Zimmerman trial

[tranquility]

Ha. Not at all, YAG. I am not suggesting that mainstream media has an agenda. Never. With the press, it is accuracy first and always.

Cataldo, by the way, is the chief of homicide for the Macomb County Prosecutors Office. I've spoken with other prosecutors who felt as he did, that in Michigan the case would have played out differently.

I read the jury instructions, tranquility, and they were the type of jury instructions I would want my jury to have if I were ever the defendant on trial for second-degree murder under similar circumstances.



(as an aside: I like the way you wrote your posts, Ladyback1 - very nice)

That, I agree with. While I thought many of the decisions by the judge were favorable to the prosecution, I thought the jury instructions were favorable to the defendant and it surprised me. They seemed confusing at best and seemed to repeat defenses to the crimes charged. The lack of the provocation negation of self defense instruction decision surprised me. (aka the "initial aggressor" instruction.) While I don't think there was any evidence to find Zimmerman was an initial aggressor under my understanding of Florida law on the matter, I would have thought that would have been a factual issue left to the jury. On further review, it does seem the guidelines in Florida's Gibbs require much more than the guidelines in Michigan on the mitigation or elimination of self-defense.

An "imperfect" self-defense claim (where the person claiming self defense was the original aggressor) can take second degree murder down to manslaughter as mentioned by the prosecutor. People v. Deason, 384 NW 2d 72 (1985):

"Imperfect self-defense" is a qualified defense which can mitigate an act of second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. People v Morrin, 31 Mich App 301, 311, fn 7; 187 NW2d 434 (1971), lv den 385 Mich 775 (1971). This qualified defense has been invoked elsewhere than in Michigan where a defense of self-defense fails because the defendant was the aggressor, or maintained an unreasonable belief of danger, or reacted with an unreasonable amount of force. State v Powell, 84 NJ 305, 313; 419 A2d 406 (1980).

However the case which describes aggressor in the (unlike in FL) the non-codified elimination of the self-defense defense was People v. Townes, 218 NW 2d 136 (1974). To the jury instruction (cut by me):

an aggressor is not necessarily a person who strikes the first blow in a personal encounter, or makes the first demonstration indicating an intent to strike. But if a person with a malice and hatred in his heart towards such a person seeks to provoke a difficulty either by acts or words with the intent to induce such other person to strike the first blow, or to make the demonstration in order to form a pretext to take his life, then the Defendant could not avail himself of the right of self-defense.

With the facts of:

Appellant proceeded directly to an employee named Odom McMillion and began to loudly accuse McMillion of dating his wife. McMillion replied that he did not know what defendant was referring to and wanted to have no trouble with him.

Shortly after the verbal confrontation began, Jessie Burnett intervened and ordered appellant to leave the store. Burnett added that if the men had 583*583 any desire to continue their argument they should do so outside of his store.

When appellant refused to leave, Burnett went into his office and obtained a pistol. He returned with the gun at his side and without pointing it at appellant, again ordered him to leave. Appellant protested Burnett's action but soon raised his hands and backed out of the store followed by Burnett.The trial testimony diverges at this point. All of the prosecution's witnesses generally testified that after appellant backed out of the store, Burnett placed the gun in a holster he was wearing, turned and started to walk to the inner part of the store. Appellant then suddenly reentered the store and began shooting at Burnett, fatally wounding him.

Appellant stated a markedly different version of the fatal shooting. He testified that he was very frightened when Burnett confronted him with the gun and remained in fear as Burnett holstered the gun but kept his hand on it. While the men were still facing each other Burnett made a "very sudden motion" that appeared to appellant to be an effort to draw the gun back out of the holster. Appellant stated that he then instantaneously reacted by reaching for a gun he carried in his belt and shot Burnett in what he believed was self-defense.

Discussing:

The self-defense instruction was premised on the 592*592 incorrect assumption that there had been some evidence introduced at trial from which the jury could reasonably infer that appellant was the "aggressor" in the fatal confrontation with Burnett. The court apparently focused on appellant's conduct with respect to Odom McMillion and erroneously assumed that if appellant was at fault in provoking a disturbance in the tire store, he could then be held legally accountable as an aggressor for any response to his conduct, whether by McMillion or any other person. This was error. Appellant may only be held legally accountable as an aggressor for responsive conduct by another that is reasonably attributable to appellant's own conduct. See Cartwright v State, 14 Tex Ct App R 486, 498-499, 502 (1883). In the present case there was no evidence that would support the inferences created by the self-defense instruction that Burnett's actions were a legally reasonable response to appellant's conduct and therefore, that appellant was an "aggressor" with respect to Burnett.

