George Zimmerman: Weak Prosecution

[Shiranu]

I think it is highly probable Martin started the fight, which any sane person would do if they felt they couldn't outrun a guy who has been stalking you for several minutes in a truck. Rather get shot in the chest than in the back.

That is ultimately irrelevant to Zimmerman's guilt imo. Zimmerman created the situation, therefor he is guilty to an extent. Do I think he needs 30 years in jail? No, I would be happy with 5. I don't think he was looking for a fight or to kill anyone, I think he was on a power-trip because he had a gun and was the self-appointed neighbour hoodwatch, got into a situation he couldn't control and made a poor decision.

I don't personally think he is a bad guy, I think he is just a fucking idiot.

[wolf39us]

If you cannot convict Zimmerman for Murder in the 2nd on grounds of self-defense, this should apply all the same to Manslaughter.  Self-Defense, is self-defense!

[Johan]

I don't personally think he is a bad guy, I think he is just a fucking idiot.

This is about where I am with it as well.

[Shiranu]

Rapist shot you after you fight back? Self defense!
Guy is about to mug you so you fight back and he kills you? Self defense!
Provoke anyone into any sort of fight, claim your felt threatened? Self defense!

Sorry, but this sets a really bad precedent for what "self defense" is.

[Colanth]

Can anybody tell me what the stance is in Florida? Does the belief have to be honest and reasonable or honest alone? Does the force need to be reasonable/proportionate?

The concept of "reasonable man" (what would a reasonable man do - or expect) is relevant at all times, but it's not something the court would bring up.  One of the attorneys has to.  Many cases have been won or lost because an attorney failed to raise a point.

In this case, it seems that Zimmerman had no reasonable ground under which to follow Martin, so he was stalking.  In Florida, a black man being stalked by a seemingly white man in a white neighborhood has reasonable grounds to feel threatened.  The relative levels of culpability seem reasonable to me, given the knowledge I currently have.  And, since there was evidently malice aforethought (Zimmerman wasn't following Martin just to see where Martin was going), it's pretty serious.

[wolf39us]

Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

[Colanth]

Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

[Shiranu]

Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

It also would help if he was, you know, actually part of the crime watch.

[wolf39us]

Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

Maybe in principal, but in practice -- the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

And Zimmerman was not only part of Neighboorhood watch, he was the captain...

[Jmpty]

Reefer Madness, an Unfortunate Redux

By CARL L. HART
 
Published: July 11, 2013
 
 
     
Was Trayvon Martin aggressive and paranoid from smoking marijuana, and did that lead him to attack George Zimmerman? That's what lawyers for Mr. Zimmerman are arguing. He is on trial for killing Mr. Martin, but claims he acted in self-defense, and the judge in the racially charged, nationally followed case decided earlier this week that the jury could be presented with Mr. Martin's toxicology report, which shows that he had marijuana in his system.



.

As a neuropsychopharmacologist who has spent 15 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of marijuana, I find this line of reasoning laughable. The toxicology exam, which was conducted the morning after Mr. Martin was killed, found a mere 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of blood of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in his body. This strongly suggests he had not ingested marijuana for at least 24 hours. This is also far below the THC levels that I have found necessary, in my experimental research on dozens of subjects, to induce intoxication: between 40 and 400 nanograms per milliliter. In fact, his THC levels were significantly lower than the sober, baseline levels of about 14 nanograms per milliliter of many of my patients, who are daily users. Mr. Martin could not have been intoxicated with marijuana at the time of the shooting; the amount of THC found in his system was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him.

Some observers of the case note that the toxicology test also found 7.3 nanograms per milliliter of THC-COOH, one of the main metabolic byproducts formed as the liver breaks down THC. But these metabolites of marijuana have no psychoactive properties, and they have no effect on behavior. They can also remain in the body, like THC itself, for up to four weeks. This is why their presence does not reveal when — or exactly how much of — the drug was used.

For argument's sake, though, suppose that the tiny amount of THC found in Mr. Martin's blood somehow managed to mildly intoxicate him that night. The scientific studies, including my own research, on the short-term effects of the drug on cognitive functioning show how unlikely it is that marijuana could have caused him to behave erratically or have difficulty following instructions.

