home

Zimmerman's Neighbors Speak Up

George Zimmerman's neighbors are speaking up. Three of them tell Reuters they told police they saw Zimmerman had injuries and bandages the day after the Travon Martin shooting:

Jorge Rodriguez, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor, told Reuters that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose." He was talking to a police detective in his driveway.

Rodriguez's wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, agreed with the Rodriguez couple's account. "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was all swollen up," said the witness, who had watched from a nearby second-floor window.

The neighbors say they were interviewed by Sanford police, but don't recall being contacted by anyone with the state prosecutor's office. My take: [More...]

I think the state may concede Trayvon Martin punched Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him. Its theory seems to be that Zimmerman was the aggressor and the slug wasn't hard enough for Zimmerman to reasonably fear serious bodily injury or for his life and that he had an opportunity to avoid the use of force.

The state's affidavit carefully and intentionally avoids saying who threw the first punch. It makes no claim Trayvon did not turn their final encounter from one of words into something physical.

The argument that Zimmerman was the aggressor is unlikely, in my view, to prevail. Here is the aggressor statute. Since Zimmerman isn't charged with an independent forcible felony aside from the shooting, only the second section could apply:

76.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (

b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The problem for the state is that profiling, following and even pursuing Trayvon is not sufficient to make Zimmerman the aggressor under the statute. To be an aggressor, Zimmerman had to provoke the force used by Martin. Provoking a state of fear is not enough. Also, Zimmerman's provocation has to be contemporaneous with Martin's use of force against him. It can't be the result of something that happened earlier.

See, for example, Johnson v. State, 65 So. 3d 1147, 1149-1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2011), which is consistent with the Florida Jury Instructions.

Specifically, section 776.041 "[s]ubsection (2) precludes the initial aggressor from asserting self-defense where he or she is the individual who provoked the use of force contemporaneously to the actions of the victim to which the defendant claims self-defense.

.... we note that the initial provocation would necessarily had to have been contemporaneous to the actions of the victim, as described in subsection 2(a), which the defendant claims self-defense.

Initiating the encounter is not enough to make one an aggressor. To be an aggressor, one must provoke the use of force. Profiling, following and pursuing someone is not provocation for a punch in the nose or banging someone's head into concrete, as Zimmerman says happened, an account which may be consistent with the signs of bandages witnessed by his neighbors. (His account may also be backed up by his medical records or photos taken by police that night, we don't know that yet.)

If I follow you down the street and you don't know why, you run away, and then I finally catch up with you, you aren't allowed to respond by punching me. My following you is not an action that warrants or can be deemed to provoke such a violent response from you.

If Zimmerman is not the aggressor, if he didn't provoke Martin's punch, he had no duty to retreat, and so long as his fear of serious bodily injury or death from Trayvon's punch and/or beating his head into the ground was reasonable, he's not guilty.

Even if he was the aggressor, which triggers a duty to retreat, if retreat isn't possible, and he fears serious bodily injury or death from the victim's attack, he can use deadly force. How could he retreat, if he was on the ground locked in a struggle or being punched?

If the case gets to a jury, the state will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 jurors, that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear serious bodily injury or death from Trayvon's acts.

There were no witnesses who came forward that night and said they saw the beginning of the struggle or that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Since not a single witness can say who started the fight or that Trayvon didn't first punch Zimmerman, not a single witness can refute Zimmerman's version beyond a reasonable doubt. The state will need credible forensic evidence or proof that Zimmerman significantly contradicted himself in interviews or provided a version that of events that is not possible.

Trayvon's phone friend said she heard Trayvon say Zimmerman was following him, that Trayvon got away from him, and then he found Trayvon again. She says she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman responded with "What are you doing here?" and then the line went dead. She has no idea who struck first.

I don't see how, even putting aside the credibility and hearsay issues raised by her statement, she helps the state on the issue of provocation. Following someone without just cause and asking them to justify their presence when they had no right to do so, is not sufficient provocation to warrant a punch in the nose.

So if Zimmerman didn't provoke the punch in the nose, he isn't the aggressor, under the law. To repeat:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or...

Even if I''m wrong, and Zimmerman's acts are somehow deemed to be provocation, they still had to be contemporaneous with the punch. And, more importantly, even as an aggressor, Zimmerman would still be justified in shooting Travon under Florida law if he feared he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and if he couldn't extricate himself from Trayvon's punches and banging his head into the ground.

If Zimmerman has evidence of injuries, from his own account, neighbors' accounts and especially medical records, what else can the state argue to preclude self-defense? That Trayvon just gave him a little shove, Zimmerman slipped and fell, breaking his own nose, and then slipped and fell again on his back, banging his head on the concrete?

Here's a comparison of Zimmerman's profile from an undated photo before the shooting and when he was booked into the jail. I see a smooth bridge in the former and a bump in the latter, but maybe that's just me.

This may all come out at the bail hearing where the state's burden is to show "the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great," which in Florida, means a higher burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See the order in the Wyche case. Given this burden, I won't be surprised if the State agrees to bail to avoid the hearing, so that the first time it has to disclose its proof in court is at the Stand Your Ground hearing.

< Zimmerman Files Motion to Recuse Judge | Najibullah Zazi Testifies for Government in Terrorism Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Only from This Case (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:25:38 PM EST
    Could this ridiculous quote come from anywhere but Sanford, FL:
    The neighbors say they were interviewed by Sanford police, but don't recall being contacted by anyone with the state prosecutor's office.

    They don't recall ?  Are they running for office, either they called or they didn't.

    And what do they think they are doing with the bandage routine.  I mean unless my neighbor had a cast, I highly doubt I would notice, certainly not a butterfly bandage on the back of his head.  The nose maybe, I guess if I were looking for it.

    They aren't helping jack, just making the whole neighborhood look like they are completely insane.  Like their friend and neighbor needs them to lie because he did something wrong.  But then they can't even manage to lie, well.

    Johnson & Johnson stock (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    could skyrocket if Stand Your Ground can be supported by the Band-Aid defense.

    Parent
    I would not notice normally (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    But if the neighbor had killed a guy the night before I might notice what injuries he himself sustained.

    Parent
    Exactamundo. (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    Um, what? (none / 0) (#16)
    by oldmancoyote22 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    You're telling me that if your neighbor had shot and killed someone while on neighborhood watch the night before, claiming self-defense, and was standing outside in his driveway being interviewed by the police - you wouldn't be paying attention to his injuries/bandages when he's standing right there in plain view?  

    I smell b.s.  It's human nature to slow down and gawk at a fender bender.  I pretty much think the impulse to gawk in this instance would be exponentially more powerful.  

    Parent

    they did look (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:51:34 PM EST
    they saw "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose."

    And he wasn't on neighborhood watch that night, he was on a personal errand to the store, according to Sanford police and his relatives. That's been posted on the Sanford city website for weeks.

    Parent

    Not sure if I understand the response (none / 0) (#28)
    by oldmancoyote22 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:58:14 PM EST
    I was actually arguing that of course they looked.  Who wouldn't?  This was in response to the earlier poster who seemed to think it was inherently suspicious that they would remember all that.  

    As far as neighborhood watch - he may not have been on duty that night but that's a distinction important to the police, not necessarily the neighbors.  The neighbors knew Zimmerman as a guy on the neighborhood watch and that day they knew him as a guy on the neighborhood watch who shot a kid in self defense the night before.  

    It's not the most important or relevant distinction.  

    Parent

    I'm still suprised (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:59:36 PM EST
    you use the Sanford city website as evidence of what Zimmerman was or wasn't doing. This carries no weight whatsoever.

    Parent
    perhaps not with you (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    but it's more reliable in my view than accounts from people who have an agenda one way or the other, or changed their stories after the first night to take sides, or make up stuff based on the rumors they choose to believe.

    You can't make up statutes and case law. They are what they are. The initial 911 calls, the initial police report, Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher, the video of his arrival at the jail, his booking photos, press releases by the city of Sanford and state's attorney's office, the affidavit from the state's attorney's office, that's what's out there for consideration.  

    Parent

    I would include all those (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:31:51 PM EST
    except for after the fact press releases by the City of Sanford City Manager, which was an obvious attempt to defend his police department. Do you really think a press release from the City manager saying where Zimmerman was going is fact?

    Parent
    where Martin went (none / 0) (#109)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    For evidence of what Martin did that night: We know he went to a convenience store and bought candy and iced tea. Anything else comes from Martin's girlfriend and the son of Martin's father's girlfriend.  

    Parent
    Your bias is as (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:23:20 PM EST
    noticeable as the neighbors found Zimmerman's wounds to be.

