17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #24

[grammieto5]

I just finished reading Richard Hornsby's "Stand Your Ground" Very interesting!!! I think we should go back to Arrest First, Ask Questions Later, at least that way there would be
some evidence.

 

[Emma Peel]

Question:

This judge (who may step down) ... already accepted the SA's argument as far as finding probable cause...

If when she steps down ...

Does the new judge get to start over and re-assess probable cause?

:waitasec:

probably not. but I thought I'd ask...

 

[legalmania]

The other thing I keep wondering about is if there is a witness, or witnesses that we haven't heard from in the news. Someone who kept their counsel and talked only to investigators.

IMO the prosecutor has something ,either a witness or evidence the we haven't heard about to come up with second degree murder.

 

[raeann]

Question:

This judge (who may step down) ... already accepted the SA's argument as far as finding probable cause...

If when she steps down ...

Does the new judge get to start over and re-assess probable cause?

:waitasec:

probably not. but I thought I'd ask...

This was NOT the judge who accepted probable cause. She was assigned after that hearing was held. Today was her first action regarding the case.

jmo

 

[legalmania]

I just finished reading Richard Hornsby's "Stand Your Ground" Very interesting!!! I think we should go back to Arrest First, Ask Questions Later, at least that way there would be
some evidence.

It's that a little bit risky? To arrest you have to have probable cause, if they can't prove that then it looks as if they are rushing to judgement. IMO they should take as much time as they need to arrest and make sure they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[jjenny]

I remember seeing what was needed to using SYG as a defense and one of them is that you were supposed to have been in that place (meaning you can't rob a bank and then use SYG). My question is did GZ belong there? He did not live in that part of the complex. So, once the 911 operator told him to back off did he wander off in territory that he did not belong in and thus he does not satisfy the requirements necessary for standing his ground?

No, that is not how it works. Robbing a bank is illegal. Thus a person can not rob a bank and claim SYG because they were in a process of doing something illegal. Being in a gated community is legal regardless of what part of the community Zimmerman was at.

 

[beach]

The other thing I keep wondering about is if there is a witness, or witnesses that we haven't heard from in the news. Someone who kept their counsel and talked only to investigators.

Wouldn't that be refreshing? :angel:


Seriously, I am fed up with all these witnesses and/or their attorneys who need to spill their guts and/or get their 15 minutes of fame (really tho?) BEFORE they are deposed and testify.

I am becoming very jaded and cynical about all those kind of folks.

 

[cityslick]

Kind of. Except the guys he shot were trying to mug him. The facts here per the call to police by Zimmerman, what was found on Trayvon's body, the statements by the girlfriend, do not at all indicate Trayvon was a looking for trouble. Instead, he was a kid trying to get home in the rain. Big difference to me.

Also, Goetz illegally carried a gun while Zimmerman did not.

But, Zimmerman and Goetz may be similar personalities, IMO and I do understand the comparison.

ETA: I can't be sure about my last statement, in retrospect. Goetz had been assaulted before and I think he was scared, and not merely hunting "bad guys" as a self-appointed cop wanna' be.

I was a little too young at the time to understand the circumstances when it first happened, but from what I read, the beginnings of that case, public perception started from the same point. You had two very distinct sides, one that thought he was justified in what he did due to fear and the other that based off of vigilantism. I'm sure the question came up then as to how does the court determine when one is in 'fear' enough to justify using deadly force (although they did not die, they could of).

 

[krkrjx]

I really don't think it matters whether GZ put himself in that position or not. It is all about what happened after the physical contact. IMO

And that may very well be what the court decides in this case. However, my stance right now is that this should go through a legal process that allows the truth to come out, if it is at all possible for that to happen. If this is deemed a flat-out stand your ground issue right now and thus dismissed by a judge, we will never have a chance to find out what happened after the physical contact. At best it will be difficult given only one party of a two-party confrontation is still living.

Maybe GZ has a self-defense claim with merit. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe the prosecutor has information that can answer some of the questions we all have. Maybe not. But if the case is simply dismissed now, we will never really know, and the current unrest will not diminish anytime soon. Indeed it may escalate.

 

[cityslick]

I just finished reading Richard Hornsby's "Stand Your Ground" Very interesting!!! I think we should go back to Arrest First, Ask Questions Later, at least that way there would be
some evidence.

I respectfully disagree.....strongly.

 

[magnolia]

In this case Zimmerman's actions as an aggressor are part of the charge against him. His thinking process is part of the charge against him. It all goes to the murder charge. Now the SA feels she has enough evidence to prove who touched who first or who was really in fear of their life.

Everything that took place before the contact is very important to the charge in this case.

I'm very anxious to see what evidence the SA really has.

