The second degree murder charge of George Zimmerman has received widespread approval. I am in Fort Worth to speak to the Fort Worth Lecture Foundation this afternoon. However, I am receiving a lot of calls on the basis for the charge. I must confess that I am not optimistic on the chances of a conviction unless the special prosecutor has undisclosed evidence to meet the high standard under the state law. As I discussed on BBC last night, there are substantial challenges to make such a charge stick in this case.
I was surprised to see a second-degree murder charge which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life. This is a lower standard than the premeditated standard for first degree murder. However, the evidence in the case would seem to more closely resemble manslaughter. Section 782.07(1) provides that standard:
The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree ….
Special Prosecutor Corey went for the maximum charge allowed without using a grand jury. The decision not to go to a grand jury knocked out the availability of murder in the first degree — though such a charge would be highly questionable on these facts.
In Corey’s defense, she is merely giving the state a chance to make the case before a state judge who will first have to decide whether there is a viable affirmative defense under the Stand Your Ground law. It is at that stage that we will be able to see what new evidence Corey has to support the case. I remain doubtful on the chances solely due to the language of the state law and past rulings of state judges — absent more evidence of malice or depravity by Zimmerman. However, I have previously maintained that there was ample evidence to arrest Zimmerman at the scene.
Zimmerman is reportedly maintaining that that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin after a struggle and in self-defense. “Stand Your Ground” law allows individuals who feel threatened in a public place to “meet force with force,” rather than retreat. Moreover, while Zimmerman claims Martin came at him, citizens are allowed to allowed suspicious individuals in their neighborhood.
Zimmerman says that he was driving to a grocery store when he saw Martin walking through the gated community and called the police to report a suspicious person. He says that he was bleeding and injured from the encounter. There is ample reason to contest those assertions, but the past application of this law shows a considerable deference given defendants in the use of force. We discussed the prior ruling in the the case of Greyston Garcia and the dangerous ambiguity created by these laws. The second-degree murder charges against Garcia were thrown out by a Florida judge under the Stand Your Ground law despite the fact that he did not just stand his ground, but ran after a man who tried to steal his car radio and proceeded to stab the unarmed man to death.
As discussed previously, I have been a long critic of these laws and the earlier Castle Doctrine or “Make My Day” laws. These laws address a problem that does not exist. There are ample protections under the common law for individuals to use the privilege of self-defense, including reasonable mistaken self-defense. As noted earlier, I find it a bit maddening to hear Florida legislators now claim to have never anticipated abuses under these laws. Critics like myself have been vocal about the potential for abuse under these laws for years. Legislators have ignored those warnings because of the popularity of these laws.
The problem with both “Make My Day laws” (applying to the home) and “Stand Your Ground laws” (applying in “other places”) is that they facilitate or enable those who are inclined to use lethal force. The Horn case out of Texas is such an example where, as with Zimmerman, Joe Horn ignored instructions not to confront the suspects. Even cases that border on executions have been found protected under such laws.
In the earlier case, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck outside Garcia’s Miami apartment. He grabbed a large knife and chased the unarmed Roteta down the street and proceeded to stab him to death. This week, the state judge threw out the charges under the state’s “stand your ground” law.
Cases like Garcia undermine the confidence in the Zimmerman charges. Putting aside the affirmative defense, Corey would need to show much more than is currently known to support a second-degree murder charge, in my view. Based on the current evidence, I would be surprised if she could secure a conviction for second-degree murder.
Zimmerman today is seeking bail and should receive it under the state standard. He turned himself in and cooperated with the police at the scene of the alleged crime. While he has a prior minor record, the prior conduct would not normally be a barrier to release on bond.
There is going to be one witness at trial as to what happened. There is the tape of the defendant and the defendant. I suppose the girl on the phone will testify as to what she heard– objection hearsay. But by and large the case rests on the credibility of the guy in the box looking the jurors in the eye and testifying under oath as to what happened. There may be other cop witnesses who say Zimmerman said bla bla after they got to the scene and interviewed him. But there elements of the case have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman was on his back when he shot the kid? If so that is reasonable doubt. He standing his ground on his back. Other witnesses can talk about angle of the bullet. Yeah. Poweder burns help the defendant. Are there any? All these people want to poison the jury and call Zimmerman a bigot. Now that he is charged let the chips fall at trial. That is what America should be about.
The many thoughtful comments on this thread illustrate the serious difficulties in applying the SYG law in a rational manner. The castle doctrine makes sense because it has clear parameters and operates in situations in which the ability to invoke the protection of law enforcement is usually absent. But the SYG standard is another matter. It is essentially subjective and consequently arbitrary. Furthermore, standing one’s ground describes the mental process which precipitates virtually every schoolyard fight and barroom brawl. SYG is a testosterone tease and dangerously intrudes upon the state’s monopoly on the imposition of punishment for criminal behavior.
