Trayvon Martin case: use of Stand Your Ground law or pursuit of a black teen?

[Rasputin]

there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object

while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction

But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead.  So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances?  'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'.  Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida?  It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.

there is a grand jury investigation

why do you keep acting like the grand jury is not investigating this?

and yes; sometimes it is hard to convict

casey anthony killed her baby in florida and walks the streets a free woman because the burden of proof on the state is as high as we can make it to minimize the amount of innocent people we already are sending to jail every day.

[Rasputin]

What is this "Objective Evidence"?

the cops noted on the scene that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head

of course we all know the cops could have lied to help their buddy zimmerman out

That is Objective evidence that Zimmerman had some cuts.  Not that Zimmerman was ambushed.  It not unusual for a murderer to be injured during the course of his crime.  In fact this would seem to be an excellent time to you know, investigate. 

Actually, the Police did mention that Zimmerman was taking law enforcement classes to the father of the deceased. 

Tracy Martin said that when he asked police why Zimmerman hadn't been charged, officers told him "they respected [Zimmerman's] background, that he studied criminal justice for four years and that he was squeaky clean."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1335984.html

So they seemed to on decent relations with the guy.  Hell, they would have the time to strike up a friendly releationship, since he called the cops dozens of times a year.

real cops hate people like zimmerman

[Razgovory]

none of that changes whether there was objective evidence to corroborate that prior to the shooting martin physically assaulted him (battery) causing zimmerman to fear for his life and pull the trigger

while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime

LOL, "objective evidence" that can be "interpreted differently".  What a lawyer.

Well he has the John Galt thing in his sig, so "Objective" might mean something different to him.

Well, if I'm going to murder someone, I'll do it in Florida.  Stalk a man, gun him down.  Give yourself a little cut and Presto!  No investigation.

[Razgovory]

there is a grand jury investigation

why do you keep acting like the grand jury is not investigating this?

and yes; sometimes it is hard to convict

casey anthony killed her baby in florida and walks the streets a free woman because the burden of proof on the state is as high as we can make it to minimize the amount of innocent people we already are sending to jail every day.

Cause they weren't until someone raised a big stink over it.

[Rasputin]

none of that changes whether there was objective evidence to corroborate that prior to the shooting martin physically assaulted him (battery) causing zimmerman to fear for his life and pull the trigger

while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime

LOL, "objective evidence" that can be "interpreted differently".  What a lawyer.

objective evidence simply means some evidence observable by a third party as opposed to someone's subjective account of what occured  -- neither is conclusive proof or we'd not need juries

[Rasputin]

there is a grand jury investigation

why do you keep acting like the grand jury is not investigating this?

and yes; sometimes it is hard to convict

casey anthony killed her baby in florida and walks the streets a free woman because the burden of proof on the state is as high as we can make it to minimize the amount of innocent people we already are sending to jail every day.

Cause they weren't until someone raised a big stink over it.

until the stink occured the prosecutor never had reason to know that a potential crime had occured

again; an example of the sytem working

[Razgovory]

He didn't know a potential crime occurred?  A man shot some kid.  I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.

[Berkut]

while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime

The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.

I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.

[CountDeMoney]

In other related race relations news, I would so fuck the living hell out of Tamron Hall on MSNBC.  YEAH BITCH SAY OJ DID IT SAY OJ DID IT

[katmai]

I just read quickly through the article but does it mention anywhere what the "Stand Your Ground" law means? It seems to be referring to it all over the place, but not explaining at all what it entails. If so it is rather shoddy journalism.

It's a shoddy law.

Basic principle is the only requirement for the justifiable use of deadly force is that you are in fear.  That's it.  No other existential factors, just fear.

Yeah some lawmakers are trying to introduce it here in state, was in news last week as a DA from Anchorage was testifying as how bad it would be if state enacts it.

[CountDeMoney]

while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime

The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.

I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.

That whole agency has a long, sad history re: police and race.  Wouldn't be the first time the Department of Justice has had to stop by for a chat.

[Rasputin]

He didn't know a potential crime occurred?  A man shot some kid.  I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.

so every time someone gets shot, you know about it?

as the police did not charge anyone, you dont think its reasonable to believe that the head prosecutor for the circuit (certainly in a different city then sanford) first learned of the shooting from the stink?

[Rasputin]

while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime

The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.

I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.

That whole agency has a long, sad history re: police and race.  Wouldn't be the first time the Department of Justice has had to stop by for a chat.

the sanford police department has a history and reputation for anything?


sanford is like the size of ellicott city

id be shocked if they had more than a few dozen cops on the whole force

[The Minsky Moment]

But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead.  So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances?  'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'.  Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida?  It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.

Given the corroborating physical evidence, it would seem impossible for a jury to convict given that (as I understand it) a Florida jury must acquit if it has at least reasonable doubt that a self-defense justification exists.

Under that circumstance, it is legitimate to question whether it makes sense to go through the expense and trouble of convening a Grand Jury, even if there is probable cause to do so. But while that choice is within prosecutorial discretion, the tricky thing about discretion is that public officers can be called to account and evaluated based on how they exercise their discretion, including whether exercise it even-handedly with respect to race, class, etc.   So the press is doing its job as well here (even if they are screwing up some facts which sadly is par for the course).

[Razgovory]

He didn't know a potential crime occurred?  A man shot some kid.  I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.

so every time someone gets shot, you know about it?

as the police did not charge anyone, you dont think its reasonable to believe that the head prosecutor for the circuit (certainly in a different city then sanford) first learned of the shooting from the stink?

The police don't send information on up about homicides?  Are shooting deaths so common that they didn't think it important?