Trayvon Martin Case

[Jauronimo]

Crump also said authorities were trying to "demonize" Martin with news accounts that surfaced Monday, saying Martin had been suspended from school in Miami for 10 days after a search of his book bag turned up an empty plastic bag with marijuana residue. "Whatever Trayvon Martin was suspended for had absolutely no bearing on what happened on the night of February 26," he said. Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "The only comment that I have right now is that they've killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

 

Gee, just like the family "demonized" Zimmerman these past couple weeks.

White Hispanics are inherently racist and have a penchant for hate crimes, Jack. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[B-Man]

But a larger lesson should be the president’s, because a disturbing pattern has developed in his editorializing, which is aimed exclusively at those whose policies and language he implies lead to horrific acts like the shooting of African-American teenagers, the smearing of young feminists, the shooting of Democratic congresswomen, or the jailing of African-American professors. Yet in every case, further evidence, more information, and subsequent events suggested that the president had offered either incomplete or misleading commentary to the nation, predicated not on a desire for healing or truth, but on a wish to gain partisan advantage.

 

 

With the world in recession, facing energy shortages, and on the brink of war, it is politically unwise for the president of the United States to offer commentary on contentious issues, especially before the facts of such disputes are fully known. To do so at worst can interfere with ongoing investigations, and at best pits the office of the presidency against private individuals. In every case, Barack Obama cannot conclude that his commentary created greater unity rather than further polarization.

 

 

When these national controversies arise, the president should take a deep breath, let emotions subside, and simply announce, if he must say anything, “Let’s wait and see,” and then turn his needed attention to ongoing and impending wars, near economic insolvency, and our energy dilemmas.

 

Victor Davis Hanson

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Where are they taking away due process by having a hearing on the case. They aren't going to decide the fate of Zimmerman at the hearing are they?

 

 

 

Do you really feel like this is any different then any other politician in history? They all do this any chance they can get.

 

The hearing by democrat congressmen (along with Obama's comments) just increase the volume. There is a criminal case being contemplated. With all this noise how would you like to defend yourself if you were George Zimmerman? Where is the court going to be able to find a jury that hasn't been tainted? These congressmen are exploiting the situation.

[Juror#8]

-You have no basis for this as you don't know what the investigation discovered

-Zimmerman's story doesn't support this, and there's no way to know for sure.

-You'll have a hard time convincing people that weight makes someone an aggressor. If I've read correctly, Martin is the taller of the two. Does that make him an aggressor?

-How did he know at the time that Martin didn't? Just because you are carrying a gun doesn't mean you're looking for a fight. Bad assumption on your part.

 

1. It is up to the prosecution to make the determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted based on te weight of the evidence. Others in Florida who were absolved under the same self defense law were held in custody until the judge adjudicated the matter as unprosecutable or the prosecution decided that the alleged offender was immune from prosecution.

 

Understandably, the police didn't HAVE TO arrest Zimmerman. They don't HAVE TO arrest anyone. But they should have. Based on the fact that there was no weapons found on Martin, and there was only one side of the story being told, the police should detained the only remaining intimately involved party so that an investigation could be performed to determine what happened up to the point of witness involvement.

 

2. The police admonish him against going and, according to what can be gleened from the tapes, he still proceeds forward. No one can no for sure if he continues...but based on the tapes, and the little commentary that I've heard on the subject, Zimmerman appears to yell after Martin AFTER being admonish not to exit his vehicle.

 

3. Who said that weight makes somone an aggressor? I very specifically say that it is an element in a reasonableness and proportionality analysis. There is decades of case law substantiating this. People have been denied self-defense claims ONLY because they are 6'4", 300 lbs and the victim is 5'10, 175 lbs. It is all about the reasonable person standard. Disagree?

 

4. There has been no assertion, by anyone, at any point, not even Zimmerman or his representatives, that Martin had a weapon. I guess you can wonder aloud about how do we know that Martin didn't brandish a machete and a 30's-era German-issue military revolver under that type of open-ended "you-weren't-there-so-you-can't say-for-sure" analysis. The fact is, Martin didn't have a weapon.

