[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

mindspork

Here we go.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force.

Edit : 776.032 (2) is the stickler here. According to it, as long as the person Zimmerman shot is not a Police Officer in the act of performing his duties, the police cannot even arrest Zimmerman unless they have 'probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful.'

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

So basically the local police can chalk it up as "ADN" and walk away.

Edit 2 : Oh this gets better and better.

776.041 covers "use of force by agressor".

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So the "OH MY GOD HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!" defense is actually codified in the law.

mindspork

Automaticzen wrote: »

Shado red wrote: »

mindsportk

Thank you for the transcript. I was looking all over for one yesterday. Just found this after looking again.

http://www.ksat.com/news/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-Fla-teen-is-shot/-/478452/9616000/-/qqt7kcz/-/index.html

Looks like they have all the other 911 calls as well.

Officers Timothy Smith and Ricardo Alayo said they noted a black male in a gray hooded sweatshirt lying face-down in the grass, as well as a white male in the area.

Lying face down? I'm trying to figure out how they were fighting if Martin ended up face down.

He could have slumped forward when shot.

lazegamer

Automaticzen wrote: »

Shado red wrote: »

mindsportk

Thank you for the transcript. I was looking all over for one yesterday. Just found this after looking again.

http://www.ksat.com/news/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-Fla-teen-is-shot/-/478452/9616000/-/qqt7kcz/-/index.html

Looks like they have all the other 911 calls as well.

Officers Timothy Smith and Ricardo Alayo said they noted a black male in a gray hooded sweatshirt lying face-down in the grass, as well as a white male in the area.

Lying face down? I'm trying to figure out how they were fighting if Martin ended up face down.

He fell forward after he was shot?

Kipling217

Happens all the time. People don't windmill backwards arms flailing when shot in real life.

Christopher Lee once described acting like he had been killed by a gunshot for a film. He is a WW2 vet and tried to simulated what he had seen. He gave a look of slight surprise and gently fell forward. The cast and crew started laughing their ass off.

mindspork

Also, Newton's 3rd Law of Motion prevents the whole 'launched backwards by a gunshot' thing.

a5ehren

mindspork wrote: »

Also, Newton's 3rd Law of Motion prevents the whole 'launched backwards by a gunshot' thing.

Unless it is a really, really big (or fast) bullet

KalTorak

Kipling217 wrote: »

Happens all the time. People don't windmill backwards arms flailing when shot in real life.

Christopher Lee once described acting like he had been killed by a gunshot for a film. He is a WW2 vet and tried to simulated what he had seen. He gave a look of slight surprise and gently fell forward. The cast and crew started laughing their ass off.

I remember him talking about correcting Jackson as to Saruman's reaction to being backstabbed in that scene in ROTK:EE, since he had personal knowledge of what stab-victims do.

Veevee

He also explained getting stabbed in the back with a knife from first hand knowledge. Christopher Lee is an all around bad ass

In other news, if you're a minority you better be on your best behavior in Florida. Don't want to be frightening grandmas and getting shot since that appears to be legal there

KalTorak

a5ehren wrote: »

mindspork wrote: »

Also, Newton's 3rd Law of Motion prevents the whole 'launched backwards by a gunshot' thing.

Unless it is a really, really big (or fast) bullet

mindspork

a5ehren wrote: »

mindspork wrote: »

Also, Newton's 3rd Law of Motion prevents the whole 'launched backwards by a gunshot' thing.

Unless it is a really, really big (or fast) bullet

True. I'm sure that .980 round I saw would do it. I should have specified that not much fired from a commercial available handgun would.

PantsB

Oops I edited instead of new posting. So I was beat to the 776.041 but retroactively justified myself using the edit button.

mindspork

PantsB wrote: »

Oops I edited instead of new posting.

Gotcha.

Thing is, IANAL and such, 776.041 (2)(b) does require retreat - but I wonder if the following (crude) scenario would meet that requirement.

A : *throws first punch*
B : *responds with fisticuffs*
A : *steps back* "DUDE! STOP! SOMEBODY HELP!"
B : *steps forward and swings again*

Can A, under 776.041 (2)(b) claim he has now made a good faith attempt to retreat, and is now cleared to use deadly force?

Kipling217

The look of slight surprise comes from you facial muscles becoming slack. Since you don't close your eyes when you die, you end up looking like you saw something faintly amusing. Hospitals usually put a bandage around your face to close your mouth before rigor mortis sets in.

