REVISED: If you read this article before April 11, 2012, you may want to read it again as it has been edited to resolve some lack of clarity in the original.
Most readers know the salient facts: On February 26, 2012, while returning from an errand to a local convenience store, Trayvon Martin, a 6' 3" 140 lb., 17-year-old Florida high school student nicknamed “Slim” was found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando.Several eyewitnesses reported to police that they heard a scuffle, then a cry for help, and then a gunshot. According to news reports the Sanford police report states that George Zimmerman, 28 year old neighborhood watch captain (and self-anointed judge, jury and executioner) was found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. Zimmerman is a buffed Latino who stands 5' 9" and weighs-in at 240 lbs. It’s reported that he shot and killed Trayvon with concealed black Kel Tec 9 mm PF9 semi-automatic hand gun which holds 8 rounds ready for rapid fire. The semi-automatic pistol chambered for the 9MM Luger cartridge was developed with maximum concealability in mind and is touted as the lightest and flattest 9MM ever made.
Zimmerman claims Trayvon “broke” his nose (police just stated he had a bloody nose) and caused wounds to the back of his head. Martin, unresponsive, was pronounced dead at the scene. He was unarmed and in possession of no more than pack of Skittles, a bottle of iced tea, and a cell phone. The nation has broken to justifiable outrage.
Trayvon Martin Zimmerman claims he killed Martin in self defense and is shielded from liability under Florida's "Stand your Ground" law . The police took him at his word, did not arrest him, failed to administer drug or alcohol tests, and further failed to run a background check. He was apparently well-known to local law enforcement as an “habitual” caller to cops who called the police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011
Understand this: unlike those who blame this law, I defend it as against Zimmerman and a vindication of Trayvon Martin at least under the facts we have thus far. That is, Zimmerman’s perceived shield may well be Trayvon’s best sword.Reading the mandates and provisos of Florida’s SYG law I have seen no facts suggesting Zimmerman can assert this defense. Indeed, every necessary element of this defense is missing as to Zimmerman. Moreover, there is reason to suspect the authorities may have caused the destruction or spoilation of evidence.
I make no attempt to practice law here. This is purely an academic exercise in reading comprehension skills for it’s hard to imagine anyone could read this law and conclude it’s a sound defense for Zimmerman. The facts required to support a presumption of justified deadly force are, thus far, absent on Zimmerman’s side. Conversely, the facts do suggest Trayvon was the only one who could reasonably presume he was in danger of great bodily harm or death. This makes the failure to arrest even more troubling.The three essential elements of a credible opinion are the law, and the facts supported by credible evidence.
Like it or not George Zimmerman, has a ‘fundamental’ right to a presumption of innocence so, unless we admit to prejudice or bigotry, cooler heads should prevail. Yes, like Charles M. Blow, writing in the New York Times we all ask “was the boy with the candy accorded the same presumption of innocence as the man with the gun?” His answer is “there is no right in aligning yourself with wrong.” So we should be circumspect and not rush to judgment until all evidence is presented and all facts revealed in a court of law. As as the evidence is presented many of us may change our opinions.But here is the problem: the law is easy enough to understand here and certain facts are virtually admitted or beyond refute.
The Florida legislature knew how to draft a statute and it’s easy enough for reasonable people to compare the known facts to the law. Reading the statute’s plain language it appears doubtful Zimmerman can hide behind this defense. Given the facts we do know the only one who had a right to stand his ground and use deadly force was none other than Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman Zimmerman can, and presumably will, say whatever he wants in his own self-interest; but so far we haven’t seen any facts supporting his defense as this law requires. If you think his being bloodied and bruised will suffice then you haven’t read the statute or considered the facts very well. Mr. Zimmerman is in deep-shit trouble and we can rightly worry he possess a threat to society. Given the facts shown just by the 911 tapes it’s an outrage that Zimmerman walks free.
But caveat: if you seek truth then beware the media and point-scoring politicians or agenda pushing preacher/activists who shout fire in crowded theaters . This tragedy is a perfect teaching opportunity but the media has done little else but fuel legal ignorance, confuse apples with oranges, pour napalm over presumptive guilt or float spurious defenses. For instance the media coverage of police using of stop and frisk laws in places like New York is irrelevant spin as far as this case goes since Zimmerman is not a law enforcement officer acting under color of law but a wannabe cop and a vigilante allegedly (perhaps admittedly) out to get the “fucking coons.”Many people also compare the impending trail to the Casey Anthony case and wonder if Zimmerman or Trayvon can get a fair trial. First of all, Trayvon Martin is not in trial. Zimmerman will be. Remember, Casey Anthony did get a fair trial despite the hysteria fueled by the tabloid press. We all have our opinions but that fact is that our cherished opinions are based solely on the repetitious sound bites and reports from the media circus. In fact twelve reasonable people sat for weeks and examined mountains of evidence, listened to hundreds of hours of testimony, and could not concluded Casey was the killer. This case is different, we know who the killer is. The only question is whether his defense will stick. Indeed, does this defense really only belong to Trayvon Martin?
The prosecution, of course, always has the burden of proof. But it seems to me, as a practical matter, the defense will have to produce credible evidence, specific facts, supporting Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense as this particular statute requires. It appears Zimmerman is entitled to no legal presumptions of justified deadly force.Exactly what does the plain language of this statute require? We must begin there. Any fact-finder (a jury) is duty-bound to apply the law to those facts. One fact can completely turn a case around and utterly destroy a defense. This is why we must be circumspect about any ‘facts’ the media spoon-feeds us. It’s classic hearsay, inherently untrustworthy, and too often just mere hysterical gossip and totally irrelevant. We should be especially suspicious of journalists who, under the guise of objectivity, spoon-feed softball leading questions to biased vigilante friends of the accused and provide them a national forum to peddle self-serving disingenuous defenses. For these reasons the only critical facts I rely on are those admitted to by Zimmerman and corroborated by the 911 tapes or other trustworthy sources.
