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

chicken and waffle

yeah i agree w/ aero & DJP on this one. again, even with that account, we probably know less than the jury did

"You stabbed me!" he accused McDonald.

"Yes, I did," McDonald replied.

This part just sticks out.

i've seen the confusing claim made that he essentially "ran into" the scissors, and everything i've read neatly elides what happened between "boxing stance" and "guy is bleeding"

that's probably because there's little agreement on what exactly happened there

Used to be that all cases of doubt were presumed to be in favor of the defendant -- that's still the law, but happens very little with defendants that juries don't like for whatever reason.

that's probably because there's little agreement on what exactly happened there
--10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer)

Well yeah

TWU- i'm not sure 'he assumed a boxing stance, then he ran into the blade i was holding' is enough to introduce what you'd call reasonable doubt.

That's not the only thing that happened, nor is it a direct quote from the defendant at trial. Throw the whole ugly situation together, including the defendant's propensity for violence, and you do not have a clear conviction.

We don't really have a clear anything.

well, granted, that's not the only thing that happened- if it was, we can assume that a plea-bargain of second degree manslaughter or w/e would not have been offered by the DA- who seems to have considered the facts and events available pretty carefully.

TWU does have a point

Also, an imperfect self-defense claim (the force was excessive or the threat was unreasonably but not maliciously perceived) is a pretty standard reason to depart downward from the minimum. She was not well-served by her attorneys, I think, and I imagine a good criminal appeals attorney might be interested in handling her case.

I know little about how criminal law works, but I'm surprised McDonald's lawyers failed to get Schmitz' criminal record entered into evidence. If this had gone to trial, the jury probably would have heard much less than us about Schmitz history of violence and his swastika tattoo. Who knows what way the jury would have gone with the evidence that would have been available to them. It's my impression McDonald would have been better served by attorneys who had more experience with this type of case.

speaking personally, this is a good example of how info pathways work. i used to live kinda near the schooner and i didn't know this happened until i saw some 'free cece' stuff on feminist/activist blogs. i don't really pay attention to local issues much, i have to admit.

(maybe this needs its own thread?)

TWU does have a point

maybe, but i don't know how true it is that "all cases of doubt were presumed to be in favor of the defendant" in the past. that's always been the ideal, but degree of doubt is crucial and can't be specified concretely, and i suspect that the ability to earn the sympathy of the judge/jury has always figured in.

given the consequences of possible conviction, the fact that defense took the plea doesn't seem like such a terrible error to me.

From Strange Tales, stuff compiled from around the Web by Roland Sweet for bwcitypaper.com, emph added, cos of the way it popped out at me:

Good News for Ted Nugent
Mayor Bob Buckhorn issued a list of items that will be considered security threats at this summer's Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. On it are masks, plastic or metal pipe, string more than six inches long, air pistols, and water pistols. Real pistols, however, are allowed. "If we'd tried to regulate guns, it wouldn't have worked," City Attorney Jim Shimberg said, noting that state law bans all restrictions on carrying firearms in public places. "Any local ordinance that regulates guns is void."

The very idea of any average joe in the street being casually able to carry a gun around just staggers me, coming from such a gunless culture as I do. I mean even seeing a cop in the street with their holstered pistol always gives me the creeps.

but think how much less creepy it would be if you knew that every other person around that cop was also carrying a gun

the couple of people i know who conceal-and-carry have both expressed directly to me that they only do it because most people on the street have a gun and they need to it to protect themselves. so there's a bit of wonky thinking going into the "i need a gun all the time" mindset.