    Parent
    As is yours n/t (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:06:38 AM EST
    Mine ? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    Maybe that's how it reads, but I don't have a leg in this thing.  It's like any of these high profile cases, I have been so inundated with facts, speculation, and lies, I really don't know what to believe any more.

    And to counter a couple of the comments.  

    Really?  You are going to sit at your front window waiting for the man to arrive to check to see what he looks like?  Me personally, I doubt I would even know until it hit the press, which wasn't for weeks.  Unless the guy got home and stood outside spinning around, the odds of neighbors catching a glimpse of him are slim to none IMO.  It's like a 10 second event if he doesn't have a garage and yet all these people saw him...  I find that very hard to believe.

    Not saying they didn't, just hard to believe.  Which was my original point, even if true, it's not doing anyone any favors.

    Parent

    You did read the account, right? He was talking... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 03:31:01 AM EST
    ...to a police detective, and I suspect it wasn't just for ten seconds. And the police cruiser and uniform was likely to get their attention, enough so they would notice the bandages and swelling, even if they hadn't heard any news or been told by neighbors who had.

    And they're lying about this now... why? It's not as if they're going to be called to court to testify regarding the extent of GZ's injuries. That's silly.

    Parent

    I agree with Jeralyn's analysis given the (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    facts we have. Seems like the law is on Zimmerman's side if there is no evidence that he threw the first punch.

    I think Zimmerman's use of force was disproportional, but maybe not illegal. Very sad.

    What is the proportionate (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Rojas on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    amount of force if someone is beating your head in the concrete?
    Do you politely ask for a pillow?
    Or does one just assume they will stop when you become unconscious?


    Parent
    And what is the correct amount of force (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by observed on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:15:27 PM EST
    if the person who is supposedly dominating you is screaming for his life?  This case depends on facts which we do not know.

    Parent
    You do what Zimmerman claims he did (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:57:29 AM EST
    Get yourself onto the grass. If he could do that, maybe he could have done more before going to the gun. Did he even try?  Legally maybe he did not have to try.  I still think he did the wrong thing.

    Parent
    Have you ever been (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Rojas on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:54:45 AM EST
    assaulted?
    Have you ever witnessed an assault?

    Sure, if someone is banging your head into the concrete you will instinctively struggle with all your power to get away from the concrete. One might even cover their head with their hands to take the impact.
    If someone is banging your head into the concrete they are trying to kill you. IF that was in fact the situation the use of force was proportionate.

    Parent

    That's a HUGE "if" (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:17:39 AM EST
    If Martin was repeatedly banging his head on the concrete in an attempt to kill Zimmerman, he was doing a pretty poor job, given the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries to date.

    Parent
    He still (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    doesn't want me on the jury.

    Parent
    Me neither...I don't know if I could be so (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:51:27 PM EST
    dispassionate about it with Trayvon's mother looking at me. 'Sorry ma'am, but you can't prove your son did not punch him in the nose, you know'

    Parent
    you shouldn;t be on a jury (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    since you've prejudged the case. You've also raised this before. Please discuss the case.

    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:55:33 PM EST
    I have. When an adult with a gun says "these a$$holes, they always get away", and then chases a teen, and the teen gets killed. I have no problem saying that George Zimmerman is responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. What charge I would find him guilty of would be determined by the rest of the evidence, but in my opinion the guilt isn't in question.

    Parent
    comment in reply to this (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 07:02:25 PM EST
    with personal insult deleted. Personal insults are not tolerated here.

    There are hundreds of comments that are contrary to the defense theory that remain. What is not tolerated is false information, presenting your version of disputed information as fact, and declarations that Zimmerman is guilty.

    Of course I present the defense view, that's what this site is about.

    Part of being a defense lawyer is accepting the facts beyond change. It's not about making things up to pretend they don't exist.

    If you object to my pointing out potential weaknesses in the prosecution's case or otherwise don't like my viewpoint, you are free to read any one of the other hundreds of sites covering the case.

    Parent

    What if Zimmerman had his gun in his hand when (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    he met up with Trayvon?  Would Zimmerman then be considered the aggressor?  I know we aren't aware of any witnesses to the initial meeting of the two, but what if?  

    Possibly, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oldmancoyote22 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:32:01 PM EST
    but there's absolutely no evidence his weapon was drawn or that Trayvon even knew Zimmerman had a gun.  

    Personally, I don't see how Zimmerman sustains those injuries if Trayvon sees the gun in the first place.  That's one of the huge flaws behind the whole rationale of concealed carry licenses.  

    Parent

    Hard to expect (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    that the truth is that Martin physically attacked a guy who was holding a gun on him. Guys punch other guys all the time, I think guys punching other guys who are holding guns on them pretty much only happens in movies/tv.

    Parent
    People who walk around (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Rojas on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:16:47 PM EST
    brandishing a weapon after calling 911 might consider calling the suicide hotline instead. They won't be long in this world.

    Parent
    That's what I was wondering (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    If Trayvon saw a gun in Zimmerman's hand and figured he couldn't run away without being shot at, and therefore attacked, what would make sense?  You'd think he would go for the gun hand first, try to kick it away or wrestle Zimmerman for it.

    OTOH, if you'd been punched in the nose and were getting your head slammed, how are you gonna get your gun out, when presumably you are fending off a guy who's trying to turn your brain into jelly?  And how would you be able to shoot a guy on top of you and have him fall the way he did?  You'd have to get him off of you, and you'd have his blood on your clothes.

    I'm confused.

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oldmancoyote22 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    that at the time, Zimmerman had no reason to wear fake bandages.  The first responders and police had already treated him for injuries.  They put it in their report, verifying those very injuries.  They would have already taken photos.  

    What purpose would it serve Zimmerman the next day to wear fake bandages?  

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    was deleted for making up a guilt theory that contained inaccurate facts.

    If you want to present an alternative theory, do it on reported facts.

    Parent

    and four comments ran with the (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    inaccurate account of what a medic said or concluded also had to be deleted.

    The police report is here. Don't make stuff up. Or post misleading information.

    Parent

    thanks for that, (none / 0) (#71)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:18:03 AM EST
    i'd forgotten where the link was to it.

    Parent
    Remember the 911 tapes (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by HighlyAdequate on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    I seriously wonder about the relevance of who started punching first, or who was the "aggressor" at the beginning.

    Why? Because we have on record, for an absolute certainty, are the 911 tapes themselves. To my way of thinking, the legal significance of the events of that night must all be understood in the light of those tapes.

    On the 911 tape, SOMEONE is screaming, and quite pitifully, for help. Even if Z was the aggressor (unlikely in my view), he was, by the time of the screams for help (assuming he was the one screaming), quite completely dominated physically, and, by the very fact of his screaming for help, not in a position to retreat (why would he scream for help rather than simply run away, if he could?) The screams went on for over a minute, as I recall. I just don't see a serious argument that whoever was screaming was not at the time in fear for his life or of serious bodily harm.

    On the other hand, if it's Martin who was so screaming, then I think the case for second degree murder is in fact a very good one, little requiring appeals to "profiling" to make it stick.

    For consider what the scenario would be if it were Martin screaming for help. In that case, we must imagine that he had been completely dominated by Z for over a minute, and crying out for help. Despite this domination, and Martin's pleas for help, Z would then, simply to top it off, and utterly gratuitously, pull out his gun, and shoot Martin in a very deliberate and horrendously callous act. I should think that such an act would be so wanton, that it would be akin to a man who drove into a crowd simply to kill people.

    I really do think that people analyzing this case would realize how the 911 tapes constrain the potential scenarios as to what really happened. If Z was on bottom and screaming, then it's almost unthinkable he would be convicted of a crime; if Z was on top, then he almost certainly would be guilty of second degree murder.

    This comment makes more sense (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by observed on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    than anything I have read in days.


    Parent
    Of course it does (none / 0) (#58)
    by Rojas on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:11:42 PM EST
    and I'll just add another big if here. If Martin's first punch or any punch early in the altercation hit Zimmerman in the nose with enough force to break it the chances of him dominating in the altercation went up about 2000%.

    Parent
    from your emotional vantagepoint (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:57:43 PM EST
    perhaps, but the screams and 911 calls do not resolve the legal issues regarding self-defense, which in turn makes the aggressor issue, should the state raise it, very significant.

    Crimes are composed of acts and culpable mental states. Shooting and killing someone doesn't make one a murderer under the law.

    The 911 callers said they heard screams and a shot. Only two I think called before the shot, they were on the phone when the shot happened.  One said:

    I think they are yelling help but I don't know
    I can't see, I don't want to see
    I think he's yelling help

    Then the shot happens. She doesn't identify the voice as a young male, just a male.