 

But your beliefs are based on your assumptions on the areas you listed. Some of them aren't based on any proven facts. And the couple of facts that you listed don't actually have any meaning unless you've already drawn a negative conclusion about Zimmerman.

 

If the police and the DA didn't feel the need to arrest him, why would you push for an arrest? Especially considering that they have far more facts and evidence at their disposal than you do?

 

I don't have an opinion on this as I don't know what happened other than there was some type of altercation and one guy ended up dead. If there's evidence to support an arrest and a trial great. If there's no evidence or not enough, then that's fine too.

 

If he is not prosecuted, or if it is determined that he is innocent, fine. It's still a travesty, but the wheels of justice will have turned in his favor. I just want him and the matter to get a fair appraisal and fair process. It seems that both the "leave him alone" crowd, and the "he's guilty" crowd don't want that.

 

In fairness to due process and the institution of law, I haven't made any assumptions that I have conditioned with a big "IF."

[/dev/null]

Where are they taking away due process by having a hearing on the case. They aren't going to decide the fate of Zimmerman at the hearing are they?

 

But is this a function of the Legislative Branch or Judicial?

[GG]

But is this a function of the Legislative Branch or Judicial?

 

Well, right now it's the Executive

[Joe Miner]

1. It is up to the prosecution to make the determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted based on te weight of the evidence. Others in Florida who were absolved under the same self defense law were held in custody until the judge adjudicated the matter as unprosecutable or the prosecution decided that the alleged offender was immune from prosecution.

 

Understandably, the police didn't HAVE TO arrest Zimmerman. They don't HAVE TO arrest anyone. But they should have Again, your assumption based off of a lack of knowledge of the evidence.. Based on the fact that there was no weapons found on Martin, and there was only one side of the story being told, the police should detained the only remaining intimately involved party so that an investigation could be performed to determine what happened up to the point of witness involvement. Detained is not the same as arrested.

 

2. The police This has been stated several times. A 911 dispatcher said this. Not the police.admonish him against going and, according to what can be gleened from the tapes, he still proceeds forward.That's what YOU gleaned from the tapes. Other people gleaned other things No one can no for sure if he continues...but based on the tapes, and the little commentary that I've heard on the subject, Zimmerman appears to yell after Martin AFTER being admonish not to exit his vehicle.

 

3. Who said that weight makes somone an aggressor? I very specifically say that it is an element in a reasonableness and proportionality analysis. There is decades of case law substantiating this. People have been denied self-defense claims ONLY because they are 6'4", 300 lbs and the victim is 5'10, 175 lbs. It is all about the reasonable person standard. Disagree?No, but that fact (1 of the two you listed) doesn't mean that he should be arrested or tried. It doesn't prove anything

 

4. There has been no assertion, by anyone, at any point, not even Zimmerman or his representatives, that Martin had a weapon. I guess you can wonder aloud about how do we know that Martin didn't brandish a machete and a 30's-era German-issue military revolver under that type of open-ended "you-weren't-there-so-you-can't say-for-sure" analysis. The fact is, Martin didn't have a weapon. Good job reading my response as I never argued that at all. But what does Zimmerman legally carrying a gun have to do with anything?

 

 

 

If he is not prosecuted, or if it is determined that he is innocent, fine. It's still a travesty, but the wheels of justice will have turned in his favor. I just want him and the matter to get a fair appraisal and fair process. It seems that both the "leave him alone" crowd, and the "he's guilty" crowd don't want that.

 

In fairness to due process and the institution of law, I haven't made any assumptions that I have conditioned with a big "IF."

 

What you think you know doesn't mean jack. So until you actually know something stfu. You just keep repeating the same stupid assumptions throughout this thread, not many of which are based anywhere close to a known fact.

