Posted on 05/18/2012 5:58:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Trayvon Martin's death was “avoidable.”
That’s the conclusion of a new police report on the unarmed teen’s 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 ...
They didn't say maybe a stranger took her, maybe her long lost father came back and killed her, they were asking them to believe THEIR story.
Evidence always narrows down the range of possibilities. In this case the evidence has narrowed it down to two: who threw the first punch.
“’Following’ would not be legal if it’s part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully”
In that case “following” would not be the crime. It would be stalking, which Zimmerman is not charged with, or just a part of the larger crime of premeditated murder. If they had evidence of him conspiring to kill Martin, then maybe the following becomes part of the step-by-step murder process that we could term stalking. But they don’t.
Since he’s not charged with murder 1, I don’t think they’re alleging there was a larger plan part of which following was. They’re going on following as being provocative of a violent response from Martin, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, or a prelude to Zimmerman attacking Martin and possibly evidence of his depraved mind, without it being in itself a crime. Which is weird, to say the least.
And if the jury did its job seriously it would have to find that beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Z threw the first blow before saying guilty.
Jury instructions often suck, though you’d think there would be some kind of national standard practice by this time in history.
“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.”
His acting outside the rules of neighborhood watching might lead one to believe he was more likely to profile, but not that he was profiling. Profiling in itself isn’t a crime, anyway. Whether or not he abided the rules doesn’t go anywhere toward establishing his following was part of a plan to murder Martin, so long as what he did instead of abiding the rules wasn’t itself illegal.
“UNTIL the defense offers their own. The defense can offer its own evidence, things which it asserts ARE TRUE. That necessarily reduces the number of possibilities to two.”
That doesn’t sound right. You don’t have to choose either Casey killed her or she drowned and George helped cover it up. What if you don’t trust the case laid out by the defense or the prosecution? You still acquit. Maybe you think the defense was plausible but not accurate, and the prosecution plain wrong.
In any case, whatever the defense argues as an alternative theory you can ignore them and focus solely upon whether or not the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s nothing to say either you must believe their theory or the state’s.
Exactly. And we know plenty of cops would rather the citizenry was unarmed and just left everything up to the “professionals”.
“The Anthony defense obviated all but two possibilities. The jury just picked the one with absolutely no evidence to support it.”
I’ve thought about what you said here, and that dog won’t hunt. Think about it, you’re saying that either the jury had to believe the defense’s theory about the accidental drowning or the prosecution’s about Casey suffocating her or whatever, and it should have been the latter because there was more evidence for it. But you don’t convict on the basis of which side has more evidence to support their theory. You convict on the prosecution proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nothing the defense does can “obviate” other possibilities. But even if it could, just because there’s no evidence for the drowning scenario doesn’t mean it isn’t plausible or that the prosecution’s evidence rules it out. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense doesn’t need as much evidence for its theories, or really any evidence at all. It depends on how strong the prosecution’s case is, and if they don’t jump over the reasonable doubt bar, wild theories can run wild.
“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.”
That indeed does seem the way it ought to be, but I’m not sure. I thought I heard that in order to be immune on the basis of self-defense you have to argue that you were in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, and to do so you had to present evidence of some sort demonstrating that in your situation a reasonable person would be in fear.
I could see why you wouldn’t want juries to presume people were in fear for their lives, because justifiable homicide, though necessary, should be strictly reserved for cases that deserve it. Maybe practically speaking there is no way to distinguish between those who genuinely fear for their lives without having started fights in the first place from than to require the defense to assert positively that that was the case.
___________________________
Nonsense. I offer alternate, plausible scenarios.
+++++++++++++
" Therefore, your assessment of Zimmerman’s character, based on nothing so much as what you assume happened within the evidence gap, is relevant."
________________________________
My assessment of Zimmerman is not at all based on the gap. It is based on his arrest history and the actions that we know he took before the fight.
++++++++++
Your assessment of Martin’s character less so, since his machismo didn’t, in your opinion, contribute to the crime committed against him.
________________________
Oh, you think a crime was committed against Martin?
How about you stop trying to tell me what I think and stick to my actual words.
I do think that Zimmerman was ill-prepared for the situation that was created when he got out of the car and started to follow Martin.
“They were asking the jury to believe their version over the state’s, and theirs was very specific.”
So? Like I said, even if they were, why can’t the jury ignore them and rule solely on whether or not the prosecution proved its case? They could easily say “I don’t know who’s right, the prosecution or the defense. The defense seems more far-fetched, but the prosecution’s is the one that has to be proved.”
“Evidence always narrows down the range of possibilities. In this case the evidence has narrowed it down to two: who threw the first punch.”
I don’t agree. It may have been the defense’s strategy to narrow it down to an either-or. But the prosecution’s case was not strong enough to narrow it down that far, no matter what the defense said. What did they have? Casey not reporting it, which was not a crime; internet searches the mother took credit for; the body somewhat near her home; the purported smell of decomposition in the car; residue from a sticker that may or may not have been Casey’s. That’s not much.