    None identified the voice as a young male in their 911 calls. The only one who claims to have gotten a good look was John, who was sure the guy in the red jacket (Zimmerman) was on the bottom being beaten and calling out to help. He ran in to call 911, and by the time he got to the phone, the gunshot happened. Large parts of his call, in addition to his name/address are blocked out, so we don't know whether he gaave this detail to the dispatcher. But you can see him in photos from the Fox News video of the crime scene talking to the cops, so it's not hard to infer he was one of those the cops relied on in saying they had no probable cause to disprove self-defense the night of the arrest. (He's the one not in cop uniform and not the plain clothes guy taking notes.)

    The 13 year old caller told the dispatcher he saw a man laying on ground needing help screaming, but his dog went off the leash so he went to get the dog, then he heard a loud sound and didn't see the person who got shot. Now, he's sure it was Trayvon screaming.

    One caller who called in after the shot insisted she saw nothing, until the end of her call when she remembered seeing "wrestling", nothing more. Her house was  not next to the scene. At one point she tells the dispatcher:

    their porches were right there
    they probably could have helped him

    She didn't even mention seeing them wrestle until she viewed Zimmerman after the shooting and Trayvon on the ground. Up to that point, she maintained she was watching tv, it was raining and her windows were closed. After hearing the shot, she looked outside and called 911.

    Another caller, who now goes on TV to say she is sure Travyon was screaming for help and was on the bottom, told the dispatcher she didn't even hear a struggle, just the shot.  After the shot, she and her roommate (or just the roommate) ran out. The caller went back in to call 911.  She starts relaying the post-shooting information  as she gets it from her roommate. You can hear her on the call yell to her roommate, "Selma, is it the black guy who got shot?" Then she tells the dispatcher "There's a black guy standing over him." (Clearly wrong.) After learning Trayvon was dead and his age, she  starts making the TV rounds to say she's sure it was a child screaming and it wasn't self-defense. She neither heard nor saw the stuggle.

    The 911 calls, not atypcially, are all over the map. And none saw the onset of the struggle.

    You may think the 911 calls are compelling, but they answer little from a legal perspective.

    Listen to the calls again, with the time sequences attached. They will not be particularly significant at trial. Professional voice analysis, if the DA or defense obtains it, will be the answer to who screamed, not Trayvon's mother or the callers or Trayvon's phone friend.

    Who screamed does not resolve the legal issues. It's one piece of the mosaic. The aggressor issue, if the state attempts to use it to block Zimmerman's self-defense claim, will be more important, in my view.

    Parent

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#63)
    by observed on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:04:26 AM EST
    Questions (none / 0) (#88)
    by Richjo on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:11:17 AM EST
    1. Is it certain that only one person can be heard screaming on the now infamous 911 call? In other words, is there any possibility that the screaming for help is coming from more than one party? It seems the caller implies "a" man is screaming, not more than one; but is there any way to verify that?
    2. If Trayvon Martin is proved to have been the one screaming (if that is even possible to prove), how does that not undermine Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. Regardless of what might have occured prior to that, if Trayvon Martin was screaming for help during most of the duration of that call, plus some time before which trigged the call in the first place; then does that not prove that Zimmerman could not have at the time he pulled the trigger been in reasonable fear for his life? Would not we need to believe that it was in fact Zimmerman (or at least could have been him) who was screaming for his defense to have any chance of being sucessful?
    3. Does Zimmerman have to show he was in reasonable fear for his life "at the moment he pulled the trigger", or does he simply need to show that he was at some point during the confrontation.
    4. Could Zimmerman be required to submitt a voice sample to attempt to verify that it was him screaming on the tape, or would that be a violation of his rights?


    Parent
    Not sure I understand your argument here (none / 0) (#89)
    by HighlyAdequate on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:27:58 AM EST
    regarding the centrality of the "aggressor" issue.

    If Martin was the aggressor, and, presumably, also the one on top in the struggle, and therefore it was Zimmerman who was screaming, then I think it's going to be very hard to conclude anything other than that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Clearly, in the light of the screams, Zimmerman was in fear of his life or of great bodily harm; and his presumed injuries would certainly suffice to establish that fear as rational enough.

    On the other hand, assume that Z was the aggressor. There are two possibilities here. First, that Z was on top, and Martin on the bottom, screaming. In that case, it's going to be close to impossible to put together a credible case of self-defense. Indeed, I don't see how a powerful argument for murder in second degree isn't established.

    The second possibility is that, while Zimmerman was the aggressor, he was in a short time overcome by Martin, and it was Martin who was on top toward the end, and during the entire period in which Z, beneath him, was screaming for help.

    I guess I don't understand how even in that case Zimmerman doesn't have a legitimate claim to self-defense. He couldn't retreat -- nothing could be more obvious from his screams, and, presumably, calls for help. And this did not go on for just an instant -- it went on for over a minute, as I recollect. I would think that at some point, the tables would have been turned long enough that who was the aggressor basically becomes irrelevant.

    I guess I don't see how under those circumstances a claim of self-defense isn't warranted. Does the fact that Zimmmerman was, under this assumption, the aggressor really trump whatever happened afterwards? That would seem like a very strange, and frankly wrong, implication of the law.

    Parent

    As I think about it (none / 0) (#94)
    by HighlyAdequate on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:11:51 AM EST
    There's a fourth, and actually quite important possibility here.

    Namely, that Martin was the aggressor, but that, relatively quickly, the tables were turned, and it was Zimmerman on the top, and Martin below screaming.

    In that case, the issue would be whether Zimmerman could possibly have a legitimate argument for self-defense. He would have been fully in control of the situation for over a minute. Martin would have been completely subdued, to the point he was essentially crying for mercy. Nonetheless, Zimmerman would have pulled out his gun and shot Martin.

    This hardly seems like self defense, to me anyway. On the other hand, Zimmerman WOULD (presumably) have suffered injuries at Martin's hands. Would that render it self-defense? I doubt it. But perhaps it wouldn't be a legitimate case of second degree murder, given Zimmerman's understandable state of mind after the injuries.

    This possibility, or something like it, seems to me to be important, because it is likely the case to which the prosecution will be reduced. It certainly looks as if Zimmerman suffered real injuries. The prosecution will have to have some way of explaining that away as irrelevant to his having committed second degree murder. (Actually, this point could be invoked should they claim that Z himself was the aggressor -- presumably, Z will have happened to have suffered the injuries nonetheless.)

    Parent

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:27:58 AM EST
    But... the likelihood that it will ever be established beyond doubt who was screaming seems to me vanishingly small.

    And honestly, I can't come up with a scenario either way that explains that screaming.  It sounds to me like the scream of a cornered animal, and I can't come up with a plausible scenario where either one of them would feel that way.  Neither one of them was capable of so completely overpowering the other as to make them helpless.  And who screams like that with a gun pointed at them?  Seems to me, the instinct in that case is to shut up and become as still as possible.

    I haven't been able to make any sense of it, and I'm sort of semi-resigned to not ever knowing.

    Parent

    you raise an interesting point, (none / 0) (#72)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:30:35 AM EST
    Even if Z was the aggressor (unlikely in my view), he was, by the time of the screams for help (assuming he was the one screaming), quite completely dominated physically, and, by the very fact of his screaming for help, not in a position to retreat (why would he scream for help rather than simply run away, if he could?)

    if he were in fact so completely dominated physically by mr. martin, who was (according to mr. zimmerman) sitting on his chest and pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk, however did mr. martin reach for mr. zimmerman's gun? was he pounding with one hand and reaching for the gun with the other? conversely, how would mr. zimmerman have been able to reach for his gun? unless mr. martin is an idiot, he's got mr. zimmerman's arms pinned down under mr. martin's knees, making it somewhat problematic for mr. zimmerman to be reaching for his weapon. either way, his scenario makes little sense physically.

    i can see him dumping mr. martin off him by pushing his legs up, throwing mr. martin off balance and off of him. he then has a split-second to pull his weapon, aim it and fire. a very short split-second. conceivably, this could also explain: 1. the apparent lack of blood on his clothes., 2. the odd position mr. martin's body was found in.

    unfortunately, that isn't how mr. zimmerman claimed it happened.

    Parent

    Yeah cpinva... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ks on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    The "Zimmerman injuries" angle is overblown. I get the defense angle though I think it's thin at best.  I also don't doubt the latest info. or that there was a struggle but, we've seen the tape of him taken about 30-40 minutes after the incident which, was after him being treated at the scene and he doesn't have any bandages and doesn't look all beat up or all that worse for the wear.  Even with handcuffs on, he's moving easily.  Certainly his injuries are not on the dramatic level his family, friends and former attorneys were and are claiming.

