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

George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872

The state is unlikely to prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him. Zimmerman's profiling of Martin and call to the non-emergency number were not contemporaneous with Martin's attack. Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin's use of force against him. Demanding someone account for their presence does not provoke the use of force. Even if it could be construed to be provocation for using force, all it means is Zimmerman had to attempt reasonable means to extricate himself before using deadly force in response. W-6's steadfast insistence that Zimmerman was struggling to get up and out from under Trayvon, right before the shot went off, fulfills that requirement. Zimmerman will say the same. And no witnesses saw anything different.

Zimmerman should prevail on classic self-defense at trial regardless of stand your ground. Raising stand your ground before trial gives him the possibility of a quicker win, and the opportunity to preview the state's strategy before it gets to a jury.

think it's important to remember that the big issue was that there even be a trial, not a conviction.

yes i agree

otoh hand, it's likely the main reason there was no trial in the first place is that no one thought charges against zimmerman would actually lead to conviction

cops don't think that way

and they didn't arrest him

can't charge somebody who hasn't been arrested

true, but i assume the cops would have arrested him if it had read as anything other than self-defense to them.

^ acknowledge that's a major goalpoast-shift, and that the cops might have been motivated by racism, laziness, whatever.

just maybe

also, regardless of the actions of cops on the scene, prosecutors could have encouraged the police to arrest zimmerman at any point, and might have done so if they imagined that charges would result in a conviction (still not discounting racism, laziness, ignorance, etc).

The sad upshot of this is that, clearly, "I am getting my ass pwned by a black teenager" is going to be considered a legitimate stand your ground/self defense situation for shooting someone dead, but "I am getting followed around and challenged by some dude I've never seen who is not a cop" is NOT a legitimate stand your ground/self defense situation for beating someone's ass. RIP America.

yes, being physically attacked provides better legal justification for a violent response than being followed and verbally challenged

think it's important to remember that the big issue was that there even be a trial, not a conviction.

― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:59 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^^^^

Ground is either standable, or it's not.

Swamp!

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/62/6262/RFF5100Z/posters/mike-twohy-how-much-ground-do-you-want-to-stand-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg

thought this was funny, in any event

Talkleft blogpost is the worst kind of idiot lawyer-roleplaying commentary and should be ignored completely. Zimmerman will still be acquitted.

well maybe, but it's the only thing i've seen that walks through all the available evidence

It makes my head spin to think that in the US, there are legitimate situations where a person can shoot and KILL another person, and that lead to not even being *arrrested* let alone charged/jailed. It just... I can't process that.

It's worse than that. You can be shot and injured after making a drunken mistake, then charged with felony trespass, while the person who shot you goes uncharged thanks to a law charmingly called the "Make My Day" law.

How is that worse

I thought it was kind of a given you could shoot some stranger who broke into your bedroom in the middle of the night.

Fuck, I would-no questions asked

It's worse than that. You can be shot and injured after making a drunken mistake, then charged with felony trespass, while the person who shot you goes uncharged thanks to a law charmingly called the "Make My Day" law.

ha this reads to me as a wonky negative version about the story of the burglar who broke into someone's house, stole all his/her belongings, slipped on ice as he was leaving, and sued the homeowner for injuries.

yo if you get fucked up and start wandering into people's houses you forego the right to complain about what happens. in a perfect world your drunk ass finds a compassionate person who tries to point you on your way. in this world if a stranger wanders into my house I will beat that stranger's ass real bad, gtfo w/"it's even worse, you can't actually trespass into people's houses & not get charged"

It's worse than that. You can be shot and injured after making a drunken mistake, then charged with felony trespass, while the person who shot you goes uncharged thanks to a law charmingly called the "Make My Day" law.

how is this so bad?

people should not be allowed to have guns

I'm not even debating that point max, I'm wondering why it's worse to get shot and charged with a crime than it is to get killed

I'm not touching that point.

xpost

"oh my god, my daughter is dead"
"well you know it could be worse, she could be alive but injured and charged with a crime"
"too true, too true..."

OK, "worse" was a shitty choice of words and outright wrong. I'm just sick of seeing the endpoint of all conflict resolution in this country being "Git yer gun!" and the rhetorical strategy of naming these laws "stand your ground," "make my day" and so forth that let morons feel like heroes.

Should drunk people be able to just wander into your house? No. Should it be a potentially lethal offense? No.

make my bed law needed in Ohio

http://news.yahoo.com/video/oddnews-22772304/ohio-family-s-home-broken-into-by-a-cleaning-fairy-who-tidied-up-and-left-a-bill-behind-29511535.html

x-post
the trick here is being able to know whether someone is a drunk wanderer or a home invader--maybe too much to ask of someone so groggy

im not arguing with anyone in particular! if you own a gun and you shoot someone in your house chances are its a friend or family member. im glad we can all agree on our collective right to violently defend against home invasion with masculine brio we should all just do it with baseball bats or something

I always keep my hardcover copy of The Magic Mountain by the sliding glass door for just such an emergency.

Also charging with felony trespass seems a bit excessive. Where I live, for trespass to be considered a felony, you have to be committing trespass with the intent of committing another crime. I can't imagine it's much different in other jurisdictions.

xp if you're that groggy you probably maybe shouldn't be using a firearm.

It's difficult to know – from this end – how I'd respond if I caught someone entering my apartment when my niece happened to be sleeping over.

x-post oh come the f on

So when you say it may be too much to ask, are you suggesting they should err in the favour of "home invader"?

i'm saying they can't be prosecuted if they do

I don't think the counter argument here is so much "what happened to this girl is a-OK awesome and I am totally sanguine with every facet of this case" as much as it is "don't get so drunk that you wander into someone else's house and get shot"

I mean, I think the correct solution to this is that this girl should recover from getting shot and get sentenced to probation for non-felony trespassing, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Ah okay - I thought you were saying they shouldn't be.

You know how in British murder mysteries when someone dies, they have to have an inquest? For any homicide, at least, they should have some kind of investigation more public and more transparent than a phone conversation between a police captain and the DA's office.

I have zero respect for the kind of demagogue 'touch guy' prosecutor who wants to waste tax payer dollars on prosecuting someone who was legitimately shot for trespassing while blind drunk. Presumably the getting shot part will be retribution enough for her mistake and I presume there wasn't a shred of malice involved so why waste their time and our rescources?

touch guy = tough guy

like I said, if any type of prosecution happens it doesn't make sense to me that anything aside from probation should be put on the table considering it was a mistake and she got shot

ILX otm. sad that wandering drunk girl got shot, but the homeowner didn't do anything wrong, imo. felony trespass charges seem absurdly excessive. i'm okay with individual gun ownership (especially for hunters and in rural areas), but feel that it ought to be heavily restricted and monitored.

def gives new meaning to getting hammered and shouting the lyrics to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtTEibFvlQ&ob=av2e

makes you wonder how much time elapsed between shouting at her and pulling the trigger