Times Editors On Zimmerman Acquital - Keeping The Dream Alive

The NY Times editors won't let reality or their own reporting intrude on their fantasies about the Zimmerman trial and acquital:

Trayvon Martin’s Legacy

..

The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute [That is technically correct insofar as "Stand Your Ground" is part of the overall explanation to the jury of justifiable and excusable force]. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.

These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.

The law sounds intuitive? The law sounds very similar to the NY State law for self defense. Some excerpts (my emphasis):

S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

...

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody...

 And they provide more detail on self-defense. My emphasis again, with comments as to the applicability to the Zimmerman case in brackets.:

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person [The state failed to prove that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, unless we accept their notion that it is illegal to exit one's car]; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force [the state failed to prove it was not Zimmerman getting battered on the sidewalk and screaming for help]; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.[N/A]

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating [This is their favored alternative to Stand Your Ground, but of course it has no relevance when the shooter is lying on the ground screaming for help]; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

[The following exceptions would not apply to Zimmerman]

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Well. Even with New York's duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have had a strong self-defense story that the prosecution never proved to be false. Here is the Times Liz Alvarette in today's paper:

At the trial, the fight between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman that preceded the shooting produced a muddle of testimony — and grist for reasonable doubt. It remained unclear who had thrown the first punch and at what point Mr. Zimmerman drew his gun. There were no witnesses to the shooting and no definitive determination of which man could be heard yelling for help in the background of a 911 call.

The only version of events came from Mr. Zimmerman, who did not take the stand, denying prosecutors a chance to cross-examine him. His statements to the police spoke for him at the trial. Defense lawyers also had a powerful piece of evidence in photographs of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries: a bloody nose and cuts and lumps on the back of his head.

...

The evidence of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries may have helped his case, but it was not legally necessary. He needed to show only that he feared great bodily harm or death when he pulled out his gun, which he was carrying legally, and shot Mr. Martin.

“Classic self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said.

Soon after Mr. Zimmerman was arrested, there appeared to be a chance that the defense would invoke a provision of Florida self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground. Ultimately it was not part of Mr. O’Mara’s courtroom strategy, though it did play a pivotal role immediately after the shooting.

The provision, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and since adopted by more than 20 other states, allows people who fear great harm or death not to retreat, even if they can safely do so. If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force.

"If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force".

Without researching that I will bet that is more Times fantasizing. Life and the lkaw are full of surprises but where is the imminent threat of grave harm if the attacker is retreating? Legal eagles? Pressing on:

The provision also allows a defendant claiming self-defense to seek civil and criminal immunity at a pretrial hearing.

Mr. O’Mara said he did not rely on Stand Your Ground as a defense because Mr. Zimmerman had no option to retreat.

"Retreat was not an option" would have been the argument made in a New York court.

We don't honestly expect the Times editors to let facts or the law interfere with their fantasies, but I an keeping my own dream alive.

I AM NOT A LAWYER, BUT... Eugene Volokh is a law professor:

Who should bear the burden of proving or disproving self-defense in criminal cases, and by what quantum (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt), is an interesting question. But on this point, Florida law is precisely the same as in nearly all other states: In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is separate from the duty to retreat, obviously.

KEEP PANDERING ALIVE! The DOJ will pretend to keep the hate crimes investigation open even though not even the pom-pom girls (and guys!) at the Times can take it seriously:

With Criminal Case Closed, Justice Department Will Restart Hate Crime Inquiry

By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Sunday that it was restarting its investigation into the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin to consider possible separate hate crime charges against George Zimmerman.

Possible hurdles:

In a statement on Sunday, the Justice Department said that now that the state criminal trial was over, it would continue its examination of the circumstances in the shooting. “Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction,” the statement said.

The department sets a high bar for such a prosecution. Three former Justice Department officials who once worked in the department’s Civil Rights Division, which is handling the inquiry, said Sunday that the federal government must clear a series of difficult legal hurdles before it could move to indict Mr. Zimmerman.

“It is not enough if it’s just a fight that escalated,” said Samuel Bagenstos, who until 2011 served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the division. “The government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully with a seriously culpable state of mind” to violate Mr. Martin’s civil rights.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. hinted at those challenges last year.

“We have to prove the highest standard in the law,” Mr. Holder said at a news conference in April 2012. “Something that was reckless, that was negligent, does not meet that standard. We have to show that there was specific intent to do the crime with the requisite state of mind.”

