<p>
</p>
<p>Divorce is tough on any family, that’s true. But what “sociological viewpoint” makes it especially interesting in reference to the African American community? And what bearing might that have upon the circumstances surrounding the Travyon Martin shooting? Just curious.</p>
<p>I was wondering that too, what “effect of divorce on children and family, esp in the African American community” were you referencing?</p>
<p>in many families with divorced parents, teens spend time with each parent, and potentially with his/her parent’s new partners. is this what you were talking about?</p>
<p>it appears there are differences of opinion/expertise around the affidavit. I am glad to hear that a lesser charge can be charged as the trial proceeds, (if there is in fact a trial).</p>
<p>Re post 1397: In the Texas case that you are referring to, a grand jury declined to indict. As grand jury proceedings are secret, we can’t know what factors came into play – but obviously a prosecutor was trying to get an indictment. The individuals shot were clearly engaged in a crime (burglary), and the defendant testified before the grand jury – there was also at least one witness to buttress a claim of self defense. See [Texas</a> man is cleared in fatal shootings - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/01/nation/na-shoot1]Texas”>Texas man is cleared in fatal shootings) </p>
<p>In any case, the fact that a grand jury in Harris County Texas fails to return an indictment has nothing whatsoever to do with a trial of case in Florida. (There’s an old lawyer’s joke about Texas, that it’s a good defense to murder that the victim “needed killing”) But the facts from the Horn case may have been one reason that the Florida prosecutor opted to bypass a grand jury.</p>
<p>In any case, the decision by a jury or grand jury in one case has no bearing on what happens in another. Z. may well be acquitted by a jury that hears all the facts – we don’t know. Kluge and I are just saying that we’ve seen people convicted on far less evidence. We’ve also seen people acquitted in stronger cases – but the convictions are far more common than acquittals.</p>
<p>The element that would tend to give me pause as a defense attorney is that an acquittal probably depends on Z’s credibility as a witness. The most dangerous thing that a defense attorney can do in a case is to put the defendant on the witness stand. They tend to fall apart under cross-examination. If the defendant is perceived as being lying or evasive, it’s a double whammy: once the jury decides that the defendant is a liar, its an easy step to conviction. Juries will often work a lot harder to try to see things in a positive light when they haven’t heard from the defendant, and start to feel like they have the responsibility of filling in the missing pieces.</p>
<p>“It looks a lot more like good intentions gone awry.”</p>
<p>And it was the encounter with Martin that made them go awry. And that’s why it’s Martin’s fault he got shot. It’s still manslaughter … if you believe good intentions are an adequate explanation for why an unarmed kid walking home from the 7-11 is now dead.</p>
<p>It’s going to be very difficult for a jury member with children to excuse the shooting. Murder 2 may be a bit of a reach. But Z might just be convicted simply because he’s a man and Martin’s a kid. A sort of Jury Nullification in reverse.</p>
<p>Here’s an excerpt from a transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is followed a few seconds later by this statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the bottom line is you’ve got an armed man going after someone he knows to be a teenager.</p>
<p>Yeah - I’m speaking from limited experience – the few cases I’ve handled (and I think Calmom has trial experience with these cases, whereas I only have appellate experience - which does not, by definition, include any cases where the jury acquitted.)</p>
<p>But the “he needed killin” defense has seemed to apply in my experience to explain the difference between murder 2 and manslaughter in the real world. That is, you can parse yourself silly over the differing definitions of murder and manslaughter, “malice” and “premeditation” etc., but the clear distinction as far as I’ve seen is how much the victim “needed killin’.” If the victim is a nice guy, or even just average, you get murder. If the victim is a really bad guy, you’ve got a shot at manslaughter or a drop from murder1 to murder 2. (The worst case I ever had was a horror show - but most people would give the guy who killed the “victim” a medal, if the killer wasn’t almost as much of a scumbag himself. He got murder2 in a clear murder1 case.)</p>
<p>
And yet he did, didn’t he? All of the explanations about how Zimmerman’s conduct was not the conduct of a criminal sort of ignore the fact that this is a guy who shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old boy. I get that he felt he was the guy in the white hat all along - that’s really, really clear. But to me that’s all the more reason to throw the book at him.</p>
<p>Wannabes with guns and delusions of heroism. Not a good thing. I’m one of the few people who will admit that I do like to say “I told you so.” This sort of thing is the predictable product of the NRA pro-gun mentality. We’ll see more.</p>
<p>thanks for such a strong and sound post Kluge</p>
<p>Hmmm, interesting…
[Prosecutors:</a> Zimmerman did not use racial slur during 911 call about Trayvon Martin - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/affidavit-police-say-zimmerman-did-not-use-racial-slur-on-911-call-about-trayvon-martin/2012/04/13/gIQAt9rEFT_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop]Prosecutors:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/affidavit-police-say-zimmerman-did-not-use-racial-slur-on-911-call-about-trayvon-martin/2012/04/13/gIQAt9rEFT_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop)</p>