[3rdnlng]

1. It is up to the prosecution to make the determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted based on te weight of the evidence. Others in Florida who were absolved under the same self defense law were held in custody until the judge adjudicated the matter as unprosecutable or the prosecution decided that the alleged offender was immune from prosecution.

 

Understandably, the police didn't HAVE TO arrest Zimmerman. They don't HAVE TO arrest anyone. But they should have. Based on the fact that there was no weapons found on Martin, and there was only one side of the story being told, the police should detained the only remaining intimately involved party so that an investigation could be performed to determine what happened up to the point of witness involvement.

 

2. The police admonish him against going and, according to what can be gleened from the tapes, he still proceeds forward. No one can no for sure if he continues...but based on the tapes, and the little commentary that I've heard on the subject, Zimmerman appears to yell after Martin AFTER being admonish not to exit his vehicle.

 

3. Who said that weight makes somone an aggressor? I very specifically say that it is an element in a reasonableness and proportionality analysis. There is decades of case law substantiating this. People have been denied self-defense claims ONLY because they are 6'4", 300 lbs and the victim is 5'10, 175 lbs. It is all about the reasonable person standard. Disagree?

 

4. There has been no assertion, by anyone, at any point, not even Zimmerman or his representatives, that Martin had a weapon. I guess you can wonder aloud about how do we know that Martin didn't brandish a machete and a 30's-era German-issue military revolver under that type of open-ended "you-weren't-there-so-you-can't say-for-sure" analysis. The fact is, Martin didn't have a weapon.

 

 

 

If he is not prosecuted, or if it is determined that he is innocent, fine. It's still a travesty, but the wheels of justice will have turned in his favor. I just want him and the matter to get a fair appraisal and fair process. It seems that both the "leave him alone" crowd, and the "he's guilty" crowd don't want that.

 

In fairness to due process and the institution of law, I haven't made any assumptions that I have conditioned with a big "IF."

 

 

Per Zimmerman, Martin was trying to get his weapon.

[erynthered]

http://freebeacon.co...killed-trayvon/

 

Meet registered Democrat and self-identified Hispanic American, George Zimmerman.

 

Some in the media have sought to blame Republican politicians and conservative activists for Martin’s death.

 

 

[/dev/null]

Well, right now it's the Executive

Another example of the devolution of the Imperial Presidency

[IDBillzFan]

Where are they taking away due process by having a hearing on the case. They aren't going to decide the fate of Zimmerman at the hearing are they?

According to the Orlando news report, the Sheila Jackson-Lee forum is specifically about hate crimes and racial profiling. Having the Martins there clearliy means it has been determined their child was a victim of a hate crime and racial profiling.

 

Where, specifically, is the evidence that suggests this is precisely what happened? If that is really the case, would not Zimmerman be under arrest right now?

 

So by the time this hearing is covered, and the Martins' son is shown to the world to be the victim of racial profiling and hate crimes before anyone is even arrested, I'd say that pretty much destroys any chance of Zimimerman getting a fair trial should he be arrested.

 

Put another way; would you be equally accepting if the Republicans invited the Zimmerman family to a Republican forum about the importance of self-defense laws and protecting your neighborhood through a watch program? Face it, if that happened right now, Nancy Pelosi, David Axelod and Wasserman-Shultz would simultaneously give birth to kittens out their left nostrils on live TV. This is grandstanding by the left, plain and simple, and does nothing to help the situation...only make it worse.

 

As it stands, the moment Zimmerman comes out of hiding, he's a dead man and you know it. That Black Panther bounty coupled with the Spike Lee outings is doing everything it can to ensure this to be the case.

 

Absolutely embarrassing time to be an American, let alone a liberal in America. Simply embarrassing.

[Juror#8]

Detained is not the same as arrested.

 

Yes it is actually.

 

Detain is an arrested state. Arrest is a detained state. Both are "in custody" conditions. Disagree? To effectuate a legal arrest (based on probable cause) is a legally significant separate matter. Aropos, he should have been legally arrested based on pc.

