Judge's comments to Zimmerman--any lawyers care to comment?

[moda0306]

MT,

The subjective facts I am talking about are things like the race of the participants and neighborhood of the incident.

Further, there appears to be no evidence that Zimmerman punched Martin, but the mere attempt to push, subdue, or swing at Martin could have brought on what occurred.  That's why I think cross-referencing 911 tapes, neighbor testimonies, Martin's friend and other physical evidence is so important.  We know he killed a kid walking through his own neighborhood. Not digging any deeper than they did appears to be short sighted to me. 

[MediumTex]

moda,

If Zimmerman had simply submitted to the attack and allowed Martin to beat him to death without drawing his firearm, what do you think would be the appropriate charge to bring against Martin?

Bear in mind that if you take the gunshot wound out of the picture, Martin didn't have a mark on his body other than fist abrasions from hitting Zimmerman.

When you are thinking about your answer, bear in mind that Martin used a racial slur to refer to Zimmerman shortly before he attacked him.  At a minimum, that's good for third degree or second degree murder if he had killed Zimmerman, but in a prolonged attack it's not too hard to show premeditation, even though the premeditation may have occurred after the fight started but prior to the murder.  With premeditation that's potentially first degree murder charge, and if you can show that the premeditation was combined with a hate crime, in many states that's good for a capital murder charge.

[Pointedstick]

I think as soon as I was physically assaulted I'd have reasonable fear for my life. I don't know how closely zimmerman's case matches such a simple lay out.

So what's wrong with Zimmerman that he can't use the same logic? He was being physically assaulted, had a reasonable fear for his life, and fired the shot that you said you'd fire in that situation.

This is a lot more complex than some kid jumping out of the bushes and beating some guy half to death that was walking his dog.  Zimmerman appears to have pursued Martin.  And something happened between that and Martin being on top of him swinging.  This doesn't give us much to work with without taking testimonies/recordings of the neighbors, 911 dispatcher, Martin's friend, etc and comparing them all together.

It doesn't matter. If Zimmerman pursued Martin, said "fuck your mother, n***** scum!" that still would in no way allow Martin to attempt to murder Zimmerman or invalidate Zimmerman's use of force to stop the attack. Don't you see this? What happened before may be relevant in determining whether Zimmerman acted wisely. But it's not relevant in determining whether he had a right to shoot Martin.

I think I agree with you that Zimmerman shouldn't have ever left his car. He shouldn't have tried to follow Martin. But none of that matters for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense!!!!!

If Zimmerman had laid hands on Martin, then that's a different story. But again, there is no evidence of that happening. Even the subsequent investigation demanded by the outraged media didn't uncover any evidence of it.

I just don't see what more you're looking for. It seems like you really don't want to admit that this is a pretty obvious case of self-defense and are desperately clinging to any hope that maybe Zimmerman may have done something, anything to make Martin's attack justified.

[MediumTex]

MT,

The subjective facts I am talking about are things like the race of the participants and neighborhood of the incident.

A black male attacking a Hispanic male (or vice versa) seems unremarkable to me. 

I don't know what the neighborhood has to do with it.

Further, there appears to be no evidence that Zimmerman punched Martin, but the mere attempt to push, subdue, or swing at Martin could have brought on what occurred.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman attempted to push, subdue or swing at Martin.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nothing.  Just a fantasy in the minds of prosecutors who had no case. 

That's why I think cross-referencing 911 tapes, neighbor testimonies, Martin's friend and other physical evidence is so important.

You don't think the police did that?  Why do you think that they concluded that Zimmerman had committed no crime?  Could it be that their investigation (including four separate interviews with Zimmerman) led them to that conclusion?

We know he killed a kid walking through his own neighborhood. Not digging any deeper than they did appears to be short sighted to me.

If you dug deeper you would know that Martin wasn't walking through his own neighborhood (his neighborhood was in Miami); he was walking through a gated community where his dad's girlfriend lived.

[moda0306]

MT,

I would definitely have charged if not convicted trayvon of something in that case.

This very well might be an unfortunate case of escalation where one person dies and the other one has to be arrested and investigated for a crime.  I'm ok with that.

I think this really gets to how easy it should be to claim self defense and have little/no investigation done.  And since that appears to be where stand your ground comes into play (the decision not to arrest in some cases) then I'm probably in the wrong from a purely legal perspective.

