breadnatty08
pain rustique
I'm glad there are at least some changes but murder 2 may be a tough one to prove. I hope there's at least some justice or Florida reconsiders their stand your ground law.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Justice System Broken
- Thread starter saptech
- Start date
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
A murder 2 charge IMO practically ensures he walks. Is that what everyone wants? If so, why charge him in the first place?
Coronach
Well-Known Member
I believe that the "act" required by the law would be the firing of the gun, not the walking after him or even the confrontation (if it in fact occurred). The standard is set that way to differentiate death via a weapon (real or improvised) or something that a rational person can forsee would cause death or serious injury from death via other means that could be construed as accidental or, at least, not deliberate on the part of the killer. Basically, it's one of the provisions setting M2 apart from manslaughter and other lesser offenses.
The idea that you can hold a combattant at gunpoint is sound ONLY if you are not at contact distance (which I believe it is fairly well established that they were, via independent statement), and only if you have an unarmed opponent that does not close the distance anyway. In other words, if Zimmerman is 10' from Martin at the time of the shooting, it is reasonable to believe that he could at least attempt to hold Martin at gunpoint. On the other hand, if they're in physical contact and struggling over the gun, as Zimmerman alleges, such a belief is not reasonable. The proper course of action in that context is to shoot.
Two interesting aspects of this:
1. You're able to do tests to determine distance when the round was fired, from the wound on Martin, gun shot residue on Martin and Zimmerman, blood spatter, etc (think CSI, but with less solid declaratives). One reason that could lead to Zimmerman being charged would be if this physical evidence did not match Zimmerman's version of events (read: he's lying). In similar vein, if Zimmerman's injuries are not extensive enough to match his story.
2. There were reports floating around about the status of his handgun when recovered. Supposedly, the gun had discharged and had an empty chamber, but still had rounds in the magazine. IF TRUE, that would be an indicator that that they were, in fact, in direct contact, as the gun did not fully cycle and load the next round. This is not conclusive, as Zimmerman, in post-shoot haze, could have manipulated the weapon, etc. It is also based upon news reports, and reporters are notoriously imprecise when reporting such things.
Mike
Intentionality is not at issue. Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin. What is at issue is whether or not that shooting is legal, under the circumstances.
The idea that you can hold a combattant at gunpoint is sound ONLY if you are not at contact distance (which I believe it is fairly well established that they were, via independent statement), and only if you have an unarmed opponent that does not close the distance anyway. In other words, if Zimmerman is 10' from Martin at the time of the shooting, it is reasonable to believe that he could at least attempt to hold Martin at gunpoint. On the other hand, if they're in physical contact and struggling over the gun, as Zimmerman alleges, such a belief is not reasonable. The proper course of action in that context is to shoot.
Two interesting aspects of this:
1. You're able to do tests to determine distance when the round was fired, from the wound on Martin, gun shot residue on Martin and Zimmerman, blood spatter, etc (think CSI, but with less solid declaratives). One reason that could lead to Zimmerman being charged would be if this physical evidence did not match Zimmerman's version of events (read: he's lying). In similar vein, if Zimmerman's injuries are not extensive enough to match his story.
2. There were reports floating around about the status of his handgun when recovered. Supposedly, the gun had discharged and had an empty chamber, but still had rounds in the magazine. IF TRUE, that would be an indicator that that they were, in fact, in direct contact, as the gun did not fully cycle and load the next round. This is not conclusive, as Zimmerman, in post-shoot haze, could have manipulated the weapon, etc. It is also based upon news reports, and reporters are notoriously imprecise when reporting such things.
Mike
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Apparently Martin's parents are going on TV changing their story and then changing it again. His mother gave an interview to the Today show where she said, "I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back."
Once people reacted to that she issued a statement saying that her remarks were "mischaracterized" and that "We believe that George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood." She really needs to just go away and grieve quietly. I get that she lost her son and she's in pain. I get that. But claiming that her son was stalked and then murdered in cold blood is not consistent at all with anything we know. Toss Zimmerman's story completely out of the window and he still didn't stalk him and kill him cold blood. That is just a ridiculous statement and makes her look foolish.
We know for a fact there was a physical confrontation of some sort before Martin was killed. We know for a fact that Zimmerman sustained minor injuries as a result of that confrontation. There's nothing cold-blooded about this, but her statement is going to just stoke the flames even more.
Once people reacted to that she issued a statement saying that her remarks were "mischaracterized" and that "We believe that George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood." She really needs to just go away and grieve quietly. I get that she lost her son and she's in pain. I get that. But claiming that her son was stalked and then murdered in cold blood is not consistent at all with anything we know. Toss Zimmerman's story completely out of the window and he still didn't stalk him and kill him cold blood. That is just a ridiculous statement and makes her look foolish.
