Vigilante Injustice

[Jonathan Randall]

Check the law? Try the Constitution of the United States as your first stop. His saying that he shot in self-defense is simply his side of the story and if the State believes this to not be the case, it is up to THEM to prove his guilt in a court of law. Zimmerman is NOT required to prove his innocence.

I did.

There is no presumption of innocence - Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin. Now, according to the law, he must demonstrate that he did so in self-defence. You can't just shoot somebody and say "prove I didn't do it in self-defence". That's not the law.

The difference between me and Sharpton is that I am not advocating for civil disturbance. Another difference is that I care what the facts are. My making up my own mind here is no different than your making up your mind on, say, the OJ Simpson case or the Casey Anthony affair. You certainly have made up your mind before on cases prior to trial. I have the same right to do so. Based upon what I've seen and heard, I believe that, at a minimum, Zimmerman acted recklessly and is responsible for the outcome. You disagree. Ok, but don't condemn me for doing what you and others have done as well and don't put me in the same basket as Sharpton.

[TonyU]

I did.

There is no presumption of innocence - Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin. Now, according to the law, he must demonstrate that he did so in self-defence. You can't just shoot somebody and say "prove I didn't do it in self-defence". That's not the law.

I'm sorry Jonathan, but you are incorrect. Robert is correct. Let me put it from an investigator's point of view. As Robert stated that's Zimmerman version of events. An investigator has to take all the evidence he can gather and if there is enough to levy charge then he/she will do so. An investigator's job is not to prove him wrong or right, but to get to the truth. Then, if charged, up to the state to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me put in another way. You can have a serial killer confess, on video, to a multitude of homicides. Then, when it comes to trial he recants. The state must still prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the jury. Guess what? They may still acquit. A confession or statement as in this case is just a piece of the whole picture.

Or why don't we let the authorities do their jobs and let them determine if a crime was committed, send it before a grand jury and if necessary bring this to trial. Until you actually have access to all of the evidence, then your jumping to conclusions over Zimmerman's guilt is no different than Al Sharpton's call for his head. You have both declared him guilty without a trial... no difference.

And that's why I've tried to avoid commenting on this. There's is just not enough information for me to come to a conclusion on this. The media never gets it right or they purposely manipulate what is released to meet their hidden agenda. This I've also seen and experienced first hand.

Oh, something else I forgot to mention. In this state someone going for your gun is "absolutely" justified in using deadly force. So, I can only imagine that a state like Florida it would be the same.

[Webmaster]

I did.

I guess you didn't forgot to read the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. That "due process" thing keeps getting in the way of the lynch mob mentality. Also, the presumption of innocence dates back to Biblical times and is a long held part of Common Law.

The difference between me and Sharpton is that I am not advocating for civil disturbance.

No, you just have declared a man guilty without access to the evidence and are throwing due process out of the window.

Ok, but don't condemn me for doing what you and others have done as well and don't put me in the same basket as Sharpton.

I agree that I originally thought that Zimmerman was guilty as sin. Then in light of new information have changed my opinion differently. What is your excuse? I don't deny that Zimmerman is an idiot, but being an idiot is not a crime. However, there is now enough doubt in my mind that tells me that the appropriate authorities need to fully investigate this incident to determine if a crime was committed. I don't know that there wasn't a crime, but I don't want a possibly innocent man taken to the gallows like you and others seem to want.

[Don Roley]

I did.

There is no presumption of innocence - Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin. Now, according to the law, he must demonstrate that he did so in self-defence. You can't just shoot somebody and say "prove I didn't do it in self-defence". That's not the law.

As with most things with the law, it is a bit more complicated than you would think.

The key seems to be that there is no evidence, nor eye- witnesses that contradict Zimmerman's version of events. If someone said they saw Zimmerman come up and start screaming at Martin, the case would be different.

It is kind of like if the police showed up at one of our houses to find someone dead on the floor. It is not that we have to prove that we did not invite the guy over and set him up to shoot him without any proof that we did. If there was some sort of proof such as phone records of a call from us to the corpse on our floor, then it could go against us. But Zimmerman not only said that he did not wrong, but he did so in an area where he would reasonably expect that someone would see something and be able to testify against him. Since no one can say things went any other way than as he says it did, I predict he will escape any sort of legal censure.

Just as an aside to Robert, I think Jonathan is doing like I do when I believe that O.J. Simpson and that woman named Casey something- or- other is guilty of sin of murder. I can believe that despite the legal findings of a jury. The difference is whether we will live with the legal system's judgement, which Sharpton has stated he will not.

[Jonathan Randall]

I'm sorry Jonathan, but you are incorrect. Robert is correct. Let me put it from an investigator's point of view. As Robert stated that's Zimmerman version of events. An investigator has to take all the evidence he can gather and if there is enough to levy charge then he/she will do so. An investigator's job is not to prove him wrong or right, but to get to the truth. Then, if charged, up to the state to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me put in another way. You can have a serial killer confess, on video, to a multitude of homicides. Then, when it comes to trial he recants. The state must still prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the jury. Guess what? They may still acquit. A confession or statement as in this case is just a piece of the whole picture.