But I'm of the opinion that if you kill someone that the event should be picked apart pretty thoroughly.  You took someone's life.  This isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they were assaulting you. This is an odd animal of law, because usually we don't end up in situations where we committed a heinous act (on its face), but are simply trying to show we were justified in that act.  Usually we're claiming we didn't commit an act (theft, speeding, robbery, rape).

Gotta go to bed fellas.  Good discussion.

[MediumTex]

I just don't see what more you're looking for. It seems like you really don't want to admit that this is a pretty obvious case of self-defense and are desperately clinging to any hope that maybe Zimmerman may have done something, anything to make Martin's attack justified.

What I find very odd is that of all of the examples of black people being mistreated by the police in this country that happen every single day, for some reason the public wants to be outraged about this one case where there isn't any evidence that Martin was mistreated at all by anyone based upon his race.

There is plenty of racism that black people are exposed to regularly in many parts of the country, and that is something worth being outraged about, but to ignore the countless legitimate cases of racism (especially racism committed by the police) in favor of this one case of clear self defense that had nothing to do with race is hard for me to understand.

[Ad Orientem]

Like it or not, in this country we have an "innocent until proven guilty" system. If you kill someone in claimed self-defense and it can't be proven otherwise, you're a free man. That's just how our system works. The only alternative to this would be the presumption of guilt which I am simply going to go out on a limb and assume you would find worse.

Actually in all but a very few jurisdictions "self defense" is what is known as an "affirmative defense." The prosecutor is normally only obliged to prove that person 'A' was killed and that person 'B' made person 'A' dead. A claim of self defense concedes those points and as a matter of law the prosecution has met its burden of proof. The burden of proof in a justifiable homicide case almost always rests with the defendant.

Florida, under pressure from the NRA has adopted some weird laws that have convoluted the immemorial position of English Common Law adopted by statute in all but a few states. In most states Zimmerman would have been required to produce a preponderance of evidence establishing self defense as an excuse for killing someone.

That said I still think that on balance the evidence supports Zimmerman. But in most states he would have had a harder time in court.

[Pointedstick]

I think this really gets to how easy it should be to claim self defense and have little/no investigation done.

You keep repeating this. MT has repeatedly indicated that there was nothing particularly deficient about the investigation. Can you offer any specific rebuttals?

And since that appears to be where stand your ground comes into play (the decision not to arrest in some cases)

No, not really. Even in states without stand-your-ground laws, there's no reason to make an arrest if the police investigation reveals that they think it's a clear case of self-defense. All stand-your-ground laws do is remove the legal requirement that you first attempt to fall back or flee if confronted with violence. In this case, that didn't even come into play because Zimmerman was on the ground, pinned by Martin. He couldn't flee.

But I'm of the opinion that if you kill someone that the event should be picked apart pretty thoroughly.

I still don't think you've answered MT's question regarding just what about the investigation was incomplete, negligent, slipshod, etc.

You took someone's life.  This isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they were assaulting you.

Not in this case. Nobody disputes that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman.

[MediumTex]

MT,

I would definitely have charged if not convicted trayvon of something in that case.

But Zimmerman defending himself against that criminal act (when Zimmerman never cast a blow prior to the shot being fired) would also be a criminal act by Zimmerman from your perspective?

This very well might be an unfortunate case of escalation where one person dies and the other one has to be arrested and investigated for a crime.  I'm ok with that.

What escalation?  The only evidence is that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  There is no evidence of escalation.  If I am walking in your direction on a rainy night and you run around and sucker punch me from the side and start banging my head on the sidewalk, the only escalation is in the scale of your attack on me.

I think this really gets to how easy it should be to claim self defense and have little/no investigation done.

I assume you are kidding, right?  Ask George Zimmerman if he thinks that almost no investigation was done.

And since that appears to be where stand your ground comes into play (the decision not to arrest in some cases) then I'm probably in the wrong from a purely legal perspective.

This was not a stand your ground case.  Zimmerman never invoked stand your ground as a defense.  This was simple self-defense.

But I'm of the opinion that if you kill someone that the event should be picked apart pretty thoroughly.

Do you think that Zimmerman's situation was adequately picked apart?  I would say that it was (and then some).

You took someone's life.  This isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they were assaulting you.

Is it in dispute?  Unless Zimmerman had his nose broken and back of his head cut up prior to encountering Martin, it seems obvious that an assault occurred.

Gotta go to bed fellas.  Good discussion.

We can pick it up again tomorrow.

Apparently the Justice Department is considering a civil rights lawsuit against Zimmerman, notwithstanding the fact that the Florida state prosecutor said that this case is not, and has never been, about race, so I'm sure there will be plenty more to discuss.