In this case the absence of critical facts is the most damning for both Zimmerman and law enforcement since neither have stated even one of the many facts necessary to assert Florida’s SYG law. Yes, that’s right. Neither Zimmerman nor law enforcement have asserted even one fact that can support Zimmerman’s defense under this law. Not one.As the evidence comes to light please read this law and then ask whether the facts support the defense as to Zimmerman or Trayvon. Remember, the law cuts both ways. Facts may well prove it was Zimmerman who was engaged in illegal activity and that only Travon had a right to defend against deadly force. Looking at the facts and admissions thus far it appears that Zimmerman had no right to use any force at all let alone deadly force against Trayvon Martin. By both words and acts Zimmerman has arguably damaged his own defense and may have already impeached himself.
Florida's "Stand your Ground" law which authorizes “justifiable use of force” is easy enough to comprehend but first understand common law and how we even got here.At common law we all have a right to use deadly force in self-defense if we have a reasonable belief we are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. That applies to defense of ourselves and the defense of others. Deadly force does not apply to defense of property. It only applies if our back is to the wall so-to-speak. Public policy requires civilized people abjure violence, that we back away and retreat to safer ground, so as to preserve life rather than take it. All these ‘stand your ground’ statutes do is abrogate that common law principal by permitting us to stand our ground, to not retreat, and to use deadly force but only where we could reasonably believe failing to do so is likely to result in death or great bodily harm.
These SYG laws do not allow us to, ourselves, create that danger, to go out armed and looking for trouble, to create trouble, and then assert a specious defense. Nor are we allowed to presume our mere subjective suspicion is evidence of imminent unlawful activity. Nor does the law permit us to give chase. Most of all we can not create or fabricate the very danger we claim to defend against. On the facts we have been given thus far George Zimmerman will have a hard time sustaining the defense. Still, we don’t have all the facts and the presumption of innocence is the ‘fundamental’ right of every suspect.This law is simple enough and this legislature knew how to draft a statute. As a threshold matter there are a number of elements anyone must show to assert this defense. If those elements are missing the defense can fall like a house of cards.
First, Zimmerman must show that he was engaged in lawful conduct and that he was, in fact, just standing his ground and merely refusing to retreat. Yes, he was licensed to carry a concealed gun but the Neighborhood Watch rules do not authorize carrying a gun. Moreover, is was arguably unlawful for Zimmerman to disobey the 911 police directive to not chase Trayvon. It’s fair to think the officer was referring to this law for the use of force to prevent escape can only be used by “A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody .... [if s/he] reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape. Obviously Zimmerman is not law enforcement officer and Trayvon was not under arrest or in custody. Most important, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who signed the legislation into law, stated the obvious when he said,“Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
When Zimmerman got out of his truck and took after Travon it was Zimmerman who was arguably the illegal aggressor and only Trayvon who had the right to self-defend. On that fact alone it’s hard to see how Zimmerman can assert this statutory defense.Deadly v. Non-Deadly Force.
Non-Deadly Force:Second, this statute distinguishes between deadly and non-deadly Force. Even non-deadly force can only be used “in defense of others” where you reasonably believe it’s necessary to prevent or terminate a trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully your possession or in the possession of another who is a member of your immediate family or household or of a person whose property you have legal duty to protect.
There are no facts yet suggesting Trayvon was engaged in any criminal interference as defined by this statute. Ergo even non-deadly force does not appear justified on these facts.As she pointed out on Democracy Now, Natalie Jackson, attorney for Trayvon Martin’s family, “Trayvon had a right to be where he was.” We have not one fact suggesting he was engaged in any illegal activity as specifically required under this statute. Obviously if one can’t justify non-deadly force one can’t justify deadly force.
Deadly Force:
A person is only justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if s/he reasonably believes that such force is justified to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.(A forcible felony is defined here as “treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”)
Presuming, purely for sake of argument, Zimmerman was just standing his ground (and it’s apparent he wasn’t) there are only two situations where it’s presumed he held “a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.” No facts suggest either of those presumptions exist.First, Trayvon had to be “in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or he had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
Notice the common law preference for preserving life here and not mere property. We can fairly presume a dwelling or residence is occupied. And even if Trayvon was reaching into the open window of a car or a convertible with the top down that would not suffice unless the vehicle was “occupied.” Absolutely no facts even suggest this prong is satisfied.Second, Zimmerman had to know or have reason to believe that an “unlawful and forcible entry” or “unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.” Absolutely no evidence of that here either. In Zimmerman’s own words Trayvon was just walking around and ‘looked suspicious.”
A “person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.“Imminent” does not mean a reasonable suspicion (we don’t even have that much here). Imminent means an impending, menacingly close at hand, threat, a certainty, that Trayvon was engaged in “imminent use of unlawful force.” Zimmerman’s mere self-serving assertions will not suffice. It’s facts that matter. And the tapes sure don’t sound like a man just standing his ground and refusing to retreat in the face of "imminent use of unlawful force." Far from it.
We have been given absolutely no facts suggesting Zimmerman could reasonably believe Trayvon’s behavior suggested “imminent commission of a forcible felony.” No facts suggest Zimmerman is entitled to any statutory presumption warranting deadly or even non-deadly force. Under the facts as we know them, the statute grants no presumption in Zimmerman’s favor. Absent those facts the presumptions fall away and, arguably, the burden of proof shifts to the defense to this regards. Arguably.But it seems even worse for Zimmerman. Even if he can show he was just standing his ground the presumptions justifying deadly force arguably do not apply if Zimmerman was himself engaged in an unlawful activity. Is it legal for a heavily armed 240 lb man to get out of his truck and confront a skinny 140 child with a right to be there and who was engaged in no illegal? To even ask the question seems to answer it.
Nor, according to the statutory language, are theses justifications available if Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself unless he both (a) reasonably believed Trayvon posed an imminent danger of great bodily harm and (b) that Zimmerman “exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger than use deadly force.”I am not going to address every angle of this defense for that’s the lawyers’ job. I am only pointing out the more obvious factual problems that stand in the way of this defense.
