<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that is the single scariest elements of SYG laws. It’s basically carte blanche. Nobody should have that much power with a weapon of any sort, and certainly not a gun.</p>
<p>At least law enforcement officers have training about how and when to use their weapons. George Zimmerman–not so much…</p>
<p>I saw a nice article laying out the challenges for the prosecution and defense. The challenges to the defense all assume that there is some forensic knowledge that isn’t public yet.</p>
<p>There was a picture of Zimmerman today - he looks like he’s lost weight.</p>
<p>
That’s more than an assumption. We know that there has to be some forensic evidence (coroner’s report, ballistics evidence, voice analysis of the 911 call, etc) – and we know that the results of those reports have not been made public – the only thing we don’t know is the content of those reports. It’s reasonable to assume that (a) the prosecutor feels that the forensics supports her case, and (b) a good defense lawyer will probably find a way to challenge or question at least some aspect of the forensic evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there’s a lot more police misconduct than gets publicized. Police sometimes abuse their authority.</p>
<p>But still. That law is crazy. It’s just bonkers. The police at least are expected to know when they are acting lawfully. But Joe Random is not going to be intimately familiar with every reason why a police officer can enter a house. What are those lawmakers thinking? That’s just crazy.</p>
<p>here is the affadavit.</p>
<p>They must have checked the cell phone records and found that the call to the girlfriend was going on at the time.</p>
<p>Nothing in the affadavit that we didn’t know before. I wonder if it’s really possible to identify the screaming in the phone calls by voice analysis. The voice is surprisingly high-pitched for either a 28-year-old man or a 17-year-old boy. If someone who knew Trayvon Martin (a teacher or someone like that, someone more neutral than his parents) testified that he had a rather high voice, that could be an interesting fact.</p>
<p>yes, except that now we know that the phone records have been checked and that Trayvon was, for certain, running away from Z. We also know that Z. confronted Trayvon.</p>
<p>It is not speculation.</p>
<p>Also, I can’t believe we are actually discussing whether or not someone who was chased down and shot was murdered or not. This alone shows the ridiculousness of this SYG law. Without SYG, this is murder One.</p>
<p>
It seems that the Indiana law is going to put police at terrible risk in the exact circumstances when police are most likely to have to act quickly to protect lives, such as in domestic violence situations. </p>
<p>I found the political alignment intriguing and somewhat distressing. The news article showed that the bill was backed by Republican legislators, strongly opposed by Democratic legislators as well as various police & law enforcement groups. When I was growing up, the GOP was the party of law & order – but apparently, at least in Indiana, there has been quite a shift. Scary place to be a cop.</p>
<p>
No, we know that the phone records have been checked and that Trayvon’s girlfriend was interviewed, and that she reported that Trayvon told her that he was running away. But she wasn’t there, so what she was told by Trayvon, or what she remembered when interviewed for the first time several weeks after the incident may or may not be accurate. </p>
<p>On the other hand, we know that Trayvon ran at some point from Zimmerman’s 911 call – so the girlfriend’s report isn’t needed to establish that fact. The prosecution, of course, would be able to establish a much more clear timeline from the various records available.</p>
<p>^^^^^ I’ve always thought that there was an implied contract … shooting a cop is NEVER permissible because you don’t want the guys with guns (ie, the cops) thinking citizens are a lethal danger to them. Or stated differently, is it really to anyone’s benefit for policeman to know that their every encounter is with a person legally entitled to shoot them?</p>
<p>
Voices tend to be higher pitched when a person is screaming in fear.</p>
<p>I would guess that there are recordings of Trayvon’s voice available for comparison. Maybe voice mail messages or a family video. Voice analysis would not merely be a matter of pitch. See [What</a> is a Voice Biometric? : Salmat Speech Solutions](<a href=“http://speech.salmat.com.au/be-educated/what-is-a-voice-biometric]What”>http://speech.salmat.com.au/be-educated/what-is-a-voice-biometric)</p>
<p>
It certainly could lead to more innocent people being killed by police, in their own homes, when their defensive or fear-base behavior is perceived as a threat.</p>
<p>A couple of hours ago Alan Dershowitz opined during an MSNBC interview that the affidavit was “irresponsible and unethical” and that the the special prosecutor was grandstanding for political gain. Details of the interview here:
[Harvard</a> Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’ | Mediaite](<a href=“http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/]Harvard”>Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’)</p>
<p>That’s garbage. I am not specifically familiar with Florida law, but a “probable cause” affidavit is basically the bare minimum to show that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. It doesn’t require a lot of detail. It’s clear from the affidavit that the prosecution theory is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, assuming Martin to be a criminal; initiated a confrontation with Martin and ended up shooting him. It’s not a strong second degree murder case, but it’s arguable – and it clearly sets up circumstances that can provide “probable cause”. I mean, basically, any affidavit that says, “A shot and killed B for no good reason” is “probable cause” for murder. Legally you can substitute the phrase “reasonable suspicion” for “probable cause” – that is, if you know that Zimmerman followed Martin, had a confrontation and altercation with Martin, and shot and killed him – is that enough to give a reasonable person reason to suspect that Zimmerman might have committed a 2nd degree murder? That’s not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even proof by a preponderance of evidence – its just saying that the circumstances are enough to justify taking the case to trial. </p>
<p>I think the prosecution in this case has been very careful not to disclose any more details than needed to the public, and that is actually a highly ethical position to take. Yes, a different prosecutor could have drafted a more detailed affidavit – but give the knowledge that anything filed in court is going to immediately end up broadcast by the meida… how would that in any way be more ethical? Given that the defense lawyer specifically requested that further records be sealed, I’d guess that the defense lawyer is probably quite grateful that the prosecutor did NOT put more detail in the affidavit.</p>
<p>I believe that Florida has open file discovery, meaning that the defense will be entitled to see whatever the prosecution has well in advance of trial, so there is no particular obligation to disclose specific factual details in the affidavit. The defense lawyer will have that info well ahead of trial, whether or not the press and the public does.</p>
<p>Given the low-key demeanor of attorney O’Mara right now, I would guess that he has already had direct contact with the prosecution and may have even discussed his concerns about pre-trial publicity ahead of this filing.</p>
<p>Pity Johnnie Cochran isn’t available to defend Zimmerman. Now THAT would be interesting.</p>
<p>Is it normal to put uncorroborated claims by accused in a probable cause affidavit?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Indiana</a> Governor Signs Bill Allowing Citizens To Use Deadly Force Against Police Officers Into Law | Addicting Info](<a href=“http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/]Indiana”>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/)</p>
<p>I don’t understand. And I mean not at all! How does such a law “keep police officers safe”? Republicans wrote and passed this law? Did some kind of body-snatching occur? Am I missing something? How could the party of law and order sign such a hot mess of a law into being? This law is going to result in the deaths of a lot of people, both citizens and law enforcement.:(</p>
<p>I don’t understand the motivation behind this law, either. </p>
<p>Alan Dershowitz is accusing someone else of grandstanding?</p>
<p>dershowitz is grandstanding about someone else grandstanding.</p>
<p>The law in Indiana is just frightening. What the heck is going on in this country? Are we sure that isn’t from the Onion?</p>