 

[grammieto5]

It's that a little bit risky? To arrest you have to have probable cause, if they can't prove that then it looks as if they are rushing to judgement. IMO they should take as much time as they need to arrest and make sure they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there are two people, one dead and the other admitting he shot the other person, to not arrest the shooter and get all the evidence, samples of blood, take pictures of all bruises, and wounds, xray the broken nose, do test, keep clothing worn by shooter, would be to just believe the person who killed the other person, wouldn't it? Where would the justice be for the person who was shot?

 

[cityslick]

If there are two people, one dead and the other admitting he shot the other person, to not arrest the shooter and get all the evidence, samples of blood, take pictures of all bruises, and wounds, xray the broken nose, do test, keep clothing worn by shooter, would be to just believe the person who killed the other person, wouldn't it? Where would the justice be for the person who was shot?

In a separate instance (not this case), how would you know that the person who was shot wasn't trying to rob or attack the one with the gun? What if someone actually did get attacked and defended themselves to the point of killing the attacker? You automatically arrest the person still alive?

 

[Emma Peel]

The other thing I keep wondering about is if there is a witness, or witnesses that we haven't heard from in the news. Someone who kept their counsel and talked only to investigators.

I've been noodling some things - but they're kind of a stretch, I think ...

They have to prove that GZ crossed some line with an imminently dangerous act - while showing a depraved lack of regard for human life.

44 (?) 911 calls from GZ prior - shows GZ's 911-call mindset?

Prove GZ knew better as a community watch official - here's community watch rules GZ promised to uphold? (Such that performing watch duties while armed can be considered so defiant that it's a "depraved lack of regard"?)

Prove GZ had the expectation of confrontation & conflict? (based on GZ experience doing this time and time again?)

Prove that GZ pursued & and therefore invited & expected confrontation all while carrying a loaded weapon? (imminently dangerous act)

:dunno:

wondering if something about previous 911-recorded-gz-history or his community watch status - could be deemed evidence of 1) GZ knew the dangers and 2) his state of mind?

 

[2goldfish]

I didn't write the article, but at the end of the day if this goes to trial, it's going to be about this as well as race. Because you going to have those that say he had no business carrying a gun even if he was licensed for it and those on the NRA/right to bear arms side will say he had every right to carry a gun if he was permitted, no matter where he was.

oh well you know you always get people who dont agree with this that and the other. IMO the problem was not that GZ was armed, the problem was the GZ was a lit fuse that blew.

although I could see how saying that if he had no gun he wouldnt have been following trayvon to begin with being probably true.


but so is the adage guns dont kill people, people do.

 

[frenchvixen]

No, that is not how it works. Robbing a bank is illegal. Thus a person can not rob a bank and claim SYG because they were in a process of doing something illegal. Being in a gated community is legal regardless of what part of the community Zimmerman was at.

So, who would not belong there? I remember Toobin from CNN going step by step with the necessary requirements and he stated "TM belonged there b/c he was visiting his dad" and so forth. So, if GZ had no business being there what ground is he standing? He should have stood his ground in his car (stand your car dammit) like he was directed to do.

 

[2goldfish]

the judge's husband is a partner at MN lawfirm and since Zimmerman contacted MN to be his attorney they don't want there to be a conflict of interest.

is it weird of me to be grateful that if GZ had to ask a lawyer related to the anthony fiasco to represent, that he chose MN over JB? :waitasec:

 

[Emma Peel]

This was NOT the judge who accepted probable cause. She was assigned after that hearing was held. Today was her first action regarding the case.

jmo

:doh:

oh gosh. thanks. that's what I get for not watchin' it on the tube.

next questions:

1) Can the next judge disagree that there's probable cause prior to the bond hearing & just vacate the charges?

2) Won't MOM assert self-defense at the bond hearing & motion for dismissal before any pleading or bond request?

TIA. I can't watch the talking heads, so hoping someone covered these points...

 

[grammieto5]

In a separate instance (not this case), how would you know that the person who was shot wasn't trying to rob or attack the one with the gun? What if someone actually did get attacked and defended themselves to the point of killing the attacker? You automatically arrest the person still alive?

Wouldn't it depend on where the attack took place, and what the scene looked like, how the two people each looked?

 

[songline]

Justice is that George Zimmerman has been arrested and charged for the unjustified death of Trayvon Martin and will have to stand in front of our court system to determine what, if any, punishment he gets.

None of us have the facts, but that doesn't stop those people who support GZ's side of the story from stating their opinions? This is a discussion forum and with every case, we discuss our opinions until we do get the facts. We are justified in our opinions. All of us.

MOO

The only people I see standing up for GZ are interested in the facts and will be happy with a
JUST verdict and not by the public but by a USA court.
SO FAR that is all I have been saying.
and no I do not like stroking one side while vilifying the other.
ESPECIALLY since we do not know, but it seems to me that people are so convince that they know it all.
I have not read anyone who wants to see that GZ gets fair trial say that he should not be accountable,
or that the law is not terrible, or that the police did rush things.
NO i do not see them doing that at all. I see them wanting the facts.