Obviously, Trayvon had no duty to retreat if he had a right to be where he was; however it seems wise for a skinny kid to back away from a 240 lb gorilla advancing on him in the night. Moreover, since Trayvon was exhibiting none of the behavior suggested by the statute and Zimmerman was arguably the only aggressor engaged in the imminent commission of a forcible felony (such as “murder; manslaughter; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; [or] aggravated stalking) it again seems Trayvon and only Trayvon had the legal right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. This is Trayvon’s defense too remember. Equal protection under the law!Thus far we have no facts suggesting Trayvon was engaged in ‘imminent unlawful force’. He posed a danger to no one - especially 240 lb gorilla with a gun who was admittedly chasing him. Indeed, Zimmerman’s own 911 tapes admit that Trayvon was doing nothing more than “walking about” and “looking around... just staring” then “coming towards” Zimmerman with “his hand in his waistband.” He could just be reaching for this cell phone. This is not a reasonable belief the lad was engaged in a felony or ‘imminent unlawful force'. Far from it. Indeed, Zimmerman’s own taped statements seem to prove otherwise. But then Trayvon walked away from Zimmerman who was clearly not standing his ground.
Again, the law cuts both ways. The 140 lb Trayvon did not have a duty to retreat if he had a right to be where he was; but he did back away at the aggressive advance of the 240 lb Zimmerman. What sensible skinny kid wouldn’t? Zimmerman had no right to even approach Trayvon. He only had the right to watch. So far is appears the only one engaged in unlawful activity was Zimmerman and the only one who had the right to stand his ground in self-defense to meet force with force was none other than Trayvon Martin.
As to any harm Zimmerman may have suffered he arguably has no defense at all. He forfeited his claim to self-defense the moment he became the aggressor packing a semi-automatic weapon and chased down a skinny defenseless skinny kid. On these facts it’s not reasonable to suggest that Trayvon Martin was wrong to fight back. Again, this defense belongs to Trayvon for he was the only one standing his ground and allowed to resort to deadly force as a last resort.So was George Zimmerman a racist bully packing a concealed gun and donning vigilante authority so as to stalk in the night as self-anointed watchdog? What facts might support that?
Was this all just a subterfuge to go out with a gun and get the "fucking coons" under the pretext of self defense? What facts and evidence support that?And then there are federal concerns of a hate crime. It has been reported that Zimmerman was fired from his job as a security guard because the was too aggressive and it’s also reported he was a frequent caller to 911. If we see a pattern of singling out blacks that may suffice to draw a reasonable conclusion of racism. We shall see. One fact and one instance of conduct are not enough. We need more. For all we know he may be an equal opportunity megalomaniac.
Aside from the law there is the other, perhaps bigger, question of law enforcement. Was the fact of Trayvon’s being black the real reason why the authorities failed to investigate and take Zimmerman into custody which would have required a drug test and background check? We shall see about that too. We must wait for more facts.Could Zimmerman have reasonably believed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was engaged in imminent illegal force? What facts support that?
Could he have reasonably believed Martin posed a serious threat of serious bodily harm or death? What facts support that?As you can see, when we look at the plain language of the statute and apply it to the alleged facts, Zimmerman’s statutory defense just can’t pass muster. Under the facts we have (and we must always question them) the defense falls like a flimsy house of cards. The bitter irony is that the statue may not Zimmerman’s defense but his indictment. The law as bed-sheet? So far it appears to be a sleazy subterfuge for racially motivated hate crime. Without more facts the defense appears to be pig-sty beneath a dull, racist, facade.
The presumption of innocence may be easy to defeat here but for now that presumption must stand. Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty and we can hope justice will be done at least as far as the law can achieve it.Thus far we have not been shown any evidence that George Zimmerman acted within the bounds of the plain language of this law. Indeed, there appears to be evidence he did not act in justifiable self-defense, that he created the very danger he complains of, that he was not just standing his ground, and that he willfully used his vigilantly watchdog status as a bald pretext to pack a concealed gun and go out to perpetuate a racially motivated hate crime against a defenseless child armed only with a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea.
I do not say he’s guilty I only say there seems to be probable cause to believe he committed a crime, that he is a grave danger to the community, and that he should be arrested and held without bail until such time he faces a jury of his peers.Finally, needless to say, criminal liability aside, the owners and managers of this gated community are at risk of devastating civil liability. Think the property values are suffering now? Just wait.
If George Zimmerman is found guilty of homicide ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ the lesser civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence is automatically met and Zimmerman would be civilly liable. The only triable issue of fact would be the amount of damages. Keep in mind there is no insurance coverage for intentional acts (one is only insured for negligence).However he is arguably the agent of the complex and all it’s owners and managers may be held liable for gross negligence by allowing an untrained but deadly armed vigilante to patrol the premises. They may all be held civilly liable to the Martin family. If it drives all the property owners and managers into bankruptcy that may be the further just reward and no housing complex will ever take such outlandish risks again. Suffice to say, a lot of people may be paying a huge price for George Zimmerman’s bad acts if a jury rejects his defense.
Francois AroueteCopyright © 2012
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
old new lefty
Abrawang
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Marcia G. Yerman
inthisdeepcalm
libbyliberalnyc
Salon.com
Comments
Zimmerman deserves a fair trial as do we all when or if an occasion arises.
Zimmerman was ordered to back off. The police at the scene tested the teen NOT Zimmerman for alcohol and drugs and some say Zimmerman's call with police dispatcher sounds suspiciously slurred. Martin's cell phone call of distress. Was Zimmerman authorized to be carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch representative? Zimmerman's chronic aggressiveness. So many things you explore above.
Cases should not be tried by media, true. But this case has touched off a national reaction because of the excessive racial profiling and itchy-trigger-fingered tragedies from NYC to Sanford to Oakland, etc. And the profound lack of legal accountability in this country on power elite and their cronies, heavy over-punitive oppression on the poor and working classes especially and on the ethnic populations. The 2 Americas.
