17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[Que]

The media is really trying hard to push the racial issue here.

Trayvon Martin Killing: 911 Tape Reveals Possible Racial Slur by Neighborhood Watchman - Yahoo!

With all due respect Que some of us are trying to leave out emotion and set aside for now the racial issue to objectively examine the facts.

I am trying to set aside race, as well, so what's wrong?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

What happened ...

... to Trayvon's cell-phone?? Who would benefit by its disappearance? EBG

Well, if it helps them get a good lynching...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, so you believe there is a lack of probably cause? Based on what has been provided by the media -- and I'm not saying this is actual evidence -- would you consider this shooting lacks the standard of reasonable belief?

Based on what is reported? You know how dangerous that is.

Based on what I have read, heard from my lockermate at Chicago-Kent who practices down there, and a NACDL seminar, Florida State's Attorneys are not handling the recent self-defense reforms in Florida well. I believe that this past butt kicking is making the SA there in Seminole County skittish, or, to put it another way, act in a more measured manner.

Remember the SA has all the time in the world, there's no statute of limitations problem here. Take your time, take two deep breaths and have the cops interview everyone three times, not twice.

The duty to retreat is a huge question. This man appeared to have stalked, tracked, and shot the boy, so can he claim self-defense after he supposedly/possibly instigates an altercation?

Not really huge, but self-defense is fact sensitive, just ask every single INGO cop about how often "self defense" is claimed in a Battery.

It depends.

Scenario #1: Zimmerman chases Martin. Martin stops and attacks Zimmerman, choking Zimmerman, Zimmerman yells out for help, and then Zimmerman, fearing that he is subject to serious bodily injury or death, is forced to defend himself as Martin continues his attack.

Scenario #2: Zimmerman chases Martin. Martin is tackled and struggles to get away and is shot in the process.

One is self-defense; one is Murder.

It depends on what happened. The police, oddly and even though they asked for light sabers in the last budge, do not have Jedi Powers. They cannot read minds, only ask questions.

Give it time, see what the grand jury says.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

To put it another way from an older country judge many moons ago when I had hair, "due process is not magic, it takes time."

 

[KG1]

I am trying to set aside race, as well, so what's wrong?

IDK but I somehow get the feeling by you quoting my other post that had the link I provided about the media trying to push the racial angle along with my recent post as hinting that i'm some sort of hypocrite.

If that is the case then I would invite you to go back and review the couple of other posts i've made in this thread where there is no mention of race and I was objectively looking at the facts in the case.

If that was not your intention then a I mis-understood the point you were trying to make.

 

[Que]

To put it another way from an older country judge many moons ago when I had hair, "due process is not magic, it takes time."

Kirk, you are right and I do understand the need to ensure proper procedures are followed. I still hold to the belief that the longer this takes the more likely nothing will be done.

I don't personally know any judges, but I do recall this quote that I read a few years ago:

"A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law - in the larger sense - cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets." - Chief Justice William E. Berger

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't personally know any judges, but I do recall this quote that I read a few years ago:

"A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society:

The courts of Florida are not involved.

This is up to the chief LEO of Seminole County, the State's Attorney. Come on, Que, don't ya know, it's always the prosecutor's fault.

 

[hornadylnl]

I still want to see the coroner's findings of the gunshot wound. I'm not a coroner and don't have a clue as to how accurate tv forensics type shows are on this subject. But couldn't they get a reasonable estimate of how far the muzzle was from the shooter? Wouldn't the wound look one way if the muzzle was pressed against his skin? Wouldn't there be powder burns if it was within a few inches? You'd think that if there were no powder burns, the distance would have to be greater than arms length.

Again, the scenario I visualize is that the physical fist fighting had stopped and then the kid was shot. According to the articles, the kid was on top beating the snot out of the shooter. If he drew while being beaten, you think the shot would enter at an upward angle. If the kid had the time to scream for his life, it doesn't make sense that the kid was still beating on him. If they were both physically separated, I'm not sure it would be a good shoot unless the kid charged him again. But why would the kid charge him of he's screaming for his life?

Again, based only on the news reporting, it seems to me the shot occured after they were separated.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I still want to see the coroner's findings of the gunshot wound.

I am certain the State's Attorney will be very interested in this as well as audio enhancement of any 911 recordings.

Zimmerman has claimed that he was the one crying out for help.

 

[hornadylnl]

I am certain the State's Attorney will be very interested in this as well as audio enhancement of any 911 recordings.

Zimmerman has claimed that he was the one crying out for help.

But the witnesses are saying the kid was the one cring for help. According to one of the articles, a witness said it was the kid yelling and the cop lead them to say it was the shooter yelling.

I'm sure forensics in real life aren't as good as Abby Sciuto on NCIS but I'm sure they could paint a very good picture of what happened. But from everything I'm reading, it doesn't look like the police are trying to pursue it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But the witnesses are saying the kid was the one cring for help.

Just pointing out one of the reasons why this will take time to untangle.

It is just one of the many factual questions that the police/grand jury must sort out.

 

[KG1]

But the witnesses are saying the kid was the one cring for help. According to one of the articles, a witness said it was the kid yelling and the cop lead them to say it was the shooter yelling.

I'm sure forensics in real life aren't as good as Abby Sciuto on NCIS but I'm sure they could paint a very good picture of what happened. But from everything I'm reading, it doesn't look like the police are trying to pursue it.