Granted, the drug can temporarily slow people down in completing familiar tasks that involve memory or abstract reasoning, and it can lower a person's level of vigilance or focus. But research subjects in my studies have shown that they can make plans, exhibit self-control and cooperate closely with others even under heavy influence of marijuana — never mind when only slightly affected, as Mr. Martin could, at most, have been.

There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours. It is true that very high THC concentrations — far beyond Mr. Martin's levels — can cause mild hallucinations and paranoia, but even these effects are rare and usually seen only in very inexperienced users.

If anything, it is marijuana withdrawal that can increase aggression. But it, too, is rare and is mainly seen after abrupt cessation of heavy, almost daily use of the drug. We have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin was this kind of user, making it unlikely that marijuana withdrawal could have made him act aggressively toward Mr. Zimmerman. Remember, too, that Mr. Martin calmly purchased iced tea and candy from a 7-Eleven store shortly before his encounter with Mr. Zimmerman, which contradicts the notion that he was uncontrollably aggressive or at all paranoid at the time, whether from marijuana use, withdrawal or anything else.

There was a time, back in the 1930s, when scientific data on marijuana was thin on the ground. This left us vulnerable to exaggerated anecdotal accounts of its harms, especially its supposed tendency to induce aggression or even insanity. Newspapers and magazines routinely ran stories drawing a connection between marijuana use and heinous crimes, and some people even claimed it was a cause of matricide. These fables contributed to its de facto criminalization in 1937, through the Marijuana Tax Act. During Congressional hearings that year concerning the act, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (predecessor of the Drug Enforcement Administration) declared, "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Seven decades and hundreds of studies later, we no longer have an excuse for indulging the myth of "reefer madness." It has no place in our courts — which means Mr. Martin's toxicology report doesn't, either.
 

Carl L. Hart, an associate professor of psychology at Columbia University, is the author of "High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know about Drugs and Society."

[Jmpty]

When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman's claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

"In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."

Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot — all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies.

Trayvon Martin: 15 facts you need to know about teen shot in Sanford, Fla.

"The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program," NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) said in the press statement. "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."

The USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program manual advises volunteers about how to notice basic things about persons deemed to be suspicious such as height, weight, style of dress, and hair color. Local law enforcement agents also work with official groups to tailor specifications concerning how to discern potential criminal activity depending on the particular communities they are in. In this way, Neighborhood Watch has assured theGrio that the potential for racial profiling is curtailed. In Zimmerman's case, he would have recognized that Trayvon Martin was a non-suspicious part of the citizenry had he received proper training. The complex where he was killed is middle class and mixed race.

But registration with the USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program — which would have provided this training — is not a requirement for forming a group.

"We've got approximately 25,000 neighborhood watches registered now, and the neighborhood watches out there far exceed that number," Chris Tutko, the Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association told theGrio. "We give people the ability to register if they want to. What registration does is give groups a repository of resources." Registration also pairs groups with local law enforcement mentors, who sometimes run background checks on members.

theGrio: How black Hollywood has reacted to Trayvon Martin death

"But it's not mandatory," Tutko continued. "A group of people can get together in an apartment building and say, 'we're going to watch out for each other.' And that's it."

As Zimmerman acted as part of an unofficial group (or perhaps alone), he was free to make decisions without the benefit to his community of being vetted by police. Ultimately leaders of individual groups — if they are official groups — are responsible for asking police to run routine checks on new members. Sometimes this lack of precaution is a resource issue.

"When you are dealing with thousands of volunteers — people who have said we are going to step up to the plate and help make our neighborhood better — if it's someone that I or an officer has an uncomfortable feeling about, or a neighbor might come up and say 'that person really isn't safe,' we check it out," Caldwell said. "We try to be careful about who becomes part of the Neighborhood Watch."

But some areas lack the necessary police resources to conduct background checks on all Neighborhood Watch volunteers, because they are strapped for cash, Caldwell continued. Another pitfall is that Neighborhood Watch training does not involve any psychological evaluation.

Yet, Tutko believes that if Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions of him. "If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."

