excellent read - New Yorker, "...Stand Whose Ground?"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By the time Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, arrived on the stand on day ten of the George Zimmerman trial, he had already been cast in unanticipated roles—grieving father, reluctant agitator, courtroom stoic—though none of that dimmed the discomfort of his latest turn: witness for the defense. His appearance proved to be the sharpest twist on Monday, a day that had already seen a witness compare the screams from Zimmerman’s fight with Trayvon with those of American soldiers during the Tet Offensive, and a live-action mixed-martial-arts tutorial featuring the lead defense counsel. It takes a certain kind of nerve to summon the father of the deceased as part of an effort to exonerate the man who killed him; it requires something greater than poise to endure being summoned. Toward the end of the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Martin why he’d repeatedly listened to a 911 call in which the gunshot that killed Trayvon could be heard. His reply was jarring: “I was trying to understand why he got out of his car and chased my son.”

It’s doubtful that he was completely without answers. The knowledge that you can inspire fear in the most inadvertent of ways, that there is a protean set of descriptions that you always fit, is axiomatic of the black male experience in this country. This is knowledge fathers pass to sons just as sure as explaining how to tie a Windsor knot. The more salient question, the one that forms part of the core of this case—though it is unlikely to be posed, and certain not to be resolved in the Seminole County courthouse—is this: Is it ever possible for a white person to be suspicious?

There’s already been any number of indelible moments in this central Florida courtroom. Last week featured a scene out of King Solomon’s court, in which both the mother of the deceased and the mother of the defendant claimed it was her son’s voice screaming for help just before the shot punctuates the 911 call. A procession of witnesses testified about seeing one man atop another and striking him, though they couldn’t agree on the attacker. Their visual vagueness was matched by another theme—the common, enduring horror at realizing there was a man lying dead in the grass. Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant’s presumed innocence and a dead man’s presumed guilt.

While speculation about the trial has centered on whether or not Zimmerman will take the stand, Trayvon Martin, in a real sense, already has. In a creeping set of rulings, Judge Debra Nelson decided to allow discussion of the traces of marijuana that were found in Martin’s system during his autopsy. The contours of the defense, like a great deal of the discussion of this case, are shot through with an antiquated brand of rape-think. What was he wearing? Was he high or drunk? Why was he out at night? Beneath these questions is a calcified skepticism toward Martin’s innocence that all but blurts out “He was asking for it.”

Amid their frustratingly uneven presentation, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda and the rest of the prosecution have pegged their second-degree murder charges largely on the idea that Martin was losing the fight on February 26th of last year, that he shouted for help, and that Zimmerman, a vigilante would-be cop, shot and killed him anyway. In plotting their route to conviction, they necessarily bypass another set of questions. What if he wasn’t losing the fight? What if Zimmerman is the one who called for help? What if Martin did swing first? And, most crucially, is an unarmed black teen-ager ever entitled to stand his ground?

The answers to these questions have bearing that is more social than legal, but they’re inescapable in understanding how we got here in the first place and what this trial ultimately means. George Zimmerman got out of his car that night as an amateur deputy and protector of the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community. Trayvon Martin was a visitor to that community. Nowhere in Zimmerman’s initial emergency call does he broach the idea that Martin might belong there, that he might actually be someone who warranted protection, too. Instead, there is the snap judgment that the teen-ager is one of the “fvcking punks” who “always get away”—a judgment that Zimmerman’s supporters and the Sanford Police Department either co-signed or deemed reasonable enough to absolve him of responsibility for what ensued.

What remains frustratingly marginal in this discussion is the point Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel raised in her testimony—that Martin himself was afraid, that a black person might assess a man following him in a car and on foot as a threat, never mind that he might have seen Zimmerman’s weapon and suspected his life was in danger. The defense paid a great deal of attention to the implications of Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “creepy-as$ cracker,” but, to the extent that we think about the epithet, we’re concerned with the wrong C-word. Imagine George Zimmerman being followed at night, in the rain, by an armed, unknown black man and you have an encounter that far exceeds the minimal definition of “creepy.” Indeed, you have a circumstance in which anyone would reasonably fear for his life. Add a twist in which that black man fires a shot that ends a person’s life, and it’s hard to imagine him going home after a brief police interview, as Zimmerman did.