Veevee

Ultimately this all would come down to a jury to decide, and they aren't to come to the same decision every time. So if you think 12 randomly selected people (your "peers" as it were) could find that to be enough, then I'd say it would be

TL DR

mindspork wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Oops I edited instead of new posting.

Gotcha.

Thing is, IANAL and such, 776.041 (2)(b) does require retreat - but I wonder if the following (crude) scenario would meet that requirement.

A : *throws first punch*
B : *responds with fisticuffs*
A : *steps back* "DUDE! STOP! SOMEBODY HELP!"
B : *steps forward and swings again*

Can A, under 776.041 (2)(b) claim he has now made a good faith attempt to retreat, and is now cleared to use deadly force?

The aforementioned 'stand your ground' doctrine specified that it applied to individuals 'not engaged in illegal activity'.

Automaticzen

Kipling217 wrote: »

Happens all the time. People don't windmill backwards arms flailing when shot in real life.

Christopher Lee once described acting like he had been killed by a gunshot for a film. He is a WW2 vet and tried to simulated what he had seen. He gave a look of slight surprise and gently fell forward. The cast and crew started laughing their ass off.

Good to know, but my question was related to how the calls (seemingly) paint the picture.

Guy A over Guy B prior to or just after the shot. Facedown makes it an execution essentially. Note, I said 'Seemingly'.

Caller: "Oh, my God, there is a gunshot, hurry up."

[inaudible]

Dispatcher: "Do you see anybody? I don't need you to go outside."

Caller: "There is someone screaming. I just heard a gunshot."

Dispatcher: "Do you see anything? I don't need you to go outside. Do you hear screaming or anything?"

Caller: "Hurry up, they are right outside my house."

Dispatcher: "OK, we [have] police and emergency, OK. Are you in Sanford?"

Caller: "I see police now."

Later in the same call:

Caller: "Male."

Dispatcher: "So, when you heard screaming, it was a male screaming?"

Caller: "Yes. And the guy on top had a white t-shirt."

Dispatcher: "What do you mean guy on top? Did you see a fight?"

Caller: "I don't know, I just looked out my window, and there was a guy on top wearing a white t-shirt."

Dispatcher: "A white t-shirt. Did you see what kind of pants? He was on top of what?"

Caller: "I couldn't see the person he was on."

Dispatcher: "But he was on top of a person?"

Caller: "Yes."

Henroid

mindspork wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Oops I edited instead of new posting.

Gotcha.

Thing is, IANAL and such, 776.041 (2)(b) does require retreat - but I wonder if the following (crude) scenario would meet that requirement.

A : *throws first punch*
B : *responds with fisticuffs*
A : *steps back* "DUDE! STOP! SOMEBODY HELP!"
B : *steps forward and swings again*

Can A, under 776.041 (2)(b) claim he has now made a good faith attempt to retreat, and is now cleared to use deadly force?

That's up to Party A's lawyer to make the case.

lazegamer

edit: nm

B:L

Veevee wrote: »

Ultimately this all would come down to a jury to decide, and they aren't to come to the same decision every time. So if you think 12 randomly selected people (your "peers" as it were) could find that to be enough, then I'd say it would be

Hm, isn't this in Florida? As in, Casey Anthony Florida?

mindspork

Veevee wrote: »

Ultimately this all would come down to a jury to decide, and they aren't to come to the same decision every time. So if you think 12 randomly selected people (your "peers" as it were) could find that to be enough, then I'd say it would be

Honestly, if they indict his ass on anything (and I think the comment I heard once was 'a good DA could get a GJ to indict a ham sandwich') I would be strooooongly surprised if they don't try to plead out.

Veevee

B:L wrote: »

Veevee wrote: »

Ultimately this all would come down to a jury to decide, and they aren't to come to the same decision every time. So if you think 12 randomly selected people (your "peers" as it were) could find that to be enough, then I'd say it would be

Hm, isn't this in Florida? As in, Casey Anthony Florida?

Yes, but the Casey Anthony verdict was actually correct. The state tried to prove that she killed her kid, but had no actual evidence saying she did it. Had they gone for lesser charges like covering up the death or something they could have easily gotten that.

amateurhour

How long does the FL police department have to actually arrest and charge Zimmerman?

I'm not sure of the laws there, but I thought there were safeguards in place so that if they release a suspect and publicly state that the suspect is not being arrested, it seriously affects things if they try to arrest said suspect later, which causes all kinds of problems that can lead to a mistrial.