See that's the problem and Kirk is right. There are conflicting reports from eye witnesses. In this article it states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and that he (Zimmerman) was the one yelling for help.

Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.

 

[cexshun]

As far as I know, there doesn't need to be evidence for a murder. When claiming self defense, you already admit to the killing. The evidential burden is on the defendant to prove the shooting was self defense.

So I would ask, where is the evidence that the shooting was in self defense?

Edit: Evidential burden is the proper term. Sorry.

 

[T-Mann]

....
Just pointing out one of the reasons why this will take time to untangle....

Too bad they aren't in Gotham! Batman and McCoy would have this figured out in less than an hour!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As far as I know, there doesn't need to be evidence for a murder. When claiming self defense, you already admit to the killing. The evidential burden is on the defendant to prove the shooting was self defense.

So I would ask, where is the evidence that the shooting was in self defense?

And how long have you worked for IPAC?

No, you have shifted the burden like a good prosecutor.

There darn well better be evidence of a crime (Murder, Manslaughter, inter alia) or I will roll on the floor and froth at the mouth until the manatees come home (or get run over by a speed boat).

The evidentiary burden is upon the state to disprove self-defense. The question presented is: where is the evidence to say that this was not self-defense?

 

[cexshun]

And how long have you worked for IPAC?

No, you have shifted the burden like a good prosecutor.

There darn well better be evidence of a crime (Murder, Manslaughter, inter alia) or I will roll on the floor and froth at the mouth until the manatees come home (or get run over by a speed boat).

The evidentiary burden is upon the state to disprove self-defense. The question presented is: where is the evidence to say that this was not self-defense?

Not really. There is evidence of a murder, it's a dead body and an admission from the defendant.

"If a person charged with murder pleads self-defense, the defendant must satisfy the evidential burden that there are some evidence suggesting self-defence. The legal burden will then fall on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence." - Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials - J. Herring, 2004 - Oxford University Press

Burden of proof still lies on the prosecution. Evidential burden does move to the defense.

Unless I am misunderstanding this.

 

[T-Mann]

....where is the evidence to say that this was not self-defense?

I'm not a Lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so maybe you can help me out here (notice, there is no purple).....


Would it be considered evidence that it wasn't self-defense that the "Captain" stalked the 17yo and put himself in position to be in an confrontation/altercation in the first place? He had already called the 17-year old "suspicious" and said "these a-holes always get away" while he was talking on the telephone to police. If he had reason to believe that the 17-year old was "suspicious" (suspicious enough that he needed to inform and include law enforcement) then why push the confrontation in the first place? He had already notified police, knew they were en-route to "investigate". He didn't retreat to a "safe place" or out of the area, instead he pursued and pushed a confrontation. Would that be evidence enough that it wasn't self-defense?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Burden of proof still lies on the prosecution. Evidential burden does move to the defense.

Unless I am misunderstanding this.

The evidentiary burden never moves to the defense.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He didn't retreat to a "safe place" or out of the area, instead he pursued and pushed a confrontation. Would that be evidence enough that it wasn't self-defense?

Zimmerman has no duty to retreat and no reason he cannot follow him.

Zimmerman had every right to follow him and then yell at him.

Would it be considered evidence that it wasn't self-defense that the "Captain" stalked the 17yo and put himself in position to be in an confrontation/altercation in the first place?

Potentially but that is why this is so fact sensitive. Zimmerman runs after Martin but then withdrawals after Martin spins around and attacks Zimmerman. Martin runs after Zimmerman, takes him down and then starts choking Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, fearing serious bodily injury or death, shoots Martin.

We don't know what happened, that's why this is taking time.

 

[Jake46184]

Guys.....we Hoosiers are often thought of as "country bumpkins" by a majority of our fellow Americans. Let's try as much as we possibly can not to give them proof.

Forget what the liberal media is feeding you. They want to race-bait this and build the sensationalism as much as they possibly can. That's what makes them the most money.

The only thing factual that we truly know is that the police department involved, after conducting their own investigation at the scene, chose NOT to arrest the shooter. That tells us more than countless hours of liberal media coverage that is designed to produce a desired outcome. Sadly, the operatives involved have now manufactured a "racial slur" so that the feds can get involved. We have no clue if this shoot was good or not. All any of us have is the liberal media's attempt to paint the picture they want us to see. There are countless quotes from this thread with members proclaiming "the shoot did this" or "the kid didn't do that." How the hell do you know? Answer: you don't.

As someone above did state correctly, it is the state's burden to prove that this shooting was not self-defense if they should choose to prosecute. There were no eye witnesses, the supposed girlfriend on the cell phone ended her call 8 minutes before the altercation began, and the shooter had several wounds that were consistent with an attack. Should the shooter have approached the kid? That's a completely different question. However, he broke no applicable Florida law by doing so. What happened after he confronted the kid? WE DON'T KNOW. Neither does the liberal media. All you will get from them is what they WANT to be the facts. Again, for the umteenth time in this thread, the ONLY thing we have that is credible so far is that the police on the scene chose NOT to arrest him. The grand jury, if convened, will determine if they believe there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. That bar is not set very high and it is likely they will decide that a trial is warranted. However, at trial, the state will have a tough time getting a conviction. It's far more likely that the shooter will not be found guilty. Once you throw away the liberal media sensationalized nonsense, there's not much left but his word against a dead kid's word. If that is all there is at trial, the shooter is going to win (as he should.)