<p>Ok, here is a conspiracy theory for you. Zimmerman is an A student in criminal litigation. He is an A student in Captain Carter’s class where he learned all about self defense and presumably the right to remain silent. He shoots TM and realizes he needs to come up with a good story that will be played in court but without him testifying. He decides to waive his right to remain silent because he knows it will be a good litigation strategy to help his case.</p>
<p>calmom, thank you for hanging on this thread (as well as the last one). Your knowledge of the law is really helpful.</p>
<p>calmom, can you comment on point (e) and clarify something that has been puzzling me? My very hazy memory from criminal law class is that self defense is an affirmative defense that must be proven by the defendant, not disproven by the prosecution. In that scenario, the prosecution would only have to show that GZ killed TM, and then the burden would fall on GZ to prove that he had good reason to do so. But it seems Florida has a very unusual law that puts the burden on the prosecution to prove the absence of self defense. Any idea how/why this came about? It certainly seems to tip cases involving a claim of self defense heavily in the defendant’s favor.</p>
<p>I still don’t see following as automatically initiating the confrontation. I know it didn’t hapoen here but suppose I follow someone and they pull a gun on me. Am I not allowed to pull my own weapon? Will it still be my fault because I pursued them?
Plus I don’t know what the evidence is that GZ tried to apprehend TM other than the fact he probably was following him.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, despite the general knowledge people have about their right to remain silent, it’s more common than not that a person will talk to police in an effort to explain or justify their conduct. It’s quite plausible that Zimmerman is in the position of the dog that caught the car – he followed Martin with the mindset that he would probably not find him, but if he did he would be able to apprehend him and hold him until the police arrived – and then a terrified Martin put up a bit fight that Zimmerman never anticipated. At some point Zimmerman drew his gun and fired, without any previous formed intent to do so so (other than at the exact moment he pulled the trigger) – and the next though that ran through his mind might have been something like, “oh, sh*, I shouldn’t have done that.” </p>
<p>But he doesn’t want to go to jail and he’s still thinking that Trayvon is some sort of intruder – and in his mind he feels that Trayvon brought things on himself by being there and by fighting him – so he figures he’ll tell the cops he shot in self-defense. </p>
<p>He knows enough to know that he has to make the self-defense scenario pretty good – so he glosses over some details and exaggerates on others. And in any event his own perspective is probably biased – so part of the glossing over and exaggerating is just the normal human response when a person retells their own side of an argument or confrontation. </p>
<p>Then his story seems to work for him – the police let him go home – so by day #2 he’s thinking that the story he gave was believed, and he ought to stick to it. So that’s exactly what he does. </p>
<p>No big conspiracy. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is that he has a very strong motivation to claim self-defense. He certainly doesn’t want to go to jail.</p>
<p>To me, one of the most disturbing points is the taped interview where the cops tell him who Trayvon was. Up until then, I can see him continuing to believe that he had shot a “bad guy” and not to really care all that much about the details he told the cops – but I would have expected on “oh my god” moment at learning that he was mistaken about Trayvon, perhaps followed by some genuine expression of sorrow. Not a confession of guilt – just something along the line of recognizing that there was a change in circumstances that dictated a shift in attitude on his part. But instead he seems to have persisted in portraying Trayvon as the evil guy. He doesn’t even express some level of puzzlement as to why Trayvon would have attacked him – even though Trayvon’s true identity pretty much undermines the assumption that grounded the previous narrative. (A burglar in the neighborhood might very well have attacked without provocation or warning; a teenager walking home from 7/11 – not so much).</p>
<p>razorsharp, GZ was never arrested so he should not have been read Miranda rights, at least not before the walk-through statement. Would he have known at that point that he might be charged and his re-enactment might be used against him later? I am not so sure either way. I think the conventional wisdom would be to lawyer up and don’t say a thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The prosecution has to prove all elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may have the burden of coming forth with enough evidence to raise a self-defense claim (prima facie case) – but the burden still lies with the prosecution to prove its case.</p>
