gideonstrumpetfl's blog: "My Blog"

Greetings,

This will be my first "blog" that does not involve the scumbag of my previous detailings.

Those that know me well, usually consult with me on matters of criminal defense and other legal issues.  This comes from my over 20 year career in Law Enforcement, and now nearly 18 years as a criminal defense investigator.

I am a paralegal, investigator, consultant, and expert witness in criminal investigation in both Florida and North Carolina.

So here goes.

Understand at this juncture, I am remaining neutral on this issue, other than being an advocate in support of Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, and one's right to defend themself.

FS 776.013 (3) was included in the Chapter to repeal the "retreat first" defense, when a citizen is faced with danger or threat of severe bodily harm or death of one's self or another.  Typically, the law as it was required an attempt of retreat or flight in order to preserve one's safety.

Florida modified the statute as detailed herein, in that the so called "Castle Doctrine" was changed to no longer require retreat, and opened the ability to protect one's self or another anywhere one lawfully happens to be.  This lawful presence is now anywhere in the State of Florida, not within one's residence, or motor vehicle.  I applaud the legislature for that modification.

Therein lies the issue.

Treyvon Martin was walking through a gated community, after dark and was observed by Neighborhood Watch Captain, George Zimmerman.  Zimmerman began to follow the unidentified subject to observe his actions.  Alarmed by what he saw (whether justified or not) he did as he was supposed to do, he dialed 911 from his cell phone.

He advised 911 of the circumstance, described the subject, and was asked by 911, "are you following him"?  He replied, "yes".  The 911 Operator told him "We don't need you to do that".  This is not a command, it is a recommendation.  The 911 Operator is a civilian, and if he was an LEO, neither could command Zimmerman to cease and desist.  He is a quasi property owner, in that he is a resident of the GATED community, and his presence as a Neighborhood Watch member is to observe and report suspicious activity.

Many times in my career, a citizen would report a suspicious person, a description given by a non-professional, and the reporting party would simply hang up, and stop observing.  The end result?  "Gone Upon Arrival", and the LEO was only on scene for about 30 seconds and cleared the call.  Zimmerman may have been overzealous, but he observed and followed.  Apparently as the media has not released the 911 call in it's entirety, or has edited the recording for media purpose, as AAPCO policy is while a subject/suspect is in view, the Operator should remain in contact with the reporting party until LEO arrival.  After all, the reporting party SEES the subject, and can offer location information.

Now the fog sets in.

Prior to LEO arrival, there is apparent contact between Zimmerman and Martin.  Issue escalates, there may or may not have been a struggle.  Now accounts surface (again only by the media) that a confrontation ensues.  STOP- This is where the "Stand your Ground" statute may apply.

Neither Zimmerman nor Martin have a duty to retreat, the question which if either of the two are covered under the Statute?

The Girlfriend of Martin claims she was on the phone with Martin during this incident, up until just prior to the actual escalation of events.  I have been asked by several friends as to that testimony/information with several thinkinig it is a smoking gun of sorts that implicates Zimmerman of Murder.

I doubt her testimony will stand cross examination, in that she is biased, and will probably deviate to some extent on her testimony.  Also will be cell records to indicate the duration of the call, compared to the duration and termination of Zimmerman's call to 911, and the calls of others reporting the shot/s fired.  Remember, there is no recording of the call between Martin and the GF, only cell records will detail time and duration.

The fog is that when the confrontation occurred, only two people were witness, and now there is only one.  The Prosecution, should there be one, will be hard pressed to provide tangible evidence to implicate Zimmerman, and to diminish his right to "Stand his Ground".

Recent information has indicated that Martin and Zimmerman experienced a confrontation, now it is claimed that Martin "decked" Zimmerman with one punch, knocking him to the ground, and then began to beat him and strike his head on the sidewalk/pavement/hard surface.  STOP-

Regardless of the rights of both to Stand their Ground, once Martin had Zimmerman down, under the old doctrine, he would have been required to run away.  But when does that ability to stand one's ground diminish and common sense set in.  If Zimmerman, obviously a large man is on the ground, Martin, a young athletic football player, could easily outrun Zimmerman.  Assuming that the weapon was not known, that would be a natural consideration for most.  Avoid danger, when armed with only skittles and tea, and RUN!

But if this new information is correct, Martin lowered himself and began to attack Zimmerman. STOP-

Transition of right to defend?

If this new revelation is correct, Martin had demonstrated sufficient ability to harm Zimmerman by the initial punch, which knocked Zimmerman down, and considering that Martin did not choose to flee, but continued his assault (or perhaps an illadvised defense) by continuing combat. STOP- continuing combat?  Does that transfer the aggressor from Zimmerman to Martin?

If Zimmerman can now articulate that he was being attacked, by an overpowering force, and his head repeated being struck on the surface below my his attacker, does the statute swing in his favor?  Perhaps so, and according to the statute, he has the right to use the force necessary to protect himself.

Zimmerman in these few brief moments, made a decision, he may have chosen poorly, and regretfully, and I am in no way saying he was totally right, only he can deal with his decision.  Once fired, one cannot recall the bullet.

What do I predict?  A mess.  A media Circus.  A lot of table pounding over the right to defend one's self.  28 States have a "Stand your Ground" law.  I too support it.

In this case, the application may have swung both ways, unfortunately if recent information concerning the alleged attack on Zimmerman, who's interest was protecting his community (despite perhaps maybe a "wanna be"- my readers know I speak a LOT about such a wanna be that DOES carry a gun, and flaunts it on his hip inside his Furniture Store yea, a real combat zone) maybe he was a bit overzealous, but he was within his right to observe and report.  Martin, a non resident, but was visiting a resident, had left the gated community, went to a nearby store, purchased skittles and a drink, returned to the gated community, walking through in the rain, reportedly with no urgency to seek shelter, and the Neighborhood Watch Member, did what he was "supposed" to do....watch and report.  He followed, what occured just prior to the shooting we may never know for cetain.  Ballistics can determine the distance between the shooter and the deceased, if that distance is any other than close quarter, then Zimmerman has a problem, and the Statute will vacate. 

Should ballistics be able to determine that Zimmerman was on the ground, and Martin directly above, the Statute may affirm.

The Statute is/should not be on trial.  However some are already demanding it's repeal.  If the facts of this case determine (slim chance either way) that Zimmerman was protecting himself and was lawfully posessing a firearm, and acted in self defense, I don't care if he was in the diaper isle of Wal-Mart, anyone has a right to self defense even PRIOR to the Stand your Ground enactment.  It would be hard for Zimmerman to retreat, if he was under attack and on the ground.

If ballistics shows that Martin and Zimmerman were verticle, standing or walking and Zimmerman merely shot Martin, the the Special Grand Jury should return a True Bill.

Should Zimmerman prevail in this event, there will be reprocussions, welcome back my friends to the late 1960's...

It ain't over.... and I don't know if Justice will be proud of what is to come.

In my humble opinion,

GideonsTrumpet