Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Well, if he gets away with this. I guess the solution is easy in order to get rid off assholes like these.
You stalk him, call 911, tell them he looks suspicious and then shoot him. Claim self defense and that's that.
Well, until someone else takes revenge of course and then it keeps going.

The frightening thing isn't the right to stand your ground - it's the fact you don't have to prove anything to a judicial body. The police can just wave it off.

DanB wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Maq wrote:

If this falls under Florida self-defence laws I'd like to know under what circumstances the premeditated stalking, apprehension, and killing of another person _isn't_ premeditated murder.

To play devil's advocate, I think the difference is that Zimmerman supposedly did not know Martin before this point. He couldn't have planned to murder Martin if they just met. Now if he did know Martin and brought that gun with him specifically to kill Martin, that would be a different story.

Murder doesn't require that you know the person beforehand, merely that you've had a moment before the killing to decide to do it.

I'm not arguing that it's not murder. I'm arguing that it's not premeditated.

Maq wrote:

The frightening thing isn't the right to stand your ground - it's the fact you don't have to prove anything to a judicial body. The police can just wave it off.

That's precisely how the law is written. Moreover, a judge can summarily dismiss a case based on stand your ground even before evidence is presented in a hearing.

link

LobsterMobster wrote:
DanB wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Maq wrote:

If this falls under Florida self-defence laws I'd like to know under what circumstances the premeditated stalking, apprehension, and killing of another person _isn't_ premeditated murder.

To play devil's advocate, I think the difference is that Zimmerman supposedly did not know Martin before this point. He couldn't have planned to murder Martin if they just met. Now if he did know Martin and brought that gun with him specifically to kill Martin, that would be a different story.

Murder doesn't require that you know the person beforehand, merely that you've had a moment before the killing to decide to do it.

I'm not arguing that it's not murder. I'm arguing that it's not premeditated.

I'm saying the premeditation is only needed to be a moment, however brief, before the encounter when you decide to do it. Premediation doesn't require that you know the person, just seeing a stranger and thinking "I'm going to go and shoot them" is enough.

Interesting...

Charles Blow of the NYTimes is pushing the question "Where is Trayvon's cell phone?"

That's a very good question. We know Trayvon had a canned beverage, a bag of Skittles and his cellphone, and, according to one of his friends, was on the phone talking about how Zimmerman was following him.

The police have that cell phone and yet couldn't think for a second to use it to contact someone on Trayvon's contact list or call history list while his body laid in a morgue for three days as "John Doe."

Where is Trayvon's cell phone?

Trayvon had the right to stand his ground and defend himself from his pursuer, who then shot him.

By refusing to back off as instructed by the dispatcher, Zimmerman became the instigator. His civic duty ended when he made the report but he chose to take it further. Anything that happened past that point was his responsibility. He should own up to it.

The picture that is becoming more and more clear to me is that this was a case of some tacticool wannabe mall cop that had a hard on for Florida's gun laws and was looking for an opportunity to be a big man with a firearm. When things got out of control because of his idiocy, he ended up shooting a kid he was probably just trying to intimidate. After that, he freaked out and concocted some bullfeces story about how he was attacked.

This is where "stand your ground" takes you. There are currently 18 states with some form of this law. I strongly urge folks to write your representatives on this.

DanB wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
DanB wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Maq wrote:

If this falls under Florida self-defence laws I'd like to know under what circumstances the premeditated stalking, apprehension, and killing of another person _isn't_ premeditated murder.

To play devil's advocate, I think the difference is that Zimmerman supposedly did not know Martin before this point. He couldn't have planned to murder Martin if they just met. Now if he did know Martin and brought that gun with him specifically to kill Martin, that would be a different story.

Murder doesn't require that you know the person beforehand, merely that you've had a moment before the killing to decide to do it.

I'm not arguing that it's not murder. I'm arguing that it's not premeditated.

I'm saying the premeditation is only needed to be a moment, however brief, before the encounter when you decide to do it. Premediation doesn't require that you know the person, just seeing a stranger and thinking "I'm going to go and shoot them" is enough.