<p>Will she remain on the case?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Prosecutors:</a> Zimmerman did not use racial slur during 911 call about Trayvon Martin - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/affidavit-police-say-zimmerman-did-not-use-racial-slur-on-911-call-about-trayvon-martin/2012/04/13/gIQAt9rEFT_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop]Prosecutors:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/affidavit-police-say-zimmerman-did-not-use-racial-slur-on-911-call-about-trayvon-martin/2012/04/13/gIQAt9rEFT_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop) Same Washington Post link as above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly the point I was trying to make in post #1051 when I wrote:
</p>
<p>The fact that Trayvon expressed fear while speaking with his girlfriend concerning the stranger who was following him; the fact that he ultimately did follow her advice to “run” (as George Zimmerman himself did note to police), seems to point to a young man who was not feeling confrontational that night. At one point during the audio of Zimmerman’s call to 911, he can be heard to be breathing rather heavily, and then admitting that he was following the teen. So, I’d guess it might be logical to surmise that he was at that point running after the fleeing Trayvon Martin. Running with a loaded gun after a fleeing teenaged boy. </p>
<p>The spot at which Trayvon was shot is reported to be very close to the Condo owned by his Father’s girlfriend—Trayvon’s apparent destination upon leaving the convenience store. Why would a boy fleeing in fear of the strange man who was pursuing him, a boy who was only a few yards away from safety, suddenly decide to turn and attack this stranger? This question has puzzled me for weeks. </p>
<p>I think the defense will need to credibly answer this question, and then they will still have to justify the boy’s killing, especially in light of all the evidence prosecution will bring to bear that contradicts their client’s accounting of his actions that night. And I have no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has contradicting evidence.</p>
<p>But, of course, lawyers who have actually practiced criminal law (Calmom and Kluge, for instance) would know better than I the points that are likely to be posed by the prosecution.</p>
<p>According to calmom, “Z’s intent at the time he made the phone call is not relevant.” She says what is relevant is only “Z’s intent at the moment of shooting.” Thus, I assume that Z’s “punk” and “ass…” statements are irrelevant to the case.</p>
<p>No, that’s not what I said. His statements at the time of the phone call are evidence of his state of mind and his awareness of the risks he was creating by his conduct.</p>
<p>He knew that he was chasing a teenage kid with a loaded gun. His statements indicate a callous attitude toward the kid – referring to the kid as an a$$hole or punk show that attitude. </p>
<p>My point was that the crime he is charged with does not require a specific intent to kill, and definitely does not require advance planning. Obviously he had a different intent – I’m guessing he figured he would catch and “detain” the kid until the police arrived, and I’m also guessing that the kid wasn’t willing to be “detained” by a strange man pointing a gun at him.</p>
<p>Bay, I didn’t infer that from calmom’s post. State of mind is one thing and intent is another. Z stated certain assumptions about what type of person he was, but based on what? If his conclusions were based on behavior that’s okay. If they’re based on what Martin looked like, that’s profiling, as cited by the prosecutor’s affidavit. Z may not have formed a clear intent to shoot Martin when he first started following him; but if he was predisposed to believe he was a punk who was going to get away, that predisposition may have affected his reactions when he and Martin faced each other.</p>
<p>Sorry - cross posted with calmom. I can’t edit or delete my post on this phone, or I would have.</p>
<p>I’d just add that even though the prosecutor’s affidavit used the term “profiling”, that is not necessary to proof of the case. The point is that Zimmerman assumed Martin to be a criminal and acted based on that belief. That shows Z’s motive – however, it is not a legal defense, as citizens are not empowered to act like vigilantes and hunt down criminals. Even if Martin had been a burglar planning to break into houses, it would still be a crime for Z. to shoot him. But because Z. believed him to be a criminal, or a punk or an a$$hole, Z. dehumanized him, and was more willing to pull the trigger.</p>
<p>In order for the jury to acquit, they have to believe Z was in reasonable fear of his life, and had no choice but to shoot. They have to believe, for example, that Z, who says he was the one screaming “Help, Help,” was unable to scream, “Let me go or I’ll shoot you.” We’ve got the audio. Nobody screamed, “Let me go or I’ll shoot you.”</p>
<p>And if Zimmerman says the screaming was actually Trayvon Martin, the jury will convict in a millisecond. If you listen to the tape in the belief the screaming is Trayvon Martin, about to be shot, you’ll be willing to kill Z yourself. </p>
<p>I do not know who is screaming in the tape, but the existence of the screams is a problem for the defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The screams are not a problem for the defense if they can present credible evidence that the screams were indeed those of George Zimmerman. In that case, they would then bolster the argument that Z was in fear of his own life, and shot Trayvon out of that fear. They would have the exact opposite affect if the prosecution can present compelling evidence that it’s Trayvon Martin who screamed for help that night.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about anyone else, but I would not be willing to kill George Zimmerman under any circumstances. I desire no more than that which Trayvon’s parents have expressed the need to see fulfilled: To see justice done in this case. For George Zimmerman to be tried for the killing of Trayvon Martin, and for the truth to come out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh? What was preventing him from saying, Let me go or I’ll shoot?</p>