http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/stand-your-ground-and-trayvon-martin/254444/ I missed this in the last few days, and only had a chance to catch up with the case this morning, but it's appalling. A 26 year old man, named Zimmerman, calls 911 from his car, reporting a young black man wearing a hoodie and walking home in the rain as "suspicious," complaing to the dispatcher that "these assholes always get away." Ignoring repeated commands from 911 to stay in his car, he follows the kid. He's about 100 pounds heavier and is armed with a pistol. A bloody nose and a gunshot later, Trayvon Martin is dead. Trayvon had a bag of skittles and an ice tea in his pockets. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/more-on-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin/254486/ The local Sanford police do nothing, essentially, treating Zimmerman's claim of self-defense as beyond question. The NAACP has asked AG Eric Holder to step in. I was hoping to frame the thread as a local-federal discussion. Isn't there a strong case to be made that local authorities require oversight?
Ugh, that's a horrible story. I think the problem isn't the local authorities in this case, it's the local laws. Florida's self defense laws allow a cynical person to manipulate them to easily generate a circumstance that allows them to kill someone and be legally shielded from murder charges.
...if it had ended differently, and the kid wound up killing the white guy, whattya think the odds are the police would be shrugging their shoulders and saying "gee, we can't press charges, it was self-defense"?
I have a hard time calling it self-defense when the guy apparently got out of his car, chased the kid down and started an altercation. Is it really self-defense if I punch a guy, he punchse me back and I shoot him? Though I guess the diffrence here is that the cops say it's legal to up and chase people for no apparent reason.
Horrible story, made even more horrible in that this prick is going to get away with it. Hopefully the family can make him feel some pain in a civil suit. A separate concern is that it puts neighborhood watch programs in a terrible light.
He had a reason, didn't you read the part where he was black and wearing a hoodie (in the rain)? Also he was concerned about how often "they" get away.
I would like to go to Orlando, pick a fight with this Zimmerman guy and then "self-defend" against him if he dares to fight back.
It's "legal," is my understanding, because the local self-defense laws are super-broad and an excuse that sounds less blatant than "there's a black dude here" can be ginned up pretty easily to suit local statute. It's still disgusting. I think self-defense laws are far too restrictive in a lot of places, but the exact opposite problem is on full display here. Maybe a high profile case like this can spark some change.
I think self defense laws are pointless because if you have to work that hard to prove it was self defense against a person who can't contradict your story...
Yeah, but you're: A) A homosexual, and B) A woman You'd probably get the chair. After all, only a sociopath would pester a nice good 'ole boy like Zimmerman. BTW... does Florida even have good 'ole boys? Or are their assholes strictly of the "generic" type?
>:( Edit: argh jeff that's exactly what I was posting from. This article especially has a decent discussion in the comments on the dubious merits of "Stand Your Ground" self-defense clauses, and how they incentivize both sides to escalate conflict.
I bookmarked this article so I can link to it every time some asshole makes inane comments about how racism in America is over.
It kind of depends, Florida is a big place. South Florida is beaches, old people, Miami, and people who just cannot get over the fact that they are from Florida. North Florida is Georgia Jr. I don't really know what the character of central FL (e.g., Orlando) is like.
I would argue that pursuing the kid and starting something is assault, and possibly reckless endangerment, and a death resulting from that would be felony murder, even if he did fear for his life and the killing was otherwise justifiable. I guess the local DA knows something I don't know!
He was (from the links) the Neighborhood Watch Captain. Seeing as this behavior is exactly what every outreach cop I've ever encountered has advised against when doing a NW Watch (pursuing, confronting, etc), this guy was looking for a fight.
So the family sued to release the 911 tapes, which the police refused to do. Friday they relented early because, oddly, people seem to be caring about a man murdering an innocent teen because he was suspiciously black. This is an AP story and probably one of the worst written pieces of shit I've ever seen
Don't you guys have the death penalty? When it finally seems apt, it's not even on the table. And where's Rywill to defend the DA?
That gif gets posted in every SA thread about Florida and it never gets old. This story is fucking disgusting and I can't believe there are people calling a cold-blooded hate crime justified.
I'll take a stab at it. If charged, Zimmerman would plead self-defence. The prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not in self-defence. Once a defence is raised, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor. I don't know all of the evidence, but if there were no other witnesses you would basically have Zimmerman on the stand saying that it was in self-defence, and no other strong evidence. I think it would be hard for a judge or jury to then convict him: the circumstances are suspicious as hell, but are they proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
As a lawyer, I'm not one to take on losing cases, but I say charge him and try him anyway. It's clear that he set in motion the circumstances that led to this kid's death. I like the felony murder idea.
Yes. An armed man chased after an unarmed teenager with the intent to "not let him get away". As heard on the 911 tape he shot once and then killed him while he was begging for his life. The teen had no reason whatsoever to initiate any kind of contact with the armed man and the armed man was specifically looking for trouble. There's no doubt at all that he murdered the teen.
Does a 911 tape really have the victim begging for his life? That's not what the Miami Herald that you linked above said: So there was maybe two shots, maybe one shot. And while someone was crying for help, at this point we don't know who that was. Again, I think it's very suspicious and I think the Zimmerman guy probably did murder that kid, but it doesn't seem like a very strong case to me, and as a rule I don't think prosecutors should prosecute people unless there is a substantial likelihood of conviction. These kinds of really upsetting crimes people seem really eager to throw away the presumption of innocence, and I think that's kind of dangerous.
Someone was crying for help, there was a gunshot that cut off that cry. We'll know more when the 911 tapes are released to the public but there's a safe assumption to be made here.
This sounds backwards to me. It seems to me that if you shoot someone then you should have to prove that you really, really needed to do that.
I agree, so I did some cursory Googling to find out which party has the burden of proof on the issue of self defense. Normally the person raising a defense has the burden to prove it, but not in Florida, as a court there decided last year in a case with amazingly similar facts. EDIT: This thread has been too civil for the Sanctum Santorum. Could someone please call me an ugly name or something?
Really? That seems strange to me. In Canada, if the defence can raise an "air of reality", the burden is on the prosecutor to disprove a defence beyond a reasonable doubt. So in this case, as long as Zimmerman could provide some evidence of self-defence (no matter how frail), the burden would lie on the prosecution to prove an absence of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise you end up with a reverse-onus on the accused person, which our courts have found to be unconstitutional. Generally Americans enjoy better legal protections, so it surprises me that this particular area would be different.
Yeah, I guess I'm used to the way the burden is allocated in civil cases. In other news, quote from the police chief: REALLY, asshole? Yeah, Trayvon probably would have tried harder not to get shot by an excitable dickbag with a vigilante streak and a gun. In the same story, an African-American resident of the neighborhood says he's afraid to walk in the neighborhood for recreation and exercise because of the shooter's fixation on black men:
