17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #32

[Karmady]

I don't think so, since he was not under arrest or in fact under any restrictions by the PD. He voluntarily quit his job and moved and the State nor the local PD had anything to do with that, he would be entitled to lost wages (and that may be dependant on whether or not he even had a job.) You can't collect lost wages from a job you didn't have. IMO JMHO and stuff.

I think it may depend on how the statutory definition of "criminal prosecution" from which GZ would be immune is applied.

The definition is this:

As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

So even the initial detention in custody would trigger the immunity. Not sure if the release and subsequent arrest breaks the chain for purposes of damages flowing from immunity.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

 

[PaperDoll]

IMO, there's only one question in this case. Why did GZ get out of his vehicle? Seriously, why? The police had been informed and were on their way. So WHY DID HE GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE?????? Trayvon was not committing a crime. Even GZ said only that TM "looked suspicious." I think he's going to have a heck of a time trying to explain that one and that goes to the entire case against him. JMHO, etc.

I so agree with your post. He "looked suspicious?" He was simply walking back to his place, he wasn't breaking into anyone's home, nor hurting anyone, simply coming back from the store with candy and a ice tea, talking on the phone with his girlfriend. :banghead: Again, if I were on the jury I would really question GZ's behavior and not TM's.

This case really bothers me, I'm so saddened by this :frown:

 

[Etilema]

You would think he would be worried about supporting his family. Instead of Patroling he should have been on the internet looking for a job!

Why didn't he join the Service if he wanted to play with guns so much! :banghead:

Probably because then he'd have to go up against guys who also have guns.

JMO

 

[Sensei]

I think it may depend on how the statutory definition of "criminal prosecution" from which GZ would be immune is applied.

The definition is this:

As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

So even the initial detention in custody would trigger the immunity. Not sure if the release and subsequent arrest breaks the chain for purposes of damages flowing from immunity.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

Thank you that's very interesting, it may be that the original custody would be the one that they would use, or it may be that they would not, so that would be interesting if we could find out but not crucial, just a piece of information that it would be interesting to note. Thanks again.

 

[Etilema]

IMO, there's only one question in this case. Why did GZ get out of his vehicle? Seriously, why? The police had been informed and were on their way. So WHY DID HE GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE?????? Trayvon was not committing a crime. Even GZ said only that TM "looked suspicious." I think he's going to have a heck of a time trying to explain that one and that goes to the entire case against him. JMHO, etc.

He got out of his vehicle because "these @ssholes always get away" and he wanted to make sure that didn't happen this time.

JMO

 

[Sensei]

BBM I don't see any judge getting his cage rattled. But I do see a judge throwing out SYG in this case if George's stories and the evidence don't match up. Or the stories are so different that his credibility is lost. I think this is a huge risk to let the State get a chance to interview George under oath.

ITA, in a trial, George himself cannot be forced to testify, and the conflicting statements would only be testified to by the interviewing officers, but in the SYG hearing he would HAVE to testify and be crossed on anything he testifys to and his statements about the incident, that will be a tough call for MOM I think.

 

[impatientredhead]

I don't know, I'm wondering if it's a cost/benefit thing. If he goes to the hearing and wins, then there's no trial, clearly the most desirable outcome for Zimmerman. But if he goes to the hearing and has to testify and he loses, would he be at a disadvantage during the trial?

Does anyone know about these kinds of hearings?

He does not have to testify if he chooses not to. The right to not testify against yourself is always in effect. If he chooses to not testify would that harm his chances, probably, but considering he is facing criminal charges it still can't be compelled to.

After the bond hearing I would imagine he would testify on his own behalf, but they SYG hearing is just the judge and evaluation of the evidence as presented. If the judge feels there is a preponderance of evidence that will lead to an acquittal he can pull the plug on the whole show, or he can send them on to trial.

But it is not every witness and every shred of evidence being presented at a jury level. Mostly sworn statements of the witnesses that will be called, the physical evidence to be presented, the state can explain what they expect to show or ask the witnesses about. And then the judge makes a call.