Zimmerman also called himself the "captain" of his neighborhood watch leading many to question whether it is some sort of militaristic organization, which might have emboldened Martin's killer to use violence. "When you say 'block captain'? To me that's an administrative person, someone who puts together schedules," Tutko clarified. "But certainly you're not the person in charge, and no one will be following orders from this person."

All of these factors point to the benefits of registering Neighborhood Watch groups, who receive training, vetting, and work intimately with police. "It comes down to [knowing] the person that's out there. If you're not partnering with a law enforcement agency, who vets these people? How do we know? We could be sitting talking in a meeting, talking about going on vacation, and our alarms and locks, and the person in the meeting, who is a member of the neighborhood watch, could be the person who is going to break into your house — and we don't know that," Tutko warned.

The tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of someone who claimed to be a Neighborhood Watch captain will not alter the structure of the organization. Yet, "Our condolences go out to the family, because this was not necessary," Tutko said of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

"The only change will be to use this as an example of what not to do," he confirmed.

"Neighborhood Watch — the way we teach it, and the way it has always been — is based on the premise that we don't carry weapons, nor do we intervene in any incidences," the leader continued. "Because what that does is escalate a situation and makes a volunteer another victim. We'll use this sad event as a bad example, but we won't be changing any literature or protocols."

For Caldwell, Martin's death might strengthen the resolve of Neighborhood Watch volunteers to do good.

"Does this put a blemish on Neighborhood Watch? At first I thought it might," Caldwell concluded. "But the people that are truly trained, that are part of Neighborhood Watch, know that this is more the exception to the rule, than anything else," she said of Martin's shooting.

"And they know what the right program is, and what the wrong program is. This has made people stronger and more determined that they get people involved in the right way. They want to reinforce the philosophy of Neighborhood Watch."

[Colanth]

Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

Maybe in principal, but in practice -- the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

They do in court.  Zimmerman would have to claim law enforcement knowledge superior to that of the people in the communications center to use the "no legal bearing" argument.  A cop can ignore such advice, a civilian (and that's all Zimmerman was) can't.  His being a captain in the neighborhood watch has no legal bearing, since part of the training includes the fact that when the dispatcher tells you to break off, you immediately (and I stress immediately) do so.  Playing the neighborhood watch card would be a bad move for him if the ADA is on the ball.

[Edit]After reading Jmpty's post, that last part becomes moot, even if it's still true (about Neighborhood Watch in general).

[Seabear]

the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

They do in court.

Legal reference, please. I doubt there is any law on the books anywhere that compels, under penalty of law, obeying the instructions of a 911 dispatcher. The dispatcher is not a trained police officer, nor are they on the scene or know everything that is going on - all they know is what the person on the line is saying.

Combine this with the fact that he was told something to the effect "you don't need to follow him"; this is not an imperative. To point, the dispatcher did NOT say "stop following him immediately".

So, even if there was a legal obligation to obey the instructions of a 911 dispatcher (which there is not, AFAIK), he wasn't issued a direct instruction. Based on these two points, the entire 911 operator thing is a complete red herring and is not relevant to the assessment of guilt or innocence in this case.

PS: I am also opposed to the "scatter-shooting" approach that the prosecution used in this case. Child abuse? Really? How about jaywalking and double-parking? This isn't about justice, it's about appeasing the black community.

[MilitantAtheist]

I agree with sentiment that Zimmerman is mostly at fault because he created the situation. Carrying a gun means you carry all the responsibility that comes with it and you need to hold yourself to a higher than normal standard of personal discipline. Zimmerman didn't do that, he created a confrontation which is exactly what you're not supposed to do when armed and because of that, the worst case scenario happened and a young boy is dead. Zimmerman created the confrontation and thus I hold him mostly responsible, if he's not going to face jail time then at least strip him of his carry permit because he obviously isn't smart enough and responsible enough to possess it.

[wolf39us]

I disagree

Zimmerman has a constitutional right to bear arms
Zimmerman had a right to protect himself from great bodily injury/death
Zimmerman was not committing any crime by following Trayvon
Trayvon did NOT have a right to assault someone except to defend himself

If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin, then the aggressor becomes the at-fault party and all the above applies.

Without evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon initally and with ill-will/intention I would say that the man is innocent.  Furthermore, do you think that fat ass can outrun the lean, muscular 17 year old?  I think NOT :-)