Topic: Trayvon Martin

[mrnyc]

well hts i hear you but i think a broken jaw n etc quite obviously constitutes great bodily harm lol! so that angle would be the wrong tact to follow. i think the prosecution should go after zim because he was in the process of a crime. we'll see.

this court stuff is really in my face this week as i am on freakin jury duty!

[Quimbob]

Well basically it looks as if all witnesses are useless.

I think the cops already have that impression fairly universally.

[eastvillagedon]

this court stuff is really in my face this week as i am on freakin jury duty!

what courthouse are you in? I still dread jury duty, but not so much as years ago. They used to keep you for two weeks in NY even if you weren't selected. It was really nightmarish. But last spring I was called and miraculously spent only one day there! (at the Church St. location).

[gottaplan]

Well basically it looks as if all witnesses are useless.

I think the cops already have that impression fairly universally.

To be fair, it was a dark, rainy night.  Difficult to say what anyone can be SURE of seeing.  And when these witnesses originally gave their description of events, the story had not exploded on to the national stage it has now become.

[Hts121]

well hts i hear you but i think a broken jaw n etc quite obviously constitutes great bodily harm lol! so that angle would be the wrong tact to follow. i think the prosecution should go after zim because he was in the process of a crime. we'll see.

this court stuff is really in my face this week as i am on freakin jury duty!

Again.... they DID NOT charge him with any other crime.  If they did not charge him, how are they supposed to go after him "because he was in the process of a crime"? 

On your other point..... anytime anyone gets in a fight, they are "in imminent danger of" getting a broken jaw or nose.  Therefore, if injuries that not uncommonly result from fist fights constitute "great bodily harm", what stops someone from shooting another person as soon as that person "puts his dukes up"?

I don't know if Florida has a definition of great bodily harm which it reads to its jurors before deliberations...... and there certainly always has been vigorous debate in the legal community as to what qualifies as great bodily harm.  Personally, I have always been of the opinion that "great bodily harm" involves some type of injury which creates a "substantial risk of death" or "causes serious and permanent disfigurement" or "causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of either a bodily member or an organ".  Getting shot or stabbed or repeatedly beaten with a blunt object could qualify as great bodily harm.  Getting "sliced up" with a switch blade constitutes great bodily harm.  Getting your arm chopped off qualifies as great bodily harm.

IMO, a broken nose or broken jaw does not meet the standard...... especially a non-displaced fracture  That would open the floodgates for Roger Dorn to shoot Lou Brown for ordering him to quit with the "o'lay bullsh!t" and get in front of the ball.

[I feel the need, at least in this thread, to clarify that sarcasm is intended on that last sentence folks)

[gottaplan]

Let me ask a hypothetical question, and I think it's probably going to be asked sometime during the trial.

Assuming Zimmerman hadn't pulled his gun & shot Martin, how bad would his beatings have been?  Trayvon was obviously pummelling him, was he going to keep going till Zimmerman was knocked out?  No longer struggling and totally defenseless?  Nobody knows of course but it's worth asking because it leads to the next question, at what point was he in fear for his life?  At what point does "a whooping" turn into a life threatening situation?  Defense is going to have to persuade the jury that Zimmerman was at that point.

[Hts121]

^That's going to be the crux of the case.  The jury will have to ask the question of whether it was reasonable for Zimmerman to assume that his life was in danger with Trayvon on top..... was Zimmerman justified in thinking that Trayvon could kill him with his bare hands.  The question can't be asked in the abstract.  The context must be taken into account.  That's why the defense attorney is in all likelihood thrilled by Zimmerman's weight loss since the night in question (more likely due to the effects of anxiety than any stratetic defense tactic).  That's why he shaved his facial hair and is growing the hair on his head out.  It is good strategy to make him look as non-threatening as possible.  Like I suggested upthread, if Zimmerman was a small woman and Trayvon was an NFL sized linebacker and all facts are the same, charges would have never been filed.

To turn the question around though, at what point does the slope get too slippery.  Imagine the cops roll up on two men and one has a bullet in the chest.  The other, with the smoking gun in his hand has a bloody nose and a few scratches.  He says that the dead one had gotten on top of him during a fight and claims that he shot him in self-defense.  Do the cops then obligated to let him go free if they have nothing more to go on?  Seems like a dangerous proposition to me....

[gottaplan]

^agreed.  The other big issue is Zimmerman's claim that Martin went for his gun.  The way those facts might be presented to the jury will be critical.  I still haven't heard yet if any of Martin's prints are on the gun.  If so, that would be a major blow to the prosecution since it would validate Zimmerman's claim that he was fighting for his life.