If it sounds unfair, keep in mind SYG was written from the point of view of an elderly/retired couple that shoots a home intruder and then spends the next year in poor health and financial strain defending themselves or worrying about going to jail or leaving behind a destitute spouse. That is literally the poster child case they used when selling the bill. Made sense in that case, elderly couple, in their home, not reasonable for them to flee, but without the SYG law the standard said they were required to flee. It took over a year for the state to announce they were not pursuing charges, by then the seventy year old shooter in a motor home with one exit (no realistic flight option present) had worried himself sick and a full blown defense at trial would have ruined them financially. My point being if it sounds like the SYG hearing is unfair to the victims side of the story with little to no risk to the shooter, it does, that is how it was written.

 

[wncgal]

He got out of his vehicle because "these @ssholes always get away" and he wanted to make sure that didn't happen this time.

JMO

Oh, I know what he said. But how will he explain it to the judge/jury? You know that's going to be a big part of the prosecution's case, is why did he get out of the vehicle especially when the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that." I dunno, I think that's going to be hard for him to justify. IMO.

 

[impatientredhead]

BBM I don't see any judge getting his cage rattled. But I do see a judge throwing out SYG in this case if George's stories and the evidence don't match up. Or the stories are so different that his credibility is lost. I think this is a huge risk to let the State get a chance to interview George under oath.

My point was two hundred cases have had SYG hearings so far, MANY MANY of them involved defendants with sketchy statements to flat out obstruction and destruction of evidence (if the defendant doesn't call 911 and hides the weapon used, even he knows it is not self defense) they STILL won their SYG hearings, or were acquitted by the jury.

And George does not have to testify to have an SYG hearing, and even if he does the statements given there, outside of a jury, would not necessarily be heard by a jury. More like a sidebar, the judge rules and the jury doesn't get to hear the argument about whether it should be admissible.

 

[Sensei]

He does not have to testify if he chooses not to. The right to not testify against yourself is always in effect. If he chooses to not testify would that harm his chances, probably, but considering he is facing criminal charges it still can't be compelled to.

After the bond hearing I would imagine he would testify on his own behalf, but they SYG hearing is just the judge and evaluation of the evidence as presented. If the judge feels there is a preponderance of evidence that will lead to an acquittal he can pull the plug on the whole show, or he can send them on to trial.

But it is not every witness and every shred of evidence being presented at a jury level. Mostly sworn statements of the witnesses that will be called, the physical evidence to be presented, the state can explain what they expect to show or ask the witnesses about. And then the judge makes a call.

If it sounds unfair, keep in mind SYG was written from the point of view of an elderly/retired couple that shoots a home intruder and then spends the next year in poor health and financial strain defending themselves or worrying about going to jail or leaving behind a destitute spouse. That is literally the poster child case they used when selling the bill. Made sense in that case, elderly couple, in their home, not reasonable for them to flee, but without the SYG law the standard said they were required to flee. It took over a year for the state to announce they were not pursuing charges, by then the seventy year old shooter in a motor home with one exit (no realistic flight option present) had worried himself sick and a full blown defense at trial would have ruined them financially. My point being if it sounds like the SYG hearing is unfair to the victims side of the story with little to no risk to the shooter, it does, that is how it was written.

Theoretically the right to not testify is always in effect, but realistically there is very little chance that a Judge would be convinced that he was standing his ground and defending himself unless he does actually testify, since he is the only one who was there. IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[jaded cat]

He does not have to testify if he chooses not to. The right to not testify against yourself is always in effect. If he chooses to not testify would that harm his chances, probably, but considering he is facing criminal charges it still can't be compelled to.

After the bond hearing I would imagine he would testify on his own behalf, but they SYG hearing is just the judge and evaluation of the evidence as presented. If the judge feels there is a preponderance of evidence that will lead to an acquittal he can pull the plug on the whole show, or he can send them on to trial.

But it is not every witness and every shred of evidence being presented at a jury level. Mostly sworn statements of the witnesses that will be called, the physical evidence to be presented, the state can explain what they expect to show or ask the witnesses about. And then the judge makes a call.

If it sounds unfair, keep in mind SYG was written from the point of view of an elderly/retired couple that shoots a home intruder and then spends the next year in poor health and financial strain defending themselves or worrying about going to jail or leaving behind a destitute spouse. That is literally the poster child case they used when selling the bill. Made sense in that case, elderly couple, in their home, not reasonable for them to flee, but without the SYG law the standard said they were required to flee. It took over a year for the state to announce they were not pursuing charges, by then the seventy year old shooter in a motor home with one exit (no realistic flight option present) had worried himself sick and a full blown defense at trial would have ruined them financially. My point being if it sounds like the SYG hearing is unfair to the victims side of the story with little to no risk to the shooter, it does, that is how it was written.

Would it have been smarter to just expand on the Castle Doctrine rather than open up this can of worms? It really does seem like a license to start a fight, then when you're losing, whip out your gun and let them have it. (not referring to this case, just in general)

 

[impatientredhead]

Theoretically the right to not testify is always in effect, but realistically there is very little chance that a Judge would be convinced that he was standing his ground and defending himself unless he does actually testify, since he is the only one who was there. IMO JMHO and stuff.

I will go thru and pull the numbers of how many of the 200 cases the defendant didn't have to testify and still ended up winning. I know it is not the majority but he would be far from the first. I agree it would hurt his chances, and expect that he will testify, but I will be far from shocked if he isn't even there (presence in court waived by his defense team). I said that many threads back when we were discussing why he was being allowed to leave the state I said this very may well be his last court appearance. If they let him out of state it is very costly to transport him back and forth, which if he wins will be the state's problem financially, but MOM wants as little fanfare as possible. GZ not being there will bring less viewers and protesters, which would make it easier for the judge to grant the immunity with public pressure dying down.

I would have said I think this high profile enough that I think a judge is going to let it go to trial just to avoid the heat and craziness, but now that the police chiefs resignation was declined by the board that indicates some real political splits down there. There was no down side that I can think of to taking his resignation. When compared to the appearance it gives, and having a police chief with even a significant portion of people have shown a lack of confidence in.... well I don't see how that person is suppose to lead a community under this kind of stress.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

IMO, there's only one question in this case. Why did GZ get out of his vehicle? Seriously, why? The police had been informed and were on their way. So WHY DID HE GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE?????? Trayvon was not committing a crime. Even GZ said only that TM "looked suspicious." I think he's going to have a heck of a time trying to explain that one and that goes to the entire case against him. JMHO, etc.

What do you think is the reason he got out of his vehicle? He obviously had a reason, because he did get out. What do you think it might have been?


Do you think he was thinking this might be his chance to shoot someone? Maybe he planned to follow him, hoped for a confrontation, so he could have an excuse to shoot him. Is that what you're thinking?

Or, maybe he took his (unpaid) "security" job a little too seriously? Maybe he saw it as his duty to figure out why someone unfamiliar/suspicious is in the gated community? Maybe he was telling the truth when he was talking to the police dispatcher about being concerned the suspicious looking person would get away before the police got there, so he decided to follow him. Maybe that's why he started running when Trayvon started running?

Seems to me that the latter explanation is much more likely to be true. Gated communities are very different from public communities. One of the main reasons people live in gated communities is for the security, and much of that security stems from treating anyone who is unfamiliar as being suspicious.

If you don't know what I mean, try putting on a hoodie and sneaking into a gated community, especially one with a security team (paid or voluntary), and see what happens. Then, when you get followed by a security guard or security watch person, try to lose him. Then, after you lose him, sneak up behind him, confront him for following you and harassing you, hit him in the face with such force that his nose breaks and he's knocked to the ground, jump on him, and start bashing his head on the sidewalk (note: a photo showing bleeding on the back of Zimmerman's head minutes after the shooting has been released).

