Trayvon Martin shooter put photo of OSU hate crime on his website
This is the "hate crime" photo from Zimmerman's web site:
Posted on 04/12/2012 9:52:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Judging from a sidebar in today's New York Times, there is some confusion about how Florida's self-defense law applies to George Zimmerman's case. The law, as amended in 2005, states that someone who justifiably uses force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." Under a 2010 decision by the Florida Supreme Court, that means Zimmerman has a right to a pretrial hearing where he can get the second-degree murder charge against him dismissed if he can show, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent Trayvon Martin from killing or seriously injuring him. In other words, he has to convince a judge it is more likely than not that his use of force was lawful. But if he loses that motion, he can still argue at trial that he acted in self-defense, and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not.
By contrast, the Times leaves the impression that Zimmerman has no hope of acquittal if his motion to dismiss is denied:
The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.
At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as "imperfect self-defense."
Manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years, does seem like a more appropriate charge than second-degree murder, which carries a potential life sentence and requires "a depraved mind regardless of human life." If Zimmerman broke the law, it was probably because he overreacted in the heat of the moment, so the murder charge seems like a stretch. But contrary to the implication of the Times article, a manslaughter conviction is not the best that Zimmerman can hope for if his case goes to trial. The jury could conclude there is reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense, in which case he would be acquitted. That standard is not some weird quirk of Florida law. As Northern Kentucky University law professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer points out, "this is true in virtually every State."
Furthermore, the Times conflates two different aspects of Florida's self-defense law. If Zimmerman's account of his fight with Martin is true, he had no opportunity to safely retreat, so the right to "stand your ground" (the "broad protections" mentioned by the Times) would not apply. In this case the unusual aspect of Florida's law is not the self-defense argument Zimmerman is making but the fact that he gets to present it before trial, along with evidence to support his version of the shooting.
In mandating that procedure, the Florida Supreme Court noted the legislative intent expressed in the preamble to the 2005 law: "The Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution." The court explained that the "immunity" promised by the law was meant to provide extra protection for people who use force in self-defense:
While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial. Section 776.032(1) expressly grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force. The statute does not merely provide that a defendant cannot be convicted as a result of legally justified force.
But to reiterate, that defense is still available even if Zimmerman does not have enough evidence in his favor to avoid a trial.
Addendum: On the issue of second-degree murder vs. manslaughter, Florida's standard jury instruction for the former crime requires that the act leading to the victim's death "is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent," which does not seem to fit the publicly known facts of the shooting, although it might make sense if it can be shown that Zimmerman shot Martin out of anger rather than fear. As Mo points out in the comments, Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, today described the shooting this way: "I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control, and he couldn't turn the clock back." That does not sound like second-degree murder.
Trayvon Martin shooter put photo of OSU hate crime on his website
This is the "hate crime" photo from Zimmerman's web site:
You could be absolutely right. We have, after all, had our share of race riots in Florida. I lived through them in Miami, and it was ugly, and cost us taxpayers a fortune to rebuild their destruction.
And they could have been thinking about the segregationist history of Sanford fueling the media frenzy.
GG
Maybe not, depending on how well Zimmerman’s defense goes. Sometimes, racially charged situations are defused by an airing of the facts and good will.
Probable cause is a lesser standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard that usually applies as to civil liability for ordinary money damages. Only a conviction of George Zimmerman will be of conclusive benefit in a civil case for damages.
I have a question, in order to claim "stand your ground" in the pretrial hearing, would Zimmerman have to take the stand? That sounds pretty risky to me.
And there is another witness who claims he saw Zimmerman strike Trayvon first.
I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source?
If I remember correctly, after OJ was acquitted, he got sued under the lesser standard of "preponderance of the evidence" and had to pay out a big chunk of money.
Sorry- had some stuff to do.
Yes, he would have to testify at the SYG hearing, and be cross-examined. The purpose of the law was to change the existing duty of a victim to flee when threatened. So a law abiding citizen now has the right to stand their ground and defend themselves if they believe their life is endangered, without fear of prosecution. It has worked successfully in many cases, and been rejected in some. Recently a fellow and his brother were ejected by a bar- reentered, started a fight with the bouncer, who attempted to eject them again, and the one man stabbed him to death. His knife was illegally concealed, and SYG was rejected because he created the situation that made him fearful for his life. So I think he is going to stand trial for manslaughter.
I heard the gentleman eyewitness on a local news show. They didn’t give any information about him, at his request, but he talked by telephone, I assume. He said the police had been honoring his wish not to be named before trial, but with all the misinformation being put out on the news, he had to come forward. Sounded like a reasonable, mature person. I’ll dig around and see if I can find a link to it, if you are interested.
If you look at the partial police report, it shows they interviewed 20+ people as “witnesses” at the scene- but no names or other identifying information. So who knows what else is out there?
