Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**biccat**

Polonius wrote:But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

No, because that gives authority to anyone who threatens violence to control where you are legally allowed to be. If I can force you to leave with "I'm going to kill you," then (absent stand-your-ground rules) you are under a legal obligation to leave the area.

The next question is: what else is a person required to do? If a mugger says "give me your wallet or I'll kill you", are you under a legal obligation to surrender your life (assuming there's no opportunity to retreat), or do you have the right to self defense? What about other crimes? Is a woman who is threatened with rape under a legal obligation to submit, or can she use deadly force to defend herself?

And just because, here's a case out of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a "duty to retreat" if you feel your life is in danger:

By the time the trial began in January, 2007, there was no dispute between the Commonwealth and the defendant that the victim had died as a result of stab wounds inflicted by the defendant with a knife during a fight between the two young men outside of the victim’s home in Pittsfield…. In particular, at the time of his arrest on May 30, 2005, some hours after the fight with and resulting death of the victim, the defendant gave a statement to the police in which he said that immediately before the actual physical confrontation between him and the victim began, the victim “was on his porch saying that, ‘I’m going to stab you [see forum posting rules], this and that.’”
...
The defendant claims that he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense and that the judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury on this theory. When deadly force is used, such as in this case, the deadly force standard is applied. “In order to create a right to defend oneself with a dangerous weapon likely to cause serious injury or death, it must appear that the person using the weapon had a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm and a reasonable belief that no other means would suffice to prevent such harm.” Moreover, the privilege to use self-defense arises only in circumstances in which the defendant uses all proper means to avoid physical combat.
...
In the defendant’s statement to the police, he said that, as he was about ten feet from the victim on the porch, the victim yelled, “I’m going to stab you [see forum posting rules],” and that the victim jumped or “skipped” off the porch and “came at” the defendant and the defendant’s friend, Brandon Johnson. The defendant “figured that [the victim] had a knife, too, because he was going to stab us.” At that point, the defendant and Johnson talked about what to do, and Johnson gave the defendant a knife.

The case was remanded on other grounds, but the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter (he was denied an instruction of self defense).

**Kilkrazy**

Just being lethally threatened doesn't create a legal obligation to leave an area.

It is pretty sensible to run away, though, otherwise you might get killed.

Avoiding trouble is a basic skill of streetwise.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Just being lethally threatened doesn't create a legal obligation to leave an area.

It is pretty sensible to run away, though, otherwise you might get killed.

Avoiding trouble is a basic skill of streetwise.

Did somebody say streetwise?

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:Just being lethally threatened doesn't create a legal obligation to leave an area.

That's true, you could always get killed.

I suppose you consider this a sensible alternative?

I eagerly await your next post in 3-4 pages tossing out a pithy line or two.

**Ouze**

I look forward to this case to finally (possibly) get a clearer picture of what actually happened that night.

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:I look forward to this case to finally (possibly) get a clearer picture of what actually happened that night.

Dobutful. There will be 3 stories to this case, but only 2 that come out. The prosecutions, the defendents, and what really happened.

I doubt we'll ever get the full story.

**Kilkrazy**

biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Just being lethally threatened doesn't create a legal obligation to leave an area.

That's true, you could always get killed.

I suppose you consider this a sensible alternative?

I eagerly await your next post in 3-4 pages tossing out a pithy line or two.

Not sure what you mean.

If a law were to be passed making it a crime not to run away when lethally threatened then obviously you would be committing a crime by not running away when lethally threatened.

That's not the state of the law, though, so if threatened you have no legal duty to run away.

I still would, though.

**generalgrog**

Couldn't it be considered dangerous to "run away" in some cases? If I run away... what's to prevent the guy I ran away from, from tracking me down and doing away with me.

GG

**Frazzled**

generalgrog wrote:Couldn't it be considered dangerous to "run away" in some cases? If I run away... what's to prevent the guy I ran away from, from tracking me down and doing away with me.

GG

Or just stabbing you in the back.

**Manchu**

I'm no criminal defense lawyer but I seem to remember there being exceptions to duty to retreat. For one thing, you don't have to retreat if you're already in your house (castle laws). For another, I don't think you have the duty if retreating would also be dangerous or if you can't retreat.

**d-usa**

The actual affidavit, if anybody wants to read it.

**AustonT**

d-usa wrote:The actual affidavit, if anybody wants to read it.

Not exact:
"Trayvon Martin's mother listened to the 911 tapes and IDed the voice calling for help as her son"
WELL THAT SEALS IT.
victims mother who was not present as an expert witness: value=0.
They could have left that out and used a real expert.

