Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin’s death was ‘ultimately avoidable’: Florida police report
Posted on 05/18/2012 5:58:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Trayvon Martin's death was avoidable.
Thats the conclusion of a new police report on the unarmed teens killing at the hands of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the document by Sanford, Fla. Police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
....the challenger accident was “ultimately avoidable” had everyone stayed home.....geeeezzzz
“Didnt move the goal line at all...my very first post on the thread asked for proof.”
I’m almost certain that you also asked for evidence, which means the goal line was changed in the opposite direction. But whatever. If proof is what you’re looking for, I don’t want to participate. Everyone agrees, even those that are sure Martin started it, that no evidence exist to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
What a silly challenge, anyway, for people to prove to you Martin started it. Martin’s not on trial.
“I do think that Zimmerman was a dope who got in over his head. You want to think he’s captain America go right ahead”
False choice; excluded middle. He can be somewhere between a dope/jerk and Captain America.
And even had Mr. Zimmerman walked right up to Mr. Martin and asked what the hell he was up to, that would not have legally constituted an assault — except maybe in Mr. Martin’s provenly pot-stoned deluded mind (and a theory his girlfriend who was supposedly on the horn with him, seems to actually back up).
The police want ordinary citizens to be chickens.
SO? You are prejudiced regarding Martin, too. That doesn’t really help you in this.
As for “Captain America”: Dude, go back and read #99 to remind you of where I am on the confrontation (Hint: I was actually supporting you...)
The defense has no responsibility to put on a positive defense. When the judge asks the defense if they have any witnesses, they can say, no, the defense rests. Prior to this they would have had the opportunity to cross all of the prosecution's witnesses and attack that evidence as it stands on its face.
On the other hand, instead of saying, "we don't know what happened, just that the state has not proved its case," the Anthony defense presented what is called an alternative theory of the crime. They had to to explain away the damning evidence they couldn't hurt with their cross.
When the defense presents an alternative theory of the crime, they reduce the number of possibilities to two. They can't have it both ways and say, "no, the crime didn't happen the way the state says, it happened like this," and then also claim maybe aliens did it.
The jury believed, wihtout any evidence, that george, for some reason, took the accidentally-drowned todddler and threw it in a trashbag into the woods a block down the street from his house.
“Convenient that you left out that I also said Martin was a macho teen and that both were dopes and punks...convenient but predictable.”
Not a matter of convenience, really. Though you stipulated both are dopes/punks/machos and Zimmerman shouldn’t be on trial, you’ve made clear you believe Zimmerman started the fight and murdered Martin. Therefore, your assessment of Zimmerman’s character, based on nothing so much as what you assume happened within the evidence gap, is relevant. Your assessment of Martin’s character less so, since his machismo didn’t, in your opinion, contribute to the crime committed against him.
Possible alternative explanations of unknown likelihood might or might not rise in a jury’s mind to reasonable doubt. It’s the nature of the beast to allow it. I can’t see NOT allowing it. The prosecution also has a duty to be intelligent and allow for the jury to consider lesser crimes than the worst accused (I believe it didn’t in the Casey case).
I have never seen or heard any quotes from any Sanford Neighborhood Watch guidelines reported on radio or TV. If they have ween widely published, I’ve missed them. I am searching the web right now.
I would disagree that they would not be relevant. If Zimmerman acted outside the guidelines, the prosecution would use that as evidence to support the “profiling” aspect of its case. If his actions were consistent with the policy, the defense would say that helps prove Zimmerman’s assertion as to what happened that night. “Following” would not be legal if it’s part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully.
The Sanford PD’s NW program Handbook states:
“1. Neighbors join together to provide information about their households to one another.
2. Participants receive training in observation techniques and recognition skills in order to recognize suspicious activities.
3. Upon seeing a suspicious activity or a crime, Participants immediately report their observation to the police department.
4. Law enforcement responds and apprehends the suspect criminal. If the suspect is not caught in the act of committing the crime, your recognition of the suspect and your notes will be very vital.”
Based on this, I see all of Zimmerman’s actions prior to the confrontation with Martin as completely within the NW guidelines. I would like to know what exactly is taught in section 2 regarding “observation techniques.” Those details might further exonerate Zimmerman.
” even had Mr. Zimmerman walked right up to Mr. Martin and asked what the hell he was up to, that would not have legally constituted an assault”
Yes, and some people out to get Zimmerman, including apparently the prosecution, stupidly stop there. I must have been living in a different civilization with different rules all along, because I’ve never known doing perfectly legal things to constitute a threat someone else can meet with violence.
