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
Porkchops,
It is amusing to see that you disengage your brain as soon as you sense a challenge. You are not alone on that here.
Really hard to know how to get you to loosen up and listen with an open mind.
It was you that made the assumptions that the police handling was in order just as it always is, and particularly in Virginia.
Note; I say assumptions, as you offered no citations of proof at all.
I challenged you on that grounds solely.
I have opinions, and for the moment the reported facts in the press show that no investigation was done at all by the police; contrary to your assumptions. Just read the media, and what’s been cited here by Dredd and several others.
You are welcome as they say to your opinions, and to cite them here.
But when no facts are shown, then you can be challenged fairly on the basis of contrary facts.
LK,
Points made on that…. My suggestion here is that lots of other things need to be done by the DOJ but the try and get them to action is like expecting molasses to pour out of a cold jar……
The Media, not this article, has characterized this vigilante variously as: Watchman, Neighborhood Watch Patrol, Watch Patrol. Nowhere has there been any evidence that any authority, be it town, police department, condo association, neighborhood association, confered any authority to this vigilante. He is out there with a gun playing cops and robbers and the cops knew about him in the past.
The race angle. The factor is required for a Justice Department Prosecution. No race requirement or component if the schmucko was sued along with his superiors and town, for violation of the civil rights act for killling someone under color of law. If the vigilante had acted as a private actor in conjunction with public actors under color of law. Those facts might be proven here. The cops, by their previous conduct, and this days events, might have made him a private actor, acting in conjunction with them. The town has municipal liability under the civil rights act. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The plaintiffs can get attorneys fees under Section 1988 of that Title.
Go gettem.
(ah, Grand Jury. ) Really, if the state & the police have nothing to hide there should be a trial, out in public, for all to see.
Why have a secret Grad Jury if this is a murder case? Why is there any need at all for secrecy?
idealist707,
Well, then, based on the news reports, let’s just hang the guy right now, shall we? No need for the prosecutors or grand jury to look at the actual evidence, whatever it may be.
My ideals involve not jumping to conclusions. How about yours?
PS Can Z. apply for his diploma now that his laborations are clear.
Cum morto magnifico, one can say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/justice-department-opens-inquiry-in-killing-of-trayvon-martin.html?comments#permid=213:2
“Mr. Zimmerman had reported a “suspicious” person to 911 shortly before the encounter, saying a black male was checking out the houses and staring at him. Mr. Zimmerman, a criminal justice major, often patrolled the neighborhood. He had placed 46 calls to 911 in 14 months, for reports including open windows and suspicious persons. ”
Did you read carefully. Z. is a criminal justice major. Raises a lot of questions, none relevant but shows he needed a life.
Zimmerman was so well known that his profile, which every one doing his area was required to know—-could in fact have been: “Nut, walking gun looking for someone to shoot, caution, get him off our sheets if he blows up.
Use castle routines.”
Prejudicial, No, just realistic. He was trouble, but ev useful. At least kept the blacks off the streets. etc. That’s always a good reason down South.
In regard to the police investigation:
There are early reports that the first officer or officers on the scene asked Zimmerman questions first rather than get him to give a comprehensive statement.
It would seem at least possible that by questioning first the officers could have guided or limited Zimmerman’s statement of the facts. It is certainly possible that this ‘tainting’ of Zimmerman’s statement might have been thoughtless and innocent on the part of the officers and perhaps harmless. But doesn’t asking questions prior to getting a complete statement raise questions regarding the police investigation?
In addition there are reports that officers on the scene corrected witnesses regarding who called for help. Doesn’t correcting witnesses undermine the possibility of getting clear, accurate statements from the witness regarding what was seen or heard?
I don’t think one has to be an expert in police procedure or interrogation techniques to wonder if police were trying to conduct an impartial investigation or trying to reach a predetermined conclusion
pork chop,
you make a lot of assumptions on how it has gone, without any info on how it did. Dredd says he lay on a slab for 3 days with a John Doe tag on his toe.
Does that sound like a forensic autopsy was performed. Does all else we’ve heard: the police did not take the weapon, they did not take him in for questioning and/or any processing, etc.
You sound like a typical apologist for police who point to routine, but when routine is ignored or perverted in practice, you fail to see reality—-just coming with your standard song and dance.
Don’t mean to demean, but the profile seems to emerge from your post.
You don’t have to take sides, but don’t PRESUME it went down like you think it should have in usual cases in VA.
