Federal authorities have announced that they are now intervening in the investigation of the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. That will certainly enhance the completion of forensic evidence, which we discussed earlier as critical to a case like this one. I have previously cautioned that this is not such an easy case as has been suggested, even with the 911 tapes. One of the greatest barriers is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.
I am as angry about this shooting as others. However, there remain difficult questions under the existing evidence. The intervention of the Justice Department adds an interesting element While racism has been alleged, the statement by the Justice Department notably does not lay out the basis for intervention and does not say that local police asked for the assistance. That may produce questions from the family why this is a federal matter as opposed to a local matter. While Zimmerman is described as “white,” his family has insisted that “George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends.” That does not necessarily mean that this is not a hate crime or civil rights violation. However, it is possible that Zimmerman acted out of his zeal as a “watchman” as opposed to race — the stated view of the police chief.
The DOJ is clearly treating it as a racially motivated shooting since the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the FBI, is participating in the investigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa states “The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation. The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident.” Cooperating is a different matter than a request for assistance. If they were not asked for assistance by the police, the question is whether the Justice Department views the local police as itself somewhat suspect in the handling of the case. We previously discussed legitimate complaints about aspects of the police investigation.
The most significant issue is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The law protects citizens in their use of lethal force in self-defense. The law, found in 20 states, is an expansion of the protection afforded under Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” laws for shootings in the home. I have long been a critic of those laws.
The key component of the law is that it allows lethal force when a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm and such force is reasonable under the circumstances. Zimmerman is likely to cite the fact that he was bleeding from the struggle — even though he outweighed the teen significantly and was armed.
The concern of these laws is that the use of reasonable force is already protected under the common law. The laws are read to offer broader protection than the common law, which already has ample protection for reasonable force. The law specifically negated the requirement of retreat under state law. The law states in pertinent part:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
That still allows for serious question over whether, even if Martin did struggle with Zimmerman, there remains the notion of a fear of serious bodily injury.
I have said that aspects of the case remains murky. That is not to say that an indictment cannot be brought on the existing evidence, as I has said before. Again, the most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls. Additionally, some have argued that the tape of Zimmerman has him using a racial slur, though many others have said that he is actually saying “punks.” An audio forensic expert could answer that question, which would relate directly to the purpose of the federal investigation.
Source: Washington Post
What leftsideannie said.
—-
It does look like the only investigation this matter is going to get is from DOJ, the problem with the local investigation is that, from all available information, there wasn’t one.
Anonymously Yours: “When has the DOJ ever needed a reason to intervene…. Oh yeah…. Wall Street….. How soon I forgot…..”
——
And voter suppression laws in a dozen states that amount to a poll tax and disenfranchise groups specifically protected by civil rights laws and statutes.
If DOJ was doing it’s J-O-B there wouldn’t be any investigators from their Civil Rights Division to put on this case, DOJ would have to hire contractors.
OT
If you dislike the Koch brothers, then click this.
http://promailv5.fulfillmentconcepts.com/v5fmsnet/OeCart/OEFrame.asp?Action=
They’re looking for money. You get a doc DVD by a H’wood pro in return.
It’s Robert Greenwald and Brave new foundation.org asking.
The fact that the police had Treyvons cell phone for 3 DAYS, while the child lay in the morgue shows absolute incompetence to me. They listed him as a John Doe and did NOTHING to investigate the identity of this dead youth. That seems to me to be highly suspect for racism or incompetence or both.
The father was being badgered by the police to turn over his ‘lost childs’ cell phone, when they had it in their possession the whole freakin’ time. The police look like idiots and buffoons in this case.
Lets see, shooting and dead teen in a neighborhood, a report from a father of missing teen in same neighborhood. No one connected these simple facts for days. The whole case is a horror story.
MCMcCullum,
had not read your posts before my post.
you sewed it up law wise IMHO. and righteous wise too.
And the whole FLA police corps should get off their lazy butts and do some work sometimes. Write off so much as the prosecutor wants, is routine there, P. doesn’t like work either. And the labs are always cranky.
Must be the climate.
Nope, same here too, at least the cops are genuinely confiict avoiders.
But they kill very few and defuse most situations. but duck a murder, nope.
This is the most I’ve read about the case. Most things were from local news or people talking about it. But what I have heard is that people were really angry that Zimmerman wasn’t arrested (let alone breathalyzed). So I’m going by what I heard. But my understanding of the law, is that this man should have been arrested on the spot. I thought the police would not be the ones to determine whether this was self defense. I thought the prosecutors would decide whether to pursue that, and if they did, the jury would determine guilt or innocence. I mean (from what I understand) he shot the guy, and he doesn’t seem to be denying it. There were no eyewitnesses (that I’ve heard). Doesn’t that mean automatic arrest???? And sort out the reality of self defense and the guilt or innocence later?
