Trayvon Martin case: FL stand-your-ground law on trial

[skipper]

Trouble is, there is no a shred of credible evidence that GZ initiated any aggression.  Trying him for the murder of TM is just as baseless as you or I being tried for that murder.

Self-defense is still an affirmative defense and it's not black and white here as to whether GZ can establish such an affirmative defense.  A prima facie case of murder is pretty easy to establish here - GZ doesn't dispute he shot TM and it's a fact that TM is dead.  The question is whether GZ can establish he acted in self defense.  Florida law prohibits criminal prosecution under these circumstances here unless there's probable cause that the use of lethal force in self defense was not justified.  Here, I suspect it probably was, but it's by no means black and white.

It is an abuse of goverment power to submit someone to the whim of a jury (and in this case a judge) when there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Don't forget, even if GZ did something provocative (purely speculative), all evidence points to TM being the one who elevated the aggression to the point of it being life threatening, thus granting GZ a license to kill in self defense.

I also don't think it's 100% clear that the force was life threatening.  Just because a head wound can theoretically be lethal doesn't mean that each and every head wound justifies the use of deadly force.  GZ had some cuts on his head and there was some blood, but anyone who's had or seen head wounds in a fight knows that even the smallest cut on the head will put out a lot of blood, especially during a fight when your heart rate is up and the blood is pumping full force.  I'm a bit suspect that a broken nose and a few minor cuts can (or should) rise to the level of justifying lethal force.  Now, if they can establish he was slamming his head into the ground or something along those lines (as opposed to his head scraped the ground during the scuffle), he would certainly have a stronger case. 

In any event, I fail to see how this case is black and white (or how invoking the Constitution is at all relevant).  Hm, bad analogy - I meant that figuratively, not literally. 

Gz is here to testify and TM is not. The way I read the Stand Your Ground law posted GZ has a very good chance of declaring self defense and will walk. If there is no solid evidence in TM's favor, he should not be tried according to Florida law. But what if........

[bozwell]

I agree that there's a good chance he walks.  I'd disagree that there's no evidence in TM's favor.  The question is really whether deadly force was justified.  A broken nose and some minor cuts may or may not give rise to the use of deadly force.  That's what the jury has to sort out.  If we were talking serious lacerations, skull fractures, or something of that nature, the injuries would likely speak for themselves.  But a minor cut, even one that produces quite a bit of blood (as head wounds tend to do), isn't really that serious.  Nor is a broken nose.  Frankly, I would consider that type of injury to be almost routine in any sort of fist fight, and not necessarily egregious or rising to the level where it justifies lethal force.  If they can establish other facts though, such as "slamming his head into the ground", that would tip the balance in GZ's favor.

Anyways, it's all speculative at this point.  We just need to wait and see what happens.

[skipper]

I agree that there's a good chance he walks.  I'd disagree that there's no evidence in TM's favor.  The question is really whether deadly force was justified.  A broken nose and some minor cuts may or may not give rise to the use of deadly force.  That's what the jury has to sort out.  If we were talking serious lacerations, skull fractures, or something of that nature, the injuries would likely speak for themselves.  But a minor cut, even one that produces quite a bit of blood (as head wounds tend to do), isn't really that serious.  Nor is a broken nose.  Frankly, I would consider that type of injury to be almost routine in any sort of fist fight, and not necessarily egregious or rising to the level where it justifies lethal force.  If they can establish other facts though, such as "slamming his head into the ground", that would tip the balance in GZ's favor.

Anyways, it's all speculative at this point.  We just need to wait and see what happens.

TM may have been telling GZ just what all he was going to do to him as he was banging his head and breaking his nose. Had TM beat GZ to death we would not even have heard about it. WE shall see, there are a lot of politics invovled in this one.

[th3ug1y0n3]

Who know maybe Obama will jump in and just have GM found guilty and then envoke executive privledge. 

[Skookum]

Self-defense is still an affirmative defense and it's not black and white here as to whether GZ can establish such an affirmative defense.  A prima facie case of murder is pretty easy to establish here - GZ doesn't dispute he shot TM and it's a fact that TM is dead.  The question is whether GZ can establish he acted in self defense.  Florida law prohibits criminal prosecution under these circumstances here unless there's probable cause that the use of lethal force in self defense was not justified.  Here, I suspect it probably was, but it's by no means black and white.