[MediumTex]

As always, I really appreciate the good discussion about this interesting and important topic.

Without different views such as moda's it's not possible to explore the many facets of this case.  I obviously have a point of view, but I welcome all other perspectives and I hope that anyone who has an opinion feels comfortable sharing it.

[stone]

I know the movie Crash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_(2004_film) regularly gets polled as worst ever Oscar winning movie but I think it seems spot on about this whole tragic subject.

If a friend of mine had stalked someone who was walking through the streets minding their own business and the person being stalked had got pissed off and punched my friend, I would say they deserved the punching for being so rude as to stalk someone. Of course it is much nicer simply to turn around and say, "can I help you" to someone who is stalking you rather than punching them.

I agree that Zimmerman seems to have been acting in self defense however. I don't see how you can have the public bearing arms and not get people shot in scenarios such as this. That is why I'm glad we don't have widespread gun ownership in the UK.

[notsheigetz]

Just like the O.J. Simpson case I'm amazed at how the races perceive things so differently. I keep hearing the narrative from black leaders and others about an innocent child being killed while walking through a white neighborhood carrying a bag of skittles. It's like those photos of Zimmerman's injuries haven't registered in the slightest. Are we to assume that they believe Martin was justified in causing those injuries to Zimmerman and if he had killed him, would that have also been justified? I even heard one of Martin's lawyers compare him to the civil right's leader Medgar Evers.

Obviously we're marching to the beat of different drummers. Kind of scary.

[MediumTex]

If a friend of mine had stalked someone who was walking through the streets minding their own business and the person being stalked had got pissed off and punched my friend, I would say they deserved the punching for being so rude as to stalk someone. Of course it is much nicer simply to turn around and say, "can I help you" to someone who is stalking you rather than punching them.

You are aware, though, that walking behind someone at a distance on a single occasion is not stalking, right?

[Pointedstick]

I agree that Zimmerman seems to have been acting in self defense however. I don't see how you can have the public bearing arms and not get people shot in scenarios such as this. That is why I'm glad we don't have widespread gun ownership in the UK.

If you agree that Zimmerman's case is one of legitimate self-defense, then opposing his right to carry a firearm is essentially telling him that he didn't have the right to save his own life.

And how was Zimmerman possibly stalking Martin? He followed him briefly, then turned around and went back to his car.

Again I just don't understand attempts to try to make Zimmerman look like the bad guy. You really have to stretch to find anything that he did wrong after he got out of his car, which was perhaps a foolish decision, but not a criminal or even immoral one.

[MediumTex]

I even heard one of Martin's lawyers compare him to the civil right's leader Medgar Evers.

The other comparison I heard was to the Emmett Till incident.  For anyone who is not familiar with the Emmett Till story, here are the basics of what happened:

Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American boy who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman. Till was from Chicago, Illinois, visiting his relatives in Money, Mississippi, in the Mississippi Delta region, when he spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the married proprietor of a small grocery store there. Several nights later, Bryant's husband Roy and his half-brother J. W. Milam arrived at Till's great-uncle's house where they took Till, transported him to a barn, beat him and gouged out one of his eyes, before shooting him through the head and disposing of his body in the Tallahatchie River, weighting it with a 70-pound (32 kg) cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. His body was discovered and retrieved from the river three days later.

Till was returned to Chicago and his mother, who had raised him mostly by herself, insisted on a public funeral service with an open casket to show the world the brutality of the killing. Tens of thousands attended his funeral or viewed his casket and images of his mutilated body were published in black magazines and newspapers, rallying popular black support and white sympathy across the U.S. Intense scrutiny was brought to bear on the condition of black civil rights in Mississippi, with newspapers around the country critical of the state. Although initially local newspapers and law enforcement officials decried the violence against Till and called for justice, they soon began responding to national criticism by defending Mississippians, which eventually transformed into support for the killers.

The trial attracted a vast amount of press attention. Bryant and Milam were acquitted of Till's kidnapping and murder, but only months later, in a magazine interview, protected against double jeopardy, they admitted to killing him. Till's murder is noted as a pivotal event motivating the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

Does anyone think it makes sense to compare the Emmett Till story to the shooting by a Hispanic man of a 17 year old African American male who attacked him with little or no provocation and had him pinned down as he beat his head on the sidewalk?