Other, marginally smarter, people like wtc911 who think Zimmerman started it posit an additional action on his part, eg. pulling his gun. I don’t know why they assume this happened, considering the medical evidence and witness testimony, but Zimmerman’s a dopey jerk, so whatever. At least they realize you have to do something immediately threatening to precipitate a fight. Certainly something more than getting out of your truck and talking to a stranger.
It's the defense that makes that choice.
Well again, he was not on a Neighborhood Watch “patrol” at the time. He was going to Target on a personal errand. I agree the prosecution will try to throw up a fog which may include NW guidelines, though. I only meant those guidelines would not be legally binding and are not among the elements required to prove Second Degree Murder.
When you say “Following would not be legal if its part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully.” that is obviously true, but then it isn’t just “following” either. The police have already clearly stated that Zimmerman acted lawfully in getting out of his car and following. I can’t see any way a NW handbook can change that.
Somehow the two physically met and all that went out the window; still I’m not aware of any oath that NWers take that prohibits them as citizens from doing such things as walking up to a person and asking him what the hell he’s up to. But that’s their own private affair. Kind of like the dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to...” in the passive tense. The dispatcher can’t infringe on Mr. Z’s own further rights as a private citizen.
There’s an excluded middle here: the defense can offer a range of possible occurrences. This is the lawyer speaking, and not the defendant himself speaking, of course.
If Trayvon’s death had been “avoided”, then Zimmerman probably would’ve been dead. Bottom line: One would live and one would die. Guess the police put more value on Trayvon’s life than Zimmerman’s.
I wish I could give you a citation, because I can’t recall where they did this - it isn’t in the charging affidavit. It may have just been Corey’s statement in the press conference. That’s why I said they “implied” it, but I remember commenting at the time that this would have to be the only way they could try to allege that Zimmerman had started the confrontation in a way that might forfeit his right to self-defense.
“The defense has no responsibility to put on a positive defense”
I don’t know the law perfectly, and am unsure whether it’s expected for defendants in justifiable homicide cases to take the stand. But I believe that to be immune on the basis of self-defense you have to assert self-defense. They could choose not to assert it, but he’s already admitted to killing him, and the jury is going to expect him or someone to explain how he felt in immediate danger of great bodily injury and/or death, which is the standard for justifiable homicide.
You see, this is different than normal cases, in which all the defense has to do is sit back and let the prosecution prove it if they can. They are admitting Zimmerman killed Martin, and are arguing he’s immune due to it being in self-defense. In order to argue that, there must be some standard to which you must rise in the eyes of the jury. So there is at least a bit of burden of proof on the defense.
I use that term, “burden of proof” loosely, by the way. They may not talk about it like that, but practically speaking the defense has to assert something in order for Zimmerman to be immune.
“When the judge asks the defense if they have any witnesses, they can say, no, the defense rests.”
Okay, they are free to do so. But if they want to get him off, they’ll have to convince the jury that it was justifiable homicide, and in order for it to be justifiable homicide he must have reasonably feareed for his life and/or bodily safety.
“Prior to this they would have had the opportunity to cross all of the prosecution’s witnesses and attack that evidence as it stands on its face.”
By doing so they could implicitly make the case that self-defense applies. But wouldn’t they, at least as a practical matter, want to assert a positive case?
“On the other hand, instead of saying, ‘we don’t know what happened, just that the state has not proved its case,’ the Anthony defense presented what is called an alternative theory of the crime. They had to to explain away the damning evidence they couldn’t hurt with their cross.”
That case and this, though were different in that Casey did not admit to killing Caylee. They didn’t have to present an alternative theory, but did to make assurance doubly sure. Zimmerman, contrarywise, I think has to make a positive assertion to be immune, as I believe will be the defense’s case.
“The jury believed, wihtout any evidence, that george, for some reason, took the accidentally-drowned todddler and threw it in a trashbag into the woods a block down the street from his house.”
Did they believe it, or did they merely accept it as a reasonable possibility which the prosecution did not forestall? I think it came down more to the case against Casey not being proved than the jury’s gullibility concerning George’s involvement. It was enough that maybe it happened that or another way, as opposed to the way the state pretended it knew happened without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pot is known to make some people paranoid, and for that reason Mr. Z may not have been “wise” to approached the stoned Mr. M. But Mr. Z sure as heck did not violate any law if he did, short of (again as you suggest) purposely brandishing his pistol at Mr. M. Just letting the pistol be seen isn’t a threat, or every cop walking down the street would be a threat.
It ought to, in principle, simply be necessary to inform the jury that they need to find that this homicide was NOT justifiable, beyond a reasonable doubt. That the task before them is NOT to find some better than likely excuse for it.