Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[PokerGuy]

Why do they write like that? Do they not see the bias?

Obvious bias is obvious. The media and PC crowd are whipped up into a frenzy, they won't pause for a minute to let the actual legal process and investigation take their course, they want mob justice immediately.

 

[classy]

This just does not look good at all...

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/

Text from the link...

However, witness Mary Cutcher said she knew the truth. Cutcher said police only took a two or three sentence statement from her, but it took about 30 minutes to tell WFTV the story.
"The cries stopped as soon as the gun went off, so I know it was the little boy," Cutcher said.

Furthermore...

Sanford police pointed to a state statute for not making an immediate arrest, and they sent WFTV a copy of the law titled, "Justifiable Use of Force."
However, WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer reviewed the statute and said that if Zimmerman was told by 911 to not confront Martin and did anyway, the statute is not on his side.
"The use of deadly force in this case was unlawful and a valid arrest could have been made," Sheaffer said.
Sheaffer also said that ultimately an arrest could be, and likely should be made, and then the state would decide if the charges stick.
"Under the facts, it is above the discretion for Sanford not to affect on arrest and then send it to the State Attorney's Office," said Sheaffer.

Here is something that may shed light on Mr. Zimmerman's actions last month
WFTV also learned that Zimmerman has been the victim of violence at least twice in the past.
He was working security for a party at an Altamonte Springs home in 2005 and residents said someone broke his jaw when he tried to break up a fight.
That same year, he was robbed at gunpoint at a 7-Eleven after eating dinner at a nearby Chili's restaurant.
WFTV attempted several times to call Zimmerman and his family, however, when WFTV received a response of "the number you called is no longer in service."

This is a really shitty situation. There's no other way to describe it.

This is a damn shame. The guy apparently even admitted he chased this teenager. He chased him and the kid got scared and fought back. He beat this bully back and then the bully pulled his gun. And that would make sense to what the woman heard. The kid saw the gun and started to scream for help, thats when this POS shot him.

What is even more sad is the fact the many dirtbags here, that have for fvcking years relished in the death of a black person, have come to celebrate once again.

 

[blankslate]

Here's the law that the Police and DA must follow/apply.

Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013

Again, watch the interview, if Mary Cutcher's account is accurate and yes it's a fairly big if that does need to be backed up by other witnesses then Trayvon Martin moved at least a few yard from the initial physical fight.

If that is the case it may raise reasonable question as to whether it's reasonable for Trayvon Martin to still have been considered a threat because he may have been attempting to remove himself from the situation if/when he realized Mr. Zimmerman was armed.

To rephrase it, can a person reasonably be considered an imminent threat to your life if after they hit you and knock you down, but then start retreating upon finding out your armed? Do they have to retreat before you draw your weapon or after? I don't think these questions are answered by that quote of the law and the interview raises enough questions that it's hard to state definitely what happened now. In terms of justified shooting vs not justified.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Again, watch the interview, if Mary Cutcher's account is accurate and yes it's a fairly big if that does need to be backed up by other witnesses then Trayvon Martin moved at least a few yard from the initial physical fight.

If that is the case it may raise reasonable question as to whether it's reasonable for Trayvon Martin to still have been considered a threat because he may have been attempting to remove himself from the situation if/when he realized Mr. Zimmerman was armed.

To rephrase it, can a person reasonably be considered an imminent threat to your life if after they hit you and knock you down, but then start retreating upon finding out your armed? Do they have to retreat before you draw your weapon or after? I don't think these questions are answered by that quote of the law and the interview raises enough questions that it's hard to state definitely what happened now. In terms of justified shooting vs not justified.

It seems to me that in your hypothetical, the law would not apply because it would not be reasonable for the shooter to believe he was under threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. If the other party was retreating, there would presumably no longer be a threat, and thus no basis for shooting. That threat could return if the other person came back, obviously, however.

 

[blankslate]

It seems to me that in your hypothetical, the law would not apply because it would not be reasonable for the shooter to believe he was under threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. If the other party was retreating, there would presumably no longer be a threat, and thus no basis for shooting. That threat could return if the other person came back, obviously, however.