The intensity of national outrage should not be applied in judging this case by the jurors, but the country kinda careens from indifference to obsession thanks to an amoral media. I think the outrage is healthy for our country right now. I hope it makes self-annointed vigilantes think twice or three times. To make the police exercise more caution. I know they risk their lives, but there is a demonization of group-think that can color their perceptions especially in times of stress.
best, libby
The problem is not the law but how it's used.
There's some concern that this may be viewed by some as a series of independent events, not as a single event. I don't like that particular interpretation, but if I understand those who are seeking to assert it, they're saying that later, after the 911 call, some action he took (perhaps verbally confronting Trayvon) might have independently created some new situation in which the issue of standing his ground is measured from there, not from the original point.
Regarding the imminence issue, Chris Hayes tweeted this week about a study which found that holding a gun makes you more likely to think others might be carrying a gun.
The weakest aspect of Zimmerman's defense is that no evidence was cited as to why anything whatsoever Trayvon was doing was inappropriate, much less illegal. Someone trying to defend this situation suggests that Zimmerman was under no obligation to give a complete accounting of this on the 911 tape, and so simply might have omitted the original rationale. That would show poor judgment, since if police were going to take the report and run with it, they'd not want to be blindsided by a lack of knowledge of critical facts, but still, it is technically true there's no obligation to tell the 911 person.
It's also been argued that the fact that he was asked to stand down by the 911 operator isn't proof of anything since there's no showing he heard the operator. That seems feeble, but I think what's critical is that the 911 operator was just saying a redundant fact. Standing one's ground and proceeding forward are two different things.
I had worried that the dwelling in the phrase "dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle" under the statute might be construed to be the entirety of a gated community, but the law is quite specific about the need for roofs to protect one (presumably from weather) at night, which pretty much rules out streets.
No. The legislature knows how to draft a statute. The courts interpret the words of the law as we commonly understand and them it’s presumed the words means what they say and say what that means. Narrow construction. Not over-broad. The words are taken in the most narrow common sense understanding. As they should be for that's the only way people know how to govern their behavior. Notice.
This law requires, as essential elements of the defense, that TM was imminently engaged in unauthorized entry into a dwelling (where people live) or a vehicle where people ARE. The common law concern for life is still here. Empty unlocked car? Or reach into an open car window? NO OFFENSE giving rise to the defense under the statute. Not "occupied" and not "forced". These are ALL essential elements of the defense. You don't pick and choose. All essential elements must be present. One missing? No defense. As it SHOULD be since protection if LIFE is the central concern of the spirit and letter the law. That common law principal is not gone from the law but confirmed by it. It is a defense. NOT a licence. The sound public policy is protection of LIFE.
No aggression! Do not cause trouble. You must be a victim! Zimmerman was an executioner! See how easy this is?
Nothing in TM's behavior suggests such an event & the 911 tapes confirm that. There are simply no FACTS suggesting "imminent unlawful FORCE” as in RIGHT NOW forcible illegal acts - NOT suspicion. that will not suffice. “Reasonable belief” must be supported by articulated facts. There must be specific facts; but not a hint here. And that is only one element of the defense. He'd still have to show lot more even if he got across that threshold.
This is a very well-drafted law. It gives clear and precise notice of what FACTS must be present and proven to assert the defense. And for good reason.
What GZ he heard the 911 operator say is not relevant. You are right. It’s risible. Any person is presumed to know what the law requires. Ignorance is never a defense -not ever. And besides, Zimmerman is a 'guardian of the law’ so is held to an even higher standard of care- especially where he carries a deadly weapon.
Zimerman is toast. Where the anger should be is in the fact that the police and DA did not DEMAND that the requirements of the statute be met. DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT.
I suspect the Justice Dept. will do a looong investigation into any such pattern and practice.
Now watch, mark my words, the civil suits will crush the business entity who knowingly or negligently allowed the untrained GZ to stalk the night streets armed and ignorant of the law he presumes to defend. Gated communities all across the nation will change their policies and practices when the judgments come down. Property owner and property managers are all potentially liable. The lawyers wild CRUSH them. Mark my words.
Nothing will take the Martin's pain away. But for every wrong there IS a remedy and they will have a just reward. The judgments may well sink the complex (there go the property taxes) and can bankrupt a county depending on what’s discovered.
This family will, no doubt, have the most powerful, savage, go for the jugular litigators in America knocking on their door ready to serve.
This will cost a lot of people a lot of money. So what? Fuck them. Money is all they cared about in the first place - not life. Well if money is all they understand they will be ENLIGHTENED. These fuckers will all be crushed by litigation. If you are going to rely on a law like this you damned well better know exactly what it says and what you will have to prove to assert it. Things will change just be demanding the law be upheld to the T. GZ will be held to the law.
Kill the law? Hell no! Enforce it to the letter and take their shield to use it for your sword. It's the law. He is frankly fucked by his own defense. There is going to bed hell to pay. Zimmerman's life is, I'd wager, over. The property owners and managers likely bankrupt if he's found guilty.
There will be hell to pay. Oh yes there will. Just by using the law and holding it to what is says. Just watch. A jury? For the criminal trial perhaps - he has a right to it. But a civil trial? Only a fool of a business/property owner would submit their fate to 12 reasonable people. And there will be both federal and state civil actions. Bring down the full force of the law and crush the bastards who do this evil shit and you will see how fact things change. Money talks and it’s the only language they understand. Bring it on!
I'm a lawyer. I agree for the most part. The point I'm trying to make in my latest post is that the statute is just a big excuse the police are making to avoid arresting this guy. It does not apply. When you break it down and apply the facts (like a prosecutor should) Zimmerman may not be 100% toast, but an arrest should have been made.
I'm sorry to say that a good lawyer will still be able to put up a self defense claim since the cold hard fact here is that the only other person who really knows what happened is dead.
I fear that the real reason for no arrest is that Trayvon was in the "wrong place" according to the mentality of the police and therefore "got what he deserved" in their eyes.
This notion that people in the "wrong place" are certainly up to no good is a common belief among police officers. I'm white and was once was pulled over in an African-American area by the Detroit police for no reason and asked what I was doing there-was I looking to buy drugs or maybe a prostitute? When I explained that I was returning a cable box and flashed my bar card, I was told to "watch my speed" and let go. I wasn't speeding.