The comment I heard went something like this: "Trayvon Martin will be added to the pantheon of martyrs to the cause of civil rights in this country, and will be remembered by history the way we remember figures like Emmett Till and Medgar Evers today."

That seems like a totally bizarre way of looking at this case, especially considering that the state prosecutors repeatedly said that the case was not, and had never been, about race.

[dualstow]

There's a law professor on the radio discussing how it's possible to respect the jury's decision and still feel that Zimmerman got away with something. I think I fall into that category. I absolutely agree with the 'not guilty' verdict, but I'm tempted by feelings that both Martin and Zimmerman were on trajectories to mishap. Martin with his thuggish behavior and Zimmerman with his overzealous paramilitary mindset. Not just on that fateful day, but repeatedly throughout their lives.

I'm not saying either of them deserves it. But, each of them definitely had a hand in his own doom.

[MediumTex]

Here was Obama's response:

In Washington, Obama said he respected the jury's decision and asked the nation to reflect on gun violence. He called Martin's death a tragedy, "Not just for his family, or any one community, but for America."

"I know this case has elicited strong passions," the president said. "And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."

No mention of it being a tragedy for Zimmerman to have been bullied by state prosecutors who went around the normal grand jury indictment process and ignored the conclusions of the local police and district attorney's office.

[Pointedstick]

There's a law professor on the radio discussing how it's possible to respect the jury's decision and still feel that Zimmerman got away with something. I think I fall into that category. I absolutely agree with the 'not guilty' verdict, but I'm tempted by feelings that both Martin and Zimmerman were on trajectories to mishap. Martin with his thuggish behavior and Zimmerman with his overzealous paramilitary mindset. Not just on that fateful day, but repeatedly throughout their lives.

I'm not saying either of them deserves it. But, each of them definitely had a hand in his own doom.

In general I would agree, except for perhaps not criticizing Zimmerman so much. I'm not sure I see much of a "paramilitary mindset" save for maybe a heightened sensitivity to crime and a perhaps overzealous desire to protect his community. If we're going to discourage that, well, I think it's a little sad. If people are discouraged from protecting their own communities, that means relying 100% on the police, and we all know how well that usually works out.

[MediumTex]

There's a law professor on the radio discussing how it's possible to respect the jury's decision and still feel that Zimmerman got away with something. I think I fall into that category. I absolutely agree with the 'not guilty' verdict, but I'm tempted by feelings that both Martin and Zimmerman were on trajectories to mishap. Martin with his thuggish behavior and Zimmerman with his overzealous paramilitary mindset. Not just on that fateful day, but repeatedly throughout their lives.

I'm not saying either of them deserves it. But, each of them definitely had a hand in his own doom.

The only way Zimmerman would have gotten away with anything would be if he had not been defending himself under Florida law at the time the shooting occurred.

Do you think that he was not defending himself, regardless of what made Martin decide to attack him?

Apparently, the sight of "creepy ass crackers" agitated Martin, but if I were Zimmerman, who looks quite Hispanic to me, I wouldn't have figured that this label any applicability to me.

If Martin had killed Zimmerman, does anyone think that Martin would have been able to argue self-defense as the one who attacked Zimmerman and continued the attack even after Zimmerman offered no resistance?  If Martin was committing a crime at the time Zimmerman shot him, why do we have so much trouble with this outcome?  I'm still trying to figure out what Zimmerman should have done after the attack started.

It's sort of like if I go into the woods and a bear attacks me and I shoot it.  You can say that I should not have gone into the woods, but once I was in the woods (which is not illegal), surely I shouldn't be required to simply submit to the bear attack, even if the bear feels 100% justified in attacking me.  I am using the bear example for the purpose of creating a hypothetical in which we would attribute no malice or ill intent to the attacker (I'm not anti-bear), and nevertheless feel that the actions taken in self-defense were proper from a legal perspective.

Now, consider a different bear situation.  Let's say I am walking through the woods and I am not armed, and in fact the only things I have with me are a canteen full of iced tea and a Skittles-flavored MRE.  I look behind me and several hundred yards back I see a young bear checking me out.  I realize that I can easily make it to safety if I run, but instead I decide to shake the bear, pick up a stick and run at the bear from the side and strike it in the head with the stick as hard as I can.  The blow to the head staggers the bear, but the bear is still on its feet.  I look around and see a large rock and immediately strike the bear with it, which causes the bear to fall.  I then position the rock beneath the bear's head and begin methodically banging the bear's head against the rock as it slowly loses consciousness and finally dies.  Would anyone find anything these actions troubling?  If the bear had instead fought back after I struck it and killed me, would anyone find the bear's actions troubling?