[DanB]

"Putting up one's dukes" is a lot different than being on the ground and being pummelled in the back of the head.  In that situation no one can evaluate the risk to their life.

In your view, was Indiana Jones justified in shooting the guy brandishing the sword?  Maybe he never intended to use it!

Indiana Jones : Sword vs. Gun

[Hts121]

I suspect the prosecutors already have the forensic report on that and probably were waiting on those results before filing charges.  Regardless, I'm not so sure I would consider that a validation of his claim of self-defense.  What if Trayvon's prints were on the gun because he was trying to wrestle it away from Zimmerman after he pulled it?

If I was Zimmerman's attorney, I would try to focus on the head against the cement angle.... or at least see if that is plausible and won't get destroyed on cross examination.  Were the injuries on the back of the head consistent with repeated bashing?  Or were they more like scrapes/cuts caused by falling down on the cement or struggling with your head against the cement?  Was there any blunt force trauma on top of the cuts/scrapes.  Any significant swelling or bruising which would back his story up?  Also, without any hair to grab onto and Trayvon raining down punches, how exactly did it happen?..... considering Trayvon would have needed both of his hands to grab the head firmly enough to repeatedly bash it against the cement.

[tedolph]

I can't see how the prosecutor is going to carry his "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof before the jury.  If Zimmerman's head injuries are consistent with him having his head pounded into the curb, the jurors are going to put themselves in his shoes and conclude that they would have shot too, regardless of what the jury instructions say or who initiated the incident.  I suspect that the prosecutor knows this and the trial is for public show purposes only.

Zimmerman will be acquitted and the prosecutor's office will be off the hook with the public. 

The Left will have again placed their bet (prematurely)  on a losing pony like Tawna Brawley, the Duke lacrosse team, the Harvard professor, etc.

I will put a beer on it.

Tedolph

[TheCOV]

Listen, I don't care what anyone else thinks.  If a guy has me down on my back on the concrete beating the sh!t out of me and I had a gun.  One word....BLAM.

Just go lay down on the concrete right now.  Purposely and gently lie yourself down on the concrete.  Let the weight of just your own body and your own head press into it, especially fresh concrete with abrasive edges that hasn't been worn by years of wear.  It's not comfortable, or natural feeling at all.  As you lie there, don't forget you don't even have another person on top of you yet, hitting you. 

IF, only IF,  this is the potential scenario, and you have someone who has a more suspicious character as Zimmerman SEEMINGLY has, it's no wonder he fired the gun.

[Hts121]

I will put a beer on it.

Tedolph

I would take you up on that bet..... if the prosecutor had charged him with manslaughter.  The mental state element for murder 2 will be difficult to satisfy.  But if the jury in Florida is allowed to convict him for manslaughter as a lessor included offense of murder 2, then I'll take you up on that bet.  You win and you get a 12 pack of the GLBC beer of your pleasure.  I win and I get your hat... and your radio.

Welcome back, btw

[tedolph]

I will put a beer on it.

Tedolph

I would take you up on that bet..... if the prosecutor had charged him with manslaughter.  The mental state element for murder 2 will be difficult to satisfy.  But if the jury in Florida is allowed to convict him for manslaughter as a lessor included offense of murder 2, then I'll take you up on that bet.  You win and you get a 12 pack of the GLBC beer of your pleasure.  I win and I get your hat... and your radio.

Welcome back, btw

I tend to agree with you.  The prosecutor might, I say "might" have a shot at a manslaughter charge if, if he got the right jury.  But murder? No way.  The jury isn't going to go there even if they are all card carrying memebers of the NAACP.


Thanks for the welcome.

Believe me, I am taking my life in my hands by posting here.

TEdolph

[Hts121]

Here's a related story involving a Stand Your Ground issue.  This is what I have been commenting on in terms of how people can easily take the law too literal.  You can even hear this guy on the phone with the cops saying "I'm standing my ground" before shooting his victim and seriously wounding others.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-claims-self-defense-fatal-shooting-neighbor-115652180--abc-news-topstories.html

[MyTwoSense]

Here's a related story involving a Stand Your Ground issue.  This is what I have been commenting on in terms of how people can easily take the law too literal.  You can even hear this guy on the phone with the cops saying "I'm standing my ground" before shooting his victim and seriously wounding others.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-claims-self-defense-fatal-shooting-neighbor-115652180--abc-news-topstories.html

How can he stand his ground when he was NOT on his property?

[Hts121]

^You are confusing the doctrines of "Stand Your Ground" with "King of the Castle".  The latter only applies when you are on your property (or, in some states, in your car).  Stand Your Ground applies anywhere as long as the person claiming it is not breaking the law.  Although I suppose, in this particular circumstance, you could argue that he was trespassing (albeit not rising to the level of a criminal trespass I wouldn't think).