A white friend of mine was placed in handcuffs by two white police officers in Detroit while he was driving in a black neighborhood in Detroit looking for his client's house. The police asked him to just admit that he was in the area to buy drugs and it would go easier on him. After he told them to get his bar card out of his wallet, he was released. No probable cause. He was just in the "wrong place".
Of course I have also represented dozens of African Americans who have been pulled over in white areas for no reason.
Likewise Trayvon was in the "wrong place" in the world of the police. The law is just an excuse to not arrest Zimmerman.
1) Going straight to the actual law and reading it, with the aggressive assumption that regular people--not just attorneys and law officers--should be able to understand it. Citizens who are so intimidated that they can no longer read their own laws can no longer hold their public official accountable and are--in a very real sense--no longer citizens in a democracy. Yes--shout it from the rooftops: We must be able to read our own laws and they must be written in plain language that we can understand.
2) Your relentlessly moral point of view. I swear, one of the biggest factors holding progressive/democratic ideas back, as against conservative/authoritarian ideas, is the relentless habit of people on the left to talk in technocratic, dry, passionless terms. We are so enamored of reason and logic (I'm not saying your post was not reasonable and logical--it was, to a tee) that many of us forget that we must, sooner or later, come out and start talking clearly about intuitive right and wrong in a way that shows we truly care about it.
Well done!
I have posted your post on Facebook for those of my friends who have a real need to know.
Lezlie
“I just don't understand why the authorities in Sanders are so transparently dragging their feet to avoid the inevitable.”
You just answered the question and put your finger squarely on the issue! Well done ... almost cuz I think you don’t’ quite get it yet. Read again and perhaps my follow up comments. DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT AND LAZY, INCOMPETENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
This law is very well written. The law is not the problem (though it do despise such dangerous laws). Keep thinking! You are obviously ten thousand miles from stupid. A few hints:
* Inevitably, the county and state would have to spend a lot of money to prosecute Zimmerman.
* Inevitably, public officials would have to put down their doughnuts and WORK for their salaries and benefit.
* Inevitably, elected officials would have to face voters who don’t want people like Zimmerman prosecuted,
* Inevitably, the police don’t want to face their friends and neighbors who pack heat and support thugs like Zimmerman.
* Inevitably, law enforcement would prefer that thugs like Zimmerman do their dirty work for them - just shoot the kid, send out a massage, and leave us to our doughnuts.
Finally, LintheSoutheast, they presume the Martins are just powerless and ignorant nobodies whom they can kick to the curb after covering up their official pattern and practice of discriminatory selective enforcement.
* Inevitably, the Martins will sue them all into oblivion. Inevitably.
FINALLY, THANK YOU! YOU PROVE MY POINT PERFECTLY! BEING NO LAWYER, ONCE YOU TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY READ THE LAW YOU COMPREHEND IT’S PLAIN LANGUAGE PERFECTLY AND CAN THINK FOR YOURSELF. AND PLEASE NOTICE HOW EASY TO PULL THE WOOL FROM OVER YOUR EYES TO WITNESS THE PIG-STY BENEATH DULL RACIST FACADE. CONGRATULATIONS IN HAVING A BRAIN AND KNOWING HOW TO USE IT!
Thank you for spotlighting what I felt was the core issue in Zimmerman's non-arrest. The police were not necessarily racist by not arresting him. It was about protecting one of their own. Zimmerman was one of the "good guys" in the eyes of the police. They saw a means with the Stand Your Ground self defense law to let Zimmerman walk. How many assaults or crimes are committed by officers that are overlooked? As to whether or not Zimmerman is a racist, it sure seems that way. It is laughable that people try to say he can't be racist because he is Hispanic. Ridiculous!
r./
Thanks for your very perfect observations. I could not agree with you more. You clearly see the dangers and know they are real. Yes you do! You will get no argument from me.
But here is the problem (and you might want to read my follow up comments). Go to the ugly dark, despicable, bigoted, heart of this pig-sty. We should demand this law be enforced as it is clearly written so as to fulfill, not frustrate, the legislative intent which is clear enough.
Here is the remedy: you TAKE THEIR PHONEY SHIELD AND USE IT AS YOUR SWORD. They want to defend under the law? Okay. Bring it on! It’s their law. Their rules. Lets’ play the law they rely on. Demand it! Do that and demand the law they rely on be enforced and they are toast. Get it.
I’d wager that if Trayvon was white Zimmerman would have said, “Excuse me kid, but are you visiting somebody here?” or “Watch out kid. There is a neighborhood watch here.” Something to that effect. I he had the slightest concern for life he’d try to preserve it and never rush to judgment. He sure as hell would not chase him down and shoot him. Zimmerman was NOT just standing his ground and there is no evidence to even suggest Trayvon was engaged in “imminent unlawful force.” It really is just that simple. On those two points alone he is toast.
As far as the police and district attorney are concerned this is patent discriminatory enforcement plain and simple. A pig-sty beneath a dull facade. Does anyone really think Trayvon would not have been shot if he was a white lad looking around for an address or a bag of skittles he may have dropped or that the authorities would have acted differently if Zimmerman was shot down by a black man on neighborhood watch while walking through a ghetto? Really? Well-then believe that too, further discussion would be useless. Just sue the bastards into oblivion and bankrupt them all.
Everyone! Stay civilized! This is law. It is all about swords and shields. There are remedies here. The first place to begin is with THEIR law. It is Treyvon’s defense NOT Zimmerman’s. It really is that simple. That law must serve him too: Equal Protection!
So DEMAND THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAKE FLORIDA’S SHIELD AND USE IT AS TREYVON’S SWORD!
I agree that media reports, which are put together on the fly with the best information reporters can get within their time constraints, often contain errors, some of them even egregious. But for the most part news accounts - those published in newspapers - are routinely vetted pretty well by experienced professionals so that information is either attributed to eyewitnesses who give their names or from authorities, such as police or emergency responders, and available records such as written police reports and court documents.