    Also, to your point, I've thought of that as well.  According to the stories told by Zimmerman associates (current and former), Martin was on top of him pounding his head into the concrete to the point of "brain damage" (brother) and "shaken baby syndrome" (former lawyer) so how did he know a) Martin was going for his gun b) able to keep Martin from getting his gun c) get his gun and shoot Martin?  All that after supposedly, suffering a broken nose, getting his head pounded into the concrete with Martin on top of him?   According to his brother, Zimmerman was barely able to move his head onto the grass to avoid being in "diapers for the rest of his life".  The melodramatic tales don't seem match up to reality.

    Parent

    According to his story as related (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:05:49 AM EST
    by his family, Zimmerman was also able to  maneuver himself onto the grass before going for the gun.

    I've never had a hard time believing it is Zimmerman screaming. that level of panic explains why he was not able to think through his alternatives to shooting a kid int he chest.

    Parent

    I think George Zimmerman was wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    He may not have been the aggressor, but he sure as all heck was the intigator. With reckless indifference to potential consequences and for no apparent reason other than his own paranoia, he pursued an African American teenager who was merely returning home from the local 7-11 store, and he was the one who was armed with a 9mm pistol, not the deceased.

    Still, I fully recognize that being wrong in a moral sense is not necessarily the same as being legally culpable. The one person here who might have been able to contradict Zimmerman's version of events is, sadly -- well, dead men tell no tales.

    I'd love to know what really happened that night, as would we all, but we'll have to accept the fact that we don't and probably never will. I fully concede that Zimmerman may well get off here, according to the letter of the law. In fact, that letter of the law may demand that he be found not guilty.

    That doesn't mean I can't still be sickened and disgusted by his actions that night. To paraphrase Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, if that's Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, then Florida law is an a$$. In the wrong hands and for the wrong reasons, it can be tantamount to a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for irresponsible gunplay -- or worse.

    This tragedy would never have happened, had Zimmerman simply remained in his vehicle, and not felt compelled to "assist" Sanford law enforcement by taking matters into his own hands, with only his own grievously mistaken and misguided pretenses to guide him. It was all so eminently avoidable, and even if he gets off, Zimmerman's still going to have to live with what he did for the rest of his days.

    That said, I'll wait and see how this plays out in court. While I obviously don't believe that George Zimmerman is in any way the victim here, I'm still very hard pressed to see how his alleged conduct that night warranted his subsequent indictment on a second-degree murder charge.

    Given what I've come to learn about this case, I think Zimmerman exercised piss-poor judgment and thus intiated a chain of events that quickly spun out of his control, to which he then reacted very badly. I can't buy the notion that he alighted from his vehicle thinking that he may have to kill someone; that's just way too much of a stretch, even for a cynical phuque like me.

    If Zimmerman's to be convicted of anything, let it be solely upon the basis of the actual evidence presented in court to a jury, and not because the prosecution manipulated that jury's emotions to paint the guy as a caricature of world-class jerk. Last I heard, it's not a crime to be a jerk.

    Aloha.

    Agree completely (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:30:36 AM EST
    with you on this.

    I would just point out that the quote is "The law is a ass." :-)

    Parent

    I know. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:34:08 PM EST
    Mr. Bumble also said "a idiot," too. I realize that it's from an 1838 serial / novel, but that sort of grammar was always jarring to me, for some obscure reason. But that's just me, and that's why I was paraphrasing.

    ;-)

    Parent

    heres the thing: (none / 0) (#73)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:33:53 AM EST
    assume mr. zimmerman is deemed immune from prosecution, by virtue of "SYG". he will, at least for a long time, never be able to be out in public again. his life will always be in danger, as there will always be some nut job who will attempt to "avenge" mr. martin's tragic murder.

    Parent
    One word: Karma. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:40:17 PM EST
    It's like O.J. Simpson and his nonsense in Vegas, for which he's now serving a lengthy strech in a Nevada prison. Karma is a harsh taskmaster, and will seek its due.

    Parent
    Sometimes it does (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 12:06:46 AM EST
    and sometimes it doesn't.  George W. Bush being exhibit A.

    Parent
    Not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 12:07:06 AM EST
    Dick Cheney

    Parent
    Seems weird to me that in the (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    immediate aftermath of the shooting, after being attended to by paramedics, Zimmerman arrived at the police station without a band-aid in sight, and yet somehow, the next day he was in need of bandages.

    Formy money, this may be the dumbest law ever; it's Last Man Standing, isn't it?  You can follow someone, run after them, make them afraid, and just wait for human nature to take over and your target to react - at which point, you can claim that you are the victim and can shoot without consequence.  Absent the public outcry that has taken this matter to an arrest and possible trial, George Zimmerman would just be going about his life, patrolling the neighborhood.

    Something is terribly wrong here.
     

    Okay, prosecutorial devil's advocate moment (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:30:30 PM EST
    How is Zimmerman not the aggressor, when, on the call to police, he clearly states his mistaken prejudice (which IS, after all the b.s., the real instigating factor to all of this), his desperate state of mind in needing to follow the kid, and then he disobeys the dispatcher who tells him NOT to follow the kid?  If I'm the prosecutor, I'm saying, look, you can't go around playing cops and robbers with real guns when you're not qualified and have a history of violence yourself as well as what seems a paranoid tendency to phone 911. Just because you think your nobly motivated, when you're superhero instincts turn out to be tragically flawed and someone dies, you don't get a pass.  

    I mean, logically, if Zimmerman was so afraid and threatened by the kid, he never would've followed him, but Zimmerman had the big gun and felt powerful and protected.  Seems a pretty clear and convincing argument to make, IOW. Just as much as the Zimmerman isn't the aggressor angle you offered.

    All depends on your jury, it would seem.  And there are plenty of experts who can tell you exactly what kind of jury it will take to convict, what type it will take to acquit, and what kind will deadlock. The not so sweet science.  

    Keep it up, J, all very necessary stuff.


    please re-read the post (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    which clearly answers your question as to the law on aggressors. It's not whether Zimmerman initiated the encounter but whether he provoked the use of force.

    And Zimmerman did not disobey the dispatcher. Listen to the tape or read the transcript.

    Dispatcher: Are you following him?
    Zimmerman: Yeah
    Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
    Zimmerman: Ok

    There was no order for him to disobey.

    Nor does Zimmerman have any  criminal convictions, for violence or otherwise. He had one charge which was dismissed. He and an ex-fiance got civil restraining orders against each other, no criminal charges were filed.

    Prosecutors can give a theory, and you are free to accept it, but they can't make stuff up and readers here shouldn't either. Please don't spread misinformation here. I can't answer every comment, and I will delete those that spread misinformation or state their version of disputed facts as the truth.


    Parent

    true, (none / 0) (#74)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:39:05 AM EST
    but i'd bet even money the prosecution can come up with a dozen witnesses who will testify to mr. zimmerman's short fuse, which goes to his state of mind. for example, the private security company he was briefly employed by, until he apparently went ballistic at some party. and trust me, they will bring in the women he tossed out.

    one can have a history of violence, without having a police record. personally, i think he does have some emotional issues, and those will also be raised.

    Parent

    At this point, many people are so resolute (none / 0) (#67)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:32:31 AM EST
    in their polarized version of events that even after all the evidence is presented, they will still find a way to stand their ground in support of what they think they know happened.
    if Zimmerman was so afraid and threatened by the kid, he never would've followed him, but Zimmerman had the big gun and felt powerful and protected.

    People get so heavily invested in proving their preconceptions with an incident like this that they refuse to consider the complexities and possibilities in how events could have occurred. If Martin punched Zimmerman and smashed his head into the cement, he was at risk of death.


    Parent
    The state could argue ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    If Zimmerman has evidence of injuries, from his own account, neighbors' accounts and especially medical records, what else can the state argue to preclude self-defense? That Trayvon just gave him a little shove, Zimmerman slipped and fell, breaking his own nose, and then slipped and fell again on his back, banging his head on the concrete?

    ... that his injuries aren't such that they indicate a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury/death.

    Of course they'll argue that (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:05:16 PM EST
    Can they prove it?

    Parent
    That wasn't the question (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    How would I know if they can prove it?  I don't know what evidence the state has, or what Zimmerman's medical records will show.

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    That's the whole point of this post?

    I think the state may concede Trayvon Martin punched Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him. Its theory seems to be that Zimmerman was the aggressor and the slug wasn't hard enough for Zimmerman to reasonably fear serious bodily injury or for his life and that he had an opportunity to avoid the use of force.

    The state's affidavit carefully and intentionally avoids saying who threw the first punch. It makes no claim Trayvon did not turn their final encounter from one of words into something physical.



