The Glade 4.0

I'm reading about this trial.

I don't get why this is even a trial.

All the prosecution has is conjecture and what-ifs. While their scenarios are possible and perhaps even plausible, they are by no means likely, and likely isn't even what they need to convict. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. How can the jury not have reasonable doubt in this case? It really looks like Zimmerman is completely innocent. For the prosecution, the problem here is: Even if it looked like Zimmerman was guilty, that is not enough. They have to prove he is guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. Since no sane person would argue that the evidence against Zimmerman makes murder even likely, let alone proven, a conviction on a murder charge would be bloody ridiculous.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I cannot speak to Florida law, but in Ohio a Concealed Carry Permit forfeited the innocent until proven guilty premise and the burden of proof shifted to the defendant until 2008 (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5985).

_________________

If I had to offer a guess I would say the prosecution is forced into this politically. There was a nice long gap between the event and any charges being filled as the media howled for Zim's blood. Maybe it was one of those "now we can prepare for the race riot that follows, even be prepared by trials end"

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

If I recall correctly, charges weren't filed until the White House got involved.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There are 2 possibilities:

1) The prosecution is hoping the jury just totally forgets this, and just decides he's guilty based on the simple fact that he shot an unarmed teenager. While possible, it's pretty unlikely.

2) The prosecution charged him simply to avoid accusations that he was let off because the victim was black. Even if he's acquitted, some people will assume it's racial, but that's a smaller group than would assume that a lack of trial was racial. However, it speaks to the fact that if you are not black, and you get into an altercation with a black person, you are likely to be charged so that the agencies involved can avoid dealing with charges of "Racism".

I tend to go with the second option.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________

Not exactly. They have the following (essentially uncontested) facts: (i) Zimmerman followed Martin down the street and chased him into that dark/grassy area behind the houses, (ii) Martin indicated to his friend on the phone that he felt threatened by that pursuit, and (iii) the confrontation was in response to and contemporaneous with that pursuit. Given that set of facts, the prosecution has a plausible argument that, as a matter of law, even if Martin threw the first punch during the confrontation, it was in response to Zimmerman's prior threatening and reckless behavior, so Zimmerman is legally responsible for causing the altercation and therefore can't claim self-defense after the fact.

Think of it like this: if the cops had shown up before the confrontation happened, it's possible that Zimmerman could have been charged with whatever the Florida equivalent of "Menacing" is (depending on the intent component) for having chased Martin the way he did. When someone Menaces a victim, if that victim physically defends themself from the menacer, the perp generally can't shoot their victim in response and then claim self-defense.

Well, the Police didn't believe that. The prosecutors didn't believe that until political pressure forced them to lay charges. The case as it's been presented so far doesn't support any of that. And lastly...

...even if it did, plausible isn't enough. Zimmerman's explanation merely needs to be plausible. The prosecution's needs to be proof beyond reasonable doubt.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Sorry for the confusing phrasing. I mean they have a plausible argument that the "no reasonable doubt" standard has been satisfied. The facts I listed are not in dispute, so their argument (I'm guessing) is that, given those facts, Zimmerman bears legal responsibility for the altercation and therefore cannot claim self-defense as a matter of law. It's a question of how to interpret the relevant statutes, not whether the facts occurred one way or another.

What's particularly disturbing to me, about this case, is when you research the details, Trayvon Martin was pretty much a thieving, drug-using vandal who had so far been lucky and never charged (despite a bunch of evidence.) The evidence for this exists (Trayvon Martin was currently suspended from school for vandalism when he was shot. He had recently been apprehended with a backpack full of women's jewelry that wasn't his, and a bunch of empty bags with pot-residue on the inside), and the court has this evidence, but the jury isn't allowed to see it, unless the defense manages to make it relevant in the course of their testimony.

Whether or not Trayvon Martin had a right to be where he was (which he did), the fact that he was a troublemaker means that he probably looked like a troublemaker. Zimmerman was doing a good thing patrolling the gated complex as neighborhood watch, and personally, I favor private citizen enforcement over police enforcement unless the police are absolutely necessary. To me, it looks like Martin caused the altercation by attacking before communicating. It is NOT in dispute that Martin surprised Zimmerman, jumped out, and knocked him down, and started smashing his head on the ground before he was shot. (Not seriously disputed by anyone with an ounce of sense, anyway. Even the prosecution's expert witnesses said they believed this version of the facts.) The fault lies with the person who initiates violence, not the person who causes the confrontation.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The problem with this is that it very much in dispute whether Zimmerman chased him. He was following him in some manner, but the fact is that is not automatically menacing.