According to all the testimony developed at trial, the singular purpose underlying Burnett's intervention into the confrontation between appellant and McMillion was Burnett's desire to avoid a disruption in his store. There was no testimony to indicate that Burnett intervened to protect McMillion or Burnett's own person or that appellant's actions were designed as a pretext to draw Burnett into a situation where appellant could take Burnett's life. The only reasonable conclusion from the trial testimony is that appellant's actions created a potential threat to Burnett's property and it was to this threat that Burnett responded; but, a threat to property in such a situation, is not a legally sufficient provocation to render appellant an aggressor.

593*593 "It may be conceded that everything that was done by defendant in the transaction, up to the moment of the final attack by the deceased, was unlawful and wrongful; yet, if that assault was felonious and was of such a character as to clearly indicate an intention by the assailant to take defendant's life, or to inflict on him some enormous bodily injury, there is no valid ground for holding that he was precluded from the right to defend himself against it by the mere fact that he had been, or then was engaged in the commission of a trespass upon the property of the deceased. * * *

"The general doctrine undoubtedly is that one who has taken the life of an assailant, but who was himself in the wrong, cannot avail himself of the plea of self-defense. But the wrong which will preclude him from making that defense must relate to the assault in resistance of which the assailant was killed. If at the time the assault is made upon him, he is engaged in the commission of an act which is wrongful, but which is independent of the assault he may lawfully defend himself against it, to the extent even of slaying the assailant, if it is felonious, unless, indeed, his act is of such a character as to justify the assault. The mere fact, then, that defendant was engaged in committing a trespass when deceased attacked him * * *, does not necessarily constitute him a wrong-doer in the matter of the assault, or preclude him from making the defense of self-defense." State v Perigo, 70 Iowa 657, 666; 28 NW 452 (1886).

 

[LdiJ]

At the end of the day the facts will hold true that if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not followed TM, we wouldn't be talking about this. Zimmerman wouldn't be a marked man and Trayvon would be home with his family.

Clearly Zimmerman was more aggressive than he should have been.

I keep circling back to that myself. I wonder if Zimmerman has reached the point where he wishes that he had listened to that advice? I think that he will someday...and that someday may be very soon.

 

[tranquility]

Just because he got punched and had some wounds is NOT indicative of WHO the primary aggressor was!

I can give you numerous examples of a primary aggressor sustains wounds before their victim does, or aggressor sustains more serious/significant wounds.
(and I have already, re: my work comp claim experience)

NONE of us know who the primary aggressor was. Mr. M is can't tell his side of what happened. And Mr. Z has either convinced himself that he was the victim, or believed he was the victim from the start. You are making assumptions and conclusions based on one version of a story. NEVER, EVER a good idea! No matter what the story is or is about.

And thank you Quincy!

Please review the Florida law and provide the facts that indicate Zimmerman was the primary aggressor. If we don't know, then the state can't claim it beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Recognizing not guilty is not the same as innocent.)

 

[swalsh411]

At the end of the day the facts will hold true that if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not followed TM, we wouldn't be talking about this. Zimmerman wouldn't be a marked man and Trayvon would be home with his family.

Clearly Zimmerman was more aggressive than he should have been.

Maybe, but irrelevant to the core legal issue of the case.

 

[Willlyjo]

When I was young (so yeah, we're talking 30+ years!), and my dad was teaching me gun safety for hunting---his first lesson was, "this is a weapon, if you point it at any living being, you should be prepared to kill that living being. Whether it is a deer or a person. Do not point a gun at anything you are not willing to kill..." Now, that may have been a very simplistic explanation for a his child, but it has stuck with me. He also taught me to aim for the biggest part of whatever I was shooting at, so on a person that would be the center mass. I wish that more young kids were taught gun safety early on. I grew up in home w/ several guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) and I never felt the need to use them or handle them except when we were hunting or target/practice shooting. I digress....

As far as primary aggressor: One does not have to be injured to be the primary aggressor. One does not have to lay hands on the other person to be the primary aggressor. Who was the primary aggressor between Mr. Z and Mr. M? Only God knows. I do believe that Mr. Z has convinced himself that he was not. And all the rest of the world is left to speculate and assume.

The bottom line is that TM was the one who initiated physical contact and it all went down from there! Anyone anywhere has a right to follow someone as Zimmerman did, in this situation. Zimmerman broke no laws what-so-ever, by following TM because he percieved TM to be up to something. If this is the primary aggression you speak of, good luck on convincing the majority of those who believe differently.