Fear and paranoia and the Danning-Kruger effect

while we're digressing about guns, a friend of mine posted this on fb recently. http://boingboing.net/2012/05/09/german-police-fired-85-bullets.html

meanwhile, a single incident here in the US...

some perspective, imo

someone really needs to compile the US stats

if we were comparable to germany, we'd use about 330 a year. suspect it's a few more than that.

would be interesting to see estimates of how many bullets were fired by police and non-police per capita in different countries, wonder where we'd stand

Yeah the other day i was at the Dekalb Farmers Market around closing time and the security guy (I guess a cop, not 100% sure!) out front was packing a effing huge automatic rifle just patrolling the entrance/exit. The only thing that came close to that was when I was in Egypt and outside of the temples they have security with AK47s but then again those are priceless historical temples in deserts occupied by sometimes violent extremists.

yeah that was one of the things that really stressed me out in jerusalem, people in street clothes just standing around with uzis everywhere you went

are you sure that wasn't just an american patriot or something

maybe it was ... the neighborhood watch

but think how much less creepy it would be if you knew that every other person around that cop was also carrying a gun

I hope this was sarcasm.

;)

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/records-detail-george-zimmermans-medical-injuries/nN7Dh/

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. —

Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

...

According to an autopsy report, the only other injury Martin had aside from the fatal gunshot wound was broken skin on his knuckles.

daaaamn

so, yes, there was a fight. GZ was losing or lost it, then shot TM.

not great news for the prosecution :(

my prediction is that the judge and defense will tell the jurors over and over again "your job is bit to decide whether shooting tm was wrong but if it was breaking the letter of the law"

and then it will be an argument about the exact wording of feeling threatened that prosecution will lose

i don't know if it's even as difficult as that. seems that the defense just has to suggest that the incident takes place in two "acts" that should be considered independently: act 1) zimmerman's decision to follow and confront martin, and act 2) the subsequent struggle that led to zimmerman shooting martin.

even if zimmerman was "wrong" to follow and confront martin in act 1, he doesn't seem to have broken any major laws there. in act 2, if martin really did start beating zimmerman up for whatever reason, even if only because he was scared by zimmerman's behavior (and we'll never really know), then zimmerman was legally justified in shooting martin to defend himself.

^ not saying this is right or what should happen, just think that this is probably how the defense will handle it.

i wonder if they could even have the case dismissed on those grounds

depends on the order of events

a) fight breaks out, GZ pulls his gun during and shoots
b) fight breaks out, GZ pulls his gun, TM backs away, GZ shoots anyway
b) fight breaks out, fight basically ends, GZ gets up, pulls his gun and shoots

i mean, any number of scenarios fit the facts. b and c aren't really self-defense anymore (whether they still are legally, idk)

and the timeline if i'm remembering it right is 'fight,' 'zimmerman goes back to his truck to get gun,' shooting

ah yes, by his own admission?

eh i'm really sick of speculating about this myself

and the timeline if i'm remembering it right is 'fight,' 'zimmerman goes back to his truck to get gun,' shooting

that wasn't my understanding, but maybe i've missed something. i was under the impression that zimmerman's story is that he shot martin while martin was on top of and still attacking him.

yeah i agree w/ aero & DJP on this one. again, even with that account, we probably know less than the jury did

― dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, May 13, 2012

based on my limited experience of jury service, we probably know more

Wouldn't the 'stand your ground' law apply to TM? Regardless of if he even started the fight or what, it seems like a law that says "You can defend yourself if threatened, to the point of fatally shooting the threat" would apply if you were being followed around by a gun-toting guy in a car and then pursued on foot.

yeah, i think you're right. martin probably had a legal right to defend himself against the threat seemingly posed by zimmerman. and if martin took advantage of that permission, then it gave zimmerman the legal right to defend himself against martin. "stand your ground" seems to provide a legal excuse for war in the streets.

this conversation is exactly why this law is so fucked up (that is, self-cancelling).

Ah, but does that law make it OK to hit people or only shoot them? These distinctions are very important!

if shooting is okay i find it tough to believe that less than lethal forms of self defense wouldn't be, but idk the stand your ground laws are some nonsense to begin with

IIRC, you can shoot anyone in defense who is attacking you with a blunt or sharp instrument, but it's against the law to defend yourself with anything but a gun.

Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the the law is that fucking stupid.