Let's talk about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and how unbelievably fucked up this all is

I'm no lawyer, but what do her claims in the charge matter before she gets into the court to prove them? I read all those take-aways, and the implication is mostly just that she's made claims that will be hard to back up. To which I say: so? Isn't that why we have trials? Between her claims and Zimmerman's, I think I'd at least give her's the benefit of the doubt. Which isn't to say, full credence. Just perhaps the benefit of the doubt, give the alternative is the neighborhood vigilante who killed a guy.

I don't see how the defense gets around the "Zimmerman pursued a guy in direct defiance of the police" angle

like the whole pursuit invalidates the self-defense claim

i have been thinking about that exchange a lot. from memory it is:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Yeah, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: OK.

The dispatcher is speaking in this diplomatic/ironic kind of way. It's the way your manager would talk to you. Read literally -- and I'm going to make the assumption that GZ is a rather literal-minded person -- the dispatcher's words contain no elements of command at all. So GZ just saying "OK" may only mean he heard what was just said, not that he is agreeing to the implicit command not to follow TM.

the pursuit itself is kind of more damning than any perceived disobedience tho... no?

following someone is sort of the opposite of self-defense

"Affidavit = FAIL."

except that he's claiming he went back to his car, when trayvon randomly attacked him

xp

The parse is: was he explicitly told not to pursue? That's a legal distinctive, of course, to be debated. But then, I assume they also have recordings of the other 40 times he called the cops on people, and I imagine they will be fair game. Hell, for all we know he's killed someone before but was never arrested, given how this went down. Total conjecture, obviously, but who knows, considering we're dealing with exactly that scenario.

One of the elements of this case is GZ's persistent and regular calls to the police. Knowing that, here's some conjecture: that police dispatch generally or even this individual dispatcher knew who they were on the phone with at the time? And so were speaking with kid gloves, so to speak?

Kinda wonder how this dispatcher feels about all this. Had he just said "Sir, please stop following him," who knows...

xps I guess I'm taking it for granted that GZ's story of going back to his car and then being attacked is a lie. But I don't know that either.

it's about as ridiculous as the other assault defenses I've heard in court, tbh

(my favorite being "I was asleep, and then I was startled awake and flailed my arms a bit and that's how she got all the bruises on her face, the split lip, and her hair pulled out")

I'm tentatively assuming that the legal experts quoted in the Agitator piece goole linked know enough about the typical structure of such indictments and the evidence outlined in this one to speak with some authority, especially given what seems to be (?) their consensus on its deficiencies. Their collective suggestion that the indictment is surprisingly fact-light is at least somewhat convincing to me.

"Tentatively" is crucial here, though. Some of those quotations read more like politicized spin than credible "expert legal opinion". This ridiculous piece of trolling, for instance:

Last week saw the arrest of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin. How far we’ve come since 1963: here the protesters, rather than being willing to go to jail for their principles, wanted the government to put a man in jail for their principles.

yeah no one wanted to put Lester Maddox in jail amirite

well it is radley balko so there are some libertarians in the mix there

The parse is: was he explicitly told not to pursue?

you'd have to be a total idiot (=much of the jury pool, likely) to think that he wasn't.

disagree. you'd merely have to make a distinction between advice and instruction. and even as advice, the dispatcher's phrasing pretty mild. zimmerman was never told directly/explicitly not to pursue martin, only that the police didn't "need" him to do that.

i guess now 9-1-1 operators are going to have to remember to say "DO NOT FOLLOW HIM"

Z's lawyer would, naturally, emphasize these tiny distinctions so the jury would be given every opportunity to let Z off the hook, if they were emotionally inclined to. This is what constitutes 'the law', as she is practised in real life.

you'd have to be a total idiot (=much of the jury pool, likely) to think that he wasn't.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:02 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

o_O

"you don't have to do that" = explicit command to all but the most complete of idiots huh

are you familiar with these people called "lawyers"?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9F5RAk30cJ0/TNn-uWrs04I/AAAAAAAAAeM/BmCfnSVoels/s320/Unfrozen%2BCaveman%2BLawyer

"you don't have to do that" = explicit command to all but the most complete of idiots huh

no. it is, quite literally, an implicit suggestion. and that's all it is. if the dispatcher didn't want zimmerman to follow martin, they fucked up.