No, I am correct, sorry. We are talking apples and oranges. You are not incorrect either. We are talking about different scenarios.

The scenario you illustrate is only given IF Zimmerman later denies killing Trayvon - or if the charges escalate to Murder not Manslaughter. If he goes to court, as he may very well do, and continues to admit to shooting Trayvon he must demonstrate that self-defence was a justifying factor in the death. Prior to the filing of charges, if he demonstrates that he acted reasonably, the prosecutor may decline to prosecute or the police may decline to recommend charges. However, at no step along the way can he tell them "prove it wasn't self-defence".

I know you are an experienced police officer, but we really are talking different subjects. Pick a prosecutor or lawyer and ask them if somebody is charged with homicide, who has the burden of reasonably demonstrating it was self-defence. Prosecution doesn't have to prove it wasn't self-defence, Zimmerman has to demonstrate it was.

Now, the level of burden changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

5th Amendment doesn't come into play here if Zimmerman continues to admit to the killing (manslaughter). He's admitted to the offence, now he has to show why he committed it. If the charges are murder, he does have the presumption because the state has to prove intent. "Mens Rea".

[Jonathan Randall]

I guess you didn't forgot to read the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. That "due process" thing keeps getting in the way of the lynch mob mentality. Also, the presumption of innocence dates back to Biblical times and is a long held part of Common Law.


No, you just have declared a man guilty without access to the evidence and are throwing due process out of the window.


I agree that I originally thought that Zimmerman was guilty as sin. Then in light of new information have changed my opinion differently. What is your excuse? I don't deny that Zimmerman is an idiot, but being an idiot is not a crime. However, there is now enough doubt in my mind that tells me that the appropriate authorities need to fully investigate this incident to determine if a crime was committed. I don't know that there wasn't a crime, but I don't want a possibly innocent man taken to the gallows like you and others seem to want.

Where in the heck did you find me saying I wanted Zimmerman punished without a trial? Where did you find me advocating a lynch mob or violence? I want it to work from within the system. I would like to see him charged with negligent homicide and I believe there's enough for these charges - as did the police investigator on the case. We disagree there. It happens.

BTW, I am NOT on the jury, nor from within the jury pool. I can form my own opinion in this matter as you have done yourself time after time - remember any "woodchipper" threads? Pot to kettle, you're black.

[TonyU]

I know you are an experienced police officer, but we really are talking different subjects. Pick a prosecutor or lawyer and ask them if somebody is charged with homicide, who has the burden of reasonably demonstrating it was self-defence. Prosecution doesn't have to prove it wasn't self-defence, Zimmerman has to demonstrate it was.

But, once he makes that statement and maybe demonstrate it. For example, maybe act it out for us, then it's up to the investigator's to break his story and prove him other wise. And that's only if they feel they have evidence to dispute his claims. Either way it eventually has to go to courts and subsequently the burden of proof falls on the state to show it wasn't. Not him. All he has to do is stay with the story. The prosecution has to dis-prove it.
And no you're incorrect again. I'm not an experienced police officer. Never said I was. I am an experienced investigator with the "prosecutor's" office. Where we have constantly battled over cases where I know the suspect was guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to either bring charges or a successful prosecution.
Very similar to this situation so far.

[Jonathan Randall]

But, once he makes that statement and maybe demonstrate it. For example, maybe act it out for us, then it's up to the investigator's to break his story and prove him other wise. And that's only if they feel they have evidence to dispute his claims. Either way it eventually has to go to courts and subsequently the burden of proof falls on the state to show it wasn't. Not him. All he has to do is stay with the story. The prosecution has to dis-prove it.

And no you're incorrect again. I'm not an experienced police officer. Never said I was. I am an experienced investigator with the "prosecutor's" office. Where we have constantly battled over cases where I know the suspect was guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to either bring charges or a successful prosecution.
Very similar to this situation so far.

Than I am incorrect the first time. Investigator, then.

He has a lesser threshold, far below reasonable doubt in most areas, but he must, as you say, still make the defence. That makes it, as I wrote, an affirmative defence. At no point can he just state "it was self-defence" and walk away.

[Don Roley]

However, it doesn't change my view on Zimmerman. Unless they added the "these *******s always get away" or the "****ing coons" comments.

How difficult do you think it will be to prove he murdered because of racial bias when it is an established fact that he was a registered democrat?

The current democratic party head and/or presidential candidate is not as pasty white as the last one, Al Gore, not did he try to uphold racial segregation as the 1972 candidate did.

Barrack Husssein Obama is the tower of power in the democratic party, and the person they are working to elect in the next election as well as the last one.

George Zimmerman has to have known this, and yet supported the democratic party.

How hard will it be for someone to prove in a court of law that he decided to kill someone because of their race, but supported a party that had a person of the same race as their candidate for the next election?