Furthermore, even if Zimmerman was menacing him, Zimmerman can still claim self-defense because Martin used excessive force in defending himself, and allegedly threatened to kill him. Instigating a confrontation does not allow the target unlimited retaliation. That woul at least reduce the conviction to manslaughter.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Let's say for a moment that it is proven that Zimmerman followed him to the point where Martin felt threatened by him, and Martin believed he needed to engage to defend himself.

Both had cell phones. One demonstrated a willingness to avoid confrontation by fleeing (Martin). One demonstrated a willingness to avoid confrontation by calling police (Zimmerman).

Anyway, confrontation occurs, Martin is "defending" himself and Zimmerman shoots him. Based on your argument, Zimmerman has lost the legal ability to defend himself in this situation by following Martin, despite the fact that he called the police to get them involved.

Should, in your view, other people's interpretation of your actions be able to strip you of your right to defend yourself? Does that seem right to you? Didn't Zimmerman's interpretation of Martin's actions also label Martin as "menacing", or at least a threat? Why does Martin get to defend himself and Zimmerman does not?

If you're sitting on a jury and this is the case, would you send this man to jail?

To address that partly, Martin's perception would be judged against the standard of a "reasonable person." That is a legal concept that I can explain later or you can read about. Anyhow, a person's individual perception doesn't govern, because some people are nuts, stupid, drunk, medicated, angry, etc. Their perception may not really be very accurate. Also, people could abuse this by claiming any perception they wanted after a fight.

Instead, its what a reasonable person would perceive based on articulable facts.

If Martin perceived Zimmerman as a threat, he needs more than "creepy white guy" and "following me" to justify attacking Zimmerman. Otherwise, any person who suspects criminal activity and is subsequently detected by the criminal could be subject to legally sanctioned assault. Its unimportant that Martin was not committing crime at ghe time; Zimmerman suspected that he was. Zimmermans suspicion does not need to be reasonable because he was not trying to detain Martin.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

For the general legal issue, I'll echo part of DE's response about the "reasonable person" standard and fold in his point from the road rage thread about judging that based on the "totality of the circumstances". With respect to the Martin/Zimmerman case specifically, I'm inclined to think that a reasonable person would find Zimmerman's actions threatening, but not sufficiently unambiguous or indicative of imminent physical attack to justify Martin's violent response. I think Martin would have been well within his rights to verbally confront Zimmerman, and maybe even to draw a weapon (had he been armed) and warn Zimmerman off, but not to jump straight to a violent response, let alone to do so if Zimmerman really was walking away at the time (assuming Zimmerman's claim that he had broken off pursuit is true).

However, even if Martin's actions were unreasonable, that doesn't necessarily mean Zimmerman's in the clear for his own actions. If Zimmerman acted unreasonably, he can held responsible for the consequences of that even if the other guy would also be criminally liable. You can charge both parties in a situation if both act outside the bounds of the law. In this case, I do think Zimmerman acted unreasonably in following Martin and particularly in chasing him into the grassy area behind the houses given that Martin was just walking down the street minding his own business at the time. I'm not familiar enough with Florida's laws to say what that does to the available charges and defenses, but as a general matter, I'd say a murder charge is clearly excessive, but an involuntary manslaughter charge might be appropriate. Certainly in a civil trial, I think there's grounds for a wrongful death suit. Meanwhile, had Martin lived, I think he could probably have been charged with criminal assault and countersued in civil court for the tort version of that.

I disagree with this part of your post, DE, as I think the fact Martin wasn't committing a crime (or, to be more accurate, the fact that he wasn't engaged in any activity that might give the appearance of committing a crime), and the reasonableness of Zimmerman's suspicions, insofar as they impact the reasonableness of his actions, are relevant parts of the "totality of the circumstances" analysis.

Zimerman also was not breaking the law by following someone he felt was suspicious in the gated community.