<p>Under Florida law, the definition of manslaughter includes the provision that the killing was not justified, so I’d think that in Florida, the prosecution would clearly have the burden of proving lack of justification in any manslaughter case, even without any evidence of self-defense. Manslaughter is a necessarily included lesser offense of 2nd degree murder – that is, in any case where elements a + b are shown, but not c (the depraved mind stuff), then the next default option is manslaughter. </p>
<p>
I don’t know about every state, but I’m in California and it works the same here: if there is any evidence at all that would suggest self defense, the court has a duty to instruct on that. </p>
<p>Again, the prosecution’s burden does not require witnesses and physical evidence as to every last detail. Inferences can be drawn based on circumstantial evidence. The jury does not have to believe a witness who tells a story that they feel is untrue or implausible.</p>
<p>And “reasonable doubt” does not mean the same as “all possible doubt”. There are a lot of things in this world that are possible but not reasonably likely.</p>
<p>Part of the reason I think he didn’t lawyer up can be seen in his written statement. He refers to Trayvon as “the suspect” as if he is a part of law enforcement even though he was not. He sees himself as justified. Whether or not the jury will find him guilty, I don’t know. But if GZ didn’t follow Trayvon, nobody gets killed. For me, anyway, Zimmerman as the follower, had a duty to retreat even under fla law as I read it.</p>
<p>
That’s not true – GZ was arrested, or at least detained, the night of the shooting. There is video of him being taken to the police station in hand cuffs. I am pretty sure that he was in fact read his Miranda rights and did in fact waive them, in a very clear and unequivocal fashion.</p>
<p>If that had not been the case, the defense lawyers would have challenged all of the police interviews.</p>
<p>^If that is true, then I stand corrected. My apology.</p>
<p>Bovertine, that’s a really interesting question (what happens if person A follows person B, then person B pulls a gun on him)?</p>
<p>For me, however - and I think the law permits this kind of thinking by jurors - it comes down to the reasonable person standard. What I think is a reasonable level of care changes depending on the behavior of both parties before and during the confrontation.</p>
<p>In general, I’d give the highest benefit of the doubt to someone who claims to have killed in self defense if the killing came after an unprovoked attack, and especially if it came in the context of a break-in (I believe some states have “Castle Laws” designed specifically for this situation).Of course, someone trying to commit a crime against you doesn’t automatically give you the right to kill that person, but assuming there was some basis for the accused to have felt that he was in danger - the would-be criminal began physically assaulting the accused; the home invader pulled a gun, or even started approaching the home-owners after being warned to stay back - I wouldn’t be inclined to look too closely at whether or not the danger rose to the level theoretically required for a self-defense claim. I don’t think this is just a case of “he had it coming,” either. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that most people in this kind of situation are going to be extremely frightened and shouldn’t be held accountable for something they did in honest (if perhaps inflated) fear for their lives in a situation they had no part in creating. Certainly, if anyone in this kind of situation had the injuries GZ had, I would consider it sufficient to prove self-defense.</p>
<p>GZ, on the other hand, identified TM as a potential danger and yet still decided to pursue him with a gun. Imperfect as they are, cops are at least supposed to be trained in both how to approach suspects and in how to subdue a suspect without loss of life. Without that training, it is beyond irresponsible to enter into a potential conflict situation: you may have the right to assume risk for yourself, but not for the other person who, even if he doing something criminal, probably isn’t committing a death-penalty offense and certainly doesn’t deserve to be killed because you voluntarily walked into a situation you weren’t equipped to cope with.</p>
<p>That being said, GZ didn’t do anything illegal in following TM, and a person also doesn’t deserve to die for his stupidity. Which is a long-winded way of saying that if even if person A provokes a fight, if person B aims a gun at him - or beats him badly enough that he really is at risk of death - I think self-defense still applies. But in that case, he had better have the injuries to back it up, because “reasonable fear for one’s life” for a person who has just been attacked or had his home broken into is, to me, different from "reasonable fear for one’s life for a person who was prepared, or should have been, for a confrontation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Legally, if you are following someone, you would then have a duty to retreat. Your example of the person pulling the gun is more complicated because obviously a gun can be fired in an instant – but we know that TM didn’t have a gun, so he couldn’t have possibly pulled one on GZ. If there was a confrontation of any sort after GZ followed TM, then GZ needed to try to get away.</p>