**Frazzled**

Thats not its purpose. its a simple affadavit attesting to minimum evidence supporting an arrest - aka sufficient probable cause.

They'll need a lot more than that, and the items noted need to be supported (and can in turn be refuted by the defense).

**Mannahnin**

Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:"Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)

Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."

Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.

Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.

This point has been raised in literally every thread on the subject in the last month.

What happens in Florida is that before it can get to a jury trial, they hold an evidentiary hearing before a judge. He decides if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the defendent thought he was defending himself. If so, he is granted immunity from prosecution, and it never goes to trial.

In some cases people have pursued, and still been granted immunity. There was a case in Miami recently where a guy chased a thief who had stolen his car stereo. Chased the thief down and stabbed him to death. The thief was only armed with the bag holding a couple of stolen stereos. The judge granted the killer immunity.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man.

Circuit Judge Beth Bloom issued her written ruling six days after deciding that based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Greyston Garcia was immune from prosecution in the killing of Pedro Roteta, who swung the four- to six-pound bag at Garcia just before the stabbing.

Last week’s ruling drew widespread attention at a time when critics are assailing Florida’s self-defense law in the wake of the fatal shooting of a Miami Gardens youth, Trayvon Martin, 17, by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.

Citing the law, Sanford police did not arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, 28. Trayvon’s supporters have said Zimmerman targeted the unarmed teen because he was black.

In Garcia’s case, police painted the defendant as a vigilante who chased Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him during a confrontation Jan. 25.

But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia “was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property . . . the defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property.”

Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. Those actions, however, did not sway the judge in ruling in favor of his self-defense claim.

**AustonT**

I'm aware of the purpose of an affidavit, and if I wasn't the last paragraph makes it clear. All I'm saying is that even for the purpose of determining probable cause. A non-witness, who just so happens to be the victims mother is useless as evidence towards PC. Or think rather in the reverse, if Zimmerman's mother said he was the voice calling for help. It's useless, and can probably be latched onto by the defense(however in what capacity I do not know: not being a lawyer and all).

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:I'm aware of the purpose of an affidavit, and if I wasn't the last paragraph makes it clear. All I'm saying is that even for the purpose of determining probable cause. A non-witness, who just so happens to be the victims mother is useless as evidence towards PC. Or think rather in the reverse, if Zimmerman's mother said he was the voice calling for help. It's useless, and can probably be latched onto by the defense(however in what capacity I do not know: not being a lawyer and all).

Evidently the standard in Florida is pretty low.

**Kilkrazy**

generalgrog wrote:Couldn't it be considered dangerous to "run away" in some cases? If I run away... what's to prevent the guy I ran away from, from tracking me down and doing away with me.

GG

If they wanted to kill you they would just kill you without warning.

Unless it's some kind of James Bond gloating scenario.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
It's not semantics you're missing, it's the fact that prosecutors make their bones on winning prosecutions.

Yes, and?

Innocent people will be convicted of crimes, news at 11.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:
It's not semantics you're missing, it's the fact that prosecutors make their bones on winning prosecutions.

Yes, and?

Innocent people will be convicted of crimes, news at 11.

Well, as long as we're all okay with innocent people being convicted of crimes, you're right, it's not an issue at all.

But that wasn't even the point I was making. Without Stand Your Ground laws, I'm going tens of thousands of dollars into debt the second I quite legally use deadly force to defend myself, unless I want to chance my freedom to an overworked public defender. I'm also losing my job - it's hard to work a nine to five when you're in jail awaiting trial - and getting vilified by the media if the guy who tried to kill me happens to be of an advantageous character for any number of special interest groups out there.

I don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. I don't want the OK Corral on the average street. But when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and if someone is trying to assault/rape/kill someone else and happens to bite off more than they can chew? Hey, sucks to be them, maybe don't be a criminal next playthrough.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
Well, as long as we're all okay with innocent people being convicted of crimes, you're right, it's not an issue at all.

Any system of justice has to be ok with some innocents being convicted. There's no practical way around it.

Seaward wrote:
But that wasn't even the point I was making. Without Stand Your Ground laws, I'm going tens of thousands of dollars into debt the second I quite legally use deadly force to defend myself, unless I want to chance my freedom to an overworked public defender. I'm also losing my job - it's hard to work a nine to five when you're in jail awaiting trial - and getting vilified by the media if the guy who tried to kill me happens to be of an advantageous character for any number of special interest groups out there.

Too bad, shouldn't have placed yourself in a position where you were likely to commit a questionable act.