Ultimately, for the shooting to be both innocent and the right thing to do, the only qualification is that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, and felt in fear for his life. None of the other stuff matters.

Now, the prosecution made a mistake by taking Manslaughter off the table. A jury might find innocent of murder 2 and convict of manslaughter just to hedge their bets, but that is not an option for them. A civil trial for wrongful death probably has a 50-50 chance of going in Martin's favor. (Ultimately, for the death to be "right", Zimmerman still need only show that he was attacked physically and was in fear for his life, but the burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

There's more to it than that, Taly. Generally, you can't behave in such a way as to provoke a reasonable fear of danger in another person and then get off scot free if that person overreacts and you injure or kill them in the process of defending yourself from their overreaction. Murder may be an over-charge in those situations, but that's why we have various lesser charges like manslaughter, negligent homicide, multiple degrees of assault, menacing, etc.

Again, no evidence of this was presented at the trial that I saw. It occurs to me that if you are going to put someone away for manslaughter based on the fact that they were "menacing" or assaulting someone in some manner, you should be able to prove this was the case first.

Yeah, I haven't been following the trial, so I don't really know what evidence has been presented or really even what the prosecution's legal arguments are. To the extent that I'm talking about this case (rather than broad legal generalities), I'm going on:

(a) the basic facts that (i) Martin was just walking down the street when Zimmerman spotted him, (ii) Zimmerman followed him down the road and behind some houses, (iii) Martin indicated to a third party that he felt threatened, (iv) at some point, a confrontation and physical altercation occurred in which Martin had the upper hand and Zimmerman was injured and (v) Zimmerman shot Martin while the latter was on top of the former during that altercation; and

(b) a skeptical but "benefit of the doubt" view of Zimmerman's claims that (i) he lost sight of Martin and turned around prior to the confrontation, (ii) Martin initiated the physical contact and was the aggressor throughout the fight and (iii) Zimmerman genuinely felt he was at risk of death or serious injury when he shot Martin.

Evaluating those facts under the "reasonable person" legal standard, I'm inclined to conclude that (i) Zimmerman's suspicions of Martin were not reasonable, (ii) his following of Martin behind the houses was therefore a reckless and threatening/menacing act, and (iii) Martin was justified in feeling threatened by Zimmerman's actions, but (iv) if Zimmerman really did break off pursuit, then Martin was not justified in initiating violence, and (v) if Zimmerman's account of the fight is true, then he was justified in shooting Martin in self-defense. However, since Zimmerman's initial actions were reckless/threatening and initiated the entire chain of events, the net legal effect should only be a mitigating one, not a complete defense against any criminal liability. Hence, I'm inclined to go with manslaughter, not murder.

For reference, here's the basic "voluntary manslaughter" concept I have in mind:



Provocation and imperfect self-defense are common reasons for homicide-related charges to be mitigated down from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

ETA: Note that the foregoing is basically the old Common Law approach, whereas the more modern Model Penal Code doesn't really differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter and instead wraps recklessness leading to homicide into the single definition of "manslaughter". It does have a separate "negligent homicide" offense for negligence not rising to the level of recklessness. I might go for that instead of manslaughter in Zimmerman's case, but states vary as to whether they use Common Law, MPC or hybrid approaches, and I don't know what Florida's laws are.

(ii) is untrue.



Only source for this is a witness who misled at least and perjured at worst.



Correct.



If these are your conclusions, you're an idiot. Additionally, you're effectively stating that lethal force in self-defense is NEVER warranted, and that reporting suspicious people to the police is reckless, threatening, and inappropriate.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

How so?


Sure, but it's a plausible claim that rings true to me, particularly since the phrasing wasn't entirely favorable to the victim.


I'm not "effectively" stating anything. I'm actually stating that following someone based on unreasonable suspicions is reckless, and if the need for self-defense arises from circumstances created by your own recklessness, then it can only be used to mitigate criminal liability, not avoid it entirely.

uh.....

And yet your view of this is just your own biased opinion. Playing Monday morning QB, with a mindset that you have when it comes to race, of course it's going to be reckless and unreasonable. For Zim,it wasn't. Going by the history of the area and the fact that he was part of the neighborhood patrol/watch or whatever, it was very reasonable for him to be suspicious of Martin.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."