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

[mongers]

I can so see Scip shooting and killing one his own clients who dared walk on his property because Scip decided that "Office hours" ended at two in the afternoon that day.

[derspiess]

On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.

I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.

[CountDeMoney]

On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.

I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.

Yeah.  With the blood of girl scouts.

[crazy canuck]

On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.

I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.

Yeah.  With the blood of girl scouts.

He felt threatened and stood his ground.  How was he to know they only had cookies in those boxes they were carrying in a threatening manner.

[derspiess]

On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.

I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.

Yeah.  With the blood of girl scouts.

Didn't work.  Had to go back over it with some Behr semi-transparent redwood stuff.

[CountDeMoney]

Thin Mints are a motherfucker.

[derspiess]

Thin Mints are a motherfucker.

Hell yeah.  I remember eating a whole sleeve of them in high school after missing lunch.  Played my best ever game of volleyball that afternoon.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've read a lot about this. I think the police committed some procedural errors and may have acted out of bias, and they have also done a very bad job of handling the parents and the general publicity behind this thing.

However some things that were not accurately repeated in this thread:

1. The investigation did not end at the scene. Zimmerman was taken to the police station, received a mug shot (that is actually the picture of him most people are seeing on the news), and gave a statement to police.

2. The police claim that the witness statements they took right after the incident corroborated Zimmerman's claims.

3. The police claim physical evidence collected at the scene corroborated Zimmerman's claims.

Now, other than that, the initial investigation does seem pretty weak. It seems like they missed some really obvious things, like trying to ascertain whether Zimmerman was drunk. They also didn't check Martin's cell phone records to see if the bluetooth ear piece that fell out of his head right before someone put a hole in his chest was being used to make a phone call and if maybe the person on the other end of that phone call had some relevant information.

We have never received a released, full transcript of the statement Zimmerman gave to police or any of those initial witness statements. We also have never received a full accounting of the physical evidence or the crime scene. That is why there is so much confusion, many witnesses who say they heard things or observed parts of the altercation have come forward to the media after the fact. Some of them are claiming the police never wanted to take their statements initially, if so that's bad. However several of those the police have said they took their statements on the scene, and they were brief and indicated they had seen/heard nothing.

We don't know how far from the start of the altercation the shooting occurred, we don't know what any of the witnesses said in official statements to police. The news has tried to fill those gaps in, and they may have gotten some of it right, but they probably got a lot of it wrong, too.

This case and the police work in terms of press releases has been so confusing that it's very difficult to take anything from anyone at face value. One investigator (quoted but unnamed) said to the Orlando Sentinel that the reason they had not charged is because, after repeated consultations with the local prosecutor, they were told they lacked enough evidence against Zimmerman to secure a conviction. If that's actually what happened I feel the police have gotten a greater share of the brunt than they probably deserve. But if it's also true they missed some of the investigative steps like trying to ascertain if Zimmerman was intoxicated and/or investigating who Martin had potentially been on a phone call with I think they do deserve at least some of the blame.

I also don't know that a grand jury has actually been called for this case, as I'm not sure that is how grand juries in Florida works. Before Norm Wolfinger (a State Attorney in Florida) recused himself from the case and gave it to some woman State Attorney from another part of Florida (to remove implications of bias) he made the statement that he was "going to make use of the grand jury that is being seated on April 10th. That makes it sound like grand juries just randomly get scheduled to meet in Florida for various purposes, and Wolfinger was going to "make use of it for this matter" after reviewing the case against Zimmerman.

The justice department has already made some statements indicating they doubt they can get a hate crime conviction against Zimmerman because it is essentially the "highest burden of proof in criminal law" to convict Zimmerman on those charges; specifically they have to prove he committed an act with specific intent and that the specific intent was based on race.