"Did you tell him to stay in his car?"

"No, but ..."

"So you did not tell him to stay in his car?"

"Any idiot would know what I meant."

"But you did not tell him?"

"No, sir, I did not tell him to stay in his car."

"What did you tell him, then?"

"That 'you do not need to do that'"

"You said 'Need to do that." But you did not explicitly tell him not to do that?"

"No, sir."

"So is it possible that he understood pursuit as an option, having not been explicitly told to stay in his car?'

"I suppose so."

"You suppose so? How about a yes or no."

"I guess yes."

"You guess?"

"Yes, he may not have understood he should have stayed in the car."

"Because you did not explicitly tell him to stay in the car? Is that possible?"

"Yes, it is possible."

"Thank you. Your honor, I rest my case."

(Please send Emmy c/o Josh in Chicago)

So if a 911 Dispatcher DOESN'T tell you not to follow somebody, then yeah, you can literally get away with murder.

I'm really hoping that isn't the case. This fucking law. If more states start to adopt it, we should just rename the country to USA: BEYOND THUNDERDOME.

This case is unwinnable for the prosecution because of the botched (which is to say complete lack of) police investigation and late arrest. No number of righteous dudes screaming about what any idiot would know can change that. The prosecution's actions, including the filing of an affidavit that doesn't amount to 2d degree murder prima facie, are not about getting a conviction -- it's too late for it, and Florida never wanted one -- but about preventing riots and Federal action against Florida authorities. We'll see if that works when the acquittal or dismissal happen.

If the system works correctly, there will be an acquittal; people should still think that Zimmerman is an asshole, fight to change the Kill Your Neighbor law, and held the police accountable for garbage like this (and keep challenging Police Worship wherever you see it.)

So if a 911 Dispatcher DOESN'T tell you not to follow somebody, then yeah, you can literally get away with murder.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:56 AM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh dear

disagree. you'd merely have to make a distinction between advice and instruction. and even as advice, the dispatcher's phrasing pretty mild. zimmerman was never told directly/explicitly not to pursue martin, only that the police didn't "need" him to do that.

this is almost worse than your Manson defense

for one thing, a 911 dispatcher doesn't have the ability to give a citizen orders ffs

This case is unwinnable for the prosecution because of the botched (which is to say complete lack of) police investigation and late arrest. No number of righteous dudes screaming about what any idiot would know can change that. The prosecution's actions, including the filing of an affidavit that doesn't amount to 2d degree murder prima facie, are not about getting a conviction -- it's too late for it, and Florida never wanted one -- but about preventing riots and Federal action against Florida authorities. We'll see if that works when the acquittal or dismissal happen.

If the system works correctly, there will be an acquittal; people should still think that Zimmerman is an asshole, fight to change the Kill Your Neighbor law, and held the police accountable for garbage like this (and keep challenging Police Worship wherever you see it.)

― Three Word Username, Monday, April 16, 2012 11:26 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

bingo

I'm no lawyer, but what do her claims in the charge matter before she gets into the court to prove them? I read all those take-aways, and the implication is mostly just that she's made claims that will be hard to back up. To which I say: so? Isn't that why we have trials? Between her claims and Zimmerman's, I think I'd at least give her's the benefit of the doubt. Which isn't to say, full credence. Just perhaps the benefit of the doubt, give the alternative is the neighborhood vigilante who killed a guy.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, April 16, 2012 12:52 PM (Yesterday)

liberals m/l putting the burden of proof on the accused is such a shitty look, lets not do this

the pursuit itself is kind of more damning than any perceived disobedience tho... no?

― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, April 16, 2012 1:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

following someone is sort of the opposite of self-defense

― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, April 16, 2012 1:04 PM (Yesterday)

kind of yeah, the main author of the bill and the governor who signed it into law pretty much have said that, given the available facts, what happened here is not what the law was meant to cover.

haven't been following the case in the last week or so but wasn't there supposed to be a special hearing on whether the stand your ground law applied to this case?

oh yeah three word username m/l otm

this is almost worse than your Manson defense

...for one thing, a 911 dispatcher doesn't have the ability to give a citizen orders ffs

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, April 16, 2012 9:36 PM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not sure what the point of comparison might be. my manson "defense" (though i wouldn't use that word) was largely about my personal feelings regarding an obvious crazy man's decades-long incarceration in high-security solitary confinement. it was by and large a moral argument. the statement to which you're responding, otoh, had nothing to do with my feelings and/or moral values. it was a simple and objective estimation of the martin case's legal realities.

personally, on a moral level, i feel that they should lock zimmerman up for the rest of his fucking life. but i don't think that's gonna happen. this guess has nothing to do with the severity of zimmerman's crime and everything to do with the botched police response and investigation.

i don't really know, but it may be that the dispatcher didn't have the authority to give zimmerman orders. i wasn't addressing that. my only point was that, with or without authority to do so, the dispatcher gave no "orders" at all. the dispatcher should have told zimmerman in no uncertain terms not to follow marting. but this didn't happen. he or she only made a vague suggestion, and in doing so fucked the prosecution's chance to argue that zimmerman disobeyed what should have been a direct police order.

I'm no lawyer, but what do her claims in the charge matter before she gets into the court to prove them? I read all those take-aways, and the implication is mostly just that she's made claims that will be hard to back up. To which I say: so? Isn't that why we have trials? Between her claims and Zimmerman's, I think I'd at least give her's the benefit of the doubt. Which isn't to say, full credence. Just perhaps the benefit of the doubt, give the alternative is the neighborhood vigilante who killed a guy.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, April 16, 2012 12:52 PM (Yesterday)

the point made by all those expert analyses linked upthread is that indictments typically outline the evidence to be presented, and that the failure of this particular indictment to support itself with such evidence makes the prosecution's case look shaky at best, desperate at worst.

IIRC it wasn't only "we don't need you to do that"--the dispatcher explicitly told zimmerman they'd be sending a squad car and that they would take over from here. that is, several times the dispatcher indicated that this was now a police matter. even if the dispatcher was simply giving him "advice" i think ignoring that advice and pursuing somebody goes some way toward indicating what zimmerman was doing in this situation.

oh, i think we all know what he was doing. and that he flat fucking murdered trayvon martin. the problem is that the dispatcher's response makes it impossible very difficult to convincingly argue in a court of law that zimmerman disobeyed police orders.

911 operators aren't police officers, as far as I know. Even if she had said stay the fuck away he wouldn't have been disobeying a police order. (My sister did this for a while, and never was a cop).

sure, but that's missing the point. if the dispatcher had said, clearly, "DO NOT FOLLOW, SIT TIGHT AND WAIT", then it would be possible to argue that zimmerman disobeyed a direct order from an authoritative source. since the dispatcher did not do this, the opportunity to argue that zimmerman disobeyed a direct order vanishes.

and the affidavit says the 911 operation gave an "instruction" not to follow, which is simply not what happened.

i.e. the affidavit is kinda sketchy on that point at least

x-post to contenderizer
Although that would have been better, I'm not so sure would matter much in court, if GZ has a good lawyer (not really an authoritative source). Mostly I'm chiming in because people seem to be treating the operators as full police officers.

The lack of any timely police investigation pretty much hampers this trial. If the idea of the trial is to deflect public outcry,

about preventing riots and Federal action against Florida authorities

Frankly, if those goes before a jury, then who knows at this point. I can imagine it going any way. I think a lot will hinge on those previous 911 calls of GZ, whether they can depict him as aggressive and erratic and, like I said, who knows, maybe this is not his first Stand Your Ground defense.

If GZ is acquitted due to police inaction or incompetence, does Trayvon's family have any standing for a civil suit?

A question out of ignorance - if GZ has previously legally shot someone, is that admissible evidence?

I *think* it would require several shootings to establish a patern.

Josh: oh my yes. A bunch of suits against a bunch of people, governments, and organizations. You can expect those with or without the likely acquittal.

"if those goes before a jury" -- a very big if. I'd be working on a motion to dismiss if I were Z's attorney, and I'd like my chances.

nobody's watching the bond hearing?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/69332322/live/LIVE-VIDEO-Zimmerman-bond-hearing

ruling just came down. 150k bond, electronic monitoring, GPS. no contact w/victim's family, no firearms possession, no consumption of alcohol, 7 p.m. curfew, check in with monitor q3d