Trayvon Martin Case

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You facts are not correct. Zimmerman was out of his car following Trayvon when the 911 operator asked if he was following him and said he did not have to do that. After that its not clear what happened.

911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

The coversation then turned to where he would meet the cops when they arrived. To me that tells me Zimmerman was returning to his car to meet the cops but who knows.

Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.

They seem to believe that the 911 call validates Zimmerman's claims despite the 1 min gap in events, his trailing of the boy and claim of "they always get away," his aggressive history and blatant profiling. Unbelievable.

[12thMan]

I'll just be glad when they arrest him, it's long overdue. For their part, Sanford PD haven't done Zimmerman any favors by dragging this out. There's not a juror out there that will be impartial and fair due to all the information leaking out in bits. You can't help but feel empathy for the victim regardless of the circumstances surrounding what actually took place. Even in Trayvon clocked Zimmerman a few times, isn't he entitled to protect and defend himself from an armed stranger?

Meanwhile you have a dead 17 year old boy who's been buried for nearly month, no signs of a scuffle whatsoever on his hands or body, and his killer remains free. I'm sorry, but this whole things smacks of Jim Crow justice.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

no signs of a scuffle whatsoever on his hands or body

You read the autopsy report? Talked to the police about their evidence? Just curious on how you can make that assumption. Right now, we (the public) really don't know jack shit.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You read the autopsy report? Talked to the police about their evidence? Just curious on how you can make that assumption. Right now, we (the public) really don't know jack shit.

Not an assumption.

Trayvon Martin Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight | Fox News

[12thMan]

Video of funeral director.

Trayvon Martin's Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight On Body (VIDEO)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Not an assumption.

Trayvon Martin Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight | Fox News

Did the police even order an autopsy be done?

[Monkeydad]

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Not an assumption.

Trayvon Martin Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight | Fox News

Funeral director isn't remotely a expert or authority on this subject. I'll wait for a autopsy or official report.


Not saying he's not telling the truth, but his word would not be entered as a professional expert.


Witnesses even said they were fighting, which is why neighbors called 911. So no offense, his opinion means jack shit.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Did the police even order an autopsy be done?

Trayvon Martin case: What does the autopsy show? - latimes.com

[JoeRedskin]

So, in response to 12th's and saden1's statements that Zimmerman's actions created the reasonable fear in Martin and that it was he, Martin, that had the right to defend himself, I started poking around and found the law in this area not as clear cut as one would hope.

Here's the deal as I understand it.

(1) Absolutely, saden1 and 12th are right in that Zimmerman's actions could be reasonably seen to cause [I]Martin/I] reasonable fear of imminent harm. The question is what was Martin's or anyone's duty at that point.

In Maryland, Virginia and most other States, you have a "duty to retreat" so long as you reasonably and subjectively believe you can do so safely [e.g. If I am walking with my daughter and am stalked and pursued, I could reasonably say "my daughter cannot safely retreat, so I can stay"; also a disabled person is not bound to retreat from a pursuing able bodied person; you need not retreat from someone brandishing a gun as you cannot reasonably be expected to outrun a bullet].

In Florida and Pennsylvania (which also has a "stand your ground" law") there is no duty to retreat from a place you have a right to be.

With that said, based on the conversation that Martin was having with his girlfriend, it seemed to me he acted incredibly prudently for a teenager, more so than I would have at his age. His girlfriend told him to run from the unidentified pursuer and his response was something like "I will walk faster, but I am not gonna run".

(2) No one has the right to escalate a confrontation. In this case, again according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman said "Why are you here?" to which Martin replied "Why are you following me?" [I may have that reveresed]. This brief verbal exchange suggests to me that "pursuit" had stopped and, instead, we now had a momentary aggressive confrontation between aggressive adult pursuer and defensive juvenile pursued (please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that Martin was a defenseless elementary school "child" like my daughter and I won't insult yours by saying Zimmerman was just making friendly inquiry).

If, instead of this exchange, Zimmerman simply attacked Martin, again, too bad so sad for Zimmerman if Zimm starts to lose a fight he started without provocation.

Rather than an immediate attack by Zimmerman, however, what we have is a verbal confrontation between two individuals that escalates immediately into a pushing/shoving match according to the girlfriend. It is unclear who pushed who first.

Then we have nothing as g/f's loses contact.