De la Rionda’s team is charged with prosecuting a crime, not a set of social attitudes that facilitate it. But whatever its legal merits, the prosecution’s approach has left intact the suspicion that Florida’s proactive self-defense laws are color-coded, intended for people in fearsome encounters with blacks, not blacks in fearsome encounters.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-trial-day-ten.html

Edited July 10, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Indeed. But cue the 'thug had it coming' from the usual suspects.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Indeed. But cue the 'thug had it coming' from the usual suspects.

Sorry to disappoint.

Stand Your Ground was not and is not an issue in this trial. The article and the argument are irrelevent

As all of you celebrated the exclusion of Stand Your Ground from this trial, then celbrated the exclusion of TMs past history (and de facto exclusion of GZs history) I said "this is not good news for the prosecution"

Now, all of a sudden you wish it WERE a factor because if it were there would be some chance of conviction. For something. Now there is no chance of conviction for anything. Both parties COULD have done things differently and TM would still be alive, but all thathas been excluded from consideration by leaving SYG out of it

Steven, the prosecution rested. It is over. They are going to lose this one and GZ is going to walk. They always knew that

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Indeed. But cue the 'thug had it coming' from the usual suspects.

Please do not take any of that to mean I hate Ukraine

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

By the time Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, arrived on the stand on day ten of the George Zimmerman trial, he had already been cast in unanticipated roles—grieving father, reluctant agitator, courtroom stoic—though none of that dimmed the discomfort of his latest turn: witness for the defense. His appearance proved to be the sharpest twist on Monday, a day that had already seen a witness compare the screams from Zimmerman’s fight with Trayvon with those of American soldiers during the Tet Offensive, and a live-action mixed-martial-arts tutorial featuring the lead defense counsel. It takes a certain kind of nerve to summon the father of the deceased as part of an effort to exonerate the man who killed him; it requires something greater than poise to endure being summoned. Toward the end of the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Martin why he’d repeatedly listened to a 911 call in which the gunshot that killed Trayvon could be heard. His reply was jarring: “I was trying to understand why he got out of his car and chased my son.”

It’s doubtful that he was completely without answers. The knowledge that you can inspire fear in the most inadvertent of ways, that there is a protean set of descriptions that you always fit, is axiomatic of the black male experience in this country. This is knowledge fathers pass to sons just as sure as explaining how to tie a Windsor knot. The more salient question, the one that forms part of the core of this case—though it is unlikely to be posed, and certain not to be resolved in the Seminole County courthouse—is this: Is it ever possible for a white person to be suspicious?

There’s already been any number of indelible moments in this central Florida courtroom. Last week featured a scene out of King Solomon’s court, in which both the mother of the deceased and the mother of the defendant claimed it was her son’s voice screaming for help just before the shot punctuates the 911 call. A procession of witnesses testified about seeing one man atop another and striking him, though they couldn’t agree on the attacker. Their visual vagueness was matched by another theme—the common, enduring horror at realizing there was a man lying dead in the grass. Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant’s presumed innocence and a dead man’s presumed guilt.

While speculation about the trial has centered on whether or not Zimmerman will take the stand, Trayvon Martin, in a real sense, already has. In a creeping set of rulings, Judge Debra Nelson decided to allow discussion of the traces of marijuana that were found in Martin’s system during his autopsy. The contours of the defense, like a great deal of the discussion of this case, are shot through with an antiquated brand of rape-think. What was he wearing? Was he high or drunk? Why was he out at night? Beneath these questions is a calcified skepticism toward Martin’s innocence that all but blurts out “He was asking for it.”

Amid their frustratingly uneven presentation, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda and the rest of the prosecution have pegged their second-degree murder charges largely on the idea that Martin was losing the fight on February 26th of last year, that he shouted for help, and that Zimmerman, a vigilante would-be cop, shot and killed him anyway. In plotting their route to conviction, they necessarily bypass another set of questions. What if he wasn’t losing the fight? What if Zimmerman is the one who called for help? What if Martin did swing first? And, most crucially, is an unarmed black teen-ager ever entitled to stand his ground?