    Parent
    No, it wasn't (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    The part of the post I was responding to was asking for theories under which the state could argue for Second degree murder.  Jeralyn seemed to be arguing that the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries precluded the state from precluding a self-defense claim:


    If Zimmerman has evidence of injuries, from his own account, neighbors' accounts and especially medical records, what else can the state argue to preclude self-defense? That Trayvon just gave him a little shove, Zimmerman slipped and fell, breaking his own nose, and then slipped and fell again on his back, banging his head on the concrete?

    My point is that, even if Zimmerman had some injuries (which appears to be the case), the state can argue that the severity of those injuries does not support Zimmerman's claim that he reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death.  There appears to have been some sort of physical altercation between them.  The state doesn't need to resort to silly theories about Zimmerman slipping and falling (twice), breaking his own nose (if it was broken) and banging his own head on the concrete (if it was banged on the concrete).

    Without seeing all the medical evidence, I don't know whether the state can prove it, but I'm skeptical of any self-defense claims given the evidence that we've seen to date.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    Any evidence presented of George Zimmerman's injuries only proves that he was involved in some sort of physical altercation, and nothing more.

    I don't see how one can further extrapolate to conclude definitively that he was either on the losing end of a fistfight, or was the victim of an unprovoked assault. For that matter, one could just as easily surmise that Trayvon Martin instinctively felt his life was being threatened, and therefore fought like a banshee from hell before being shot and killed.

    Parent

    I don't know that you can (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:02:23 AM EST
    determine the reasonableness of what someone anticipates is going to happen to him by the results of what actually did happen.  I may be terrified that I'm going to fall off that cliff I'm at the edge of, but I don't have to actually have fallen off the cliff to be justified in my fear at the time that I was about to.

    Unless one postulates that Zimmerman is a stone cold racist who set out to murder a black kid, which I don't, seems to me that something happened here that made him fearful enough to shoot.  We can argue til the cows come home about whether that was a "reasonable" fear, but we weren't in his shoes.

    By the same token, whatever Martin did or didn't do was motivated by his fears of what Zimmerman intended-- assuming, as I do with Zimmerman, that Martin wasn't an evil doer out to mug Zimmerman just for the heck of it.

    I don't know about the legal case, but at least the logical layman's case for culpability seems to me to depend on everything that happened to precipitate the confrontation, not what happened during it.  Iow, what was each party's culpability in the situation as it developed.

    It does seem to me, as a total layman, and given what little we actually know, that 2nd degree murder is a stretch and that some kind of negligent manslaughter is the best the prosecution can hope for.

    I await the revelation of the evidence and the arguments to make sense of what happened here because I honestly don't know.  But this isn't Tulsa.  Seems to me there's a strong chance this was one of those horrible and colossal misunderstandings on both sides that resulted in a totally unnecessary and hideously tragic death.  This happens.

    I'm trying to tread carefully here in order to respect Jeralyn's rules (and to avoid being deleted again...), but that's basically the way I see this.

    Parent

    There is another possibility, other than (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:20:47 AM EST
    the one you've offered here:

    Unless one postulates that Zimmerman is a stone cold racist who set out to murder a black kid, which I don't, seems to me that something happened here that made him fearful enough to shoot.  We can argue til the cows come home about whether that was a "reasonable" fear, but we weren't in his shoes.

    And the most obvious one to me is that Zimmerman is a man who may have been obsessed with his dream to be a cop, frustrated that that had been denied to him because of events in his past, who used the community patrol program (such as it was, which we have yet to hear or learn much of anything about, other than that George was part of it) to fulfill, as much as he could, that role.  

    So, rather than being in fear, he could just as easily have been acting with irrational courage, seizing upon the appearance of this suspicious-looks-black-something's-wroing-with-him-hoodie-wearing person as an opportunity with potential to prove to law enforcement that he was worthy of getting the chance to be one of them.

    Is it possible that, at the last minute, reality sunk in and he realized that maybe he'd made a mistake in pursuing Martin, in not just going back to his truck, in ever getting out of the truck in the first place?  Sure, I think it's very possible that reality and the lack of training and real experience shook him out of this little fantasy he was living out, he couldn't handle whatever was now taking place, and that's when the you-know-what hit the fan.  

    That George could have shot Trayvon out of impulse and fear at this very last second after minutes of aggressive pursuit does not seem like the kind of scenario for which SYG was intended; maybe, if nothing else, this case will illustrate the significant flaws in the statute and efforts will be made to either repeal it or fix it.

    In any event, I don't see a judge ending this case at a SYG hearing - I think it gets punted where it should be punted: to a trial, where Zimmerman still has the right to claim he acted in self-defense, but the totality of the evidence and testimony will be put before a jury.

    Parent

    I don't see how any of that psychoanalysis matters (none / 0) (#80)
    by jpe on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:48:40 AM EST
    If Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the hell out of him, then Zimmerman is entitled to kill Martin.  The but-for causes of that situation are neither here nor there.  

    Parent
    It's not going to be that easy; from (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:20:35 AM EST
    what I have read, and contrary to what the media want people to believe, judges do not just rubber-stamp an invokation of SYG.

    No one apparently saw the entire series of events.  Trayvon Martin isn't around to give his side of what happened.  There are conflicting versions of what people did see.  There are conflicting reports from Zimmerman's family and friends.

    And George Zimmerman has a history - not necessarily a bad one, but we all have patterns of behavior, we all have routines, and those will come out.  We still haven't heard word one about how this community patrol group was constituted or governed - and while Zimmerman claims he was not on patrol, his pattern and practice of patrolling, and the watch program's particulars are going to be raised, whether it has any impact remains to be seen.

    So, no - I don't agree with the simplicity of your if-then argument all by itself, sorry.

    Parent

    That's a pretty big IF (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:54:46 AM EST
    Define 'beating the hell out of him'. Seems to me a beating that severe would have required a night in the hospital, not a couple of band-aids at the scene. At what point does a garden variety fist fight turn into a death match?

    Parent
    Losing a fistfight ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:59:35 AM EST
    ... in and of itself does not justify killing in self-defense.  If Martin was "beating the hell out of Zimmerman" and Zimmerman reasonably feared he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death, then he was likely justified in his use of deadly force.

    But that's one, big "if" at this point...

    Parent

    No disagreement from me (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:58:16 AM EST
    on anything you say here.  I left that whole part out only because I'm trying to avoid the kind of speculation that Jeralyn doesn't want here and I'm not entirely clear on where the boundaries are.

    And actually, what you describe is what I meant when I said the culpability for what happened has to do with the events leading up to the physical confrontation, including the mindset in place.

    Parent

    I agree with the first premise ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:54:02 AM EST
    (i.e. that you can't determine the reasonableness of what someone anticipates is going to happen to him by the results of what actually did happen), but disagree about the reasonableness standard.  The objective standard (i.e. "reasonable" fear) is applied in self-defense cases because, if you apply merely a subjective standard (what the defendant felt, reasonably or not) you could have a paranoid or very fearful person killing someone for some act that doesn't justify the use of deadly force.  

    There's a good breakdown of the possible basis for the 2nd degree charges against Zimmerman here, as well as an explanation for the objective/"reasonable" standard under Florida law.  I don't want to repost the entire article because it's fairly lengthy.

    Parent

    Well, as I say (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    I'm not speaking to the legal standard, only a layman/observer's logic.

    Parent
    you tread just fine (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 04:20:04 AM EST
    thanks!

    Parent
    As to whether Zimmerman's injuries were severe... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 06:46:42 AM EST
    ...enough to indicate he was entitled to deadly self-defense, I suggest you (the posters before Jerelyn in this thread) follow Jeralyn's link to the Wyche case. Ther you will find Judge Hirsch writing (p.6)
    "photographs...taken by the police showed no appearance whatever of injury or bruising... the prosecution argued that Mr. Wyche was never... struck... Certainly this was the reasonable inference... The law, however, does not require that Mr. Wyche, or anyone situated as he was...actually sustain serious bodily injury before respnding with... deadly force. It is enough that he reasonably apprehend imminent deadly force...
    .
    (Excuse the ellipses. I'm not much of a typist, and the source doesn't permit copy-and-paste. But you can easily check that I've misrepresented nothing.)

    You can certainly be knocked out or killed by blows to the head with less surface injury than the police video showed. And the presence of a gun added urgency to GZ's need not to be overcome. If he was attacked and the combat went as reported by "John" I don't see any way deadly self-defence wasn't legally justified.

    I said, "[i]f he was attacked." I'm unconvinced that Jeralyn is correct that "Since Zimmerman isn't charged with an independent forcible felony aside from the shooting, only the second section [of 776.041] could apply. Here is the omitted section (1):

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:...