Next thing we have is two witnesses "John", who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Witness X who say that they witnessed Martin attacking Zimmerman. Neither saw the gunshot. (I apologize I can't find the link to Witness X today - he/she was another individual who saw the altercation but not the beginning of it and refused to have even have his/her gender revealed b/c he/she was afraid of the possible reprucussions - this person essentially repeats the testimony of witness "John" and appeared to be as close to the action as "John". If I can find the link, I will post). Then Trayvon is shot.

Regardless of who threw the first punch, I think what we have is the legal doctrine "mutual combat". It is an imperfect defense to murder. At the point of verbal confrontation, either Zimmerman or Martin could have backed down. Neither did. Both, to me, had braced themselves for a physical confrontation and, regardless of who started it, once that happens, Zimmerman can no longer claim self-defense and, instead, is guilty of manslaughter.

Here's language from a Maryland case on the subject:

Homicide in self-defense is either justifiable or excusable. Justifiable self-defense is where a person is feloniously assaulted, being without fault himself, and necessarily kills his assailant to save himself from death or great bodily harm, or from other felony attempted by force or surprise. Excusable self-defense is where a person becomes engaged in a sudden affray or combat, and in the course of the affray or combat, necessarily, or under reasonably apparent necessity, kills his adversary to save himself from death or great bodily harm after retreating as far as he can with safety. The force used must not be unreasonable or excessive. See Ware v. State, 3 Md. App. 62, 65; Tipton v. State, 1 Md. App. 556, 560. The distinction between justifiable and excusable self-defense is real but has not practical effect in application. If the homicide is committed in either justifiable or excusable self-defense within the frame of reference of their meanings, the killer is not culpable. But there may be a homicide which would otherwise be murder which is reduced to manslaughter by circumstances of alleviation or mitigation. Such a case is where the circumstances surrounding the homicide establish that it was provoked.

For the "Rule of Provocation" to be invoked there are four requirements: (1) There must have been adequate provocation; (2) The killing must have been in the heat of passion; (3) It must have been a sudden heat of passion -- that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool; and (4) There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.

See Perkins, Criminal Law (1957), pp. 43-55. There is adequate provocation when there is a mutual quarrel or combat. "The combat is mutual if the intent to fight is mutual, and in such situations the question of which one actually strikes the first blow is not controlling. In fact, if both intend to fight and are ready to do so it may be a 'mutual combat' although one party did not actually strike any blow." Blackstone expressed it, "If upon sudden quarrel, two persons fight, and one slay the other, this is manslaughter; so also, if upon such occasion, they go out and fight in a field." 4 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law (Gavit), p. 831. "But no provocation, however, grievous, will reduce a voluntary homicide to manslaughter, if the circumstances show that the slayer acted, not in the heat of blood, but from malice." Clark & Marshall, supra, § 10.11, p. 621."

Based on what I have read and heard, this is what happened. Pursuit, verbal confrontation, fight, death. It was an impermissible killing in the heat of passion.

So, to be clear, I have changed my opinion in this matter in that I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter b/c, regardless of who through the first bunch, and based on the girlfriend's statements, we had an aggressive verbal confrontation that turned violent and someone ended up dead.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Funeral director isn't remotely a expert or authority on this subject. I'll wait for a autopsy or official report.


Not saying he's not telling the truth, but his word would not be entered as a professional expert.

I'll give you that. Still, I take him at his word that the kid didn't appear to be in scuffle. I mean, Zimmerman said his nose was broken and head beat on the concrete several times. This is in the police report. You would think that a fist would bruised, bloody knuckle or something. Could be wrong though, I guess we'll see.

[12thMan]

So I'll withhold judgement on Trayvon's bodily injuries or lack thereof until the conclusive autopsy report is made public.

[12thMan]

JoeRedskin, to date there are no witness that actually saw the incident from start to end. So it boils down to Zimmerman's word against Trayvon Martin's. And Trayvon Martin is dead.

[JoeRedskin]

Also, I believe Zimmerman is lying when he said that Martin waylaid him as Zimmerman was returning to his car. To me, that is just as ridiculous as the original assertions that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood.

@12th - yes, I believe the Sanford PD took Zimmerman at his word that it was self-defense, found no one to contradict it and, instead, found witnesses saying that Martin was beating Zimmerman. In light of Florida's self-defense immunity-from-arrest law, it is not unreasonable for them to have acted in this fashion.

At the same time, the officer at the scene recommended that Zimmerman be arrested for manslaughter but was overruled by the State's Attorney.