<p>I will be interested to see, if Z is charged, whether he turns himself in asap. If he does, I think this could help argue against a higher bail since it indicates he is not a flight risk even if he is “underground.” The Tulsa bail was $9 million each.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, of course, makes the assumption that the majority of people with a permit to carry will believe he acted in self defense. My guess is that a lot of people will think he acted recklessly when he made the decision to go after Trayvon Martin against law enforcement admonition, and against all tenets of responsible Neighborhood Watch behavior; knowing the confidence carrying a loaded weapon can confer upon a person also entails the responsibility to exercise potential deadly force wisely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? How about the many jurors who would view the lack of remorse as an absence of human decency on the shooter’s part? To express sorrow over the “fact” that one had been forced to take another human life, even when fully justified, casts one in a very sympathetic light, in my view. I saw video testimony of the man who killed the Iraq War veteran in front of that man’s young daughter, and I literally recoiled in disgust over his belligerent lack of remorse of any kind. It’s beyond unseemly to demonstrate no sorrow whatsoever over the avowed necessity to take another life. It’s cold blooded. And as a juror, I would take that as a strong indicator that the defendant may have chosen the “Dirty Harry option” over a possibly more humane one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in other words, ramp up the racial tensions even more. Confirm that the shooting of an unarmed black teen walking down the street had really been about his race after all…a smart person would do everything in his power to show himself in the very most sympathetic light possible. He would not use racial tensions as a push back. If he erected a web site to plead his case, it would be to speak “the soft answer that turneth away wrath”; first of all to express sorrow over the need to have taken another human life that night. And secondly, to plead with his supporters “not to take the racial bait being thrown by others.” Constructed properly, such a site could have prompted a lot of people into singing “cum ba ya,” and made the hew and cry coming from other side seem reactionary and irresponsible.</p>
<p>But, intelligence doesn’t seem to have been the hallmark of this case from it’s very beginning; Not on the part of the Sanford Police Dept., whose shoddy investigation of this shooting only heightened rising tensions related to its handling of cases involving violence against other minorities in the community, not on the part of George Zimmerman and his surrogates, and certainly not on the part of lawmakers who passed that stinking pile of legislation known as the Stand Your Ground law. Smearing the name of a dead 17 year old boy, and blaming the likes of Al Sharpton (someone for whom I personally hold little respect), doesn’t change that.</p>
<p>Excellent post poetsheart. </p>
<p>007dad–It would seem from your post that you think Z is demonstrating strategic planning around drumming up sympathy for his defense. </p>
<p>You may be right , but I personally see his current actions demonstrating the exact same poor impulse control, thumbing his nose at his attorneys’ advice, poor judgment and hostile, aggressive manner as he showed the world on 2/26. </p>
<p>He may create more drama by being a fugitive and who knows, he could threaten to kill himself if there is a manhunt. I don’t see him turning himself in…</p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>poetsheart- my point is that it only takes one juror to let Z walk. At least in my experience, some people get carry permits because they perceive that there is a “they” and that “they” pose a threat. I posted a website earlier in this thread that listed over 400 killings by people with carry permits and these killing had many fact patterns of this “them against me” mentality without any regard for “responsible use.” </p>
<p>Lack of remorse can be seen as stern resolve. “I did what I did because I had to.” Remember, Z’s story was that he (Z) had turned away from the pursuit of Trayvon, got blind-sided and had Trayvon slamming his head on the ground. In our local paper earlier this week there was an uplifting story of a 20 y.o. who had fallen off the end of a pickup truck, struck his head, went into a coma and when he was brain-dead the parents donated the usable body parts. A closed head injury can KILL. </p>
<p>I do not think someone who believes Z’s story will be surprised at no remorse. It wouldn’t be seen as “Dirty Harry” anything, it would be “self-defense.” If a parent believed this was what someone was attempting to do to their child, I believe they’d say their child was justified in shooting.</p>
<p>If the Casey Anthony case tells anything about jurors, it tells us that they will not necessarily view things the way “normal people” would. In fact, there were several who indicated that they did not buy the “she must be guilty” because her reaction was to go partying.</p>
<p>The Baltazar fellow in NY chased his then unarmed attackers several blocks and shot and killed one with the gun another one of them had used in the unsuccessful attempt to rob him. He was not charged and I am not aware that he showed any remorse. And, he lost his daughter in the event. The argument you make would suggest that as a parent who had lost a child, he should at least have shown some remorse at having killed. I think you could find many who disagree.</p>
<p>I would love to believe no juror would be swayed by any personal racist beliefs. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience when I was on a jury. And, malign the victim DOES work. I seem to have a specific memory that the first breast implant case to go to trial where the woman lost involved a female plaintiff who was a stripper.</p>
<p>This is no different than negative political campaigning. On many people it works.</p>
<p>I have a very different take, I do think one can act in self defense and still have true remorse at the horror of having taken a life. In fact, given the facts, that Z did pursue Trayvon, it would be only appropriate for him to have some insight into the fact that even if he killed in self defense, (which I do not believe) he was the one who initiated the entire chain of events, Trayvon was standing HIS ground. </p>
<p>Yes, head injuries can kill, they also frequently cause concussions, so why then if those injuries were so severe to require his shooting to kill, did he not go to the hospital to rule out a concussion, and insure he didn’t have internal bleeding?</p>
<p>
There was a case here a few weeks ago in which an off-duty police officer was actually caught in the act of attacking a woman, DNA evidence, medical evidence, every possible form of evidence. He faces life in prison for his convictions, but the one thing he was not convicted of was rape, itself, because one juror didn’t believe the victim had been raped because she didn’t remember the color of a car at the vicinity.</p>