    I don't see why GZ attacking TM couldn't be the required "forcible felony". Am I missing something?

    In fact there is every reason to believe that the state has no evidence for that felony and that though the SYG element of the SYG law has no application, the immunity element does, and GZ should never have been charged. But a SA and at least one magistrate, not to mention a couple of GZ's lawyers, have already clowned themselves. Maybe another judge or two, and a jury, will do so as well. GZ seems to have a touching faith in the power of his innocence, but I don't share it.

    Parent

    Of COURSE you can ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    ... reasonably fear for serious bodily injury or even death without actually suffering injury.  If someone points a gun at your head, you likely have a reasonable fear of such without any injury at all.  As the judge noted, Mr. Wyche's fear was based on the fact that he was being attacked and pursued by at least a half dozen college football players.  Mr. Zimmerman, OTOH, was in a confrontation with one high school football player, who weighed less than Mr. Zimmerman.

    More importantly, the referenced ruling was with regard to phase 1 of an Arthur hearing, to determine whether or not the defendant was entitled to be released on bail.  The burden of proof is different.  In fact, the very same judge rejected the Defendant's argument to dismiss the case and sent it to trial for a jury to determine whether the use of deadly force was justified:

    But notably, a Miami-Dade judge recently declined to dismiss the case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law.

    Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch did not think the evidence he reviewed proved Wyche was justified in using deadly force.

    The law "does not purport to justify the use of deadly force in response to threats or shows of force of any and every kind," Hirsch wrote in a ruling last month. "In ordinary circumstances, a push or a slap may be met with a push or a slap, or perhaps with a punch -- but not with a bullet, whether under `Stand Your Ground' or any provision of Florida law."

    The severity of Zimmerman's injuries are also relevant.  It is certainly possible to be knocked out or killed with "less surface injury" than the video showed on Zimmerman (a boy in my area was killed by a baseball a few years ago, and it left barely a mark).  The issue, however, is whether the injuries corroborate Zimmerman's version of events or contradict him.

    If he was attacked and the combat went as reported by "John" I don't see any way deadly self-defence wasn't legally justified.

    Why is that?  The media reports of the "John" witness indicate he saw a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin, with Martin on top and Zimmerman yelling for help.  How does that prove that the use of deadly force was justified?

    Parent

    forcible felony (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30:23 PM EST
    has no application here. The defendant has to be charged with a separate forcible felony for section 1 to apply.  Only subsection 2, which makes no reference to a forcible felony, could arguably apply here.

    There are dozens of Florida cases explaining this and the Florida jury instructions were rewritten a few years ago to make it clearer. See, the 2011 case of Johnson v. State.

    The Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.6(f) to clarify that the trial court should only include the aggressor instruction when the defendant has been charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self-defense pursuant to Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

    In Giles, 831 So. 2d 1263, [**5] the Fourth District held that it was fundamental error for a trial court to issue an erroneous jury instruction incorporating section 776.041(1) of the aggressor instruction where the defendant was not charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony. The Fourth District reasoned that the giving of the instruction was fundamental error because the defendant was not engaged in an independent forcible felony at the time of the alleged crime, and the charge "was not one where the alleged [forcible felony]
    occurred while [the defendant] was attempting to commit, commiting, or escaping after the commission of some other independent forcible felony." Id. at 1265.

    However, the applicability of section 776.041(2) does not follow the same condition as section 776.041(1) insofar as there is no requirement for a contemporaneous independent forcible felony in the giving of the section 776.041(2) instruction. See Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449, 452 (Fla. 2008).

    The Florida Supreme Court resolved the issue in 2008 in Martinez v. State.

    To conclude that subsection (1) applies where there is no independent forcible felony would render subsection (2) superfluous and completely unnecessary because subsection (1) already addresses the defendant-as-provoker exception.

    ....Moreover, our case law supports the conclusion that an independent forcible felony is required for the forcible-felony instruction to apply.



    Parent
    Jeralyn, the quotes you... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 07:59:49 AM EST
    ...supply do not, for me, clarify what an
    "independent" forcible felony is. The charging requirement makes clear that (1) doesn't apply in -this- case, as charged, but... suppose A had assaulted two individuals, then had later in the same incident used deadly force against B but not C, so that he was charged with assault on C. Is that an "indedpendent" felony or not...? Not saying you're wrong... just that I cannot tell from your answer that you're right.

    Parent
    read the cases (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    I linked to. For section 1 of the aggressor statute to apply, Zimmerman has to be charged with a separate, contemporaneous independent felony besides the charged act (the killing)for which he claims self defense.

    The Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.6(f) to clarify that the trial court should only include the aggressor instruction when the defendant has been charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self-defense pursuant to Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (2007-3), 976 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2008).

    Section 2 does not contain the forcible felony requirement and can be given when the Defendant is just charged with one felony, the killing.

    Parent

    To the legal eagles here: (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    Is it true that a jury could find him not guilty of 2nd degree murder, but instead find him guilty of manslaughter (or some other lesser charge)?

    Not sure about Florida (none / 0) (#19)
    by oldmancoyote22 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    but the general practice as I understand it is that the prosecutor would have to give jurors that option for them to take it.  In my opinion, it would be the height of arrogance not to give the jurors a choice in this situation.  The evidence, as we currently know it, is mostly in Zimmerman's favor as against the 2nd degree murder charge.  

    Parent
    yes if (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    the facts warrant it at trial the judge can give a lesser included instruction for manslaughter.   In comments to a recent post, I linked and copied the possible lessers for murder 2 and for manslaughter from the Fla. jury instructions.

    Parent
    feel this is unfair - kind of a "two bites at the apple type" of thing.

    Heck, as a prosecuter, why not just charge him with Murder 1? Then you get an additional shot at convicting him for something vs charging him with Murder 2.

    Parent

    First degree murder requires ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    ... both motive and aggravating circumstances for it to be sustained. At the very least, I'd think that George Zimmerman would have had to alight from his vehicle with the intent to kill Trayvon Martin, i.e., with malice aforethought. Clearly, that's not the case here.

    Parent
    The real problem with Murder 1 is... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 06:56:46 AM EST
    ...that the indictment would have had to go to a grand jury. Not having the elements of the charge didn't prevent Carey from charging m2 (or some time serving magistrate from rubber-stamping it), so why think m1 is beyond her level of malignity, if she could get away with it?

    Parent
    Aggravated manslaughter of a child (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:56:13 PM EST
    a 1st degree felony in Florida.

    Parent
    The affidavit for an arrest warrant (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    was scant overall, but particularly so at the key point: 'Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Calls were made for help (Martin's mother identified the sounds as being Trayvon upon hearing the recording).  Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin.'    The affidavit's use of the word 'confronted' is soft in the context of a second degree murder charge (connoting more a face to face challenge--such as what are you doing here? rather than physical aggression, and especially, in view of SYG.  

    And, then "a struggle ensued".  Again, soft, in face of the need to identify the aggressor who threw the first punch.  Of course, not all the information was revealed in the affidavit, but it would seem that different language would be used to bolster the charge. The effectiveness of Zimmerman's defense will hinge on the physical and forensic evidence (not only the gun shot wound, but other evidence of bruises on Martin's body) and how the compilation of evidence corresponds with Zimmerman's testimony.

    Because (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:24:06 PM EST
    This is their theory and not evidence?

    Parent
    After all (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    this all I can say is that conceal to carry law is a bad one and needs to be gotten rid of. There was another case here in GA where the guy actually was threatened, the guy's own neighbors were afraid of the guy and the guy came on the defendant's property and yet the guy defending himself went to jail. It's just a bad law it seems no matter what state it is in.


    Boy, do I not follow you. (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 07:03:38 AM EST
    Concealed carry is bad because the guy who shot in self defense went to jail rather than got beat to death by the guy everyone was afraid of?

    Parent
    I don't follow, either (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 08:09:49 AM EST
    Who is this "everyone" that was afraid of Martin?  Why are you presuming that Martin was going to beat Zimmerman to death?

    Parent
    pretty sure (none / 0) (#142)
    by Rojas on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    the response was to the anecdote from Ga6thDem which I can make no sense of either. Don't believe the Martin/Zimmerman case is being referenced.

    Parent
    Right. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 07:24:00 AM EST
    As i said (none / 0) (#43)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    The prosecution wants to keep the contemporaneous records of the EMTs and the hospital out of the public eye.  Unfortunately, the neighbors saw bandages.  
    If this case goes to trial with the testimony of these neighbors and the medics, then half of all Americans will think the verdict is an injustice no matter which way it goes.
    I suspect that the prosecutor desperately wants a quiet plea bargain.