It doesn't matter if it was two black dudes, two white dudes, a yellow and a red dude or two purple dudes--the results would be the same--the dude that shoots and kills the one beating his head into the ground, will be acquitted. Actually, if it were two blacks or two whites, there never would have been any arrests because the facts of the investigation speak for themselves--it was self-defense! Initially, that is what started to happen before the higher ups decided to get involved.

I actually think that if there was anything racial about what happened, it benefitted TM's followers and supporters in that by arresting Zimmerman and pressing charges warranting a trial, it showed that the DA was very aware of the sensitivities of the African American citizens of the U.S. Under the circumstances there never should have been an arrest in the first place.

Suppose TM was able to take the gun away from Zimmerman and kill Zimmerman. TM, because he committed an assault against Zimmerman would most likely be up for 2nd degree murder/manslaughter charges and he WOULD be convicted because he assaulted Zimmerman.

For Obama to say that he's had personal experience whereby he walked across the street to observe the "car doors locking" and/or walking into an elevator to observe the lady clutching her purse even more tightly because of his presence, isn't anything more than what I've experienced when a white guy walked into the elevator and I (another white guy) would keep my eyes on him and have a heightened awareness that he may cause me trouble--why? Because he is a stranger and he looks to me like he could cause problems--I don't trust him. NOT any different than what he describes--NOT only a black thing!

Finally, if TM would have had a gun (as Obama suggested) then HE would have been in danger of getting arrested for murder or manslaughter because HE was the one who initiated physical contact! 'INITIATED PHYSICAL CONTACT'--that is the key in all of this! Obama tried his best to appease both side, however, he probably did more harm than good by his comments, which seemed to be a bit inciteful.

 

[Ladyback1]

Please review the Florida law and provide the facts that indicate Zimmerman was the primary aggressor. If we don't know, then the state can't claim it beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Recognizing not guilty is not the same as innocent.)

I do not know who the primary aggressor was! My argument has been, and will continue to be---none of us know. Assuming just because Mr. Z was NOT the primary aggressor because he received injuries, is just that an assumption.

I was not there that night. I have an opinion as to what happened, but it's just my opinion. IMO, had the prosecutor took a different tact, Mr. Z stood a better than fair chance at being convicted of manslaughter. However, the prosecutor did not and as a result the jury really had no choice but to find Mr. Z not guilty.

Short answer--I'm not disagreeing with you!

And finally, just because something is legal does not make it ethically or morally correct (and vice-verse).

 

[davew128]

Just because he got punched and had some wounds is NOT indicative of WHO the primary aggressor was!

I can give you numerous examples of a primary aggressor sustains wounds before their victim does, or aggressor sustains more serious/significant wounds.
(and I have already, re: my work comp claim experience)

NONE of us know who the primary aggressor was. Mr. M is can't tell his side of what happened. And Mr. Z has either convinced himself that he was the victim, or believed he was the victim from the start. You are making assumptions and conclusions based on one version of a story. NEVER, EVER a good idea! No matter what the story is or is about.

Unless Zimmerman had threatened to shoot ******, ****** doesn't have a valid self defense. Anything useful to provide?

 

[TigerD]

I'd like to add that while I believe Zimmerman's story there is no actual proof that he didn't take an aggressive first action against ******. Perhaps he grabbed ******, who then popped him in the nose. We don't know. For me it doesn't change the fact <-- Yes, I mean fact, that ****** was not the sweet innocence 12-year-old the media presented and was instead a violent young man with an extensive history of violence and drug abuse. There was also significant evidence pointing to his involvement in several burglaries. Zimmerman, on the other hand, was not a racist. Not at all.

So, while I choose to accept Zimmerman's story, that doesn't mean he could not have taken a violent action against ******. The biggest problem I have with people posting on this is the absolutes on evidence that no one can possibly know. We don't know happened that night. We know Zimmerman's story. And we know the physical supports his story. But that doesn't mean his story is complete.

DC

 

[Ladyback1]

Unless Zimmerman had threatened to shoot ******, ****** doesn't have a valid self defense. Anything useful to provide?