The picture you've given us in your summary jibes with what I've gotten from news reports, which leads me to wonder if you've also relied on news reports for your understanding of what took place. News reports presumably filed by the same media industry you disparage so bluntly and generally.
Thanks for your comments. While much evidence will be introduced my only purpose here is to get people to read the rather plainly drafted law before presuming such righteous opinions and then apply the facts to think for themselves.
If you read my further comments on discriminatory enforcement you will see we are aligned. I can not argue with your experience and know that’s all true in practice but let’s please stay with this case, this law, and these facts as are credible thus far - not to say you haven’t done so.
If the “point [you were] trying to make in [your] latest post is that the statute is just a big excuse the police are making to avoid arresting this guy” (I agree btw) you did not make that point very clearly it at all - except in the apparently later append final paragraph referencing my own criticism published after your earlier post.
I agree with the motives of the police and you ask the right questions in our own post. But I don’t think Zimmerman (or the property owners and agents) get off the hook. (Criminal law aside there will be much civil prosecution.) But the burden shifts here - especially where civil rights violations are concerned. Zimmerman’s defense under this statute must show (not merely say) facts and credible evidence of every element of the defense he asserts but, indeed, he proves otherwise by admissible evidence that is not hearsay:
* By his own 911 admission he was not just standing his ground.
* By his own 911 admission Trayvon was not forcibly “entering a dwelling unit” nor forcibly entering an “occupied vehicle” and he was displaying no sign if “imminent unlawful force.”
Sorry, but looking ‘suspicious’ is not an element of this defense, this legislature knew how to draft a statute and they made it unequivocally clear what facts one must prove (by, at the very least, clear and convincing evidence) before one can rely on the defense. And, you surely know, the jury will be carefully instructed in those regards.
The jury is only a fact-finder. Some issues of fact are arguably not for a jury to decide since they are admitted. On those facts a jury must find ... or the verdict may be set aside or a verdict directed.
But let’s not let procedure slow us down. No, these are matters of factual record and not mere opinions or one man’s word against another who is dead. They are admissions of fact spoken by the accused and against the interest of the accused. There are many more *essential elements* of this defense but I’ll not reiterate. Zimmerman can not get across the threshold let alone show all elements.
Therefore it seems to me that Zimmerman’s phoney shield is really Trayvon’s sword – as a matter of fact and law.
That said, Zimmerman may, and probably will (depending on other facts) assert common law self defense as a fall-back position (we shall see) but clearly he can not rely on this statute. He will find no shelter under this law.
Even common law self-defense will be hard to prove since (striped of the statutory defense) he had a *duty to retreat* in the first place. His back was not to the wall. He willfully charged into harm’s way - with a gun! All that too is shown by the 911 tapes. He, in fact, put Treyvon in the position of fighting back.
Who can assert self-defense? Come on, as a lawyer, you know this! I don’t know Florida law but, at common law, once you, armed with a gun, take hot-pursuit of anyone and they turn to defend themselves, even the common law will not dig you out of the ditch you just ran yourself into. From the instant you take hot-pursuit of a fleeting victim you are no longer *repelling force by force* which, please notice, is the common law principle still preserved in this statute which only abrogates that rule to permit standing one’s ground and removing the duty to retreat. But still, even then, you must show you *reasonably believed* a 17-year old with a pack of Skittles posed an imminent risk of bodily harm or death to a burley man with a gun.
Just give a competent lawyer 12 reasonable unemployed postal workers and they will give you a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are going to deliver self-righteous lecturers about journalistic integrity please begin by not misrepresenting them and not mis-characterizing their efforts by pulling words out-of-context so as to tell your own story. A ‘journalist’ no doubt. Thankfully unemployed?
I think it’s patently clear (presuming one can read in context) that I am not telling people to not believe what the media says or flailing general accusations about the media — although it’s probably safe to do so if the fewer more noble exceptions are noted.
What I have said is that is one more media circus so take it all with a grain of salt, vet for yourself, do your own homework, read the law, and think rather than parrot spoon-fed opinions that the fire up a mob. My criticisms where not “general” but specific and each backed up. Your quote is,
“If you seek truth then beware the media. This tragedy is a perfect teaching opportunity but the media has done little else but fuel legal ignorance, confuse apples with oranges, and pour napalm over presumptive guilt or alternatively float spurious defenses.”
Please notice the absence of a signal (“alternatively float spurious defenses....”) which would indicate that you pulled it out of context and failed to complete the quote which continues “For instance....” and thereby delete the specificity so as to accuse another of generalizations and to tell a very different story. This is not even clever.
You then ignore the context in which every one of those four criticisms is supported with detailed discussion and examples in context. So either your integrity is out or your reading skills are significantly impaired. If the latter is the case then further discussion would be useless but if it’s the former please spare me the self-righteous lectures about journalistic integrity.
When any journalist resorts to this sophomoric trick to invent a very different story they exemplify Janet Malcolm's famous indictment that "every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."
Since I am talking about specific examples it’s clear I am making a distinctions with a real difference between, say retired, hacks and responsible journalists while warning others of the same. With all due respect, please go mis-represent and mis-characterize somebody else.
If the specificity of my post still does not satisfy you here is a brief litany of the careful expertise the media subjects itself to by the ‘routine vetting of experienced professionals.' It's only a partial list of the falsehoods and myths the expert media reported in this one case and I'll not give you the citations but leave you do our own homework.
* THE MEDIA REPORTED THAT POLICE RETURNED THE GUN TO SHOOTER GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.
FALSE. According to police. Sanford Officer Tim Smith handcuffed Zimmerman, and then pulled from a holster in Zimmerman's waistband the black Kel Tec 9 mm PF9, a semiautomatic. The gun is now in the possession of authorities, officially part of the evidence in the case. Zimmerman, though, still has a valid concealed-weapons permit.
* THE MEDIA REPORTED THE POLICE BELIEVED ZIMMERMAN HAD A "SQUEAKY CLEAN" CRIMINAL RECORD.