    The neighbors won't be called to testify... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 07:09:21 AM EST
    ...to GZ's injuries. No chance. No way. Only has significance for -our- judgement as to what went on, pending better evidence.

    Parent
    Someone is screaming, and quite pitifully, for he (none / 0) (#45)
    by Luke Lea on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:10:27 PM EST
    Moreover it is not a single scream.  It goes on.  I haven't heard a theory for why Martin would continue screaming like that if he weren't continuously being hurt or at least being threatened.  

    For that matter, we also haven't heard ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:44:31 PM EST
    ... any theory regarding why the screams stopped so abruptly in tandem with the single gunshot.

    Parent
    Because Zimmerman was no lomnger (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    being hit?

    Parent
    Or, because ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:07:33 AM EST
    ... Martin was dead?

    Parent
    Assuming Facts not in Evidence (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by indy in sc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    Just making that disclaimer up front...

    I agree with the implication behind your question.  IMO, the abrupt end to the screaming on the 911 tape seems more consistent with it having been Martin screaming because I would expect Zimmerman's scream to continue for a moment, however brief, following the shooting.  I have (thankfully) never shot anyone, but would imagine that I would continue screaming if I had had to shoot someone to save my life--obviously what I think I would have done in the circumstance is in no way dispositive, but I think its the way a jury might consider the evidence.

    Also, I think it would be difficult to scream that loudly while having your head repeatedly knocked into the concrete.

    I wonder what evidence the prosecutor has that hasn't been released--it wouldn't be the first time a prosecutor thinks s/he has a stronger case than actually exists, but the "evidence" that has been going around in the media from both sides still seems to me to fall on the side of an unlawful killing.

    Parent

    I actually don't place ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    ... much significance on the timing of when the screams stopped.  I'm just pointing out that there's an equally likely reason for the screams stopping at the time of the gunshot if the screams were Martin's.

    Parent
    I think there (none / 0) (#111)
    by indy in sc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    is a lot of speculation on everything we "know" because that's all we can do at this point is speculate.  My speculation is that the voice is more likely to have been Martin's, but your point is well taken that we have nothing concrete to tell us whose voice it was and why it appeared to stop  concurrently with the sound of the gun shot.

    Parent
    Well I agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by HighlyAdequate on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    that IF it was Martin screaming, and continuing to scream for a LONG time, only to have Zimmerman shoot him after beating him or threatening him, then Zimmerman would be a true monster, fully worthy of conviction of second degree murder.

    But that's a big IF. One of my greatest problems with this scenario (apart from, say, what appears to be pretty good evidence that Z was instead on the losing end of the physical fight) is precisely that it requires Zimmerman to be an utter monster.

    Such monsters exist of course. But they are in fact rare. And there's nothing I can see in Z's background to suggest he was such an individual.

    Parent

    Except I would offer that ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:32:07 PM EST
    ... a few bruises and abrasions, or even a busted nose, does not necessarily mean that George Zimmerman was either on the losing end of a physical fistfight, or was the victim of an unprovoked assault. All it really shows was that he was involved in a physical altercation, and nothing more.

    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#100)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    .

    Z's injuries are not proof that he was either on the losing end of a physical fistfight, or was the victim of an unprovoked assault.

    OTOH, those injuries are completely consistent with both of those conditions and a most likely explanation.  

    Two questions.

    1. Why would Martin call for help after breaking Z's nose and getting him to the point where the back of his head was injured from ground contact and the back of his shirt was grass stained and wet?

    2. Looking at the map of where Z's truck was, the shooting location, and M's residence, it appears that M had a straight run home after Z lost contact.  Why did M not simply boogie home rather that reinitiate contact with Z?

    .

    Parent
    Two answers (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    1.  You have no idea when the cries happened in relation to the injuries.  If he was involved in an altercation with a stranger who was following him, and suddenly discovered that the stranger has a gun, that could prompt him to cry for help and/or scream.Where is the evidence that Zimmerman's nose is broken?  How do these injuries establish that Z was the "victim of an unprovoked assault"?

    2.  It wasn't Martin's home - he was visiting and (according to Zimmerman) "looking around" at the houses.  He could have been lost/disoriented in the development.  Martin could have been hiding from the stranger who was following him.  There's also no evidence Martin reinitiated contact with Zimmerman.  


    Parent
    Silly stuff (none / 0) (#103)
    by ks on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    1. You don't know at what point in the struggle the cries for help came.

    2.  How did Martin know that Z had supposedly "lost contact" with him and you don't know if he reinitiated? contact with Z.

    C'mon now....

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    I think the point is if Martin was running towards a safe harbor, i.e. his father's finacee's house, why we he care if Z "lost contact'?  Wouldn't he just keep going regardless?  Would you?

    It's only in scary movies whete there are people who are being chased and stop and turn around and go back.  Seems only a fool would do that.

    Parent

    No way to know (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    Martin didn't live in the development.  According to Zimmerman's own statement, he was "looking around at the houses".  Nighttime in an unfamiliar development full of rows of condominiums that are very similar and a stranger following you - quite possible that he was disoriented and wasn't sure which way to go.

    Or he could have tried to hide from Zimmerman ...

    Parent

    Yes really (none / 0) (#110)
    by ks on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    That wasn't the point but I'll play along.  How do you know he didn't keep going?  He could have kept going and then been confronted by Zimmerman.  We don't know who approached whom first.  But apparently you seem to want to believe Zimmerman's finely crafted tale about heading back to his truck and being jumped by  jumped by Martin.

    Parent
    No, I realky don't (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    You, however, are ready to convict without, as you point out, knowing all the facts.

    And as to your "play along" question - the state will have to prove that, won't theu?

    Parent

    Ready to convict? (none / 0) (#114)
    by ks on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    Neither or us will be convicting or acquitting him of anything.  I won't be on the jury and neither will you.  But, I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.  So?  

    Parent
    Finely crafted tale, (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    right after getting in a fistfight and, literally, shooting his opponent in the chest at arm's reach and watching him die on the ground in front of him.

    Ya, I would totally expect him to then coolly and calmly hone a "finely crafted tale" for when the police show up...

    Parent

    Yes finely crafted tale... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ks on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    You know the details of what Zimmerman told police when they showed up?  The finely crafted tale I'm referring to comes from "associates of Zimmerman" who have repeatedly claimed in media interviews that Zimmerman told them, well after the event happened, he was attacked by Martin as he was going back to his truck.  Imo, that's clearly a pr/legal strategy.  Whether it is true is another matter.

    Parent
    Ah, thanks, that makes more sense. (none / 0) (#117)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    To be honest, I really haven't followed this particular part of the story very closely - is it known what Z told the police at the scene and/or when he was brought to the station house?

    I will agree that w/in a day or two after just about any kind of incident all the people involved will have finely honed stories to tell.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#119)
    by ks on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    I think we know what Z told them loosely but not the specific details. I think that makes sense since it was, and is on the Fed level, an ongoing investigation.

    Yeah, the stories are certainly out there but it seems like Z's new attorney is trying to get a handle on the various associates media apperances.

     

    Parent

    Maybe because as a young man (none / 0) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 12:09:00 AM EST
    he was heartily sick of having to run away from white males with apparent ill intent?  Just a thought.

    Parent
    Do you really think (none / 0) (#147)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    .

    Do you really think that Martin can infer intent from skin color?  

    .

    Parent

    Learn to read, please (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:59:43 PM EST
    The key word here is "apparent."

    I think most of us know when there's a high chance that somebody coming after us, especially a stranger, is doing so with ill intent, don't we?

    Parent

    Maybe not a monster (none / 0) (#124)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:35:36 PM EST
    Your scenario does not necessarily require that Zimmerman be a monster.  Even IF he was terrorizing Martin and then pulled the trigger, it was not "in cold blood."  It was in an adrenaline-flooded moment, when judgment and temperance were not present.  People, even aggressors, can do the stupidist things with a loaded gun in their hand, that they would not have done in a calmer moment.  

    Parent
    I wonder how dark it was, really. (none / 0) (#52)
    by EL seattle on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    This all happened after sundown, as I understand it. And it was rainy. Depending on the lighting in the area, the witnesses might have had a better visual idea of what was happening than either Martin or Zimmerman themselves did when the shooting happened.

    This was a highly-charged situation, and if it was really dark at that moment and it was difficult for Martin and Zimmerman to clearly see things, I can easily imagine either (or both) of them panicking, and doing things that only made the situation worse.


    What if ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 01:42:17 AM EST
    re Trayvon's girlfriend's account as posted by Jeralyn:  "She says she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman responded with "What are you doing here?" and then the line went dead. She has no idea who struck first."