He got out of his car after being told to stay put, said to the police "they always get away", and followed the guy. I reckon I could make a case for premeditation from that.

[edit] A quick Google shows definitions of 1st and 2nd degree murder in the US vary distinctly from those in the UK and Australia (where there's no such thing as "degree"). Still falls under any definition of 2nd degree murder I've come across though.

DanB wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
DanB wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Maq wrote:

If this falls under Florida self-defence laws I'd like to know under what circumstances the premeditated stalking, apprehension, and killing of another person _isn't_ premeditated murder.

To play devil's advocate, I think the difference is that Zimmerman supposedly did not know Martin before this point. He couldn't have planned to murder Martin if they just met. Now if he did know Martin and brought that gun with him specifically to kill Martin, that would be a different story.

Murder doesn't require that you know the person beforehand, merely that you've had a moment before the killing to decide to do it.

I'm not arguing that it's not murder. I'm arguing that it's not premeditated.

I'm saying the premeditation is only needed to be a moment, however brief, before the encounter when you decide to do it. Premediation doesn't require that you know the person, just seeing a stranger and thinking "I'm going to go and shoot them" is enough.

OK, yeah, it looks like this is a matter of a difference in local law. In the US, we draw a distinction between deciding to kill someone on the spur of the moment and planning to kill someone to a point that you prepare for it. I think the legal term for unintentionally killing someone is "manslaughter."

Paleocon wrote:

The picture that is becoming more and more clear to me is that this was a case of some tacticool wannabe mall cop that had a hard on for Florida's gun laws and was looking for an opportunity to be a big man with a firearm. When things got out of control because of his idiocy, he ended up shooting a kid he was probably just trying to intimidate. After that, he freaked out and concocted some bullfeces story about how he was attacked.

This is where "stand your ground" takes you. There are currently 18 states with some form of this law. I strongly urge folks to write your representatives on this.

I agree. However, even given the existence of the stupid law "stand your ground" should be applied equally. It wasn't in this case, IMO.

I agree with Paleo here. I'm in favor of castle doctrine laws, but the one in Florida is too far-reaching. I haven't heard anything that corroborates the story of "self-defense", and yet the police have the option to take him at his word. It's criminal.

Part of the problem is that the law itself pretty much makes him immune from prosecution at this point. The only other person who was able to say with certainty that the events didn't go down the way he said they did died of a bullet wound nearly a month ago and any chance of building a case on physical evidence most likely disappeared after the first 48 hours.

If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if you're going to be a dick in Florida, make sure you kill all the witnesses.

@CharlesMBlow wrote:

Another very important Q: Was Zimmerman's gun in a holster, or did he get it when getting out of SUV. Goes to intent. #Trayvon

Maq wrote:
@CharlesMBlow wrote:

Another very important Q: Was Zimmerman's gun in a holster, or did he get it when getting out of SUV. Goes to intent. #Trayvon

I'd like to see the full police statement and see if it is consistent with his story now.

The scary, but kind of amazing thing is that this happens in local police departments around the country all the time. What's amazing is that enough media furor was raised that something will actually happen (hopefully) to punish the murderer. I doubt anything will change, but it's better than a lot of the stories I heard when Bush was running for President about Texas's legal system, where this sort of BS was publicly approved by GWB as governor.

Jesus. It turns out that Zimmerman was once charged with battery of a police officer when he tried to forcibly intervene when a police officer was arresting his friend, but the charges were plead down to simple battery (which, astonishingly, is a misdemeanor in Florida that still allows you to carry a concealed firearm).

W T F ?

Why does anyone live in that state?

MSNBC.com is reporting the FL Attorney General will impanel a grand jury on April 10.

As lawyer crazy as Florida is I can only imagine the number of attorneys who are lined up at the family's door just waiting to sue everyone involved with this tragedy. Zimmerman, the city, the county, the state... you name it. This is a long way from being over no matter what the criminal side of this turns into.

Paleocon wrote:

Part of the problem is that the law itself pretty much makes him immune from prosecution at this point.

