- Did Zimmerman shoot and kill Martin? Yes
- Was Martin unarmed and Zimmerman armed? Yes
- Did Zimmerman follow Martin after instructed not to? Yes
- Did Zimmerman follow him so that he could inform police of his location? Unknown/Possibly
- Was Martin “profiled” as a potential criminal because of his race? Unknown/Possibly
- Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Unknown/Possibly
- Did Zimmerman attack Martin? Unknown/Possibly
- Was it Zimmerman’s voice and screams on the police audio tape? Unknown/Possibly
- Was it Martin’s voice and screams on the police audio tape? Unknown/Possibly
- Did Zimmerman believe that he needed to use deadly force to prevent bodily harm? Unknown/Possibly
 |
| With Liberty And Justice For All |
The Criminal Charges: The jury had three choices…to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.
For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Trayvon Martin’s unlawful killing was “done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent” and would be “of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”
To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he “intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.”
The jury found that Zimmerman was not guilty of either charge.
Sec. 776.013, subdivision (3) of The 2012 Florida Statutes entitled “Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm”, also at times referred to as the “Stand Your Ground” law, provides:
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attackedin any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Sec. 782.02 entitled “Justifiable use of deadly force” states:
“[T]he use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attemptto murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.” (emphasis added).
The Standard of Proof in a Criminal Case: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
General Definition:
“The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused’s guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt.
The jury must have felt that there were too many “could have beens” and “maybes” and that there were indeed other logical explanations of what happened or could have happened between Zimmerman and Martin. (i.e. the possibility existed that Martin attacked Zimmerman, who did not have the duty to retreat, and that Zimmerman used deadly force when he believed it was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself.)
- Will there be a civil action brought against Zimmerman by Martin’s family? Probably.
- Will Zimmerman be found liable? Maybe.
- Will a jury find that Zimmerman “Stood His Ground” and acted in self-defense? Maybe (if it even gets to that point).
In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof.
A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree.
Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
But…the “Stand Your Ground” law is also a defense or immunity to any civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused’s conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Conclusion: Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy. Perhaps the “Stand-Your-Ground” laws should be revisited by the state legislatures. Some laws are not perceived as “just”.
![SCULPTURA® – the first-ever [sculpt-it-your-way] shapewear clothing line](https://i0.wp.com/www.everythinglidia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Sculptura-stormy.jpg?resize=60%2C60&ssl=1)