What didn’t they have? Any physical evidence tying Casey to the body or the body to the car, any evidence of Casey having planned the crime aside from the searches that are mildly suggestive but really neither here nor there, any evidence of Casey possessing nor attempting to possess the things she supposedly searched for, any evidence of tools used in the crime tied to Casey, and so on.
Based on all that, I could very easily see saying, “Screw what the defense says. Maybe Casey killed her as the prosecution says, maybe she didn’t. I don’t know, therefore I acquit.”
What screen name do you use in the DUck pen? Your lame spew sure sounds like them.
“Nonsense. I offer alternate, plausible scenarios.”
You offered a plausible alternative scenario which you purported to believe. Or were you lying, and only said you thought Zimmerman pulled his gun, thus setting off Martin and removing his right to self-defense?
“It is based on his arrest history and the actions that we know he took before the fight.”
Right, like I said, nothing. Because nothing in those suggests to me he is a dope, nor that he murdered Martin as you argued.
“Oh, you think a crime was committed against Martin?”
No, I meant the crime you attribute to Zimmerman. The one he committed but which he shouldn’t be on trial for based on the lack of evidence. Remember, back when you said Zimmerman shot Martin only after he was losing the fight he started by following Martin and brandishing his weapon?
“How about you stop trying to tell me what I think and stick to my actual words.”
I try, but it’s hard when apparently you forget saying things.
“I do think that Zimmerman was ill-prepared for the situation that was created when he got out of the car and started to follow Martin.”
You think not only that but also that he ran into Martin and pulled his gun, thus starting a fight which he ended by shooting Martin once he was losing.
I really don't follow your "logic". Zimmerman getting his ass kicked...BY MARTIN = Martin attacking Zimmerman. It does not matter what was said between the two; verbal assault is not what is in question. Martin running away is not in question. The physical evidence proves that Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman. I don't know what else you want.
For your edification, here is the post to which I’m referring. You first offer a plausible alternative scenario:
“All we have are speculative scenarios. Here’s one that fits what we know - which is that Martin took steps to avoid a confrontation (he ran) and Zimmerman took active steps to close the gap (he got out of his car and followed)...
Zimmerman and Martin, either by design of one or my pure bad luck for both of them, find themselves face to face. Martin is angry at being followed. Zimmerman is intimidated and either reaches for or shows the gun. If this happened (and it is as likely as any scenario) then Martin had every right to beat the stalker with the gun into submission.”
Then you go on to say:
“My thinking on this is that Zimmerman is a jerk who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.”
Actually, literally that’s what both sides think. At least the sides that think either he started the fight without preplanning it or he started. But why the “jerk” part, then, except to pile on for no good reason? If you think he deserves to be called a jerk and blamed for getting in over his head and shooting his way out in a dangerous situation which he’s not responsible for, you’re a meaner man than I.
And why add it after the scenario you laid out except to imply that you believe it? Certainly I took it to mean that’s what you believe. Especially when you add in how vociferously you object to assertions that Martin started it, and never to the opposite.
Actually, self-defense is an affirmative defense to the charge, and the defense would have to prove it. To a lesser evidentiary burden ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but they do have to prove it.
In addition, it's my understanding that under Florida law, the defense can actually ask for a special pre-trial hearing to make the self-defense claim before the judge. If the judgment is that the claim meets the "preponderance" standard, Zimmerman would be immune from prosecution and from civil liability. I believe Zimmerman would have to take the stand in this hearing, although I am not 100% certain.
“At least the sides that think either he started the fight without preplanning it or he started.”
Whoops, I screwed that up. I meant either he started the fight without preplanning it or Martin started it. There are, of course, those who think Zimmerman was not in over his head and from first seeing Martin planned his every move in order for Martin to end up dead. These people are called “Sharpton” and “Jackson.”
If you don’t actually think Zimmerman murdered him, I’m sorry, but that’s what I thought you said. Please do tell us what you actually think happened, if for no other reason than to forestall future confusion.
In order to have the best hope of reasonable doubt or better being found, it would make sense for a defense to offer such an excuse or justification, if consistent with evidence. But strictly speaking a defense isn’t absolutely forced to do it. It could, however foolishly, leave it totally up to the intuition of the jury.
NOT - A - CRIME. NOT - A - CRIME. NOT - A - CRIME.
The 911 operator was suggesting Zimmerman NOT follow - FOR HIS OWN SAFETY...
Period.
Zimmerman has the right to see where someone is going in his complex - so do I - so do you. It's a friggin' free country. If I wonder what someone is doing walking on a street, I have the right to watch them. Did you know that?
Newspapers can take pictures of people on the street without permission. Did you know that?
If Zimmerman had wanted to murder the kid- and get away with it, he would NOT have called the police. Think about it.
Are you smoking wacky week, wtc911?
lol -- nailed it.
. THC in his system.......illegal. THAT is evidence... Cold hard fact. I'll let you go back to making a fool of yourself on this thread.
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.