I'm probably way wrong there, just curious

Veevee

It would be for a murder charge, so there are no limitations. They can take as long as they want/need to.

mindspork

amateurhour wrote: »

How long does the FL police department have to actually arrest and charge Zimmerman?

I'm not sure of the laws there, but I thought there were safeguards in place so that if they release a suspect and publicly state that the suspect is not being arrested, it seriously affects things if they try to arrest said suspect later, which causes all kinds of problems that can lead to a mistrial.

I'm probably way wrong there, just curious

Zimmerman's probably done himself more harm by (if the reports are correct) leaving the state.

Somebody's (if arrested) not getting bail.

Shado red

As Veevee said there is no statue of limitations on murder. Even if they were going to charge him with a lesser crime they should have at least 2-4 years depending on what they will charge him with.

Due to this being such a high profile case, and with the State and the FBI reviewing everything it might be a while before they make a decision. While this may be frustrating for those that want justice, ultimately this should ensure that this case gets the attention it deserves.

emp123

amateurhour wrote: »

How long does the FL police department have to actually arrest and charge Zimmerman?

I'm not sure of the laws there, but I thought there were safeguards in place so that if they release a suspect and publicly state that the suspect is not being arrested, it seriously affects things if they try to arrest said suspect later, which causes all kinds of problems that can lead to a mistrial.

I'm probably way wrong there, just curious

Well the 24/48hour charging window doesnt start until after an arrest is made, so even if Zimmerman is in the station for questioning, if hes not under arrest the 24/48 hour window hasnt started ticking yet. And since murder charges dont have statutes of limitations the police can basically arrest him whenever and then hold him for 24/48 hours and then charge him.

amateurhour

I'm aware of the 24/48 laws and statute of limitations, I'm mainly referring to the probability that publicly announcing to the media (if that's actually been done) that there is no intention to arrest Zimmerman, and then doing so later, poses a wide open hole for a defending attorney to declare mistrial based on improper handling of an investigation.

It just seems like they should have arrested him or performed necessary drug tests as soon as possible rather than wait as long as they are currently.

AManFromEarth

amateurhour wrote: »

I'm aware of the 24/48 laws and statute of limitations, I'm mainly referring to the probability that publicly announcing to the media (if that's actually been done) that there is no intention to arrest Zimmerman, and then doing so later, poses a wide open hole for a defending attorney to declare mistrial based on improper handling of an investigation.

It just seems like they should have arrested him or performed necessary drug tests as soon as possible rather than wait as long as they are currently.

It's the state DOJ or the FBI that's going to be investigating now, the action of Pissant PD don't matter anymore. I think.

emp123

AManFromEarth wrote: »

amateurhour wrote: »

I'm aware of the 24/48 laws and statute of limitations, I'm mainly referring to the probability that publicly announcing to the media (if that's actually been done) that there is no intention to arrest Zimmerman, and then doing so later, poses a wide open hole for a defending attorney to declare mistrial based on improper handling of an investigation.

It just seems like they should have arrested him or performed necessary drug tests as soon as possible rather than wait as long as they are currently.

It's the state DOJ or the FBI that's going to be investigating now, the action of Pissant PD don't matter anymore. I think.

Well, the lawyer could argue that the FBI and state DOJ are investigating a crime that the local PD, those closest to the case, decided was a non starter. But I dont think that will get them very far.

mindspork

AManFromEarth wrote: »

amateurhour wrote: »

I'm aware of the 24/48 laws and statute of limitations, I'm mainly referring to the probability that publicly announcing to the media (if that's actually been done) that there is no intention to arrest Zimmerman, and then doing so later, poses a wide open hole for a defending attorney to declare mistrial based on improper handling of an investigation.

It just seems like they should have arrested him or performed necessary drug tests as soon as possible rather than wait as long as they are currently.

It's the state DOJ or the FBI that's going to be investigating now, the action of Pissant PD don't matter anymore. I think.

Yeah. We've left the realm of "Podunk PD" and are now in "Fuck you it's federal jurisgoddamndiction now." realms.

AManFromEarth

emp123 wrote: »

AManFromEarth wrote: »

amateurhour wrote: »

I'm aware of the 24/48 laws and statute of limitations, I'm mainly referring to the probability that publicly announcing to the media (if that's actually been done) that there is no intention to arrest Zimmerman, and then doing so later, poses a wide open hole for a defending attorney to declare mistrial based on improper handling of an investigation.