Did you watch the interview? Maybe I'm tired but it seems to raise the possibility and because of that it needs to be either corroborated or discredited by other witnesses. Another person who watches the interview can tell me if I need to watched again after some rest.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Again, watch the interview, if Mary Cutcher's account is accurate and yes it's a fairly big if that does need to be backed up by other witnesses then Trayvon Martin moved at least a few yard from the initial physical fight.

If that is the case it may raise reasonable question as to whether it's reasonable for Trayvon Martin to still have been considered a threat because he may have been attempting to remove himself from the situation if/when he realized Mr. Zimmerman was armed.

To rephrase it, can a person reasonably be considered an imminent threat to your life if after they hit you and knock you down, but then start retreating upon finding out your armed? Do they have to retreat before you draw your weapon or after? I don't think these questions are answered by that quote of the law.

Yes, I watched the video and heard many statements based on what she believes happened which may or may not be what truly transpired. The cries could have be Mr Zimmerman as well and stopped when the Mr Martin could no longer strike him in the head from being shot.

 

[corwin]

Watch the interview. Maybe I'm tired but it seems to raise the possibility and because of that it needs to be either corroborated or discredited by other witnesses.

Or by physical evidence...forensics will be able to tell how close they were when the shot was fired, if it was several yards he will certainly be charged, but I would be pretty sure they would know that by now and he still hasn't been charged.

 

[waggy]

This is a damn shame. The guy apparently even admitted he chased this teenager. He chased him and the kid got scared and fought back. He beat this bully back and then the bully pulled his gun. And that would make sense to what the woman heard. The kid saw the gun and started to scream for help, thats when this POS shot him.

What is even more sad is the fact the many dirtbags here, that have for fvcking years relished in the death of a black person, have come to celebrate once again.

IF her account is true yeah i agree.

IF a person starts a fight, then chases the other party and then shoots him when he is getting his ass whooped (witch by most reports say happened). That should trump the Castle law.

While i fully support the Castle law it is not designed to be able to start a fight, chase the guy then shoot him. Its so if you are jumped, or in your home (main reason for it) you can defend it and rightly so.

From what i have read Zimmermen should be in jail But sounds like he will get off over a fucked up badly written law.


And yes Some (SPIDEY!) is enjoying the fact a innocent black kid got shot and the guy is going to get off because of the castle law.

 

[PokerGuy]

Now additional information (witness testimony) trickles out, raising more questions. Just more reason why everyone needs to step back and let the PD and DA do their job. The PC crowd and racists have already concluded who is guilty of what crime, without knowing much of anything, and are seeking mob justice. The PD has investigated, we'll see if charges are filed.

One thing that isn't clear to me is, under FL law in a criminal case, is the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the action was not self defense? Or, is the burden on the defendant to convince a judge/jury that the action was self defense? If it's the former, I don't see any way they could prove beyond a doubt that it wasn't self defense (at least from the evidence I've seen).

To use the analogy of an NFL replay challenge. Lets say on a play a guy comes close to scoring and there's no replay angle that shows conclusively that he did or didn't. Whatever call the ref makes on the field (TD or not) will stand because there's no evidence to overturn it. I see this case as similar. It doesn't appear there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to 'overturn' the self defense assertion, though Zimmerman may in fact be guilty.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Did you watch the interview? Maybe I'm tired but it seems to raise the possibility and because of that it needs to be either corroborated or discredited by other witnesses. Another person who watches the interview can tell me if I need to watched again after some rest.

I would agree the interview at least raises the inference that this might have happened.

I find it interesting that people are so quick to discount this interview despite the fact that at this point it is the ONLY direct evidence available about what happened.

This shooting happened in this woman's backyard and she saw and heard at least part of what occurred. What troubles me is that it appears the police not only failed to thoroughly interview her, but also attempted to get her to tweak her story to match what they believed had occurred. At this point it appears the locals have so mishandled this case that it would be appropriate for another agency such as the state troopers to take over the investigation and see it to an end.

 

[fskimospy]

Now additional information (witness testimony) trickles out, raising more questions. Just more reason why everyone needs to step back and let the PD and DA do their job. The PC crowd and racists have already concluded who is guilty of what crime, without knowing much of anything, and are seeking mob justice. The PD has investigated, we'll see if charges are filed.