In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The victim is dead;
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

We can agree that criterion #1 is met.  Perhaps you can provide prima facie evidence the #2 and #3 are met?  A corrupt prosecutor filed an inadequate and unethical petition that was accepted by what we now know is a judge found to be biased against GZ.  There is no credible evidence that GZ committed a crime in killing TM; in fact, all the credible evidence points to the contrary.  There is no evidence at all that GZ killed TM in a state of depravity with no regard for human life.  The prosecutor and judge deprived GZ of justice because they fear the threat of a racist riot.  So much for equal protection under the law in Floriduh.

I also don't think it's 100% clear that the force was life threatening.  Just because a head wound can theoretically be lethal doesn't mean that each and every head wound justifies the use of deadly force.  GZ had some cuts on his head and there was some blood, but anyone who's had or seen head wounds in a fight knows that even the smallest cut on the head will put out a lot of blood, especially during a fight when your heart rate is up and the blood is pumping full force.  I'm a bit suspect that a broken nose and a few minor cuts can (or should) rise to the level of justifying lethal force.  Now, if they can establish he was slamming his head into the ground or something along those lines (as opposed to his head scraped the ground during the scuffle), he would certainly have a stronger case.

How many bone-breaking, head wound-creating blows to the head are you willing to absorb before concluding either that you are under threat of death or grievous bodily harm?  With all due respect, you are free to absorb as many as you like, but if you respond with a number greater than one, I must conclude that your genetic fitness is rather low.

Don't forget that GZ yelled for help for more than 40 sec, and only remembered that he was armed whem TM noticed his pistol, informed GZ that he was going to die, and attempted to steal his weapon.  Are you also willing to give a bad guy who informs you he intends to kill you your carry weapon?  Feel free to be generous and turn the other cheek (for the final time), but even Floriduh law doesn't require that, Castle Doctrine or not.

In any event, I fail to see how this case is black and white (or how invoking the Constitution is at all relevant).  Hm, bad analogy - I meant that figuratively, not literally. 

The case is B&W because there is insufficient evidence to charge GZ with murder.  Because of fear of or sympathies with the riotous racists, the prosecutor and judge have ignored the law and the facts.  How long the injustice system will persecute GZ remains to be seen.  As has been noted in this thread, there are good reasons to question the competence of GZ's attorney, which doesn't bode well for either GZ or ultimately the law (and thus Floriduh society) to prevail.

I mentioned the Constitution because it, along with many of this country's laws (at all levels), are frequently ignored -- we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men.  GZ's persecution demonstrates this perfectly -- his individual rights are being sacrificed to appease the riotous masses consisting of racists, anti-gunners, and bleeding-heart progressives.

Now gosh darn it, please tell me what finish you have on that good-looking CZ 82 of yours.  I have one on the way and am pondering how to refinish it if it needs refinishing.

[Skookum]

Gz is here to testify and TM is not. The way I read the Stand Your Ground law posted GZ has a very good chance of declaring self defense and will walk. If there is no solid evidence in TM's favor, he should not be tried according to Florida law. But what if........

Who's fault is it that TM can't testify?  Then again, his body testified to his offensive behavior (the wounds on his knuckles) and his drug-addled lifestyle (the THC in his body fluids).  Was he tested for Purple Drank?  I haven't read that he was.  Perhaps there is still more his corpse can say.  GZ's attorney is going after TM's social internet contents, which aren't pretty.

Given that the prosecutor has shown herself to be corrupt and so has the judge, I would imagine GZ is likely suffering from tyrannical government-induced PTSD.  In addition, he is financially ruined, the media has trashed his reputation, and his prospects for a long, healthy life, whatever the legal outcome, are not good.  The only bright spot I can see is that a highly politicized and racist US Justice Department hate crime investigation came out in GZ's favor (as the facts necessitated).  I hope the state takes that as a signal to start following the law from here on out.

[skipper]

Gz is here to testify and TM is not. The way I read the Stand Your Ground law posted GZ has a very good chance of declaring self defense and will walk. If there is no solid evidence in TM's favor, he should not be tried according to Florida law. But what if........

Who's fault is it that TM can't testify?  Then again, his body testified to his offensive behavior (the wounds on his knuckles) and his drug-addled lifestyle (the THC in his body fluids).  Was he tested for Purple Drank?  I haven't read that he was.  Perhaps there is still more his corpse can say.  GZ's attorney is going after TM's social internet contents, which aren't pretty.

Given that the prosecutor has shown herself to be corrupt and so has the judge, I would imagine GZ is likely suffering from tyrannical government-induced PTSD.  In addition, he is financially ruined, the media has trashed his reputation, and his prospects for a long, healthy life, whatever the legal outcome, are not good.  The only bright spot I can see is that a highly politicized and racist US Justice Department hate crime investigation came out in GZ's favor (as the facts necessitated).  I hope the state takes that as a signal to start following the law from here on out.