It just seems like they should have arrested him or performed necessary drug tests as soon as possible rather than wait as long as they are currently.

It's the state DOJ or the FBI that's going to be investigating now, the action of Pissant PD don't matter anymore. I think.

Well, the lawyer could argue that the FBI and state DOJ are investigating a crime that the local PD, those closest to the case, decided was a non starter. But I dont think that will get them very far.

Mostly cause it's not up to local PD to determine what the FBI and the state can investigate, but they can try the "lol, missed ur chance bro" defense if they want I guess.

amateurhour

Ah, thanks for the heads up on that. I read the FBI was getting involved but I honestly missed the link there. Fantastic. I hope this guy enjoys prison and goes there.

AManFromEarth

Indeed.

emp123

AManFromEarth wrote: »

emp123 wrote: »

AManFromEarth wrote: »

amateurhour wrote: »

I'm aware of the 24/48 laws and statute of limitations, I'm mainly referring to the probability that publicly announcing to the media (if that's actually been done) that there is no intention to arrest Zimmerman, and then doing so later, poses a wide open hole for a defending attorney to declare mistrial based on improper handling of an investigation.

It just seems like they should have arrested him or performed necessary drug tests as soon as possible rather than wait as long as they are currently.

It's the state DOJ or the FBI that's going to be investigating now, the action of Pissant PD don't matter anymore. I think.

Well, the lawyer could argue that the FBI and state DOJ are investigating a crime that the local PD, those closest to the case, decided was a non starter. But I dont think that will get them very far.

Mostly cause it's not up to local PD to determine what the FBI and the state can investigate, but they can try the "lol, missed ur chance bro" defense if they want I guess.

I was thinking more along the lines of the local PD knows the people involved and was the first to investigate and therefore had a more complete view of the situation than the FBI/state DOJ did/does and they determined there was no crime here. I still think its a shitty argument though.

enlightenedbum

Actually, could the sheriff here be charged with obstruction of justice? I know that's a high bar, but Jesus.

AManFromEarth

If that was a legal thing though we wouldn't have federal or state level jurisdiction.

I mean, maybe if the jury is stupid enough that would fly, but I doubt that would get beyond an incredulous "Objection" and an annoyed "Sustained".

BubbaT

And now, a word from our (bill's original) sponsors:

Stand Your Ground fathers: Trayvon Martin's killer should likely be arrested, doesn't deserve immunity

The fathers of Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law implicated in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin say the man who shot him to death probably should be arrested and doesn’t deserve a self-defense claim of immunity.

Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley say the law they passed in 2005 was designed to protect citizens by giving them the right to “meet force with force.”

Both men say they don’t know all the facts of Trayvon's case. But, they say they believe the law would not allow a person like George Zimmerman to pursue and confront a person like Trayvon and then use deadly force. Zimmerman has not been charged.

“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/stand-your-ground-fathers-trayvon-martins-shooter-should-likely-be-arrested-doesnt-deserve-immunity.html

_J_

On Politics Nation tonight, Sharpton is talking about how people are going to gather in florida later this week to demand that Zimmerman is arrested.

Nothing like an angry mob to get justice moving. I hope they leave their pitchforks at home.

Kipling217

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Actually, could the sheriff here be charged with obstruction of justice? I know that's a high bar, but Jesus.

No, he would have to actually cover up shit or destroy evidence. The cop that tried to "correct" the witness about who screamed for help is probably guilty of it, but he will just claim to have been confused about who really screamed.

Kipling217

BubbaT wrote: »

And now, a word from our (bill's original) sponsors:

Stand Your Ground fathers: Trayvon Martin's killer should likely be arrested, doesn't deserve immunity

The fathers of Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law implicated in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin say the man who shot him to death probably should be arrested and doesn’t deserve a self-defense claim of immunity.

Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley say the law they passed in 2005 was designed to protect citizens by giving them the right to “meet force with force.”

Both men say they don’t know all the facts of Trayvon's case. But, they say they believe the law would not allow a person like George Zimmerman to pursue and confront a person like Trayvon and then use deadly force. Zimmerman has not been charged.

“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/stand-your-ground-fathers-trayvon-martins-shooter-should-likely-be-arrested-doesnt-deserve-immunity.html

When republicans think the shooting was out of line...