Think you won't get shot? <mod snip>

 

[annalia]

What do you think is the reason he got out of his vehicle? He obviously had a reason, because he did get out. What do you think it might have been?


Do you think he was thinking this might be his chance to shoot someone? Maybe he planned to follow him, hoped for a confrontation, so he could have an excuse to shoot him. Is that what you're thinking?

Or, maybe he took his (unpaid) "security" job a little too seriously? Maybe he saw it as his duty to figure out why someone unfamiliar/suspicious is in the gated community? Maybe he was telling the truth when he was talking to the police dispatcher about being concerned the suspicious looking person would get away before the police got there, so he decided to follow him. Maybe that's why he started running when Trayvon started running?

Seems to me that the latter explanation is much more likely to be true. Gated communities are very different from public communities. One of the main reasons people live in gated communities is for the security, and much of that security stems from equating anyone who is unfamiliar with being suspicious, and treating them accordingly.

If you don't know what I mean, try putting on a hoodie and sneaking into a gated community, especially one with a security team (paid or voluntary), and see what happens. Then, when you get followed, try to lose him. Then, after you lose him, sneak up behind them, confront him for following you and harassing you, hit him in the face with such force that his nose breaks and he's knocked to the ground, jump on him, and start bashing his head on the sidewalk.

Think you won't get shot? <mod snip>?

BBM

Trayvon was an invited guest of a resident of that community. No different than other invited guests of other residents in that community.

He didn't sneak in anywhere and he had every right to be there, as that invited guest.

 

[impatientredhead]

Would it have been smarter to just expand on the Castle Doctrine rather than open up this can of worms? It really does seem like a license to start a fight, then when you're losing, whip out your gun and let them have it. (not referring to this case, just in general)

Yep, but no one asked me :blushing:

My state doesn't have this law and I would vote against it if it came up.
I don't think you should be required to flee your place of residence. Someone kicks in my door, they intend harm, no question in my mind, and having to flee my home while in shock and fear puts my reaction in question and possibly has me fleeing my home into more danger outside my window. If you are in a shared space retreat when possible is just common sense for public safety. I don't want your average citizen deciding what is criminal and what isn't, and they certainly shouldn't be confronting anyone. Just from a public safety stand point if GZ had been approaching someone else, say a 25 year old with priors and warrant for his arrest and gun on him GZ pursuing him might have got a bystander killed in the crossfire.

 

[Sensei]

I will go thru and pull the numbers of how many of the 200 cases the defendant didn't have to testify and still ended up winning. I know it is not the majority but he would be far from the first. I agree it would hurt his chances, and expect that he will testify, but I will be far from shocked if he isn't even there (presence in court waived by his defense team). I said that many threads back when we were discussing why he was being allowed to leave the state I said this very may well be his last court appearance. If they let him out of state it is very costly to transport him back and forth, which if he wins will be the state's problem financially, but MOM wants as little fanfare as possible. GZ not being there will bring less viewers and protesters, which would make it easier for the judge to grant the immunity with public pressure dying down.

I would have said I think this high profile enough that I think a judge is going to let it go to trial just to avoid the heat and craziness, but now that the police chiefs resignation was declined by the board that indicates some real political splits down there. There was no down side that I can think of to taking his resignation. When compared to the appearance it gives, and having a police chief with even a significant portion of people have shown a lack of confidence in.... well I don't see how that person is suppose to lead a community under this kind of stress.

I really wonder if it comes down to dollars and cents, if the severance package is so generous that it is financially feasible to keep him until they can find a way to accept that resignation without having to spend as much money. This whole thing is just crazy IMO, I agree though how is Lee supposed to lead the department after the no confidence vote, and yet they refuse his resignation...I don't get it.

 

[Elley Mae]

What do you think is the reason he got out of his vehicle? He obviously had a reason, because he did get out. What do you think it might have been?