FALSE. According to Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. During an early meeting with Trayvon's father, a Sanford police investigator told him Zimmerman described *himself * as being "squeaky clean." Trayvon's father "may have misconstrued" that the investigator was merely relaying Zimmerman's claim, Bonaparte Jr. wrote in a public statement.
In reality, Zimmerman had been arrested in 2005 at a UCF-area bar and charged with resisting arrest without violence. He completed a pretrial-diversion program, meaning the case was officially dropped, and he wound up with no conviction on his record. It's not clear when, but police did check Zimmerman's criminal record and know about that arrest.
So much for vetting "available records such as written police reports and court documents."
* THE MEDIA REPORTED THAT ZIMMERMAN FIRED TWICE, A WARNING SHOT AND A KILL SHOT.
FALSE. According to several witnesses and law enforcement. Two loud bangs can be heard on one 911 call, and family attorneys said last week that that was evidence of two shots, but several witnesses who've spoken publicly about what they heard all describe a single shot. And a source close to the investigation told The Orlando Sentinel just one shot was fired from Zimmerman's gun.
I’ll stop there. But ironically, you even make my point for me. Yes, the evidence I cite here is reported by the media but I regard it as credible only because I can independently verify it myself (that’s my point and the question you beg) and I repeatedly warn readers to question even that.
While I must rely on certain reported facts that at have no bearing on the legal issues the only facts I discuss as legally relevant here are those recorded by Zimmerman himself in the 911 tapes and those I have otherwise corroborated. That’s my point too.
Of course, I understand, you don’t get any of that because you have nothing relevant to share and no real interest in what others have to offer on this matter but, like all trolls, just stalk around for an opportunity to dump irrelevant shit here and there. Any troll can snark like sophomore and most trolls do.
Please squander your worthless time and troll-shit elsewhere, let no one mistake you for a class act nor accuse you of having an interest in anything more than begging others’ questions or foisting ignorant opinions about matters of which you know nothing.
Please go dump your troll shit elsewhere. Perhaps it’s time for your medication - presuming there is one for your anti-social malady.
In “The killing of Trayvon Martin”, Patrick Martin, writing at the WSWS, lumped all these statute together and wrote,
"These laws sanction the use of deadly force in public places by individuals if they have a "reasonable fear" that an assailant could seriously harm them or someone else. "
The statement is typical of the coverage we have seen this far on both side of the debate. Sorry, did I say ‘debate’? Pardon me. In a debate both sides come to the discussion with at least a thimble full of knowledge about the topic they on pontificate on.
I despise such laws but this statement is absolutely dead wrong. Only a complete ignoramus who never read this law (or any of the others) could even think to make such an abysmally stupid statement. What breathtaking stupidity! Utterly moronic! And totally irresponsible. The statement is patently false for what it omits so as to tell a story very different from the law or the facts in this case.
It would really be nice if journalists who pontificate on the law at least go READ it so they can come to the debate with a least a thimble full of knowledge. Is this REALLY too much to ask? The coverage has been a circus and a disgrace to the profession of journalism that has earned it's universal disrespect from an intelligence public who can think for themselves when fully informed and who refuse to swallow whatever ignorant clap-trap propaganda is spoon-fed do them just so the writer can push his own agenda.
There can really be no excuse for this abysmal ignorance. This law is easy enough for a 17 year old to comprehend. Read the simple law and there is absolutely NO WAY a rational person could conclude it's a defense for Zimmerman. EXACTLY the opposite for this law and these facts clearly prove that Trayvon Martin was the only person the law allows to use deadly force in self-defense. THIS LAW IS ZIMMERMAN'S OWN DEATH SENTENCE.
Writers and bloggers (who btw, are held to the same legal standards) should at least have the decency to read this plainly worded law before they presume to influence opinion and pontificate on guilt or innocence. Anyone should have just that much decency before they you use this case to pitch their own agenda.
Most of these writer’s have their intentions in the right place but if they going to talk about the law they should go READ it. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Better to remain silent and presumed ignorant rather than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Of course educating people is not the goal here is it?
"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible." Janet Malcolm
The tragedy of Treyvon is one that can not change. What is a far worse one , is that no one will answer for bad law -- and bad judgement in the interest of protecting people like Jeb Bush on down to someone like Zimmerman. No one will take responsibility. Naturally, these very people have to hope that it does not happen again: no one wants "The Zimmerman Defense" to be connected with this sleepy little town.
Thanks. I agree with most of what you say. The lobby that pushed the law probably did misrepresent it. But his is not bad law as much as it is bad law enforcement. And he may cop a plea - if the D.A. can get away with that. I doubt it. Murder seems more fitting than manslaughter. We'll see. I suspect a jury, once instructed, will understand the law better than Sanford officials. Indeed, I'd guess that, on the facts thus far, a judge could instruct the jury that they are not even allowed to consider this defense. I suspect he will be left with Florida's general self-defense law if there is one. But he clearly can't assert this one unless the facts change radically.
Read your further comments I agree with you his 911 call he admits to following Trayvon, now his surrogates are saying that he walked back to his car and Trayvon then attacked him. My newest post actually has a video of a real witness not a manufactured one who disputes this version.
Smear Trayvon? OF COURSE THEY WILL. EXPECT IT AND A LOT MORE! They have to say SOMETHING. They are really desperate. This does not look god for Zimmerman. TRUTH IS THE BEST DEFENSE.
But HERE' is the Catch-22!! Again, STAY with the language of THIS law! In the alternative situation being put forth EVEVN if it IS true! it is, again, Trayvon who has the ONLY right under this statute to stand HIS ground and meet force with force. Get it?! See how easy this is if you stay with what the law actually says and requires. Read it again, and again, and again, and again, till you can cite scripture and verse.
This all goes to may post! This is why I wrote it. This is NOT Zimmerman's defense. In every scenario put forth this far THAT VERY law convicts Zimmerman and exculpates Trayvon! Law and fact. Law and fact.