I’m in Florida by the way, and that has always been my understanding of how the law works here. Please let me know if I’m offbase here (as I don’t like to be totally ignorant)!
Excuse me,
but it’s called “stand your ground”. It does not say: “pursue and arrest and murder if resisitance is offered”. He has committed murder for only those reasons.
His place was in his car. When he left it, carrying a gun, etc then he was no longer protected by the FLA law, IMHO , NBAL you understand.
THIS testimony convinces me that Zimmerman committed a murder. The kid did not know why Zimmerman was even following him, and it sounds like Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, not the other way around.
Stand Your Ground does not apply if you are the assailant, Zimmerman stalked and confronted Trayvon with no justification; if this ear-witness testimony is true, Zimmerman should spend the rest of his life in jail.
“He didn’t need to retreat because nobody was pursuing him. He pursued Martin.”
Amen, Michael! Therein lies the rub that very few have paid real attention to so far. Zimmerman was pursuing him and CHOSE to remove himself from the safety of his vehicle. If someone were to follow me in their car and get out to confront me, I’m not sure I wouldn’t me confrontational right back at them.
I think the question on Justice department intervention may be on the behavior of law enforcement following the shooting rather than strictly on the shooter. It could also be that the Justice Department is feeling political heat and is reacting to that. There could be a question about whether or not the actions of law enforcement were affected by racial bias. I haven’t seen anything so far that indicates that. Also, I’ve not seen any announcement by law enforcement that their investigation is complete and, for example, that the shooting was found to be lawful. For all I can tell the investigation is continuing and at this stage the prosecutor and police not prepared to either “exonerate” the shooter or to make an arrest. Come on people, has no one at least ever watched “Law and Order” on TV? You’ve got to investigate. You’ve got to gather the evidence. Then, based on that, you move for an arrest and prosecution, or if the evidence does not support that, you do not. The “facts” publicly known so far, as told and re-told in the print and television media do not seem to lean in favor of the shooter. I’m not sure though that the police and prosecutor can use newspaper and media pundits’ spoutings as evidence. If the case goes to trial, I hope the prosecutor has more than just that to advance the state’s case. This is again a time when everybody pulls out their particular “political hobby horses” (thank you former Governor Kaine) to advance political agendas and send out fund raising letters for their respective organizations. A young man is dead. Sadly, we cannot bring him back. We can seek justice, however, but it should not be mob justice ruled by the street. The police and prosecutor must do their jobs, professionally and meticulously, in order to bring this about. We should expect that they will do that, that they are doing that.
Porkchop, I disagree that the problem isn’t the ‘stand your ground law’ not because of Zimmerman’s actions but because of the police department inaction due to this “law”.
They wiped out due process!
Evidence chain is screwed.
There should be no place where the police simply look at a law and say, ‘we’re not going to investigate’ because….and then insert the excuses from this case.
This is unacceptable. I cannot tolerate an ambiguous police force and consider myself protected under ‘due process’.
From a defense point of view, Zimmerman’s case is easy…the evidence chain is screwed, I’ll pick apart ever gap between the day of the incident and now and discredit the police department.
As someone who believes in vigorously defending people, there is a noticeable difference between defense and offense. I can support people defending their homes and property. Zimmerman’s murder of Martin does not match a reasonable defense of property or life. He’s a racist zealot and the police didn’t catch that because they hid behind a law.
I don’t trust the police departments integrity at this point. But we’ll see…..
“the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.”
Why am I reminded of the Sgt. Crowley-Professor Gates fiasco?
Quite possibly because the police are claiming one thing happened when common sense tells us something quite different took place.
A couple things: First, the “instruction” given by the 911 operator was ambiguous: “We don’t need you to do that.” Arguably, that was advisory, not mandatory.
On the other hand, it seems that Zimmerman was doing more than standing his ground — he followed the kid, who appears to have been doing nothing other than “walking while black,” and confronted him. That would seem to be some kind of stalking to me. Moreover, Zimmerman didn’t just exercise his right to not retreat — he confronted the teenager who was moving away from the area, so it raises the question whether Zimmerman was really in a place he had a right to be — that is in a position that prevented Trayvon Martin from continuing on his way. On balance, it seems lilke Zimmerman caused the situation that he now claims caused him to fear imminent harm.
I don’t think the problem is the “stand-your-ground” law, it is a person who went beyond what that law allowed. After all, Trayvon Martin had the right to be where he was, too, and had no duty retreat, although, apparently, he was effectively in the process of doing so when he was forcibly prevented from carrying that out.