Civil rights group asking Floida Governor to suspend Zimmermans concealed carry permit. One would think this is a no brainer, but apparently not. The NRA has really screwed up the Justice system in any case…
Elahi argued that action by Scott was essential in light of the “botched” investigation by the Sanford police, which accepted Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense despite numerous witnesses and other evidence that conflicts with his account. Zimmerman would then be able to contest the suspension at an administrative proceeding within 20 days.
Thus far, Scott’s administration is defending its decision to keep Zimmerman’s permit active, arguing that “short of a permit holder being convicted of a felony, the state does not have the authority to revoke a permit.”
Elahi also criticized the decision of Brevard-Seminole State Attorney Norman Wolfinger to send the case to a grand jury rather than charging Zimmerman himself. According to Elahi there is concern in the Florida civil rights community that these proceedings are secret, so the public will never no what evidence is or is not presented to a grand jury. If Zimmerman was simply charged, all proceedings would take place in open court.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/
If you think this Zimmerman case is difficult for a federal prosecution, check out this one:
(U.S. v Mardis) Notice that a state prosecution had taken place and a 15 year sentence imposed.
That did not stop the zealous feds involved. Justice prevailed.
shano 1, March 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm
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 history of that region, that department, and that community at large, indicates racial animus.
The statutes I cited above, and this discussion by a U.S. Attorney, indicate how far and wide this problem still is.
Pork chop: thank god we have new technology that the teen used that can document the timeline of events!
Otherwise the ‘policemens pet’ Zimmerman, admirer of all cops everywhere and policeman wannabe would have gotten away with what appears to be a cold blooded murder.
One criminal statute that was tailor made for the fundamental facts of this case is 18 U.S.C. § 249.
The statute that applies to the police conduct is 18 U.S.C. § 241.
These apply to modern “lynchings” and their cover-up in any way shape, or form.
Shano, I agree.
Michael Cheneywatch McCollum,
I don’t disagree with you that the police department appears to have done a rotten job. I don’t have any sympathy for Zimmerman based on what I have heard, but none of us are privy to the actual investigation.
But exactly what evidence are you concerned about? Alcohol & drug test results? I understand that if the guy turned out to have been high or dead drunk, perhaps it would have been easier to cast doubt on his purported judgment. Was there a struggle? Knowing whether the shooter was intoxicated would not tell you whether or not there was a struggle. At this point I think that we don’t know from news reports whether there was any physical examination of Zimmerman’s body for bruises, abrasions, or other signs of a struggle on his part.
But even so, Zimmerman admits he shot this young man; presumably, the police have the pistol. The rest of the physical evidence is presumably still available — for example, as discussed above, the autopsy report and clothing would give information regarding bullet angle and perhaps distance between them.
You seem to believe that the simple fact of a shooting alone, without more, provides a basis for an immediate arrest. This is a sympathetic case for such a rule, but it seems overbroad to me. I agree that this shooter seems suspect and unsympathetic, but if the shooting alone is sufficient to arrest, then that rule drags in a wide variety of shooters. What about, say, a woman who says she shot someone to protect herself from a parking lot attacker/potential rapist? Are you going to arrest the putative victim as a matter of course? Leaving aside the question of whether it is legal (and in Virginia, where I live, it is not) to carry a firearm while under the influence, would it matter to you whether the putative victim in such a case was intoxicated?
I don’t know if the man is guilty or innocent. Based on news reports, I suspect he ultimately will be found guilty of homicide of some type eventually, unless something remarkable comes to light.
I do question, however, the public rush to judgment on this. Let the justice system do its work.
“But even so, Zimmerman admits he shot this young man; presumably, the police have the pistol. The rest of the physical evidence is presumably still available ”
I don’t presume this at all. And physical evidence ‘still available’ from Feb 26th?…and its integrity is?
I will leave for others to discuss the specifics of this tragic incident.
The structure of the ‘stand your ground’ self defense laws seem to open the possibility for serious questions in the mind of the public, at best, and mis-use, at worst.
Mis-use of a firearm is not in anyone’s interest.
It is hard for me to imagine the reasonable use of lethal force that does not also include the necessity to use lethal force. But how can one get to ‘necessity’ if it is possible to walk away from a situation?
Everyone, perhaps, especially gun owners and those who support a personal right to keep and carry firearms, ought to be concerned about ‘stand your ground’ laws.
Laws that lead to reckless use of firearms or the perception that the use of firearms is based on something less than necessity don’t make anyone safer.
In the long run ‘stand your ground’ self defense laws can make responsible ownership of firearms more difficult or impossible.
This would not be the first time racist elements in police forces in the south have utilized “state law” as a ruse, shield, and cover for racist activity.
The only hope, albeit thin, is that it is the last time.