 

2. That's what YOU gleaned from the tapes. Other people gleaned other things

 

That's what I said. Said that before. Moving on...

 

3.

No, but that fact (1 of the two you listed) doesn't mean that he should be arrested or tried. It doesn't prove anything

 

I never said that he should be arrested or tried simply because he is bigger than Martin. Your lack of legal sophistication and innability to appreciate nuance is becoming a bore.

 

4. Good job reading my response as I never argued that at all.

 

Thank you. Yes you did.

 

But what does Zimmerman legally carrying a gun have to do with anything?

 

Explained in post #347 (see: "rebuittable presumption")

 

What you think you know doesn't mean jack. So until you actually know something stfu. You just keep repeating the same stupid assumptions throughout this thread, not many of which are based anywhere close to a known fact.

 

Great. Are you done responding to my posts? Actually, did you ever start? How about we just concede that we don't respect each other's positions and move on? I feel like I'm wasting my time on you when I'd rather be analyzing this developing case. So unless you have something more than the excrement that you've put forth, that consists of little red one-line declaratives and one-paragraph fallcious conclusions, I'd just as soon agree that we dislike one another and save everyone the time and energy of reading this exchange.

 

Either way, since you have demonstrated barely a scintilla of value with respect to this conversation, I'm gonna re-direct my focus back to the core discussion and leave you to your devices.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

Where are they taking away due process by having a hearing on the case. They aren't going to decide the fate of Zimmerman at the hearing are they?

 

IF Congress has "decided" it's a hate crime, that's essentially an indictment, but legislative and extra-judicial. THAT would be a violation of due process.

 

 

(Note, I said "IF". I don't actually know...or much care...or worry about Congress' political theater.)

 

Great. Are you done responding to my posts? Actually, did you ever start? How about we just concede that we don't respect each other's positions and move on? I feel like I'm wasting my time on you when I'd rather be analyzing this developing case. So unless you have something more than the excrement that you've put forth, that consists of little red one-line declaratives and one-paragraph fallcious conclusions, I'd just as soon agree that we dislike one another and save everyone the time and energy of reading this exchange.

 

Either way, since you have demonstrated barely a scintilla of value with respect to this conversation, I'm gonna re-direct my focus back to the core discussion and leave you to your devices.

 

What, you think he's reading your posts? You want people to read your posts, write shorter ones (like "You're an idiot," which everyone reads.)

[Joe Miner]

Yes it is actually.

 

Detain is an arrested state. Arrest is a detained state. Both are "in custody" conditions. Disagree? To effectuate a legal arrest (based on probable cause) is a legally significant separate matter. Aropos, he should have been legally arrested based on pc.

 

 

 

That's what I said. Said that before. Moving on...

 

3.

 

I never said that he should be arrested or tried simply because he is bigger than Martin. Your lack of legal sophistication and innability to appreciate nuance is becoming a bore.

 

 

 

Thank you. Yes you did.

 

 

 

Explained in post #347 (see: "rebuittable presumption")

 

 

 

Great. Are you done responding to my posts? Actually, did you ever start? How about we just concede that we don't respect each other's positions and move on? I feel like I'm wasting my time on you when I'd rather be analyzing this developing case. So unless you have something more than the excrement that you've put forth, that consists of little red one-line declaratives and one-paragraph fallcious conclusions, I'd just as soon agree that we dislike one another and save everyone the time and energy of reading this exchange.

 

Either way, since you have demonstrated barely a scintilla of value with respect to this conversation, I'm gonna re-direct my focus back to the core discussion and leave you to your devices.

 

You keep redirecting your focus there gumshoe. A couple more Scoobie Snacks, and you'll blow this case wide open.

 

Did you take a law class at some point, and are now trying an exercise in real life application? Hopefully you did better in class that you're doing here.

[DC Tom]

You keep redirecting your focus there gumshoe. A couple more Scoobie Snacks, and you'll blow this case wide open.

 

Did you take a law class at some point, and are now trying an exercise in real life application? Hopefully you did better in class that you're doing here.

