Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest

[cavalcade]

Ideally, he'd be arrested and tried for murder, but I'm not sure they'll have the evidence they need to get a conviction.  Now, if they can at least get him on a charge for not listening to the 911 dispatcher, that'd at least be a small consolation.  Sadly, I'm not sure this will have a just ending.

They should try for manslaughter instead of murder - being that you can't say his actions were premeditated it would probably be easier to get a jury to convict on a lesser charge.

[notalawyer]  It does look a lot like manslaughter, since he pretty clearly ignored police instructions but at least so far there's reasonable doubt as to his intent to kill the kid.  [/notalawyer]

[aves terra]

If you havent heard it yet, here is the recording of Zimmerman's initial 911 call before he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in "self defense".  Listen very carefully to what Zimmerman mumbles at the 1:52 mark after he describes to the dispatcher that Trayvon was heading towards the back entrance of the neighborhood.  He clearly says "f***ing coons".  

youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk&feature=player_embedded

The fact that this guy Zimmerman is not white but hispanic is irrelevant.  From listening to the tape it sounds as if he was tired of these f***ing coons always getting away and decided to start a confrontation which led to the death of an unarmed teenager half his size who was doing nothing illegal.  Charge him with manslaughter at the very least and the entire Sanford police department needs to be investigated based off their very questionable conduct following the murder.  

[dead0man]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

How is someone holding a smoking gun over a dead kid not proof of guilt?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

How is someone holding a smoking gun over a dead kid not proof of guilt?

It's proof that he shot him, but he could claim it was in self defense.

[Likely Voter]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

That may have been the intent of the law when he wrote it, but it's not written in the law.  The law says:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

The law never says that if you pursue a suspicious person and then have to defend yourself that the justification doesn't apply.

It SHOULD say that, but it doesn't.  If the law isn't rewritten as a result of this, I'd be surprised.

I'm not saying the guy won't be found guilty - I'm just saying that there's a decent chance that he won't be found guilty.

[Fritz]

Sanford Chief of Police has "temporarily" stepped down.

[jimrtex]

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

This claims the gun was collected as evidence, and the report identified the victim.

The tape released by the police ran 4:11 and that on Youtube 2:42

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

[King]

If I'm the seventh seed in the NBA East, I'm shooting LeBron James in the knee after his first foul.

[The Mikado]

This might be the dumbest law I've ever heard of, and I've heard of some dumb laws.  Pick a fight with someone, then shoot him and say "self defense?"

[ag]

If this law is not decriminalizing most murders, I don't know what it does. Whenver anyone is killed without witnesses (and even in most cases w/ witnesses) it becomes simply impossible to prove that somebody acted illegally. It's "Shoot First, or You Will Be Shot Yourself Act". This is clear murder decriminalization - and most definite reason to do one's best to avoid ever going to Florida.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The thing is - everybody's going after the police chief for not making an arrest, and now he's temporarily stepped down, but that's (in my mind) because of pressure, not because he's actually failed to uphold the law.  Don't get me wrong, I think this guy should be given the death penalty for what he did, but the law is written in a way that really ties the hands of the police.  Removing the police chief will aleviate the public outcry, but when it comes down to 12 angry men deciding the shooter's fate, the law is sadly on the defense's side.

It may not have been the intent of the law, but the way I read it, it makes it really hard to convict him.

[Bacon King]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

That may have been the intent of the law when he wrote it, but it's not written in the law.  The law says:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

The law never says that if you pursue a suspicious person and then have to defend yourself that the justification doesn't apply.

It SHOULD say that, but it doesn't.  If the law isn't rewritten as a result of this, I'd be surprised.

I'm not saying the guy won't be found guilty - I'm just saying that there's a decent chance that he won't be found guilty.

After reviewing the Florida law I really doubt it applies here.

The section of 776.012 that you quoted doesn't apply because, with the victim being quite obviously unarmed, any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

Furthermore, note 776.013 (3):

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

(Sorry if this is post is a bit rambling, btw, i've been up almost 48 hours at this point).

