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

[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.

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

Doesn't take too many cops to beat a homeless black man to death, or a parking lot security guard (and son of a Sanford police officer) shooting a black teenager in the back in 2005.

The town has issues.

[Razgovory]

My guess is the guy will get charged with violating someone's civil rights.  Federal charge.  My dad was on a jury for one of those.  Some guys were out beating up gay people in KC when they saw one was black and attacked and killed the person.  Local police did very little investigating (they didn't think to check the local hospitals for witnesses.  The suspects were found innocent by a local jury, but the feds got involved tried them on violation of civil rights.  My dad was on the jury and wasn't even told that the defendants had already been found not guilty.

[Razgovory]

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).

Well if I'm going to kill anyone, I know what state I'll do it in.  What a screwy law.

[Malthus]

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).

It's the circumstantial evidence that has people up in arms (so to speak!).

It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*. It seems hard to believe that if the large, armed guy was Black and the kid was White, the cops would not bother to charge him because he had a bloody nose and claimed he feared the kid. 

*Mind you, Skittles are pretty gross, and that certainly acts as an aggravating factor. 

[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?

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

I am confident that some low level prosecutor got a report from the police that a shooting occured in sanford and that the police found evidence of self defense

i am equally confident that once the stink occured, the head prosecutor for the circuit (that guy's boss and likely in orlando or daytona) first learned about this incident by hearing it on the news or reading it in the paper

[Rasputin]

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).

Well if I'm going to kill anyone, I know what state I'll do it in.  What a screwy law.

what law?

prosecutorial discretion?

they have it in your state too and i don't even know what state that is

[Razgovory]

No the stand your ground laws which makes it nearly impossible to convict someone of murder if they can come up with a moderately plausible story of self defense.

[stjaba]

I agree that the racial element is overblown in this case. However, it is unfortunate that in Tampa right now, there is a Stand Your Ground case which is currently working its way through the court system. The state attorney had no problem charging the defendant in that case. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/witnesses-dispute-trevor-dooleys-stand-your-ground-claim-in-valrico/1206308

The defendant:

The victim:

[CountDeMoney]

in Tampa right now,

Tampa isn't Sanford.  Florida is a broad palette of many shades of fucked-upedness.

[The Minsky Moment]

It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*.

The two conclusions are not mutually exclusive.  It could be that Zimmerman caused the confrontation to occur by following Martin but yet still acted in self-defense when Martin reacted by using deadly force (not saying this did happen just that it could have).  And the question is not which scenario is more likely but whether there is some reasonable basis to believe the Zimmerman story.

[Malthus]

It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*.

The two conclusions are not mutually exclusive.  It could be that Zimmerman caused the confrontation to occur by following Martin but yet still acted in self-defense when Martin reacted by using deadly force (not saying this did happen just that it could have).  And the question is not which scenario is more likely but whether there is some reasonable basis to believe the Zimmerman story.

Perhaps Florida law is actually that screwed up, that you can chase an unarmed kid down with a gun, blow them away, and claim the kid punched you in the nose and this justifies you - and the cops won't even charge you because, the kid being dead and your nose being bloody, there is no possibility whatsoever of a conviction.

But if so, what is causing the outrage is the absurdity of Florida law. Perhaps people commenting on the story simply do not realize how consequence-free shooting someone in the street is in Florida.

[Jacob]

Yeah. Basically, if the law allows you to chase an unarmed kid and shoot him, and because your nose is bleeding you won't even get charged that's one (or more) fucked up law(s).

[Admiral Yi]

Is there any precendent in charging a private citizen with racial profiling?

Is their actually a law against racial profiling?

[Razgovory]

Is there any precendent in charging a private citizen with racial profiling?

Is their actually a law against racial profiling?

Not that I know of.  I've seen the word thrown around by the press, but they don't seem to know what it means.  Maybe with security agencies private law enforcement.

[CountDeMoney]

Is there any precendent in charging a private citizen with racial profiling?

Is their actually a law against racial profiling?

Just hate crime law.