A lot of legal experts who have weighed in on the case in the national press have actually sided with the view that convicting Zimmerman under Florida law probably will be genuinely very difficult. For one, a lot of the most inflammatory stuff you guys have heard from random witness statements probably won't hold up in court. Apparently many of the witnesses who now condemn or give anti-Zimmerman statements to the press made very brief, uninformed statements to the police who investigated. It seems like initially these witnesses did not want to get involved, so they made statements that kept them from getting involved. That's unfortunate for Trayvon's family, because now at trial any defense counsel worth whatever the county pays him to represent Zimmerman is going to bring up the fact various witnesses gave statements to police that were materially different than what they are now saying. Additionally, the phone call with Trayvon's girlfriend, I've heard, may not be allowed in at trial at all as it is hear say. She would be testifying about what she "heard Trayvon say."

What we're left with is basically Zimmerman's initial statement to police and how plausible it is. If a plausible self defense claim is made then technically under Florida law unless the prosecutor can disprove that claim I don't believe legally Zimmerman can be convicted of any crime (I also believe Florida's stand your ground law insulates him from civil litigation as well.)

[Sheilbh]

Does the person in question actually have to fear for their life in some kind of rational or reasonable fashion? What was this dickheads "fear for his life" that justified his shooting that kid? Was he afraid the kid was actually going to beat him to death with his bag of skittles?

What I find odd is that, from my understanding, this is something for the judge to decide.  So the story I linked to earlier was of a guy whose car was being robbed.  He confronted the robber, then chased him down the street and stabbed him to death.  The judge ruled that this was standing your ground.

If you're to have this sort of law surely it should be a defence to a crime - not a reason to throw it out or fail to investigate - and surely it should be for the jury?  It seems like the sort of things juries are for.  English law seems right to me in using the jury to decide.  The jury decide if the person honestly believed that they're in danger (or another person and so on) - if they did then it's for the jury to decide if the force used was reasonable.  If it was they were justified in committing what would otherwise be a crime.  But all of these should be questions of fact for a jury to settle, not for a judge to decide on

Neil is right in saying that this has very little to do with the principles of conservatism, but everything to do with the frontier mentality of the Wild West. That's why your justice system is so different from pretty much every other Western nation.

I think you're wrong for most of the US.  From what I can gather the US had very strong laws on this.  There's a duty to retreat, for example, which has been explicitly rejected in English law.  In response there's been an overreaction in some states.

[Caliga]

What if they're on your property, yet trying to burn the property of someone else, e.g., a car?  What then, Doc Holiday?

The statute relates to arson committed against buildings you own.  So a car wouldn't count, no.  If some guy is trying to burn your shed down, though...

[OttoVonBismarck]

You're right generally about juries, but in the United States at least our judges can throw cases out if in the judge's opinion the evidence against the accused is so legally weak that they committed a crime that "no just outcome could lead to conviction." In those circumstances judges can and do throw cases out all the time, that's what a motion to dismiss is seeking, basically you're asking the judge to say "yeah, the prosecution has absolutely no case so there is no legitimate reason for a trial to go on here."

[sbr]

What if they're on your property, yet trying to burn the property of someone else, e.g., a car?  What then, Doc Holiday?

The statute relates to arson committed against buildings you own.  So a car wouldn't count, no.  If some guy is trying to burn your shed down, though...

What if they are on your property and trying to burn down your neighbor's shed?

[Caliga]

The shed isn't yours in that case, so no you cannot legally kill them.

SOLUTION:  Ask your neighbor to kill them.  It's Kentucky, so the chance of him having a gun (or ten) is 95% or better. 

[Sheilbh]

Raz's article says the Flordia Supreme Court's ruled that the question of whether stand you ground immunity applies should be for judges, not juries.  Which seems mad and it's not just a judge dismissing a legally weak case which is fine.

[Caliga]

We're talking about theoretical situations in Kentucky, not Oregon.

In case anyone wants to actually see what I'm talking about:

503.080 Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.

edit: my post was in response to one that apparently got deleted.