I think that law most certainly applies to Martin, NOT Zimmerman since Martin was in the right legally, and he had every right to defend himself against an armed attacker. Too bad Martin was not armed to shoot and kill Zimmerman and rid us of him. Instead, a good kid is dead, and an armed maniac is loosed upon US.
I am also stunned to find out that Zimmerman was not given a drug and alcohol test after the shooting. I assume that cops get that as part of a routine as we do in aviation after any incident. It is absurd for Zimmerman to get a pass on this, which really calls into question the actions of the cops. This is more evidence of being shot while black, and most certainly warrants DoJ intervention as it did during the civil rights moverment when murder was routinely tolerated by local cops against all black citizens.
mespo727272,
Even before that description, when Zimmerman is asked what Trayvon Martin is doing:
“Are you following him?” the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: “Yep.”
I’ll let you lawyers hash this out but, as a martial artist…”stand your ground” isn’t the same as “follow him”. In our discipline, if you come to class and admit to getting into an altercation, the response from Zimmerman would get him thrown out. “you aren’t to follow and claim self defense, you can go now”.
We deal with self-defense from a view that is not questionable legally. We always teach, avoid. This ‘stand your ground” is the inherent opposite of ‘self-defense’ if what George Zimmerman did was “stand your ground”. It become a useless and abuse phrase to the logic of any reasonable human being.
But this phrase is what told me he was a racist:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something,”
“It’s raining, and he’s just walking around looking about.”
“Now he’s coming towards me. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male…Something’s wrong with him”
the phrase: “and he’s a black male” while describing actions…
this is seen by me as “guilty of being black male”…why?
‘he’s up to no good’
‘he’s on drugs or something’
‘he’s coming towards me’
‘he’s got his hand in his waistband’
‘he’s a black male’
‘something’s wrong with him’
AT NO POINT…does he mention a threat.
He never indicates that someone is threatening him.
a black male coming towards you isn’t a threat.
question: what if a white woman with a hoodie was walking through the neighborhood and was to turn and walk towards him? Perhaps she’s lost, needs a phone. But no…Zimmerman is adamant, “he’s a black male”
SENTENCE: GUILTY-COMMIT EXECUTION
This is what Zimmerman did, and it is clear from the newly expose phrased ‘f-ing coons’ that we see more. I don’t need that. I have enough with the above text.
When has the DOJ ever needed a reason to intervene…. Oh yeah…. Wall Street….. How soon I forgot…..
After hour of calls to congress this morning to ask if we have “due process” in our state now….I ask you, Professor…
Don’t these laws effectively wipe out ‘due process’? It turns average people into judge, jury, and executioner.
I’m solid that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, regardless of his zeal. He did so to a person he stalked. He didn’t need to retreat because nobody was pursuing him. He pursued Martin.
Thus, I raise a very serious and troubling question, if I take a late night walk for whatever reason, walk completely in the public street to and from my desired location (around the block for instance), can a person simply decide they are threatened, chase me down, shoot me then have the officers ignore evidence of murder because they point to “stand your ground”?
This is insane land. What is the use of constitutional protection if a state can so easily dismiss your life so that your porch chair is so valuable we can kill someone to protect it.
How many more murders can be committed now if the aggressor can decide “stand your ground” means stalk down suspicious person.
Joe Horn’s case is no different. He murdered 2 men, denied them their right of due process and…NO CHARGE!
“While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls.”
*********************
All interesting points and likely revealing of the facts of the case, but do we really need all that if Zimmerman was actually muttering “f*cking coons,” as he approached that African-American teenager with a 9mm whom he outweighed by at least eighty pounds with demonstrated animus on his mind?
That’s a cold front blowing in by any measure, as Bob Dylan might say, and I know which way the wind is blowing. Common sense is sometimes the best evidence.
I believe that this shooting was, at least in large part, motivated by racism. Clearly audible on the 9-1-1 call is George Zimmerman muttering under his breath, “F**king coon,” which is about as racist as you can get.
There is also ample evidence that the Sanford police did not follow procedure when this incident was investigated; Zimmerman was not tested for drugs or alcohol, and the police attempted to “correct” one of the witnesses who heard Trayvon Martin screaming by telling her that it was Zimmerman she heard.
If we cannot rely upon local law enforcement to properly investigate incidents like these, it is incumbent upon higher authority to step in.
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be ”
********************
Was George Zimmerman, acting in direct defiance of a police directive not to follow Trayvon and while apparently muttering “they always get away,” and perhaps also saying “f*cking coons,” trespassing on the property located between the residences where the fatal shot was fired? I bet he was.