So, our Floriduh laws worked with the exception of media mania and the biased prosecutor and imcompetent judge. I agree, we have a real problem with all of the down here. Don't have a CZ 82 but have had serious thoughts for a CZ 83.

[bozwell]

You might be surprised how case law interprets those provisions of the statute Skook.  A plain-english reading of acting with a "depraved mind" sounds pretty extreme, but you have to look at how that language has been interpreted by the Florida courts.  I don't want to get into a serious legal debate over this, but this is an excerpt from Florida's jury instructions regarding the third element:

A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

Shooting someone - that's reasonably certain to kill or cause serious bodily injury, and pointing a gun and pulling the trigger certainly indicates an indifference to human life.  The prosecutor will argue (right or wrong) that GZ had ill will or spite against TM due to losing the fight, possibly prejudice, and whatever else he comes up with.  I'm not saying he'll be successful in proving it, but it's not the elevated requirement a plain-english reading of those words would lead one to believe.

The criminal act is simply GZ pointing his gun at TM and pulling the trigger, and will be pretty easy to establish.  Now, as I said before, GZ can still show that he acted in self defense and use this as a defense to the second degree murder charges, and he probably has a good chance of proving such a defense, but the prosecutor's prima facie case isn't that difficult to show.

[Spirit 1]

Related news, push for repeal of Florida Stand Your Ground Law:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/stand-ground-florida-law/2012/09/14/id/451888

[CheapShot]

Who know maybe Obama will jump in and just have GM found guilty and then envoke executive privledge.

Would not surprise me.

[Skookum]

[T]his is an excerpt from Florida's jury instructions regarding the third element:

A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

Let's examine the above three points needed to meet element 3.

First, can we expect a person of ordinary judgment to think like you or I might be thinking behind the security of our computer screens when he has taken a brutal,  40+ second beating?  I think not.  I think a person of ordinary judgment under such circumstances would not be thinking solely of self preservation, of making the beating stop.

Second, there is nothing in GZ's behavior, before or after the incident, that points to any ill will, hatred, etc. on his part.  In fact, the politicized and racist US Justice Dept investigate him in the hope of finding some scintilla of evidence of such in order to bring federal hate crime charges against GZ.  The corrupt federal agency came up empty.  (Not a shock, given that GZ himself is black.)

Third, the fact that GZ allowed a threatening thus to close within striking distance of him, allowed himself to be subjected to a brutal, 40+ second beating, and only drew his weapon after TM tried to steal it from him while announcing his intent to use it on GZ to murder him shows great restraint on GZ's part that must be rooted in a respect for human life.  Further, the fact that he shot only once shows additional restraint rooted in a respect for life.  No self-defense expert would endorse anything less than a double tap under the circumstance (as the menacing and drugged TM closed to striking distance).

All three points must be satisfied to satisfy element 3, yet not a single point is met.  Further, element 3 does not stand alone; all three elements must be met, but only one is -- TM is dead.  Element 2 is not met, because it is not a crime to point a gun at someone who is beating you and threatening to murder you.

[Skookum]

Related news, push for repeal of Florida Stand Your Ground Law:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/stand-ground-florida-law/2012/09/14/id/451888

" Many Florida residents support the law and believe it saves law-abiding citizens from protracted criminal trials for crimes they did not commit."

The GZ case proves that the law doesn't need to be repealed, it needs to be strengthened.

[bozwell]

Skook, all of your points above are valid and that's likely what GZ's attorney will argue.  When looking at a legal dispute though, you really have to put your own opinion aside though and look at what other valid arguments the other side can make.  You're taking your view of the facts and judging, based on your own view of the facts, that the prosecution can't make a primary case.  That's just not how it works. 

There are facts the prosecution can argue that cut the other way, and when establishing a prima facie case for purposes of determining whether you can bring charges like this, you construe the facts favorably for the prosecution.  GZ initiated pursuit and brought his gun with him.  At some point, for some reason, he got out of his vehicle to confront TM.  There's no concrete evidence other than GZ's testimony that TM tried to steal his weapon from its holster.  GZ was wounded in the fight, but we're talking fairly minor wounds that are typical for someone who's been in a fist fight, and they're wounds that 99% of people walk away from.  At some point, a fist fight can turn lethal, but it's up to a jury to really determine whether that was the case here.  A broken nose and a couple cuts?   Maybe.