A defense attorney will point to hundreds of opinions that the republican party is the party that all racists fled to once a dark skinned candidate was presented by the democrats. It will not be hard to plant the seed of doubt about racial bias in most jurors that anyone who stayed in the democratic party while knowing that by doing so they were supporting a black candidate for president.

So, as I see it, any chance of proving that Zimmerman was a racist is doomed in a court of law.

To be blunt, to be registered as a democrat when their head is a black president is to be given a free pass of racial bias.

That is just the reality when you have to factor in "reasonable doubt."

[Webmaster]

He has a lesser threshold, far below reasonable doubt in most areas, but he must, as you say, still make the defence. That makes it, as I wrote, an affirmative defence. At no point can he just state "it was self-defence" and walk away.

So you are saying you believe that he just said to the police "self-defense" and then the police said "Right-o" and didn't bother to conduct an initial investigation into the circumstances? You do know that the police officer on the scene thought Zimmerman should be charged, but the prosecutor did not, right? It's the prosecutor's office that makes the determination if there is sufficient evidence to suggest a crime has been committed and to charge someone. It's the police officer's job to gather evidence, not prosecute. So he was not arrested for the shooting of Martin and is now free.

Now we have the Mob calling for Zimmerman's arrest (or head), but what exactly has changed in what the police and prosecutors office know about this incident that they didn't know when they finished their investigation? Probably not a lot except that we've got a Mob out for Zimmerman's blood now. So is the fact that people are worked up and angry the reason to arrest Zimmerman? Are we going to disregard Due Process just because the Mob calls for it? If so, how are we any better than the crazed Muslims burning and killing over every slight toward Islam? Pretty sad actually.

[Jonathan Randall]

So you are saying you believe that he just said to the police "self-defense" and then the police said "Right-o" and didn't bother to conduct an initial investigation into the circumstances? You do know that the police officer on the scene thought Zimmerman should be charged, but the prosecutor did not, right? It's the prosecutor's office that makes the determination if there is sufficient evidence to suggest a crime has been committed and to charge someone. It's the police officer's job to gather evidence, not prosecute. So he was not arrested for the shooting of Martin and is now free.

I have referenced that fact again and again within this thread. He didn't buy Zimmerman's story, and I don't either. I have also stated that I think Zimmerman's probably a bit savvy at portraying things in a legally justified light and that this is the likely cause for a lack of prosecution and not racial bias. Another likely reason for delay is the large number of interviews that would likely be needed to demonstrate if Zimmerman had multiple credible complaints leveled against him at HOA meetings for aggressive "watchman" activities.

I would like to see him charged, but through the law. Self-defence laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction far more than I imagined, so it may be harder than I would wish it to be. I have yet to read anyone advocating or wishing for mob action here. More than one anti-Zimmerman beside myself on this thread thinks Sharpton is a POS for doing what he's doing.

[Don Roley]

I have referenced that fact again and again within this thread. He didn't buy Zimmerman's story, and I don't either.

Seriously, that is the job of a police investigator. He always seeks out things to try to prove guilt. The DA is a balance in that they can only move (mainly) on what can be proved.

I fear that if the balance is maintained, there will be riots. Because the system is on the side of the accused, but some only support that if it is in the best interest of the race they support.

[Jonathan Randall]

Seriously, that is the job of a police investigator. He always seeks out things to try to prove guilt. The DA is a balance in that they can only move (mainly) on what can be proved.

I fear that if the balance is maintained, there will be riots. Because the system is on the side of the accused, but some only support that if it is in the best interest of the race they support.

I agree entirely.

In CA, they could charge more easily. But Florida is not California.

[Jonathan Randall]

This former NAACP official makes some good points against Sharpton and Jackson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CED1IQ-xup0

To me, there is a racial component here (Zimmerman's own comments), definitely, but not some police and justice system conspiracy as Sharpton and Jackson are playing up. They are doing so knowing full well the likely consequences.

[Erik]

I would so love to see Sheraton and Jackson and Co. in prison... won't happen, though....

[TonyU]

And than there's this. Even then it also doesn't give a complete picture.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...210020839.html

[Jonathan Randall]

And than there's this. Even then it also doesn't give a complete picture.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...210020839.html

I think portraying this as a "vast police" conspiracy is selling papers...

Experts are saying the screams could not be Zimmerman's. I look to a second set of experts saying these screams are "conclusively Zimmerman's".

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...210020839.html

I still think Zimmerman's recklessness is ultimately responsible for creating this situation, but I recognize that we may never get a conclusive answer.

[Don Roley]

Sign of things to come.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Pol...z/-/index.html

[Silent memory]

[Don Roley]

And Bill "The constitution is outdated" Clinton (among others) wants to use this tragedy to repeal a lot of laws benefitting gun owners and people who otherwise would be victims.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...-politics.html

Note how he does not just stick to "stand your ground" laws, but talks about CCW and such as well.