Florida failed to get traction with their 'state of mind' charges, but who knows?

The Times offers this example of a successful prosecution:

Criminal charges under federal hate crime law have increased significantly during the Obama administration. Between 2009 and 2012, the Justice Department prosecuted 29 percent more such cases than in the previous three fiscal years. Last month in Seattle, for example, Jamie Larson, 49, pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges that he beat a cabdriver, who was from India and was wearing a turban.

Mmm - a drunken miscreant beat a cabbie. Tha assailant had a long criminal record, there were no self-defense issues at all, and there had been no acquital on related criminal charges. Is this meant to inspire confidence that Zimmerman can be prosecuted? Or does it show us what a real hate crime might look like?

The Times does not vex their readers with news that came out during discovery in the Zimmerman trial:

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

They interviewed "nearly three dozen" people? Interview more!

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeNKlFOhUeN#storylink=cpy

 

Comments

[Ignatz]

--and, yes, Ignutz: only someone ignorant of geography would call the Taliban "the terror of Asia.'' Afghanistan is in Asia in the same way that Buenos Aires is in America.--

Your claim at the time was that Afghanistan was not in Asia, so I'm assuming your statement above is supposed to be ironic because everyone knows that Buenes Aires is really in Europe, right?

[Dr. Weevil]

bunkerbuster writes: "I am certainly open to ideas about other terms that would more accurately describe people like the regulars here at JOM. Any suggestions?"

How about 'normal human beings'? Not trolls, not fools, and not (how to put this politely?) proctological specimens. That's the only thing most of us here have in common, and 'normal human beings' certainly excludes the boys with the reduplicated initials (BB, DD - no relation to DeeDee - and QQ) who all fall into one or more of the exception categories.

[Captain Hate]

The first mistake is taking the identity imbecile seriously.

[Danube on iPad]

I'm content to side with those known identity conservatives Alan Dershowitz and Jeralyn Merritt

Not to mention Jimmy Carter, Leo Terrell and Jason Whitlock.

[Danube on iPad]

the prosecution didn't avoid discussion of Trayvon's character because they knew he had a history of violence

This man is truly living in an alternate universe.

comments on a twitter feed don't count as evidence

That statement is flatly contrary to very well established Florida law. Bubu simply does not know what evidence is.

[Some Guy]

Bubu simply does not know what evidence is.

Sure he does. Anything that reinforces his prejudice is ‘evidence’, anything contrary is ‘zero evidence’.

[poppa india]

A little OT, but where the hell is Afghanistan, if not in Asia? Buenos Aires is not in America because America is not a continent. It is in South America, a continent, like Asia is a continent. I know, I'm wasting my time, but it's hard to resist....

[Dr. Weevil]

Actually, to Spanish-speakers Buenos Aires is in "América", though most English-speakers would say it is in "the Americas" to avoid the obvious confusion. I'm pretty sure they call us 'United-Statesians' instead of Americans' to avoid confusion.

[Captain Hate]

I know, I'm wasting my time, but it's hard to resist....

He got his ignorant clock cleaned by being revealed as a geographical dumbass years ago and is making obtuse similes up to try and pretend it didn't happen.

[Jeff Dobbs]

This comment pushes this thread to the status of most commented thread in 2013, and makes it the 7th most commented thread in JOM history.

It won't make it to 6th.

[Jane]

Hit,

You pay attention to the weirdest things.

[Jeff Dobbs]

There was a thread a couple years ago during one of those times TM went missing -- it was getting quite long, people were getting antsy -- someone wondered where it ranked in terms of the most commented threads. People started remembering an old Kerry thread and the old Foley thread, wondering about Libby threads and election threads, etc.

Couldn't help myself -- I don't like to speculate about such things, so I went and did the research.

And made the list.

Since then, any time a thread begins to approach 1,000 comments, I pull out the list and start paying attention.

This is the 16th thread to reach 1,000+ comments.

But only one has surpassed 2,000. I think you might be a little familiar with that one.

There's probably medication that could help me.

[Jane]

Yes I do recall that particular thread. Not what it was about of course, just its existence.

[Ignatz]

--A little OT, but where the hell is Afghanistan, if not in Asia?--

The saddest and most revealing thing about our pet identity leftist is his utter inability to just say, "duh, oops, I was wrong" even when caught in the most red handed of idiocies.
Even WeeDavey and Dana are better at admitting a mistake.