[dualstow]

The only way Zimmerman would have gotten away with anything would be if he had not been defending himself under Florida law at the time the shooting occurred.

Do you think that he was not defending himself, regardless of what made Martin decide to attack him?

I think he was defending himself, 100%. His head was getting smashed on concrete. What's the expression? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6? (Although in this case he was "carried" by a jury of six.).

It's your premise above which I'm not sure I agree with. Legally, Zimmerman was in the right. I have no doubt that he didn't get away with a crime.
And now that this is all over, let's imagine that it wasn't Martin but someone else that GZ had been following. What if GZ had found a real burglar who was about to burgle a home or rape someone? And what if he had backed off and let it happen? Come to think of it, maybe this will happen more often now as a direct reaction to the outrage caused by this very case.

I'm sure that GZ was frustrated from many past encounters with thugs by the time he encountered T Martin. Hindsight is 20/20 but tunnel vision hindsight, focusing only on this encounter and not past events is far blurrier, I'm sure.

Despite all of this, I still think that Zimmerman may have been overzealous. Again, though, not criminally overzealous, and that's what counts.

If Martin was committing a crime at the time Zimmerman shot him, why do we have so much trouble with this outcome?

I should have read your full post more carefully before responding to each part. Suffice it to say, we agree on this point.

I'm still trying to figure out what Zimmerman should have done after the attack started.

He did the right thing.

It's sort of like if I go into the woods and a bear attacks me and I shoot it.

Is it, though? Anything can happen in the woods, and it's expected.
My city may be likened to the woods or a jungle, but a gated community? Violence is much more infrequent. You can't hang back and watch a bear as easily, but in a gated community, I would feel safe watching a suspicious individual from a car to see if he breaks into a house.

Does that make sense?

@ PointedStick:
Overzealous, yes. It's the degree of zeal only that I was focusing on. I agree with the 'not guilty' verdict.

Edited only one word (grammar) + boldface.

[Pointedstick]

All the objections I've seen revolve around "not going into the woods" to use MT's metaphor.

It is very easy to judge other people for innocent enough decisions that nonetheless may wind up attracting trouble (going into the woods, following a suspicious character, buying beer at 2 AM, driving 5 MPH over the speed limit, etc), but the fact of the matter is that we all do these types of things every day.

[dualstow]

PS & MT: Is it fair to say that your stance, both of your stances, is that Zimmerman was just at the wrong place at the wrong time?

That's how I would feel if he was just walking to the gate, on foot. But once he got out of his car, this was no chance encounter with a bear. Once he got out of the car, he was on patrol. That's why I have an objection to the bear metaphor.

[Coffee]

There's no law against getting out of your car and following someone on a public street. There is no right to privacy on a public street. 

There is a law against punching somebody in the noise and then repeatedly punching him.  It's called: Felony Battery.

That the dispatcher told GZ, "We don't need you to do that," is a standard line.  They tell that to everyone because if they don't, it opens the police dept. up to liability.

So, if a man is hanging over the side of a cliff screaming, "Help me, help me!" and you call it in saying, "I'm going to help him... send an ambulance!", they will tell you, "We don't need you to do that."  It's a standard line, a CYA.

[Pointedstick]

PS & MT: Is it fair to say that your stance, both of your stances, is that Zimmerman was just at the wrong place at the wrong time?

That's how I would feel if he was just walking to the gate, on foot. But once he got out of his car, this was no chance encounter with a bear. Once he got out of the car, he was on patrol. That's why I have an objection to the bear metaphor.

But that was his job, though: he was the neighborhood watch coordinator. What he did is exactly what his HOA had elected him to do.

I don't think Zimmerman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think he made a foolish decision to pursue someone he had already contacted the police about, but he had every right to defend himself once his instincts about that person happened to be proven correct because that person attempted to murder him.

[dualstow]

I don't think Zimmerman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think he made a foolish decision to pursue someone he had already contacted the police about, but he had every right to defend himself once his instincts about that person happened to be proven correct because that person attempted to murder him.

That's exactly how I feel, PS.

That the dispatcher told GZ, "We don't need you to do that," is a standard line.  They tell that to everyone because if they don't, it opens the police dept. up to liability

That's a very, very interesting point. I can't remember- did we have a thread about that health facility* employee who refused to give CPR, and it turned out to not only be within the law but an adherence to the policy of the place?
*I cannot recall what the institution was: an old age home?