I don't know that that's true. Just because he doesn't have a duty to retreat doesn't mean his claim of self-defense can't be challenged or contradicted by the evidence. I'm not sure why you think the crime scene reports would have all vanished.

It really depends on exactly what the law says and how it says it. The impression I've gotten from the past cases mentioned in the news is that in practice, it's exactly as Paleo suggests. Which is... very very troubling.

Kehama wrote:

As lawyer crazy as Florida is I can only imagine the number of attorneys who are lined up at the family's door just waiting to sue everyone involved with this tragedy. Zimmerman, the city, the county, the state... you name it. This is a long way from being over no matter what the criminal side of this turns into.

The law includes civil immunity for anyone held to have acted in self-defense. So if the criminal case fails, Zimmerman can't be sued under Florida law.

It's possible there is some federal civil rights violation involved with screwing up an investigation into a crime due to racial bias, but it sounds kind of odd. This isn't one of those cases where the cops shot someone, were found not guilty at trial but were found liable under tort law.

Wow... it includes civil immunity as well? That just boggles my mind. Talk about a giant legal rug to sweep unsightly incidents under.

Kehama wrote:

Wow... it includes civil immunity as well? That just boggles my mind. Talk about a giant legal rug to sweep unsightly incidents under.

The law might be written that was to avoid a situation where a mugger/attacker who gets shot by a victim then sues the victim in the civil system for damages due to his injuries. I don't know how often that happened in Florida before the law was passed, but the perception might have been that it happened all the time. Alternately, it was inserted for a completely different reason that I don't know because I did no research before answering :).

There's nothing inherently wrong with such a provision, provided you don't have a system where the cops are failing to fully investigate self-defense shootings.

Funkenpants wrote:

There's nothing inherently wrong with such a provision, provided you don't have a system where the cops are failing to fully investigate self-defense shootings.

Civil cases are a necessary check and balance against unfettered police power. We don't need any checks and balances, if we have a perfect law enforcement system. Given that we just have human law enforcement, subject to human mistakes, having a court of appeal or a check against police power seems wise and warranted.

So it may not be inherently wrong to dispence with the judiciary, but it is a terrible idea since it is inviting exactly what we see here: abuse of power by police who answer to no one but themselves.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kehama wrote:

Wow... it includes civil immunity as well? That just boggles my mind. Talk about a giant legal rug to sweep unsightly incidents under.

The law might be written that was to avoid a situation where a mugger/attacker who gets shot by a victim then sues the victim in the civil system for damages due to his injuries. I don't know how often that happened in Florida before the law was passed, but the perception might have been that it happened all the time. Alternately, it was inserted for a completely different reason that I don't know because I did no research before answering :).

There's nothing inherently wrong with such a provision, provided you don't have a system where the cops are failing to fully investigate self-defense shootings.

the question being, is that perception entirely bad? Here in Michigan, when taking the course to get a CCW, the first thing the lawyer says is "when you draw, you're saying you're prepared to lose your job, your house, and most if not all of your physical possessions. If you're okay with that - that is, the alternative is massive physical harm or death to yourself or your family - then draw."

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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

Oso wrote:

Civil cases are a necessary check and balance against unfettered police power.

I'm not talking about an issue with police power when I'm talking immunity under the statute, but rather whether a criminal or his family can sue the person he mugged or tried to rape or tried to kill for an alleged civil tort. The police would be subject to civil rights claims in any case.

The most recent update to this sad tale: Apparently Martin was talking with his girlfriend on his cell when the incident occurred.

Attorney Benjamin Crump released phone records that show Trayvon was on the phone Feb. 26 at 7:12 p.m. for four minutes, moments before he was shot. At a news conference, Crump played a recording of the 16-year-old girl who was in Miami talking to Trayvon and heard most of the confrontation between the teen and George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who claims he killed him in self-defense. "This claim that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor is preposterous," he said. "What Zimmerman said is completely contradicted by the phone log."

I'm guessing if this douche bag doesn't get charged and convicted of something an actual hoodie wearing gansta is going to pop a cap in his ass..and chest...and head..