One thing that isn't clear to me is, under FL law in a criminal case, is the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the action was not self defense? Or, is the burden on the defendant to convince a judge/jury that the action was self defense? If it's the former, I don't see any way they could prove beyond a doubt that it wasn't self defense (at least from the evidence I've seen).

To use the analogy of an NFL replay challenge. Lets say on a play a guy comes close to scoring and there's no replay angle that shows conclusively that he did or didn't. Whatever call the ref makes on the field (TD or not) will stand because there's no evidence to overturn it. I see this case as similar. It doesn't appear there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to 'overturn' the self defense assertion, though Zimmerman may in fact be guilty.

From my understanding the prosecution must establish that he committed the action that led to the kid's death beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once that is established you then can get into whether or not a reasonable person would have feared for his life in that situation, but that burden is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that is a simple majority of the evidence. (and the burden of proof is on the defendent)

 

[airdata]

Just remember...

Alot of the people in this thread backing the killer also stood behind the BART officer when he clearly executed that guy on camera.
These people lack rational thought and their posts should not be taken seriously.

From my understanding the prosecution must establish that he committed the action that led to the kid's death beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once that is established you then can get into whether or not a reasonable person would have feared for his life in that situation, but that burden is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that is a simple majority of the evidence. (and the burden of proof is on the defendent)

An adult shouldn't be using deadly force against a child. Let alone one that he likely outweighs by 80+ lbs. If there was indeed an altercation and he was on the losing end he should have taken his coward ass back home and re considered how he spent his free time.

 

[corwin]

Just remember...

Alot of the people in this thread backing the killer also stood behind the BART officer when he clearly executed that guy on camera.

These people lack rational thought and their posts should not be taken seriously.

And a lot of the people claiming Zimmerman has a violent past stood behind the protesters in Cali that were charged with the same thing.

PS The BART cop was thing was bad...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Just remember...

Alot of the people in this thread backing the killer also stood behind the BART officer when he clearly executed that guy on camera.
These people lack rational thought and their posts should not be taken seriously.

An adult shouldn't be using deadly force against a child. Let alone one that he likely outweighs by 80+ lbs. If there was indeed an altercation and he was on the losing end he should have taken his coward ass back home and re considered how he spent his free time.

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with you about the BART officer - I felt the evidence there was fairly clear that it was an accidental shooting and I thought the actual outcome (a conviction for involuntary manslaughter) was just and appropriate. I feel differently about this case, though it appears we will never have evidence as clear as the video evidence in the BART shooting.

 

[corwin]

An adult shouldn't be using deadly force against a child. Let alone one that he likely outweighs by 80+ lbs. If there was indeed an altercation and he was on the losing end he should have taken his coward ass back home and re considered how he spent his free time.

This "child", had this went the other way and he killed Zimmerman, would have been tried as an adult...plenty of "children" 17 and younger kill people all the time. And what does him being short and fat have to do with anything? The kid was lighter, faster and in much better shape...

Of all your arguments this one is the weakest

 

[cybrsage]

This "child", had this went the other way and he killed Zimmerman, would have been tried as an adult...plenty of "children" 17 and younger kill people all the time. And what does him being short and fat have to do with anything? The kid was lighter, faster and in much better shape...

Of all your arguments this one is the weakest

We all know that short, fat people routinely start physical fits with lighter, faster, in better shape people.

Oh wait, no, they usually don't...it is usually the other way around. My bad.

 

[dawheat]

wounds to front and back of head - sure he got his ass handed to him by a kid half his size
eye witness reports of Trey on top of zimmerman - eye witness reports they became separated
calls for help - agree, confirmed eye witness report that Martin cried for help
unable to disengage - eye witness report that contradicts this
forcible felony assault - agree, Martin exercising his right to self-defense against unlawful detainment
reasonable fear for life - agree, Martin fearing for his life and crying for help
justifiable found - agree, Martin exercising his right to self-defense against unlawful detainment

I think you guys really are just that stupid. See the facts. Listen to the FACT

I'm amazed how much we agree

 

[PokerGuy]

From my understanding the prosecution must establish that he committed the action that led to the kid's death beyond a reasonable doubt.