[CaDan]

The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

(Sorry if this is post is a bit rambling, btw, i've been up almost 48 hours at this point).

BWWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

[jimrtex]

The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

After Zimmerman reported that Martin was running, the dispatcher asked if he were following him.  And then told him "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman said "OK".

I don't know how the the dispatcher knew that he was moving, or whether he could tell if Zimmerman was still moving, or if Zimmerman was actually moving after he acknowledged the suggestion not to follow.

The phone call lasted another 1-1/2 minutes.

So if I call 911, and the dispatcher tells me to stay inside; and I nonetheless go outside, have I obstructed justice?

Since the fighting and shooting didn't happen on the street, Zimmerman wasn't in his truck.

If Zimmerman was trying to figure out where Martin had gone, and Martin jumped him, and either hit in him in the back of the head, or pushed him so he hit his head, would Zimmerman be justified in fighting back?

[asexual trans victimologist]

The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

(Sorry if this is post is a bit rambling, btw, i've been up almost 48 hours at this point).

BWWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

Please Elaborate.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

From what I've heard from legal analysts, ignoring a 911 operator usually isn't considered obstruction of justice.

I'm honestly 50/50 as to whether I think he'll get convicted or not.

[Iosif]

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.

[Gravis Marketing]

In case any Republicans are feeling cornered, like this is a partisan case and they have to defend Zimmerman, note that Allen West called the treatment of Zimmerman by the police "an outrage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/rep-allen-west-on-trayvon-martin-this-is-an-outrage/2012/03/23/gIQA3glxVS_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

[Communists For McCain]

In case any Republicans are feeling cornered, like this is a partisan case and they have to defend Zimmerman, note that Allen West called the treatment of Zimmerman by the police "an outrage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/rep-allen-west-on-trayvon-martin-this-is-an-outrage/2012/03/23/gIQA3glxVS_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Note, Allen West also observed:

Noting that he had taken some time to “assess the current episode,” West wrote: “The US Navy SEALS identified Osama Bin Laden within hours, while this young man laid on a morgue slab for three days. The shooter, Mr Zimmerman, should have been held in custody and certainly should not be walking free, still having a concealed weapons carry permit. From my reading, it seems this young man was pursued and there was no probable cause to engage him, certainly not pursue and shoot him….against the direction of the 911 responder.”

Let's give the devil his due here fellas.  If this is considered a "defense" of Zimmerman I don't know what the hell would be considered a "prosecution".

Let's not take things out of context now.

[Gravis Marketing]

Let's give the devil his due here fellas.  If this is considered a "defense" of Zimmerman I don't know what the hell would be considered a "prosecution".

Let's not take things out of context now.

There's a misunderstanding here. I was pointing out that Allen West was calling for justice here and *not* defending Zimmerman.

[Communists For McCain]

Let's give the devil his due here fellas.  If this is considered a "defense" of Zimmerman I don't know what the hell would be considered a "prosecution".

Let's not take things out of context now.

There's a misunderstanding here. I was pointing out that Allen West was calling for justice here and *not* defending Zimmerman.

Oh right.

Well then, I interpreted out of context (your post that is).

Whoops.

[Communists For McCain]

The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

(Sorry if this is post is a bit rambling, btw, i've been up almost 48 hours at this point).

BWWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Being an ugly racist chode who willfully ignores facts when it's inconvenient for you must be fun enough to warrant pathetic Dragonball Z villianesque laughter.  Amirite?

[dead0man]

Let's give the devil his due here fellas.  If this is considered a "defense" of Zimmerman I don't know what the hell would be considered a "prosecution".

Let's not take things out of context now.

There's a misunderstanding here. I was pointing out that Allen West was calling for justice here and *not* defending Zimmerman.

Oh right.

Well then, I interpreted out of context (your post that is).

Whoops.

I read it the same way you did.