<p>Rape cases seem to exemplify how diverse people will view things. I’m not going to be surprised that a black killed by white case produces the same type of divergence in the jurors.</p>
<p>I’m for going after the repeal of the broad SYG law.</p>
<p>I agree with you, 07DAD. I just heard the Mayor of NYC on the radio listing the various states which have the SYG laws, and how their justified homicide rates went up by 200% - 300% after passing the SYG laws. That’s chilling.</p>
<p>I’d already heard the statistics for two of the states he listed, and the numbers were correct. </p>
<p>I don’t tend to accept or disregard information exclusively based on who says it.</p>
<p>I kind of think the state attorney is not going to bring a case unless she thinks she has a reasonable chance of conviction. No reason to inflame the public one way or the other. (I’m hoping that in several weeks there will be some kind of plea deal.) No winners here.</p>
<p>Of course, if she brings an indictment, it’s really an indictment of the Sanford Police Department.</p>
<p>We don’t know all the information the police and prosecutor have, but it seems to me that with no witnesses to the actual shooting, the two key pieces of information will be 1) location and position of Martin; and 2) the actual injuries sustained by Zimmerman. I have heard varying stories about where Martin was found. If he was found with his head next to the concrete walkway, that supports GZ’s story. If he was found away from the concrete, with his head facing away, that’s possible trouble for GZ.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I posted yesterday the names of the players in two current Florida cases involving the SYG issue. After the defendants were indicted, the trial courts held evidentiary hearings and in one case dismissed the charges based on SYG. The state is considering appealing.</p>
<p>In the other case (the 70 y.o. black who shot and killed the 40 y.o. white), the motion to dismiss under the SYG law is still under advisement.</p>
<p>It isn’t over by a long shot even if there is an indictment.</p>
<p>You’re also right on that. This law really has to be re-written. I read in the article you linked to the other day about the 70-year old man who shot an unarmed 10-yr old black child who was climbing with a friend on some debris on his property, even after the man had identified them as kids. If a law allows people to do that, that’s just wrong.</p>
<p>At a minimum, the law should be changed to not apply when 1) the shooter provokes the incident such that the victim felt threatened; or 2) a prudent person would not feel threatened. (The current law says that the shooter is innocent if he/she felt threatened, regardless of whether any prudent person in their right mind would have felt threatened.) As currently written, this law basically means that if you shoot someone without any witnesses, you’re home free.</p>
<p>Just heard that it will be a second degree charge and that he is in custody.</p>
<p>second degree murder?</p>
<p>Yes, second degree murder.</p>
<p>I hope the prosecution isn’t being overly ambitious with murder 2 rather than manslaughter.</p>
<p>jshain–my thoughts exactly. Wasn’t this a problem in Casey Anthony too? No lesser included offenses?</p>
<p>Here’s what Florida law requires for 2nd degree.</p>
<p>Murder with a Depraved Mind
Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.</p>
<p>The primary distinction between Premeditated First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder with a Depraved Mind is that First Degree Murder requires a specific and premeditated intent to kill.</p>
<p>Here are the defenses.
Defenses to Second Degree Murder
In addition to the pretrial defenses and trial defenses that can be raised in any criminal case, specific defenses to the crime of Second Degree Murder are:</p>
<p>Excusable Homicide
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:</p>
<p>•When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
•When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
•When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
Justifiable Homicide
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.</p>
<p>Self Defense
Also known as the justified use of deadly force, self defense is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder. Please view the Florida Self Defense section for more information.</p>
<p>Here is self defense.</p>
<p>In Florida, Self Defense is referred to as the justifiable use of force. In simple terms, the defense allows a person to use force, sometimes deadly force, to protect one’s self, one’s property, or another person, so long as the force used is proportionate to the threat faced.</p>
<p>Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law
Traditionally, if a person was anywhere but their home, the Self Defense law required a person to attempt to first retreat before engaging an aggressor. And to further complicate matters, the defense could only be raised at trial. But in October of 2005, Florida passed the Stand Your Ground Law, which dramatically changed the legal landscape of self defense law.</p>
<p>Under the Stand Your Ground Law, a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if it is reasonably believed necessary to to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.</p>
<p>Also, the Stand Your Ground Law now allows a person to raise the issue of Self Defense both at a Pretrial Hearing and at trial. As a result, if a judge finds that your actions were justified, the Judge is required to dismiss the charges and no trial is required. If the judge does not find your actions were justified, the defense can still be presented to a jury and they can make their own independent determination of whether your actions were justified.</p>
<p>Justifiable Use of Deadly Force
A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:</p>
<p>•It is reasonably believed that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (i.e. Robbery).
•It is being used against a person who is unlawfully and forcefully breaking in, or has unlawfully and forcibly broken into a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.</p>
<p>Here is the sentences. Minimum 16+ years.
If convicted of Second Degree Murder, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 16¾ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:</p>
<p>•Up to Life in prison.
•Up to Life on probation.
•Up to $10,000 in fines.</p>
<p>This ought to be interesting!!</p>
<p>I heard numbers like that as well. Bloom berg didn’t make up the numbers, so why call him names?</p>
<p>It’s a fiasco and a modgepodge of laws. Now, they want to pass a federal law that every state needs to honor Carry permits fro. Any other state, no matter how lax. So Zimmerman could walk around California all paranoid with a loaded weapon.</p>
<p>Conserig what z crappy job the Sanford police did, if ther is any evidence, is it to be trusted?</p>