[unusualfire]

Bringing a gun on private property is not legal. Well other states has different laws.

[Niko]

Reminds me of that South Park episode where there is a ban on killing animals unless they pose an immediate threat.  To get around the law they yell "It's coming right for us!" before they shoot anything .

[Gramarye]

I honestly haven't been following this case much, so I may be off my mark on the facts here, but I'm not sure that Stand Your Ground *or* the Castle Doctrine is in play.  Castle doctrine clearly isn't because Zimmerman wasn't in his home or his car.

However, as I understand it, Zimmerman's narrative (and the medical records from his treatment for injuries seems consistent with it) is that Martin had him on the ground and was banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement.  That's not Stand Your Ground at work there.  That's plain old traditional self-defense.  If that story is true--and I repeat, I haven't been following the case closely--Zimmerman might not even really need the extra protection of the SYG law.  Lethal force at that stage might well have been justified even in a state with no SYG law.

[StrapHanger]

^With the possible caveat that under vanilla self defense, I don't know if you can instigate the threatening encounter.  I.e., I'm not sure you can begin the encounter by brandishing a weapon, then claim self defense if the other person is responding to your own threatening action.  I'm definitely not making any claims as to the fact pattern here, but there are very plausible hypotheticals consistent with the facts you lay out that might still take standard self defense off the table.

[Gramarye]

There's something like that out there, but I can't recall the details.  Crim law was a long time ago for me and wasn't my best subject even then, so I can't remember if it's that you can't claim vanilla self defense if you introduce force into the encounter, or if you introduce deadly force into the encounter.  For example, if you start a fistfight at a bar (nondeadly force), then the other person pulls a knife (deadly force), then you pull your own knife and kill the other person ... I honestly forget how that plays out.

[Hts121]

I brought that point up before, Gramarye.  The reason SYG got thrown into the story is that it is the operative portion of Florida's statute which radically differs from traditional black letter law in several respects.  It was passed under the SYG movement and the statute seems to have just been assigned the generic name of "Florida's Stand Your Ground law" even though it is much more comprehensive than just telling the people of Florida that they can stand their ground when threatened.  What caused this to become such a hot story at first is that Zimmerman was not arrested and the public was told by the police he could not be arrested because of Florida's stand your ground law (again, referring to the statute genericallly).  So, what you had was a dead kid who had nothing on him but skittles and an iced tea shot dead by an armed neighborhood watchman.  Then the public heard the 911 tape.  All this occured before the version of events Zimmerman will allege occured was released. 

[unusualfire]

I honestly haven't been following this case much, so I may be off my mark on the facts here, but I'm not sure that Stand Your Ground *or* the Castle Doctrine is in play.  Castle doctrine clearly isn't because Zimmerman wasn't in his home or his car.

However, as I understand it, Zimmerman's narrative (and the medical records from his treatment for injuries seems consistent with it) is that Martin had him on the ground and was banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement.  That's not Stand Your Ground at work there.  That's plain old traditional self-defense.  If that story is true--and I repeat, I haven't been following the case closely--Zimmerman might not even really need the extra protection of the SYG law.  Lethal force at that stage might well have been justified even in a state with no SYG law.

It will come down to forensics. First to see  if Zimmermans story is true. Was Travon banging his Zimmerman's head on the concrete? If he was, there should be some forensics evidence under the fingernails of Travon from grabbing zimmermans head and banging it hard and repeatedly on the ground. Also the placement of Travon's body comes into play as well.

It makes you wonder. Was Trayvon(Who just turned 17 9 days before this incident) that much stronger than a 200 lbs 28 year old??

[Hts121]

Putting myself in the prosecutor's shoes, I have wondered about the logistics of that head-banging against the ground story.  Clearly, Zimmerman either hit or scraped his head somehow.  He could have done that falling down or his head could have hit the concrete if his back was on the ground and he was punched in the face or it could have scraped against the ground during the struggle.  All of that is plausible.  But the idea of Trayvon using his hands to repeatedly bang Zimmerman's head against the ground is somewhat hard to believe IMO.  Maybe if Zimmerman had some hair..... but we are talking about a guy with a buzz cut on a rainy night, so I would think Trayvon would need both hands to get any type of grip necessary to force his head repeatedly into the ground.  Did Zimmerman really let this skinny 17 yo get on top of him like that and control him like that on the ground?  And don't forget that Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon was going for his gun.  So.... if you believe his report, that means Trayvon was going for his gun with one hand and banging his head repeatedly into the ground with the other hand.  Maybe Trayvon was wiry strong and Zimmerman was a cupcake...... but, if I was the prosecutor, I would be foaming at the mouth for a chance to cross-x Zimmerman.