That makes sense, and I don't think there's going to be any dispute in this case that Z shot M.

Once that is established you then can get into whether or not a reasonable person would have feared for his life in that situation, but that burden is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that is a simple majority of the evidence. (and the burden of proof is on the defendent)

I was under the impression that in order to convict of a crime the jury has to be unanimous and the burden is "beyond reasonable doubt". Is that not true?

 

[Pens1566]

You disagree with my FACTS? Please tell me what crime was committed here other than forcible felony (backed up by evidence and eye witness accounts) by Trey?

You straddle somebody, viciously attacking them and beat them about their head don't be surprised if they shoot you. That is a fact of what happened, there is evidence and eye witness accounts that prove it.

Do you have any other evidence that would give even a shred of probable cause zimmerman committed a crime here? If so, please report it to the FL police and DA - they'd like to have it.

Proof of the bolded?

 

[fskimospy]

That makes sense, and I don't think there's going to be any dispute in this case that Z shot M.

I was under the impression that in order to convict of a crime the jury has to be unanimous and the burden is "beyond reasonable doubt". Is that not true?

You're talking about two different things. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the specific act. Ie: that burd there is no reasonable doubt that he pulled the trigger on the gun, which fired a bullet into the kid, from which he died. After that, we're done with reasonable doubt.

If the defendant is going to make an affirmative defense such as pleading insanity or self defense, the burden of proof for showing his exact state of mind in that way shifts to him. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the crime was committed (as this is implicitly accepted when you are arguing you shot him out of self defense), this has to do with why. In that case the prosecution no longer has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy was defending himself or insane or whatever, the defendant must prove he was acting in self defense.

 

[fskimospy]

For what it's worth, I totally disagree with you about the BART officer - I felt the evidence there was fairly clear that it was an accidental shooting and I thought the actual outcome (a conviction for involuntary manslaughter) was just and appropriate. I feel differently about this case, though it appears we will never have evidence as clear as the video evidence in the BART shooting.

I agree with this as well. How does anyone think that the BART officer suddenly decided to execute a suspect in front of dozens of witnesses? That's quite a stretch.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

From my understanding the prosecution must establish that he committed the action that led to the kid's death beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once that is established you then can get into whether or not a reasonable person would have feared for his life in that situation, but that burden is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that is a simple majority of the evidence. (and the burden of proof is on the defendent)

Here's Florida's self defense law. The burden of proof lies upon law enforcement.

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's Florida's self defense law. The burden of proof lies upon law enforcement.

Uhmm, no it doesn't.

Your quote is referring to the probable cause needed for arrest, it states nothing as to the burden of proof in a court of law necessary to establish that such force was lawful.

EDIT: While there might be some exceptions for specific cases in specific places, the burden of proof for an affirmative defense or insanity is on the person making the claim, ie: the defendant.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Uhmm, no it doesn't.

Your quote is referring to the probable cause needed for arrest, it states nothing as to the burden of proof in a court of law necessary to establish that such force was lawful.

EDIT: While there might be some exceptions for specific cases in specific places, the burden of proof for an affirmative defense or insanity is on the person making the claim, ie: the defendant.

Obviously the Police Chief feels they have the obligation to provide the burden of proof.

Police said they have not charged him because there are no grounds to disprove his story of what happened.


"The evidence and testimony we have so far does not establish that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self defense. We don't have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense, at this point, with the evidence and testimony that we have," Lee said.

 

[corwin]

Obviously the Police Chief feels they have the obligation to provide the burden of proof.

The mobs gathering down there don't agree with that at all...

"We call for an immediate arrest. We want him behind bars," Bryant said, referring to Zimmerman. "Because you have arrested a lot of black men without probable cause."

People seemed energized by Bryant's talk.

"If there is no justice...," Bryant said.

"There is no peace," the crowd shouted back in response.

Nice to see they don't care if it's not right to charge someone without cause since "it's happened to blacks before"

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-death-rally-20120314_1_shooting-death-bryant-chief-bill-lee