Anyways, I see no point hashing this out further.  I don't necessarily disagree with you on the outcome, but I don't think you completely understand how the law/legal system works in this scenario, and we're not going to get anywhere debating it like this.

[Skookum]

When looking at a legal dispute though, you really have to put your own opinion aside though and look at what other valid arguments the other side can make.

I have seen the arguments the other side is making.  They are rooted in emotion, are erroneous or illogical, and are backed by government corruption.

There are facts the prosecution can argue that cut the other way, and when establishing a prima facie case for purposes of determining whether you can bring charges like this, you construe the facts favorably for the prosecution.  GZ initiated pursuit and brought his gun with him.

There is no evidence that GZ pursued TM, and there is audio evidence indicating he did not do so.  On the contrary, there is evidence that TM stalked GZ.  There is nothing nefarious about carrying a gun, especially if you hold an appropriate permit.

At some point, for some reason, he got out of his vehicle to confront TM.

The point and reason for GZ exiting gis vehicle is known and documented on audio tape.  It was not for purpose of pursuit.  Words have meaning, except among the modern corrupt media and in corrupt courtrooms.

There's no concrete evidence other than GZ's testimony that TM tried to steal his weapon from its holster.

Then you must explain, if GZ had malicious intent, why he did not draw his weapon before allowing TM to close within striking distance (audio informs us that GZ was under the impression that TM was armed) and suffered a lengthy and brutal beating.

GZ was wounded in the fight, but we're talking fairly minor wounds that are typical for someone who's been in a fist fight, and they're wounds that 99% of people walk away from.  At some point, a fist fight can turn lethal, but it's up to a jury to really determine whether that was the case here.  A broken nose and a couple cuts?   Maybe.

How many blows to your head are you willing to absorb before you take measures to defend yourself?  Assume the victim is your wife or daughter -- how many punches to her face and slams of her head against the pavement are you willing to demand she suffer before you grant her permission to defend herself?

Anyways, I see no point hashing this out further.

Of course not, as the prosecution doesn't have a leg to stand on.  In my experience, the side that resorts to corruption does so because the law and facts are not on their side.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the outcome, but I don't think you completely understand how the law/legal system works in this scenario, and we're not going to get anywhere debating it like this.

I understand legal corruption when I see it.  I also know that apologizing for such corruption fosters more corruption, and when the corruption jeopardizes gun rights America loses.

Thanks for the info on EFW.  They either do exceptional work or take amazingly great photos or both.

[bozwell]

How many blows to your head are you willing to absorb before you take measures to defend yourself?

It's a question of how one defends himself and whether lethal force was justified.  No one disputes that GZ could fight back.  The question is whether the law allows GZ to escalate this fist fight and to use lethal force.

There's no evidence of head slams beyond 2 small cuts on the back of his head.  If his head was getting SLAMMED against the ground, he'd have bruising, large contusions, perhaps even a concussion.  Instead, he got a black eye, a broken nose and a couple small cuts.  I suspect his head scraped the ground when he got hit, but that's a farcry from him getting his head slammed on pavement. 

What's clear is GZ did lose the fight.  Did he get punched?  Yes.  Did he end up on the ground?  Yes.  Was his life in imminent danger?  Who knows.  I've seen fist fights with way worse injuries than GZ sustained and no one was worried about someone dying. 

Assume the victim is your wife or daughter -- how many punches to her face and slams of her head against the pavement are you willing to demand she suffer before you grant her permission to defend herself?

What if TM wasn't a 160lb male, but what if instead he was a WEREWOLF!  Then surely GZ could defend himself right?  Changing the facts gets us no where - this wasn't a little girl fighting, this was 2 equally sized guys in a fist fight.  Talking about GZ being someone's wife or child is nonsense.

As far as why he got out of the car, yes, it's clear why - he lost sight of TM and went looking for him.     What's abundantly clear is that GZ could have avoided this encounter if he chose to do so.  He didn't.

Also, talk of legal corruption and the like is just nonsense here.  If I've seen any corruption involved so far, it's GZ attempting to circumvent his bail through shady money transfers and lying under oath.  This isn't an open and shut case of self defense, nor is it some racially motivated hate crime.  It's a fist fight that escalated to a shooting, and it's not clear that the shooter is free from any and all blame for this outcome.  How much blame, if any, requires a jury to sort it out.  While it's unlikely 2nd degree murder sticks, I'm still not convinced a lesser charge of manslaughter is not appropriate for GZ.