Do you think he was thinking this might be his chance to shoot someone? Maybe he planned to follow him, hoped for a confrontation, so he could have an excuse to shoot him. Is that what you're thinking?

Or, maybe he took his (unpaid) "security" job a little too seriously? Maybe he saw it as his duty to figure out why someone unfamiliar/suspicious is in the gated community? Maybe he was telling the truth when he was talking to the police dispatcher about being concerned the suspicious looking person would get away before the police got there, so he decided to follow him. Maybe that's why he started running when Trayvon started running?

Seems to me that the latter explanation is much more likely to be true. Gated communities are very different from public communities. One of the main reasons people live in gated communities is for the security, and much of that security stems from treating anyone who is unfamiliar as being suspicious.

If you don't know what I mean, try putting on a hoodie and sneaking into a gated community, especially one with a security team (paid or voluntary), and see what happens. Then, when you get followed by a security guard or security watch person, try to lose him. Then, after you lose him, sneak up behind him, confront him for following you and harassing you, hit him in the face with such force that his nose breaks and he's knocked to the ground, jump on him, and start bashing his head on the sidewalk (note: a photo showing bleeding on the back of Zimmerman's head minutes after the shooting has been released).

Think you won't get shot? ,<mod snip>?

Wow Welcome to Websleuths

 

[Montjoy]

Several examples have been given of defendants who lied thru their teeth, multiple times, denied being the killer or involved at all, destroyed evidence, and changed the story a few more times. GZ having deviations in his story is hardly going to rattle the judges cage. Might carry more weight with a jury in all actuality.

Perhaps, but let's not forget that if a jury does not find part of a person's testimony credible, or believes that s/he has lied, they are allowed to ignore all of that person's testimony. That would make multiple versions of a story very risky for someone using an affirmative defense like SYG.

 

[MaryAnn]

What do you think is the reason he got out of his vehicle? He obviously had a reason, because he did get out. What do you think it might have been?


Do you think he was thinking this might be his chance to shoot someone? Maybe he planned to follow him, hoped for a confrontation, so he could have an excuse to shoot him. Is that what you're thinking?

Or, maybe he took his (unpaid) "security" job a little too seriously? Maybe he saw it as his duty to figure out why someone unfamiliar/suspicious is in the gated community? Maybe he was telling the truth when he was talking to the police dispatcher about being concerned the suspicious looking person would get away before the police got there, so he decided to follow him. Maybe that's why he started running when Trayvon started running?

Seems to me that the latter explanation is much more likely to be true. Gated communities are very different from public communities. One of the main reasons people live in gated communities is for the security, and much of that security stems from treating anyone who is unfamiliar as being suspicious.

If you don't know what I mean, try putting on a hoodie and sneaking into a gated community, especially one with a security team (paid or voluntary), and see what happens. Then, when you get followed by a security guard or security watch person, try to lose him. Then, after you lose him, sneak up behind him, confront him for following you and harassing you, hit him in the face with such force that his nose breaks and he's knocked to the ground, jump on him, and start bashing his head on the sidewalk (note: a photo showing bleeding on the back of Zimmerman's head minutes after the shooting has been released).

Think you won't get shot? <mod snip>

I guess I never want to live in a gated community if I can't have guests over who innocently want to take a walk and heaven forbid if it's raining and they decide to cover their heads. I'm sorry but this reminds me of the old Western Cowboy shoot em up movies. This is utterly ridiculous to me that you can't have a guest over because they are strangers and they might get shot when they go outside your home because they are unfamiliar to the NW Captain. lease: help me to understand because I truly don't!!! RIP Trayvon. I have to believe you will get Justice even in Florida!

 

[highflyer]

His former attorneys are not credible to me. One of his family members may have been running it, doesn't mean GZ was though.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We'll never know if it doesn't come back online.

His Brother said it was GZ and his former lawyer said it was GZ's. I hope it is investigated. In my opinion it was a peek into GZ's thoughts.