We know for a fact there was a physical confrontation of some sort before Martin was killed. We know for a fact that Zimmerman sustained minor injuries as a result of that confrontation. There's nothing cold-blooded about this, but her statement is going to just stoke the flames even more.
Coronach
Well-Known Member
Ultimately it doesn't matter what she says, or thinks. She wasn't there. This is one of the reasons why we don't try cases in the media. Now, to the extent that this media circus, orchestrated by the usual suspects, taints jury pools, yeah, that's a problem. But beyond that ... I hate to say that I don't care what she believes, but I don't care what she believes.
Mike
Mike
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Note to self, when shooting someone insure the outcome is lethal, makes for a cleaner narrative.
Yes, it's up to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so let's see what the prosecution has before we reach a conclusion.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Note to self, when shooting someone insure the outcome is lethal, makes for a cleaner narrative.
Yes, it's up to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so let's see what the prosecution has before we reach a conclusion.
Yeah, if Martin survived there would no doubt be a completely different version of events. In his version of events, Zimmerman would likely not come off well at all.
All we have to go on is what has been released/leaked so far. Nothing that has come out has indicated second degree murder at all. Not the 911 tapes. Not the witness accounts that have come out. Not Zimmerman's testimony. I really, really, really want to see what the State has. It has to be something groundbreaking.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Maybe not groundbreaking. Good article. Radley Balko: The Unchecked Charging Power of the Prosecutor
"Ultimately, the prosecutor is a political position. Because no prosecutor has the resources to charge and try every crime, discretion over when to bring charges and for which crimes is a matter of policy. Popular perceptions of crime and punishment issues are shifting, but the public still sees a prosecutor's job primarily as the official who puts people in jail, not the faithful minister of justice that Gershman envisions."
9to5cynic
Android Expert
Just barely off topic, on the day they announced that charges were being placed against Zimmerman, the woman said something along the lines that this [charges] had *nothing* to do with the popular opinion (and outrage) over how there were no charges...
any thoughts? I too am interested to see what evidence they have against him, but I can't help shake the feeling that if not for the public outcry, it wouldn't have happened. But I'm cynical.
any thoughts? I too am interested to see what evidence they have against him, but I can't help shake the feeling that if not for the public outcry, it wouldn't have happened. But I'm cynical.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I tend to agree with you. There was an interesting post on G+ that argued that what has happened here is a lot like old fashioned mob justice. The mob decides that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. The court bows to public pressure and charges him even though they may have no chance in the world to make the charges stick. How is that not mob rule? I don't know that I disagree with the poster there or not.
Coronach
Well-Known Member
Discovery will be interesting. I'm curious what they have that they think will make M2 stick. Alternatively, they could be using it as a vehicle to encourage a plea. They can always reduce the charges later.
Everyone seems to think that the prosecutor is motivated by political pressure to charge, but consider that if she overcharges and goes to the mat with murder 2 and loses, how does that help her politically? Think about the prosecution team in the Anthony case ... they overcharged, and got handed an embarrassing defeat. It goes both ways, which is why the GJ was such a good option. It takes a lot of the political pressure out of the decision.
Mike
Everyone seems to think that the prosecutor is motivated by political pressure to charge, but consider that if she overcharges and goes to the mat with murder 2 and loses, how does that help her politically? Think about the prosecution team in the Anthony case ... they overcharged, and got handed an embarrassing defeat. It goes both ways, which is why the GJ was such a good option. It takes a lot of the political pressure out of the decision.
Mike
The justice system as an idealism is fine, it's the due process that's crippled. A defendant with no means to pay for a private lawyer gets one appointed by the court..now I know some of these public defenders are handling up to 24 cases at one time. Now the prosecutor handling the case has an unlimited set of resources to get his conviction..this to me is the biggest issue and why poor people are targeted more by cops. I've been taken in for having a joint on me, not knowing the law only to find out years later it was an illegal search but entirely too late to do something about it. I installed an app a while back that had the entire list of laws for new york state and had an encounter with a cop who quite frankly didn't know that going into my socks is illegal..nor did he think i was aware that he cannot stop me without probable cause..there is a bigger issue of education amongst law enforcement who put people in predicaments such as these because of pure ignorance. I've since passed on this app to everyone I know..these are things a good lawyer only working on your case would easily get thrown out of court.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Cops don't target poor people. There is no way a cop can look at you and know how much you make.
Coronach
Well-Known Member
Cops don't target poor people, they're looking for criminals and patrolling the highest crime areas. This happens to be where poor people live. The reasons for this are manifold and are the subject of legitimate chicken-or-egg style debates about causality, but it is what it is. Poor people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system because they commit crimes at a higher rate than middle class and rich people.