When I was a 911 dispatcher---we had a call where a female had picked up a large ashtray and bashed it over her boyfriend's head (he had a heck of lump, one bad headache and concussion, but he wasn't dead). Upon investigation, the male was deemed the primary aggressor and charged w/ domestic assault. Why? How? She hit him first, she didn't have a mark on her! Investigation showed that they were having a verbal altercation, and the male had taken off his large class (Senior) ring and started toward her. He never raised a hand, he never touched her, he never pointed a weapon----HOWEVER, in the past, every time he had taken that ring off, he had beat the living snot out of her. She mentally said "no more", and handled the problem. I give you this story to show that primary aggressor can be and mean a lot of different things!
*sigh*
You just don't get it....and no matter how many times it is explained to you, you will still hold tight to your opinion. And that is fine. But, regardless of whether my opinion differs from your opinion, it doesn't make my opinion or your opinion any less valid.

 

[Willlyjo]

When I was a 911 dispatcher---we had a call where a female had picked up a large ashtray and bashed it over her boyfriend's head (he had a heck of lump, one bad headache and concussion, but he wasn't dead). Upon investigation, the male was deemed the primary aggressor and charged w/ domestic assault. Why? How? She hit him first, she didn't have a mark on her! Investigation showed that they were having a verbal altercation, and the male had taken off his large class (Senior) ring and started toward her. He never raised a hand, he never touched her, he never pointed a weapon----HOWEVER, in the past, every time he had taken that ring off, he had beat the living snot out of her. She mentally said "no more", and handled the problem. I give you this story to show that primary aggressor can be and mean a lot of different things!
*sigh*
You just don't get it....and no matter how many times it is explained to you, you will still hold tight to your opinion. And that is fine. But, regardless of whether my opinion differs from your opinion, it doesn't make my opinion or your opinion any less valid.

Your theories on who the primary aggressor is/was is totally irrelevant! Sure, we weren't there and things could have happened that nobody is aware of, but going by what was presented at trial, it should be rightfully concluded that Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force in self-defense.

In fact, in any state where someone can legally carry a gun and that person is punched, thrown to the ground and head beaten to the sidewalk and then he shoots the one on top of him because he fears for his life, not only will he walk free, but more often than not, it wouldn't even take a trial to decide self-defense.

 

[Ladyback1]

Your theories on who the primary aggressor is/was is totally irrelevant! Sure, we weren't there and things could have happened that nobody is aware of, but going by what was presented at trial, it should be rightfully concluded that Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force in self-defense.

I have already stated that the jury came to the only conclusion that they could. Do you not read!?

In fact, in any state where someone can legally carry a gun and that person is punched, thrown to the ground and head beaten to the sidewalk and then he shoots the one on top of him because he fears for his life, not only will he walk free, but more often than not, it wouldn't even take a trial to decide self-defense.

And that is your opinion....trials and juries are peculiar sometimes, not to mention prosecutors!

 

[davew128]

When I was a 911 dispatcher---we had a call where a female had picked up a large ashtray and bashed it over her boyfriend's head (he had a heck of lump, one bad headache and concussion, but he wasn't dead). Upon investigation, the male was deemed the primary aggressor and charged w/ domestic assault. Why? How? She hit him first, she didn't have a mark on her! Investigation showed that they were having a verbal altercation, and the male had taken off his large class (Senior) ring and started toward her. He never raised a hand, he never touched her, he never pointed a weapon----HOWEVER, in the past, every time he had taken that ring off, he had beat the living snot out of her. She mentally said "no more", and handled the problem. I give you this story to show that primary aggressor can be and mean a lot of different things!

and in your case, it was clearly the wrong result.

You just don't get it....and no matter how many times it is explained to you, you will still hold tight to your opinion. And that is fine. But, regardless of whether my opinion differs from your opinion, it doesn't make my opinion or your opinion any less valid.

You have your opinion, I have my facts.

 

[tranquility]

While not determamitive, when Zimmerman was confronted in his original interview with the detectives with the (untrue) fact the whole thing was captured on a survailence tape, he said "thank God".

 

[Ladyback1]

and in your case, it was clearly the wrong result.

You have your opinion, I have my facts.

Seriously....your attitude is one of the reasons that this type of situations get so heated and hostile.

I can respect your opinion. And I certainly respect your right to have your opinion.

The facts in this case are open to interpretation. All the facts are based on supposition and assumptions. NONE of us where there, None of the attorneys were there, no one saw what happened---except Mr. Z. And, right or wrong, he's not talking!

 

[I'mTheFather]

I have already stated that the jury came to the only conclusion that they could. Do you not read!?


And that is your opinion....trials and juries are peculiar sometimes, not to mention prosecutors!

Sometimes, it just makes more sense to skip 'those' posts, if ya know what I mean.