    I'm not an attorney, just looking at this a perhaps a juror might:  What if Zimmerman knocked the phone from Trayvon Martin's hand?  Would that count as initiating the aggression?

    I guess it might but (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:08:24 AM EST
    didn't she say the phone was in his pocket and he was using a headset?

    I've wondered a few times whether one of the reasons Zimmerman thought Trayvon was acting weird (not looking weird) was because he was talking on the phone with a headset, and Zimmerman couldn't see that. To Zimmerman, he might have looked like some guy who was walking back and forth in the rain, in no particular pattern, talking to himself, like a crazy person or someone on drugs. Lots of people, when they talk on the phone hands-free, pace or get expressive with their hands, etc., so that someone viewing them from a distance would find their behavior odd. I've done double-takes of people in cars driving next to me, people walking through the airport, or in a store wondering what's wrong with them when they were just talking with an earpiece and not holding a phone.

    Also, Zimmerman may have been reaching for his cell phone after exchanging words with Trayvon,  which Travyon mis-interpreted as Zimmerman reaching for a weapon, causing him to deck Zimmerman, fearing Zimmerman was going to pull out a gun.

    I'm just not finding a scenario that says the struggle and shooting was anything more than the  product of over-reacting to an unexpected encounter, and Florida case law says that's manslaughter, not Murder 2 (if self defense is rejected.)

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    I keep thinking I'm going to get used to seeing people wandering around and seeming to be talking to themselves, but so far I haven't.

    Parent
    That's right, it was the earpiece that fell out (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:44:31 AM EST
    first and then the phone went dead.  Thank you.

    Re need for double-takes:  I've done that, too -- looking at others twice, especially drivers talking, with or without animated gestures, when they appear to be the only ones in the car.

    This remninds mne -- and I'm basing the question on Zimmerman's words to the dispatcher, in particular "punks" and in effect, stating, 'they always get away'.  His choice of words/ wording seem to suggest he thought Trayvon to be some type of criminal.  IF he really believed that, wouldn't it be sort of reckless/ potentially dangerous for him to actually engage Trayvon (i.e., demanding/ asking 'what are you doing here?')instead of staying back and waiting for the police?

    How is that viewed legally? I'm not referring to Zimmerman leaving his vehicle but instead, his actually going up close enough to the point they're (he and Trayvon) are actually exchanging words...  

    Parent

    Reckless or dangerous? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jpe on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:44:41 AM EST
    Maybe, but that doesn't make a legal difference.  Same w/ him asking Martin a question.  We're allowed to ask questions of others in this country; it doesn't preclude self-defense if someone else starts wailing on the asker.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#120)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    Number 3 (none / 0) (#82)
    by Rojas on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:44:02 AM EST
    The position of the body you have related is by the second officer at the scene. The first officer at the scene had already "made contact".

    What's the significance ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:13:13 AM EST
    ... of the position of the body being described by the second officer (Officer Ayala) on the scene, as opposed to the first (Officer Smith)?  The first officer also confirmed the position of Martin's body as "face down in the grass".  The second officer arrived shortly after the first (who was securing Zimmerman), and the first officer told him he had not made contact with Martin.

    Parent
    No significance (none / 0) (#98)
    by Rojas on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    I misread the statement.
    "Not" is significant as you state.

    Parent
    Number 1 and number 2 are facts (none / 0) (#99)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    .

    Number 1 and number 2 are facts that may be relevant more to video quality than Zimmerman's condition.  In fact if the head wounds would have been obvious on that fuzzy video he would have been brought in on a stretcher.

    The only solid fact is that poor quality video is not good for detecting detail.

    .

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    for presenting disputed facts as undisputed facts. He should have learned by now to present his view of the disputed/unknown facts as his opinion.

    Parent
    We don't know anything about what injuries (none / 0) (#115)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    Trayvon sustained, other than the fact that a gunshot wound killed him. And we know nothing about that gunshot wound other than it was, reportedly, in the upper chest.

    Perhaps it is too early to assume that all the available evidence will eventually support, or fail to discredit, Zimmerman's version of events.

    To be honest, given the way the pursuit apparently unfolded (based in Zimmerman's statement's on the dispatch tape and the testimony of the young woman on the phone with Trayvon immediately before his death) it doesn't seem unreasonable that Zimmerman, a man with 10 years of maturity on Martin, a part time bouncer with more experience with violent encounters, and, from the police tape, a guy who appeared in pretty good shape, didn't simply pursue, but also, tried to physically apprehend and restrain Martin.

    Can you tell me, Jeralyn, if (big if) any additional evidence -- autopsy, body position, witness testimony -- that we don't have access to turns out to indicate any physical assault on Trayvon in addition to the gunshot, how would that affect Zimmerman's self-defense argument?

    The judge disqualified herself (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    today

    Wednesday's order directed the case to be returned to the chief judge for reassignment, who in turn ordered that Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr., be appointed to preside over the Zimmerman case.

    (But not before more drama)

    A little on Judge Lester

    Orlando attorney Wayne Klinkbeil was an assistant public defender assigned to Lester's courtroom when the judge first took the bench in 1997. Lester, he said, is a very good judge.

    He is consistent, a tough sentencer, Klinkbeil said, "very in control of his courtroom, very straightforward with expectations."

    The judge's daughter, Alexandra Lester, 26, a member of the Florida Bar, said she never saw her father agonize over a ruling.

    "He basically told me it should not be hard to make the right decision if you follow the law," she said.

    His hero, she said, was his father, Kenneth Lester Sr., a World War II veteran and Glenn L. Martin Co. engineer who raised his family in Orlando and died last week.

    The judge has a great deal of experience with criminal trials, including high-profile cases. He gave Michael Reynolds two death sentences plus a life prison sentence for beating and stabbing a Geneva couple and their 11-year-old child to death in 1998.

    Lester sentenced ax murderer and handyman John Michael Buzia to death in the slaying of a 71-year-old Oviedo man.



    It appears (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:54:41 PM EST
    this will finally be the Judge that handles the case going forward.

    Parent
    Wow. Did you have to be so harsh? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:14:05 PM EST


    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    It was a personal insult to you, despite the claim to the contrary.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:49:43 PM EST
    Some Questions that Still Have Not Been Answered (none / 0) (#143)
    by Richjo on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    1.Does Zimmerman have to show he was in reasonable fear for his life "at the moment he pulled the trigger", or does he simply need to show that he was at some point during the confrontation?

    2.Could Zimmerman be required to submitt a voice sample to attempt to verify that it was him screaming on the tape, or would that be a violation of his rights?

    3. If Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin and thus was the first to make physical contact, would that count as him being the aggressor, or does he have to throw a punch?

    If Jeralyn or someone else who knows could provide an answer I would appreciate it.

    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Mary2012 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:22:43 AM EST
    I keep thinking of the gash/ mark/ injury on the upper back of Zimmerman's scalp, wondering how it happened.  It keeps nagging at me.  How did it come to be as high as it is on the back of his head?

    If Zimmerman was laying flat on his back on the concrete, wouldn't the markings be more squarely on the back of his scalp? and not near the top?

    The only thing I could think of -- and it doesn't seem likely -- is if Zimmerman was trying to get Trayvon onto the ground (concrete sidewalk?) by tackling him from the front and Trayvon hit him, perhaps trying to get Zimmerman to break his grip on him, with something that made contact first near the top of his head and slid down somewhat (on Z's scalp) as they fell.  I don't think it's likely because I don't know what he would've had on him to hit him with that would make that type of a straight line mark.

    I'm just having trouble seeing how that gash is from having his head slammed on the concrete while he was laying flat on his back...

       

    What I've found, in instances like these, (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    is if you are inclined to be skeptical, you will always be able to find some nagging little detail that just doesn't sit right with you. And the more you think about it, the more important it becomes to you.

    Parent
    I have to say that I think (none / 0) (#149)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    you're right about that.  That nagging detail can come to dominate one's perspective.

    My nagging little detail is that the errands that Zimmerman was on are always unspecified.  I can derive all sorts of subtle implications from that.  So thank you for that reminder.

    Parent

    What about the presumed slug to the nose? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lora on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    If Trayvon punched Zimmerman hard on the nose, that would have thrown Zimmerman's head back, possibly knocking him to the ground and causing a gash or gashes to the back of his head.

    IOW, it could all have been from one single action, not two separate actions. Speculation: If Trayvon was standing after throwing a solid punch and Zimmerman was on his back on the ground, Zimmerman would then have had the opportunity (speculative) to draw his gun and shoot Trayvon.  He also might have been able to move out of the way to avoid Trayvon falling on him.

    Parent