[unusualfire]

Did the detectives use Luminal ? Water can't wash all of the blood away. Police can use a chemical called Luminal. They use ultra violet light to detect blood. Blood can be found years later. So if Zimmerman is correct. He knows where he hit his head. All they have to do is test that spot.

[Hts121]

That still wouldn't prove 'how' he hit his head.  I don't think there is much dispute as to 'where' he hit his head.

[unusualfire]

This family think they are sneaky.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/justice/florida-zimmerman-calls/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[unusualfire]

Hmm So he jumped out of the bushes??? OK so Trayvon happen to get past him as he was going back to his car and jump out of the bushes huh???

[Hts121]

Upthread, I laid out a detailed timeline I assume the prosecutors are going to use to absolutely destroy Zimmerman's credibility (what's left of it at least) on cross.  The more this plays out, the more I think O'Mara is going to try and go for a Rule 29 dismissal after the Prosecution puts on its case.  If the judge denies the motion, then Zimmerman will agree to a plea for voluntary manslaughter.  I just can't see him taking the stand and he simply can't put on a credible defense on how the confrontation began and escalated without waiving his 5th Amendment right by testifying himself and exposing himself to cross-x.  It seems the defendants refusal to testify in that Texas case was weighed heavily by the jury (improperly or not). 

[ClevelandOhio]

Raw Video: Zimmerman Took Police to Scene

[Hts121]

Word to the wise..... no matter how you end up in the situation Zimmerman found himself, no matter whether you feel it was justified or not..... NEVER EVER EVER agree to do what Zimmerman just did in the videotape above.  And, from what I read in an article earlier today, it appears he went much further than a simple reenactment in the questioning by police.  Use the 5th and 6th Amendments absent advise from counsel to waive those protections..... and that applies no matter what the cops tell you the effect of doing so would be (they are very good at talking people into waiving their rights).

[gottaplan]

Upthread, I laid out a detailed timeline I assume the prosecutors are going to use to absolutely destroy Zimmerman's credibility (what's left of it at least) on cross.  The more this plays out, the more I think O'Mara is going to try and go for a Rule 29 dismissal after the Prosecution puts on its case.  If the judge denies the motion, then Zimmerman will agree to a plea for voluntary manslaughter. 

I think you're right, the prosecution will destroy Zimmerman's credibility, or what's left of it.  He'll easily be painted as a liar, an aspiring police officer who had past trouble with the law himself, and overstepped his duties by pursuing a harmless unarmed man with a loaded weapon, despite being told not to. 

None of that adds up to a conviction on 2nd degree murder though.  And despite all Zimmerman's character flaws, young Mr. Martin was no angel either, and it won't be hard to convince a handful of jurors that Zimmerman was in the middle of getting a complete beatdown and had to use deadly force to save himself from being killed.  That defense, albeit weak, will be more than enough to beat the 2nd degree murder charge and possibly the manslaughter charge.  No way does he take a pleabargain.  My $0.02

[unusualfire]

http://www.thetrayvonmartintrial.com/index.php/archives

Zimmerman interviews

[Hts121]

Upthread, I laid out a detailed timeline I assume the prosecutors are going to use to absolutely destroy Zimmerman's credibility (what's left of it at least) on cross.  The more this plays out, the more I think O'Mara is going to try and go for a Rule 29 dismissal after the Prosecution puts on its case.  If the judge denies the motion, then Zimmerman will agree to a plea for voluntary manslaughter. 

I think you're right, the prosecution will destroy Zimmerman's credibility, or what's left of it.  He'll easily be painted as a liar, an aspiring police officer who had past trouble with the law himself, and overstepped his duties by pursuing a harmless unarmed man with a loaded weapon, despite being told not to. 

None of that adds up to a conviction on 2nd degree murder though.  And despite all Zimmerman's character flaws, young Mr. Martin was no angel either, and it won't be hard to convince a handful of jurors that Zimmerman was in the middle of getting a complete beatdown and had to use deadly force to save himself from being killed.  That defense, albeit weak, will be more than enough to beat the 2nd degree murder charge and possibly the manslaughter charge.  No way does he take a pleabargain.  My $0.02

I definitely agree that a 2nd degree murder conviction seems like a stretch.  But as I believe I explained upthread, I think (but am not certain) that Florida allows its jurors to convict on a lessor included offense and, under Florida law, manslaughter is a lessor included offense of murder2.  The incentive for the plea bargain is to be able to negotiate the sentence recommended by the State to the judge, eliminates the possibility that the jury could convict on murder2, and does away with the need for Zimmerman to testify.

Btw, I don't believe Zimmerman's past legal troubles will be admissible unless he puts on character evidence of his own.