scenario number 1, or something different? We will never know because there were only two people there and only one survived. Unfortunately we won't ever get Martins side because that was buried with him.

And just to be 100% clear, only because the typical approach is to misrepresent what I'm saying because I'm not "in the gun crowd", I do not believe the state proved their case. I don't believe Zimmerman will be convicted of murder and perhaps shouldn't be. However I don't believe he carries no blame in the death of a teenager. What I believe happened is what I believe. I don't expect to change anybody's mind because IMO those that believe he was an innocent victim of circumstances are not going to be swayed. Having followed the case in minimal interest, based on the limited amount of evidence I've seen and media reports, I don't have an adequate answer to what happened.

Evidence shows Martin got the jump on Zimmerman when he had a four minute window to leave the area. Martin hit Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose, the beat his head on the concrete.

What evidence wasn't allowed in was Martin's propensity toward violence, including text messages where he bragged about winning a fight and pictures of Martin posing with a gun.

The method Martin used for the attack is a strong indicator that it was not the first time Martin had employed such tactics.

Zimmerman in hindsight may not have been wise to follow Martin, but he did nothing illegal by doing so. No laws were broken prior to Martin attacking Zimmerman. When Martin attacked Zimmerman, sat on him punching him, hitting his head against the concrete walk Zimmerman's use of force was within that allowed by the state of Florida.

IMO, this case would never have gotten to the point of charges being filed had the politicians taken a hands off attitude.