<p>For example, let’s assume that GZ is telling the truth that TM accosted him at the T, and punched him in the nose and knocked him to the ground at that point. Because that is 40 feet away from the shooting site, and GZ doesn’t claim that TM dragged him there, GZ would necessarily have had an opportunity to leave. He himself said in the walk through that he was on his feet and “stumbling” in the direction where TM’s body was later found – he should have been “stumbling” (or running) back to a position of safety, presumably where he had parked his car. </p>
<p>But to go back to your example: if you were angry at someone and challenged them to a duel- the other person drew first, and then you shot in order to avoid being killed - you couldn’t claim self-defense, because it would be seen as a “mutual combat” situation. Pursuing someone who you think has committed a crime is a different setting, but basically, as the pursuer, you would have a legal duty to retreat if it were legally possible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s is the type of inference that can be drawn by circumstantial evidence. We know that GZ had expressed frustration at “punks” who “always get away”, he admitted to the dispatcher that he was following TM – so from that you can easily infer that he intended to pursue TM. </p>
<p>So then you have to ask – knowing that Mr. A is pursuing Mr. B, believing Mr. B to be a fleeing criminal, what do you think Mr. A would most likely do upon encountering Mr. B? Shrug and say “no problem”? or try to complete the task he seemingly has set out to do?</p>
<p>It is almost bizarre that the judge hearing the Zimmerman trial, Debra Nelson, is the same judge who last year sentenced Emmanuel Burgess to five years in prison for crimes committed in Zimmerman’s Twin Lakes Townhomes Community. Burgess was breaking into and stealing from homes in Twin Lakes. Small world.</p>
<p>[Detailed</a> Case View](<a href=“http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592009CF002646A]Detailed”>http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592009CF002646A)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=96944944[/url]”>http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=96944944</a></p>
<p>I have zero reason to believe Gz intended to apprehend tm. I see no reason to assume that. He could just as easily been trying to keep an eye on him so he didn’t disappear before tge cops came. That’s perfectly reasonable to me because that’s what I would do .</p>
<p>Er, generally the judges hearing criminal cases end up hearing whatever happens in their jurisdictions. So it is not at all surprising that a person charged with committing murder in a particularly housing tract will be tried by the same judge who has heard the case of someone charged with committing burglary in the same place. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that whether there was 1 burglary or 50 in that community, it still wouldn’t justify what GZ did. The only relevant issue is whether GZ was indeed physically attacked by one non-burglar in such a way as to make it necessary for him to use a gun to defend himself.</p>
<p>“I have zero reason to believe Gz intended to apprehend tm.”</p>
<p>For me, the language used the moment he was leaving the car, then he was out of breath saying “he ran”, that could be an indication of what he was trying to do.</p>
<p>he hunted him down…with a loaded gun…because he intended to kill him. black male + out at night = suspect (in his warped world, and to people who share his warped worldview). </p>
<p>is this really so hard to comprehend? why all the excuses? nevermind, i think i know why…</p>
<p>Why? Please share.</p>
<p>Man, bovertine, you just can’t ever let it be, can you?</p>
<p>I’m out of here.</p>
<p>See you guys after the verdict is in.</p>
<p>response to bovertine, #119:</p>
<p>i think you might know why. it’s the same sort of thinking that finds it hard to believe that a black male in trayvon’s situation that night would actually feel fear (while being pursued). the type of thinking that dehumanizes black males and sees them only as bodies that incite fear (irrational or not), but are incapable of FEELING fear themselves. they probably also have a hard time understanding that trayvon’s parents (or by extension, black people in general) grieve. for proof of that, see o’mara’s disgusting treatment of sybrina fulton and trayvon’s older brother.</p>
<p>and is tracy martin now a suspect for not being jahvari’s natural father? or for having been divorced from trayvon’s mother?</p>