Seaward wrote:
I don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. I don't want the OK Corral on the average street. But when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and if someone is trying to assault/rape/kill someone else and happens to bite off more than they can chew? Hey, sucks to be them, maybe don't be a criminal next playthrough.

And I want them to bear the responsibility of killing another person, even if it was done legitimately, by way of monetary penalty. Because, ultimately, I don't care about them at all (hint, the population of the US is north of 300 million, you're (and so am I) irrelevant because of that), I care about a society that involves disincentives to assault, or kill, regardless of intent.

Makes for less work, and involves less money being spent.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:Any system of justice has to be ok with some innocents being convicted. There's no practical way around it.

No. Any system of justice has to acknowledge that such will happen. Working to keep that number as low as possible is certainly within the realm of possibility for a good system of justice, however.

Too bad, shouldn't have placed yourself in a position where you were likely to commit a questionable act.

Oh? What position was that? Walking through a city center? Driving home from work? Visiting a girlfriend with a violent ex?

And I want them to bear the responsibility of killing another person, even if it was done legitimately, by way of monetary penalty. Because, ultimately, I don't care about them at all (hint, the population of the US is north of 300 million, you're (and so am I) irrelevant because of that), I care about a society that involves disincentives to assault, or kill, regardless of intent.

Makes for less work, and involves less money being spent.

I would say the potential for getting shot in the face is a pretty good incentive not to assault or try to kill somebody.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
No. Any system of justice has to acknowledge that such will happen.

Which is being alright with it happening.

Seaward wrote:
Oh? What position was that? Walking through a city center? Driving home from work? Visiting a girlfriend with a violent ex?

Yep, all are risks. You don't want to take risks, then don't take risks.

You are, after all, responsible for your actions.

Seaward wrote:
I would say the potential for getting shot in the face is a pretty good incentive not to assault or try to kill somebody.

But that exists outside legislation.

**Hazardous Harry**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:Any system of justice has to be ok with some innocents being convicted. There's no practical way around it.

No. Any system of justice has to acknowledge that such will happen. Working to keep that number as low as possible is certainly within the realm of possibility for a good system of justice, however.

At some point every system will have to admit that it's chosen the best possible balance between convicting innocent people and letting guilty people off.

I would say the potential for getting shot in the face is a pretty good incentive not to assault or try to kill somebody.

You're assuming that only people legitimately acted only in self defence (rather than due to a mean streak or a sense of vigilantism). For example, the above case of someone hunting down and stabbing a thief to death.

**Kilkrazy**

I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:

1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:

1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!

I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.

**Chongara**

Seaward wrote:
There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

America must have the lowest crime rate in the developed world then, especially violent crime.

**Seaward**

Chongara wrote:
Seaward wrote:
There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

America must have the lowest crime rate in the developed world then, especially violent crime.

What makes you say that? The percentage of the population that concealed carries is quite low.

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:

1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!

I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.

There's also evidence for the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the higher crime rates go.

**Frazzled**

Crime rates in states that implemented CC laws indeed fall quite dramatically from pre-law days.

Whats interesting about this case is that how it impacts neighborhood associations or just neighbors. If you follow the fact pattern, even if you follow the police mantra “observe and report” and do nothing else, you are now liable for the complete ruination of your life up to being castigated by the President of the United States and the UN (look it up), and potentially spending decades in jail.

To play Devil's Advocate, what exactly keeps you safe if you're on a neighborhood watch?
The only difference apparently is that Zimmerman followed Martin for a period of time (its disputed whether or not he turned back when the 911 operator told him to, which to me is the actual crux of that trial). If neighborhood watch sees BG and calls it in, unless they immediately run/drive away they are in the same position as Zimmerman if attacked. Further, given the fact pattern above, even if they are leaving the area and the BG appears and attacks them, well they're going to jail.

Please demonstrate the difference?

Moral of the story: don't be on a neighborhood watch. Mnd your business. If rampaging monkeys attack the street behind you, too bad, so sad.Don't report it because you could be the next Zimmerman when the nattering nabobs star flapping their lips on the TV. Cops get sued all the time for good busts, whats makes civilians think they are safe in any way whatsoever?
Way to go USA.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:

1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!

I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.

There's also evidence for the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the higher crime rates go.

Thats false actually. Violent crime and robbery rates in Florida, Texas, and Tennessee went down significantly within 2 years after introduction of CHL laws.

**Kilkrazy**

The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.

If Zimmerman had just driven home at that point he would be fine, Martin would have been picked up by the police and let go after a brief questioning, and no-one would have been hurt.