Mespo:
“Martin cannot be charged with anything since he’s dead there, Javert.”
May I point out that Insp. Javert did “get” his man. What does this mean? Are you complimenting RI, it would seem so. Wouldnt Sledge Hammer be more appropriate?
“It’s Hammer Time”
I posted this in another thread, but here it is for anyone who missed it. This is the affidavit filed by the prosecution charging Zimmerman with second degree murder:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/zimmerman-affidavit.pdf
The first test of Zimmerman’s affirmative defense of self-defense will come in a pretrial motion, which will involve a full on evidentiary hearing.
The burden will be on Zimmerman.
If the judge denies Zimmerman’s defense, he can still bring it up before the jury at trial.
Not perfect… Start at ~1:30
RI:
“Don’t get confused here Herr Mespo. Zimmerman did say that the suspect was running. He did it before the portion that you copied and pasted.”
*******************
Well, you’re close again there, Poirot. It’s right in the middle of the portion I pasted at lines 8-11.
Self-immolate much there Master Inspector Scooby-Doo?. Yuunk? You really need a Saturday morning cartoon.
I will also point out that if Zimmerman was lying about Trayvon running, then he was making a pre-meditated attempt at justification for his violence-to-come. If he was not lying about Trayvon running, then Trayvon obviously became panicked at being followed and took his girlfriend’s advice to run, regardless of what he had said earlier on the phone, and the fact that he was running away from Zimmerman could only mean that Zimmerman chased him down to confront him.
This exchange means either Zimmerman invented an excuse to chase Trayvon, or Trayvon felt threatened by Zimmerman and started running.
Awwww. Real Instigator is taking his toys and goin’ home! Nice going, mespo and Tony!
Ok, maybe not the last post – but Drake’s interpretation of the transcript is clearly tortured.
When “stand your ground” fails
John McNeil killed a white man who assaulted him on his property. But, unlike George Zimmerman, he’s serving life
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/singleton/
@Tony C. (I can call you whatever I please too. Would that make you feel better?)
If your shit-for-brains legal representative had any skills, he would have copy and pasted the part where Zimmerman says that he’s running (which would make you correct, and me wrong). Unfortunately, to prove his point, the incompetent Mespo only copied the portion of the transcript where the Dispatcher asked if the suspect was running.
Don’t get confused here Herr Mespo. Zimmerman did say that the suspect was running. He did it before the portion that you copied and pasted.
We don’t know when the gun came out. If the gun came out prior to Martin hitting Zimmerman, that “kid” was too stupid to run.
This is my last post. In typical fashion, the regulars on this blog resort to name calling.
Corollary to Mespo’s last post:
***********************
Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the – he’s near the
clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He’s got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got
something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does
anything else.
Tony C:
“Listen, bitch. You’ll call me RI or Real Investigator. What kind of low-life piece of crap enters into a conversation by insulting a participant?
********************
This little piece of hypocrisy from “Real Investigator” is just priceless. May I use it for my amusement?
Ooops, make that “resident sleuth.” Sorry about that. I was laughing too hard.
RI:
“Who said Martin was running? The record doesn’t indicate that Martin was running. His girlfriend didn’t say he was running.”
*****************
Your’re right the record didn’t say it. As Tony C explained to our esdeint sleuth, Zimmerman did:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.
Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Should I say it? …. yep …. nice work there Sherlock! Are you seven-years- old? Man, some conservatives are just so dumb.
Real Investigator:
“Did you think you were the only person here who is well-read enough to know what you’re talking about?”
******************
Nope, I assume most everyone here is familar with the works of Erle Stanley Garner and Victor Hugo; that’s why I reference their characters. Duh? It’s just I can spot a poser when I see one. Don’t hold yourself out as something you’re so clearly not.
@Real Dumb: I will call you whatever I want, you are a dumbass. You certainly have shown no reason to be called a “Real Investigator.”
Zimmerman, in the audio of the 911 call, says Trayvon is running.
Zimmerman, in the 911 call, says he is following him.
From Trayvon’s point of view, “following” can be chasing. I didn’t say that Trayvon knew anything, I said that Trayvon had reason to be threatened, he was being chased by a man with a gun, and certainly at some point Trayvon knew that Zimmerman had a gun.
“learn to read and not proffer cherry-picked information designed to advocate a position while clinging to a veneer of faux-objectivty”
Anyone reading can see who cherry-picked what they presented. Your’s conveniently cutoff before Zimmerman said “OK” when the operator told him that they did not need him to follow.
Regarding the Paul Drake and Javert comment. We can all so how quickly you try to divert attention. It’s so obvious, and so pathetic. Did you think you were the only person here who is well-read enough to know what you’re talking about? Did you think I would take it as an insult?