The defense counsels of America and the prosecutors of America are no longer interested in pulling the truth out of a matter, they only care about pushing the most effective lie.
I am still incensed that the law arrogantly refuses to arrest Zimmerman or to investigate this matter as a series of crimes, many of them committed by law enforcement.
One totally irrelevant post is enough. No need to reiterate the irrelevant. The facts I reported on Zimmerman’s gun were taken from the manufactures web site. Go argue with them. As to the totally irrelevant trolling rest of your ramble about who makes the best gun: do you really think anyone here gives a shit? And for reasons you know too well (unless you suffer term memory loss) you are barred from my blog posts and your obnoxious and irrelevant comments will always be deleted.
There is a difference between disagreeing in good faith and simply being a disagreeable smart ass troll just to harass and this, judging by your record, is your favorite pass time. Go shit in somebody else’s space. Whisk Whisk and your pubescent scat disappears. But judging by your ugly public trail at Open Salon you are not wanting for opportunities to alienate others. Perhaps you can enlist Jared Lee Loughner as a pen pal as I'm sure you share much in common. No-life nasty trolls are booooring. Get a life.
As the Trayvon Martin case draws national attention, we look at another fatal shooting of an African-American male that has received far less scrutiny. Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old African-American Marine veteran, was fatally shot in November by White Plains, NY, police who responded to a false alarm from his medical alert pendant. The officers broke down Chamberlain’s door, tasered him, and then shot him dead. Audio of the entire incident was recorded by the medical alert device in Chamberlain’s apartment. We’re joined by family attorneys and Chamberlain’s son, Kenneth Chamberlain, Jr., who struggles through tears to recount his father’s final moments, including the way police officers mocked his father’s past as a marine
This contradicts the allegation of Zimmerman's father that Trayvon broke his son's nose and left him with bloody injuries from slamming the man's head repeatedly on to a concrete pavement. The eyewitness says he saw no blood and that the entire confrontation took place only on grass.
According to this report broadcast on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, the 250 lb Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon when he shot him. After that he just got up. He was not injured.
Agakin, let me stress: READ THIS LAW. It’s a legal no-brainer! Under the plain and simple language of this law and the facts as we know them, the ONLY man with a right to stand his ground was Trayvon Martin and the only one legally authorized by law to meet force with force as that 6' 3" 140 lg boy against a 5' 9' 240lb gorilla with a gun.
"Suspicion" will NOT suffice under this statute. Read it. Much more must be specifically shown. Did Trayvon fight back? Is this even a relevant question? If you were 140 lb skinny teenager displaying none of the behavior specifically required by this statute (just read it!) and 250 gorilla came after you as you retreated what would you do? I rest my case.
“Kenneth Chamberlain with a heart condition accidentally pressed the button on his medical alert system while sleeping. Responding to the alert, police officers from the city of White Plains, New York, arrived at Chamberlain’s apartment in a public housing complex shortly after 5 a.m. By the time the police left the apartment, Kenneth Chamberlain was dead, shot twice in the chest by a police officer inside his home. Police gained entry to Chamberlain’s apartment only after they took his front door off its hinges. Officers first shot him with a taser, then a beanbag shotgun, and then with live ammunition.”
I will leave you to view the entire segment. Amy Goodman then added,
“initial news coverage around the killing of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr. The headline on the News 12 website read, quote,
"Officer fatally shoots hatchet-wielding man."
TheDailyWhitePlains.com website posted an article titled
"Police Fatally Shoot Disturbed Man Carrying Knife."
The story begins, quote,
"White Plains police say an officer discharged two rounds, fatally shooting an emotionally disturbed White Plains man who attempted to bar officers from entering his apartment with a hatchet and then turned towards police with a butcher’s knife." As any competent journalist with integrity would know, these alleged police statements we presumptive cover-up spin. In light of the fact that competent journalists would know or inquire into the audio and video taps of the event that might refute that inflammatory trash and reveal it as patently false those published reports were arguable made with the law calls “actual malice” which is defined as a “reckless disregard for truth or falsity.”
This is precisely that I was taking about above when I wrote,
“If you seek truth then beware the media. This tragedy is a perfect teaching opportunity but the media has done little else but fuel legal ignorance, confuse apples with oranges, and pour napalm over presumptive guilt or alternatively float spurious defenses. For instance ...” And then gave example is each claim against the media. So to no-life trolls who launched snarky ad hominem attacks at me for that my very accurate accusation against irresponsible journalists back under your rocks.
“Thank you. Your blog is very well written and thought out...I agree with your analysis.”
This seems pretty straightforward: take the statutory commands and apply them to the facts we do know and the conclusion seems inescapable: the only person with the right to assert this defense is none other than Trayvon Martin. The facts Zimmerman essentially admits to, along with the 911 tapes, may preclude him from asserting this statutory defense in good faith. Such a defense seems utterly frivolous. It seems Zimmerman can’t even cross the threshold.
On the other hand, all elements of this statutory defense, every one of them, exist on Trayvon’s side such that the same statute completely vindicates him as a matter of law I think.
Well now. Not such a bad law after all is it? Poetic justice under the law? Amazing! This law that everyone trashes may well convict Zimmerman and it certainly exonerates Trayvon! Ergo, everything people think they know about this law is wrong. How about that. ZIMMERMAN’S SHIELD IS REALLY TRAYVON’S SWORD.
With all due respect to those who keep bringing up the Casey Anthony case ... please. First, all we know about that case is what the sensationalist media tells us. Twelve reasonable people sat in a court room for weeks and examined mountains of evidence and listened to many hours of testimony. They all knew a hell of a lot more than the media reported to us and they had reasonable doubts that Casey Anthony was the killer. Here there is NO question that Zimmerman was the killer. It’s ADMITTED.
The only question is whether he can assert a defense under Florida’s SYG law. I’ll not restate all that. Thus far I have seen no facts to even suggest he can and, indeed, all facts we know this far tell us only Trayvon Martin had any right to self-defense in exercising force against Zimmerman. I would not be the least bit surprised if his legal counsel already advised him of that and that may be the source of his breaking off communications with them.