The Zimmerman Trial

[dannubis]

So, the guy is going to walk after he

1. killed someone,
2. he was following into a dark alley,
3. based on an alleged assault he can barely prove that was life threatening to him ?

Is that the summary ?

I guess Mr Zimmerman is very lucky the guy he shot wasn't white.

[snoopy369]

It certainly seems to me that:

• Zimmerman did something quite wrong here.
• It's unlikely anyone will ever know if Trayvon Martin initiated the attack or not; but even if he did, he probably did something a lot of us would have done
• Zimmerman is unlikely to be found guilty, even by a completely impartial jury, as the known and provable facts do not appear to be sufficient to prove anything

The act that is provable that he did was to get out of the car. Unfortunately, that's not against the law - and really isn't something you can enforce. Lonestar, yes, Zimmerman undoubtedly created this entire situation. But the specific sequence:

1. Zimmerman gets out of car
2. Martin hits Zimmerman
3. Zimmerman shoots Martin

1 leads to 2 leads to 3, sure. But you'd have to prove 1 led, unavoidably, to 2, just like 2 has been argued to lead unavoidably to 3 (and that's where he'll get convicted, if anything - if the prosecution can show that 2 wasn't sufficient.) It's very hard without having camera footage or a useful unbiased witness to show that Zimmerman was sufficiently threatening to Martin that Martin had little choice but to attack him. I don't necessarily disagree that he probably did feel that way - but we don't live in a 'probably' world in America, we live in a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' world, and I certainly could imagine it going something like 'Hey Kid, what are you doing', 'F*** you ***hole, hit hit hit', no? It doesn't sound like "he would have done that", but that's not sufficient for a criminal case.

[snoopy369]

As the son of a prosecutor, by the way, this is where that job sucks. You know for a fact that the guy you're prosecuting is guilty as all ****, but you also know that it's not going to fly in court because there's not sufficient evidence to prove what actually happened; and the wide difference between "criminal" and "really bad person". A competent DA with no public pressure probably wouldn't have tried this case, indeed, because there just isn't sufficient evidence; again, unless they think they can prove the self defense link (from 2 to 3 in my earlier post) false.

[dannubis]

Since when is 'F*** you ***hole, hit hit hit' enough to put a bullet in someone ?

I mean the kind of 'hit hit hit' that doesn't pose a vital threat to your continued existence on this planet ?

[rah]

I'm with snoop on this one. Yeah he probably did it, but I don't think they have enough to get a conviction. I won't like it, but that what it is.

[regexcellent]

So, the guy is going to walk after he

1. killed someone,
2. he was following into a dark alley,
3. based on an alleged assault he can barely prove that was life threatening to him ?

Is that the summary ?

I guess Mr Zimmerman is very lucky the guy he shot wasn't white.

There was no dark alley and if Martin were white it would have never gone to trial.

Anyway, the sequence of event goes:

1. Zimmerman follows suspicious looking guy in a hoodie checking out houses in a neighborhood which has had a string of burglaries
2. Zimmerman loses track of this guy and heads back to his car
3. ???
4. Zimmerman starts getting the **** beaten out of him by suspicious guy
5. Zimmerman shoots the guy

[snoopy369]

Since when is 'F*** you ***hole, hit hit hit' enough to put a bullet in someone ?

I mean the kind of 'hit hit hit' that doesn't pose a vital threat to your continued existence on this planet ?

That's the argument here, really: was it sufficient threat. The Florida laws make it a bit easier to argue this IIUC; you don't quite have to think you're about to die. I think all of the other stuff would be found in Zimmerman's way, so only the affirmative defense of self defense remains: did he actually legitimately feel he needed to fire the gun in order to protect himself? That, I think, is not something we can really discuss intelligently here.

[Lorizael]

If Zimmerman did commit murder but there's not enough evidence to convict him, is that (a) a problem with self-defense laws, (b) a problem with our justice system, or (c) an unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

[snoopy369]

Mostly (c) with a little sprinkling of (a). One guy shoots another guy, claims self defense, even without wounds it's really hard to argue without witnesses or whatnot. You could tailor SD laws more tightly, but then you have the reverse problem - what if this exact situation did occur, but Trayvon was actually capable of seriously harming or killing Zimmerman, and Zimm was afraid of murder charges so doesn't shoot, and is killed? I mean, if a guy is already close enough to land punches, you might actually not be able to get a shot off at that point, right? This precise situation certainly sounds like he was in the wrong - but you can't tailor laws based on specific corner cases. Maybe we write into the SD laws "this doesn't apply if your dumb ass created the confrontation in the first place", but I doubt that. To me this is just an example of why law is hard.

[DinoDoc]

That's the argument here, really: was it sufficient threat. The Florida laws make it a bit easier to argue this IIUC; you don't quite have to think you're about to die. I think all of the other stuff would be found in Zimmerman's way, so only the affirmative defense of self defense remains: did he actually legitimately feel he needed to fire the gun in order to protect himself?

Hypothetical: At what point in Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin would you argue that Martin could claim the benefit of Florida's Self defense laws if he won the confrontation started by Zimmerman?

[snoopy369]

Hypothetical: At what point in Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin would you argue that Martin could claim the benefit of Florida's Self defense laws if he won the confrontation started by Zimmerman?

I don't think I, or anyone else here, has sufficient facts to actually argue this intelligently. I suspect that Martin could've claimed self defense the same as Zimmerman - and both would be successful in doing so, given what can be proven without witnesses. Martin could've claimed, as Lonestar states, that he feared for his life with someone stalking him and whatnot; I've been in that situation and 100% agree that it would cause you to fear for your life. I don't know (and only one person does) exactly what transpired, though; did Zimmerman announce himself? Did Martin try to run away and did Zimmerman pursue him in a clear and obvious manner? Was there any conversation at all between them? From what I've seen, Zimmerman's statements taken prima facie are sufficient to establish that he did not initiate the conflict, and I don't know that you can find sufficient evidence to disprove those. But I think Martin could've made as persuasive of arguments if he'd been alive to make them.

I would say that (without full legal knowledge of Florida) Martin probably wouldn't have gained anything special from Florida's laws that wouldn't already be available in any jurisdiction; Zimmerman is claiming he was defending his home (and/or his neighbors' homes) while Martin probably wasn't in a situation to believe that; he would argue he was defending his person, which is generally accepted in any jurisdiction.

[DinoDoc]

I don't know that you can find sufficient evidence to disprove those

He got out of the car armed and against the advice of police and neighborhood watch training to pursue the "scary black man" (tm).

[regexcellent]

Florida doesn't have a duty to retreat. That would have been relevant if there weren't plenty of evidence that he couldn't have retreated anyway.

Florida I believe also protects him from being sued if he isn't convicted here.

[DinoDoc]

Florida doesn't have a duty to retreat.

There was no conflict to retreat from until he got out of the car to stalk the scary looking black kid.

[regexcellent]

There was no violent confrontation at that point. As has been explained many times, what happened in between Zimmerman following Martin (which is not a crime) and Martin pummeling him into the ****ing pavement matters.

Being dumb is not a crime. After all, MrFun still walks as a free man.