The answers to these questions have bearing that is more social than legal, but they’re inescapable in understanding how we got here in the first place and what this trial ultimately means. George Zimmerman got out of his car that night as an amateur deputy and protector of the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community. Trayvon Martin was a visitor to that community. Nowhere in Zimmerman’s initial emergency call does he broach the idea that Martin might belong there, that he might actually be someone who warranted protection, too. Instead, there is the snap judgment that the teen-ager is one of the “fvcking punks” who “always get away”—a judgment that Zimmerman’s supporters and the Sanford Police Department either co-signed or deemed reasonable enough to absolve him of responsibility for what ensued.

What remains frustratingly marginal in this discussion is the point Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel raised in her testimony—that Martin himself was afraid, that a black person might assess a man following him in a car and on foot as a threat, never mind that he might have seen Zimmerman’s weapon and suspected his life was in danger. The defense paid a great deal of attention to the implications of Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “creepy-as$ cracker,” but, to the extent that we think about the epithet, we’re concerned with the wrong C-word. Imagine George Zimmerman being followed at night, in the rain, by an armed, unknown black man and you have an encounter that far exceeds the minimal definition of “creepy.” Indeed, you have a circumstance in which anyone would reasonably fear for his life. Add a twist in which that black man fires a shot that ends a person’s life, and it’s hard to imagine him going home after a brief police interview, as Zimmerman did.

De la Rionda’s team is charged with prosecuting a crime, not a set of social attitudes that facilitate it. But whatever its legal merits, the prosecution’s approach has left intact the suspicion that Florida’s proactive self-defense laws are color-coded, intended for people in fearsome encounters with blacks, not blacks in fearsome encounters.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-trial-day-ten.html

More radical race baiting nonsense. This writers whole summation is based on race and nothing but race and if you look at the writers other articles, he sees nothing but race in everything. I did not even have to look it up to tell that a black male wrote this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Criminal Law

571. Voluntary Manslaughter: Imperfect Self-Defense - Lesser Included Offense

A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because (he/she) acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another).

If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) depends on whether the defendant's belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable.

The defendant acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) if:

1. The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/

<insert name of third party>

) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury;

AND

2. The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;

BUT

3. At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be.

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/571.html

Edited July 10, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"...the question of self-defense... could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html?_r=0

[himher 634]

Stunning news that the "New Yorker" would take the liberal view on this.

There should have never been a trial. If you want to stun us with your brilliant insight on this case please use Florida law not California law. I posted the Florida jury instructions days ago. Comment on that.

[Karee 4,190]

Moral to the story, don't jump on someone and start pounding them because they are following you. You might end up dead. That's the lesson here.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

How about don't follow someone when you aren't properly trained to handle the situation and let the police do their job.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Stunning news that the "New Yorker" would take the liberal view on this.

There should have never been a trial. If you want to stun us with your brilliant insight on this case please use Florida law not California law. I posted the Florida jury instructions days ago. Comment on that.

Like you said they just grasp at straws or ANYTHING they can and hope a little sticks.,

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Moral to the story, don't jump on someone and start pounding them because they are following you. You might end up dead. That's the lesson here.

Agreed. And if you think someone is suspicious, don't follow them. Especially not on foot.

I don't know anyone who isn't law enforcement that would see someone at night, in the dark, think they were suspicious enough to call the police on .. and then personally follow them.

"I think this guy is up to no good and acting strange .. let me get myself involved in this situation."

Doesn't make sense.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Penny Lane

[SMR 368]

Criminal Law

571. Voluntary Manslaughter: Imperfect Self-Defense - Lesser Included Offense

A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because (he/she) acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another).

If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) depends on whether the defendant's belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable.

The defendant acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) if:

BUT

1. The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury;

AND

2. The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be.

3. At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/571.html

I think you are misconstruing the bolded part. Belief in future harm is distinguished from imminent danger. Technically both are in the future. I would interpret this as meaning that if the harm is not imminent but believed to be in the future, then you can't use self defense. For example, if I believe that you are planning to kill my mother tomorrow, I can't shoot you today, even if it's true that you are planning to kill my mother. The danger is future and not imminent.