Wrong witness- I went looking for the kid walking the dog witness- and see he has changed his story 3 times since I first heard it. First he saw the fight start with the man in red hitting the other one. Then he didn’t see the fight start, just saw the man in red on the ground with the other guy on top of him. Now he says it was the guy in red on top. The only thing that stayed the same is he chased his dog at that point and only heard a shot and saw nothing.
He is 13- and going on all these media programs- and certainly getting pressured unreasonably. I just saw his picture and realized he is black- so even more pressure. Doubt he will be a credible witness.
The OJ civil case generated some monetary recovery, but it was mostly about getting a civil court money damages judgment and then using collection efforts on that judgment to make OJ's life miserable. That succeeded in that the collection pressures and OJ's volatile personality led him to the kind of shady dealings that eventually put him in prison in Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping.
The Treyvon Martin case has various potential money damages payoffs for the Martin family and their lawyers in suits against Zimmerman, against the homeowners association, and against local government officials and entities. I suspect though that the criminal case will ultimately collapse at or before trial, making any recovery for civil damages problematic at best, perhaps only for minimal value as a nuisance claims that insurers want to settle.
Even that still leaves the Martin family and their lawyers with the chance to monetize the publicity through book, merchandise, and movie and TV deals. The greatest benefit for the lawyers though is the publicity that brings in a gold rush of new clients and cases. They will find that a fleeting benefit though unless they manage the moment effectively and bring in new lawyers and staff.
Technically, he will be claiming immunity from prosecution under Florida Statute 776.032, which makes it illegal to arrest, detain, charge, or prosecute a person who has lawfully used deadly force in self defense. That question of "duty to retreat" doesn't appear in either Corey's version of events (which is the same version the mob uses), or in Zimmerman's version of events.
He does not have to take the stand. The defense has police reports of his statements after the incident, as well as eyewitnesses. It argues that this evidence results in justified use of deadly force. The state (Corey) will attempt to rebut the eyewitnesses using DeeDee's phone call. Good luck with that.
-- I hadn't heard that [there is another witness who claims he saw Zimmerman strike Trayvon first.] --
Neither had I. I think it was Zimmerman's father who said there was an eyewitness who saw the altercation from the start, but Robert Zimmerman, Sr. didn't give any more detail, that I can recall.
Now my tin foil hat theory: If he's found guilty, he'll never see the inside of a prison. They'll say they sent him to prison, but change his identity and send him off somewhere in a "witness protection" scenario.
That's an inversion. Easier to lay out the standard in the prosecution terms, all across.
beyond a reasonable doubt was NOT in self defense = guilty
The state has the burden of production and persuasion at trial. In the pretrial hearing, the defendant has the burden of production and persuasion, to a standard of "more likely than not" it WAS reasonable use of deadly force in self defense.
I implore the authorities to look at this case in a black and white manner, (bad) pun intended.
Despite what Sharpton X may say this isn’t about race or gun laws.
Corey's theory of the case comes straight from DeeDee. That's her strongest card. On the other hand, the recorded calls, the on scene eye and earwitnesses, the injuries to Zimmerman, the timeline, the AGREED point that Martin had successfully eluded Zimmerman (combined with the location of the fight) - all of that cuts in favor of Zimmerman.
This is a purely political prosecution. Corey's affidavit in support of the charge is contradicted by reliable evidence.
If Corey had stronger evidence, she would have hinted at it in the affidavit.
‘xactly.
The affidavit explicitly states it is merely laying out the evidence giving a reason to believe.
The evidence for the reason to believe is flimsy; i.e., a time line consistent with Zimmerman’s story, involving a strained interpretation of the statement of the dispatcher (after Zimmerman had already left his vehicle) to the effect “we don’t need you to do that,” and of Zimmerman’s use of, I think, two vulgar words in the course of a four minute conversation, ending with the mother of the deceased identifying her son’t voice.
If might be possible for Zimmerman to have the case dismissed on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence merely by producing the police report. But, if it were possible. affidavits from the two eye-witnesses seeing Martin on top of him should do the trick.
The clip I heard of DeeDee seems to support Z, not Trayvon. She said that Trayvon asked Z why Z was following him and Z replied with "what are you doing here?" (Now I don't believe that she accurately relayed the actual words used, but that's another matter.)
If that's the case, it doesn't pass the smell test for Z to slug Trayvon at that point. Much more likely that Trayvon would have slugged Z in response to the question.
He does not have to take the stand. The defense has police reports of his statements after the incident, as well as eyewitnesses. (Cboldt post 72)
There seems to be some disagreement on whether George would have to testify. Maybe it would be a calculated risk on the part of the defense for him to testify. I certainly do appreciate the time and effort you both have put into this to rely on facts, not rumors or media distortions.
Cboldt might be correct, his official statement might be substituted for personal testimony. I don't recall that being done, but that doesn't mean it is prohibited.
Although if I were Zimmerman's attorney, I would not want to rely on what the prosecution and police SAY I said to them as my sole explanation to the judge. Especially after reading their interpretation of the 911 call in their probable cause affidavit.
Guess we will have to wait and see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.