 

He's actually a lawyer, and apparently one with at least a little experience in trial law. That's just judging from his posts.

 

He may (or may not) be a twerp...but at the very least he's not ignorant about the trial law.

[Joe Miner]

He's actually a lawyer, and apparently one with at least a little experience in trial law. That's just judging from his posts.

 

He may (or may not) be a twerp...but at the very least he's not ignorant about the trial law.

 

From his posts I don't think he's ignorant about the law.

 

But he's made a ton of assumptions in how others have and should have interpreted parts of it without knowing all of the evidence.

 

I haven't disagreed with his interpretation of the law. I'm just sure he doesn't have all of the facts to put the evidence in the proper perspective to claim that something should or should not have happened. It's one thing to understand how the law works. It's another to second guess those that are looking at the facts of the case when you yourself don't have all of the information that they do.

 

And it seems pretty apparent that his argument is really just to rework/do away with the stand your ground law. Which again, without knowing the facts of what happened here makes that premise shaky at best. If he wants to discuss that, don't use an ongoing investigation that's so far full of a lot of speculation and not many known facts.

[Sig1Hunter]

We're still missing the most important detail here, which I think we never will hear, the actual moment of the shooting. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin during this struggle or did Zimmerman shoot him after Martin stopped and was leaving due to the anger of being beaten up (and of course there are other possibilities)? I'm leaning towards the first possibility at this point, but I'll almost guarantee that we never hear it because it would put the story to rest (goodbye ratings).

 

The moral of the story for me for both Zimmerman and Martin is that if you do stupid things, they are far more likely to end badly (kind of like me deciding to post over here).

 

By listening to the 911 tapes, it sounds like the shooting occurred contemporaneously with the struggle. There are screams of "help", and gunshot and then the screams cease. The determination of who was screaming is the key. The screams of help show who was in fear for their life. Martin's family claimed it was him. Zimmerman claimed it was him, which was documented in the initial police report. There is a witness who also stated that it was Zimmerman who was screaming.

[Juror#8]

Did you take a law class at some point, and are now trying an exercise in real life application? Hopefully you did better in class that you're doing here.

 

I'm representing a buddy in a bs cost adjustment contract dispute action that I just recently pro hac'd into in the Eastern District of VA. It's on the docket for late April. Anyway, if you want to see the first "[one] law class at some point" person to try a case in Fed court, you're welcome to attend. I'll let you know the docket number and date via PM.

 

!@#$ friend talked me into it over a game of Madden. Haven't practiced in a couple of years and now this. HA!

[Rob's House]

I'm representing a buddy in a bs cost adjustment contract dispute action that I just recently pro hac'd into in the Eastern District of VA. It's on the docket for late April. Anyway, if you want to see the first "[one] law class at some point" person to try a case in Fed court, you're welcome to attend. I'll let you know the docket number and date via PM.

 

!@#$ friend talked me into it over a game of Madden. Haven't practiced in a couple of years and now this. HA!

I'd actually be interested in seeing that. Is it in Norfolk?

[Juror#8]

From his posts I don't think he's ignorant about the law.

 

But he's made a ton of assumptions in how others have and should have interpreted parts of it without knowing all of the evidence.

 

I haven't disagreed with his interpretation of the law. I'm just sure he doesn't have all of the facts to put the evidence in the proper perspective to claim that something should or should not have happened. It's one thing to understand how the law works. It's another to second guess those that are looking at the facts of the case when you yourself don't have all of the information that they do.

 

And it seems pretty apparent that his argument is really just to rework/do away with the stand your ground law. Which again, without knowing the facts of what happened here makes that premise shaky at best. If he wants to discuss that, don't use an ongoing investigation that's so far full of a lot of speculation and not many known facts.

 

I know I don't have all the facts and I believe that I was conceding that. A lot of a lot of everything at this point is circumstantial. I'm trying to present the applicable black letter law. But like everyone else, I have an opinion and would like to discuss those things with the group.