On the other hand, if you are beating my mother with a baseball bat showing no sign of stopping, I can shoot you now even if you have not yet inflicted great bodily harm as the danger is imminent. In the case of GZ and TM, any danger was certainly imminent. Nobody thinks or claims that GZ believed TM was going to come back tomorrow to beat him up.

However, I could see how the jury could end up convicting Zimmerman on the basis that one of those conditions was not reasonable. I just don't think the future bolded part really has any applicability. Nonetheless, the problem with the prosecution's case seems to be that they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable for GZ to expect he would receive great bodily harm if he hadn't shot TM. That means you have to prove that either GZ was winning the fight or Martin was winning but would have stopped before causing great bodily harm. Moreover, since the two scenarios are contradictory, the prosecution has to essentially try to prove one or the other. It appears the prosecution is trying to prove the first scenario, since the second scenario requires proving what a dead person would have done, which has reasonable doubt written all over it. Unfortunately, the evidence and witnesses seem to contradict themselves to the extent that it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was winning the fight.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think you are misconstruing the bolded part. Belief in future harm is distinguished from imminent danger. Technically both are in the future. I would interpret this as meaning that if the harm is not imminent but believed to be in the future, then you can't use self defense. For example, if I believe that you are planning to kill my mother tomorrow, I can't shoot you today, even if it's true that you are planning to kill my mother. The danger is future and not imminent.

On the other hand, if you are beating my mother with a baseball bat showing no sign of stopping, I can shoot you now even if you have not yet inflicted great bodily harm as the danger is imminent. In the case of GZ and TM, any danger was certainly imminent. Nobody thinks or claims that GZ believed TM was going to come back tomorrow to beat him up.

However, I could see how the jury could end up convicting Zimmerman on the basis that one of those conditions was not reasonable. I just don't think the future bolded part really has any applicability. Nonetheless, the problem with the prosecution's case seems to be that they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable for GZ to expect he would receive great bodily harm if he hadn't shot TM. That means you have to prove that either GZ was winning the fight or Martin was winning but would have stopped before causing great bodily harm. Moreover, since the two scenarios are contradictory, the prosecution has to essentially try to prove one or the other. It appears the prosecution is trying to prove the first scenario, since the second scenario requires proving what a dead person would have done, which has reasonable doubt written all over it. Unfortunately, the evidence and witnesses seem to contradict themselves to the extent that it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was winning the fight.

Based on what Judge Ferrer explained, the burden for voluntary manslaughter is quite different from 2nd degree murder. It's really not a simple as the prosecution having to prove Zimmerman didn't defend himself, but whether his fear was reasonable and whether his use of lethal force was necessary. If the jury feels that the defense wasn't convincing, they could find him guilty of imperfect self defense. That doesn't require the jury to believe that he murdered TM, just that it was unreasonable use of lethal force.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Agreed. And if you think someone is suspicious, don't follow them. Especially not on foot.

I don't know anyone who isn't law enforcement that would see someone at night, in the dark, think they were suspicious enough to call the police on .. and then personally follow them.

"I think this guy is up to no good and acting strange .. let me get myself involved in this situation."

Doesn't make sense.

We have been thru this 1000 times. Although you may think GZ was exercising poor judgement in getting out of the car, it's perfectly legal and he has every right to walk around his own neighborhood, with the expectation that he will not get his head beat in. Can I walk up to someone because I think they are following me and start beating them. ?

, GZ had every right to get out of his car. He also had every right to use deadly force in self defense when he was viciously attacked.

If I hear something outside my car at night, I have every right to go inspect to see what is going on. I have the right to be armed, and I have the right to use deadly force if I am attacked, or even if I have reasonable fear to think I am in great peril.

Example if someone comes around the corner of my house approaching me with a knife, guess what. I can defend myself and I don't even have to have gotten a scratch on me

For the 100th zillion time

It is not a crime to follow someone, and GZ was well within his rights

If his wounds were life threatening or not has no bearing on his legal right to defend.

Are you people really slow enough to think someone has to stop and think, well he just cut me bad enough that I may bleed to death I can shoot him now,

I swear many of you just want GZ to be guilty and don't care about the facts or the law.