And cops do not need probable cause to stop you, they need reasonable articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime. You're confusing probable cause to arrest with the level of proof required for an investigative detention. Searching your socks may or may not be legit, depending on the circumstances.
Mike
And cops do not need probable cause to stop you, they need reasonable articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime. You're confusing probable cause to arrest with the level of proof required for an investigative detention. Searching your socks may or may not be legit, depending on the circumstances.
Mike
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
The rich commit white collar crime which causes a great deal more damage to society. It's easier, cheaper and less threatening for the law enforcement institutions to target those with less means.
The last financial crisis is a case in point. It's well documented that those law enforcement officers that attempted to investigate those rich and well connected law breakers were fired, demoted and harassed.
The lesson learn, pick the low hanging fruit.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The rich go to jail for white collar crime too. It's just that some middle class white guy going to jail for embezzlement is not as newsmaking as some black guy going to jail for a driveby.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
More common is the rich enter into a consent degree, which they don't deny or admit guilt, pay a small tax on the money stolen and promise not to get caught again.
They then go to their paid politician and have them cut funds to that particular law enforcement agency and guess who gets the boot.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
That may be true too. The fact of the matter is the poor do commit more crimes than the rich and the crimes they commit tend to be more sensationalistic (muggings, assaults, drivebys, armed robberies) then the crimes the more affluent commit (embezzlement, ponzi schemes, dodging income taxes, beating the wife on occasion, etc...). So the crimes of the poor get more focus.
Let's be honest, if I gave you a gun, a badge and a cop car and told you to go out and find a bad guy to arrest you're probably not going to cruise around the affluent section of town.
Let's be honest, if I gave you a gun, a badge and a cop car and told you to go out and find a bad guy to arrest you're probably not going to cruise around the affluent section of town.
Coronach
Well-Known Member
I figured someone would mention white collar crime. Guess what? Cops (the patrol officers we discuss when we talk about targeting the poor) don't investigate white collar crime. I'm not going to effect an arrest for insider trading at the crack house. Extending this somewhat absurd logical argument, the SEC is targeting rich people as they very rarely catch a murderer. Oh noes.
In truth, the SEC is going after the people who commit the types of crimes they investigate. Cops are going after the people who commit the types of crimes they investigate.
Mike
In truth, the SEC is going after the people who commit the types of crimes they investigate. Cops are going after the people who commit the types of crimes they investigate.
Mike
saptech
Android Expert
What type of crime the rich/middle class white men who's responsible for the crack (cocaine) coming into this country, by planes or boats, called? Are the DEA the only law enforcement agency investigating them? Surely the poor are not responsible for it coming into this country but only to help distribute and use it.
During the Reagan adminstration terms, the cocaine epidemic exploded, it was part of the Iran-Contra affair (Irangate).
Coronach
Well-Known Member
Are you REALLY going to attempt to make the case that the police don't go after drug dealers? Do you REALLY think that the millions of dollars we pump into the war on drugs, for good or for ill, is targeted at street level dealers and users? Sure, there are more street level people prosecuted, but this is how a distribution network operates. One guy supplies twenty. If you arrest all of them, oh noes, only 1/21st of them were big fish. Nevermind that the big fish gets 15 to 30 and the street mopes get probation ...
I'm certainly not prepared to defend everything the LE community does to combat drugs, but the idea that they're not going after middle class and affluent dealers is laughable. It also starts delving into the defintion of class. For instance, if you take a guy on public assistance, living in section 8 housing and who has no job, but you catch him with $50,000 cash (because he just sold out his wares), is he poor, middle class, or rich?
Mike
I'm certainly not prepared to defend everything the LE community does to combat drugs, but the idea that they're not going after middle class and affluent dealers is laughable. It also starts delving into the defintion of class. For instance, if you take a guy on public assistance, living in section 8 housing and who has no job, but you catch him with $50,000 cash (because he just sold out his wares), is he poor, middle class, or rich?
Mike
Coronach
Well-Known Member
The higher up in socioeconomic status you go, the less likely you are to encounter criminality, period. Certainly there criminals at the top (there are criminals at all levels, it is the rate that varies), and indeed there are some types of crime (Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, for instance) that can really only be perpetuated by the well-heeled, but the fact remains that middle class neighborhoods are safer than lower class neighborhoods because the inhabitants generally aren't killing, robbing and stealing from each other.
Mike
Mike
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
We differ. The rich control the largest criminal organizations on the planet that commit far more crimes than poor individuals.
Law enforcement priorities are concentrated on the poor. The rich are in control of the enforcement agencies that effect their activity. This criminal activity creates poverty, jeopardizes the country, creates poverty and disrespect for the law.