The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
Who struck the first blow? Would a kid talking on a phone initiate a fight? or would he have put his phone away first? From the girlfriend’s statement, M was on the phone with her long enough to hear the initial verbal interchange and the initial scuffle. My conclusion is that M wasn’t looking for, nor expecting, a fight.
Bosco,
O’Reilly is right on just one thing. The case *needs * to go on trial before a jury. I would add “as soon as possible” to that.
To describe the doctor’s report as “major news” is silly.
Zimmerman’s injuries have been known about for some time already.
Nobody disputes that there was a physical fight.
Anyone who bothered to read already knew that.
The problem is that some people – including our beloved host Prof. Turley – seem to consider that the undisputed ( and far from new) evidence of a fight and of Zimmerman’s injuries constitute a case for Zimmerman to walk free.
The question of racial hoo-ha is not at all related to the merits of the case.
I for one, have never seen that this was a racially based incident.
It wasn’t Zimmerman chasing black people.
It was him chasing what he considered to be people responsible for break-in’s etc. It wouldn’t matter what colour or race they were.
Sling –
This is obviously an evolving case. None of us have all the facts or are prescient, we take what little morsels we get fed from the internet and tv and try to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Each one of us speculates, surmises, posits, etc without every single time superscripting a disclaimer. Each of us has at some point explained what we think happened as if it were fact as they do in a CSI episode where you see all these plausible scenarios, but don’t find out until the end the actual scenario
I don’t mind if you or anyone else of me for that matter draw conclusions based on our opinion or speculation
What I do mind is when someone goes out of their way to outrightly declare as a fact, or a stubborn fact, or a certainty, something that is simply not
This is comment thread so not everyone corrects every spelling error, skips the grammar in the interest of time, doesn’t always make clear “THIS IS MY SPECULATION” but sometimes writes it as if it was fact passivley..that’s all fair play in my opinion. I don’t even mind if someone calls something “evidence” or something instead of saying its “data” or a “report” or what the eye witness said…I’m not going to be petty and waste time and say, “Well…its not EVIDENCE until its submitted into the court and the Judge accepts it as such”….Whatever, I know what you meant, but still I try to be cognizant of that for those more sensitive to such proclivities on a comment thread when I post
But…if you go out of your way to make clear X IS A FACT,…what I am about to right is a FACT…what I just wrote was a FACT. Undisputed FACT/CERTAINTY… then someone will call foul unless it actually is…and if I do such a thing please call foul on me…but don’t take a sentence where there is no ACTIVE fact declaration and try to pin anyone on it as if they are trying to deceive anyone
Of course we are biased in the most unflattering sense of the word…everyone who has spent more than a few minutes studying this case will form an opinion at some level
Of course we all think we aren’t biased and have profound levels of neutrality to counter that as we selflessly seek the truth and set aside the lens we have and use to evaluate all things in life. Yeah Right 🙂
Having said that…lets make this very acute
Malisha, among many others including you seem (and correct me if I am wrong) to have ACTIVELY declared as fact that Zimmerman followed Martin and produced a confrontation. Malisha called this a stubborn fact
This is exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about.
Now I understand… that Malisha and you and several others just can’t seem to fathom or imagine any other way things could have gone down if that didn’t happen and so you conclude it MUST be a FACT.
But that is not a FACT, just a failure of imagination/thoroughness to what can/may have occurred
A FACT would be an active declaration that Martin shot Zimmerman. No problem there…ACTIVELY declare it and its fine. It is truly indisputable
Zimmerman following and producing a confrontation with Martin…not indisputable not even close
I hope that while we are both biased, you can set that aside for a moment and accept that yes, its true, it is not an indisputable fact (at this point) that Zimmerman followed AND produced a confrontation with Martin. There are other possible scenarios and so it is a foul to actively declare this as 100% fact
Now with regards to the end of your post where you ACTIVELY declare three things as facts/certainty that are ENTIRELY debatable and simply not certain.
Say you REALLY THINK this is the case, but you do a disservice, by going over the top with CERTAIN.
1) Zimmerman may have been reckless if it is proven that he produced the confrontation with Martin. That is not currently proven on the level that Zimmerman shot Martin
2) If Martin did outflank and instigate with or attack Zimmerman after running away…then NO, Z did not set the conditions for a dangerous confrontational situation. We don’t know where it happened exactly of even if it wasn’t well lit. The paths in gated communities are generally well lit all the time. Staring at someone and reporting them to the police is not and should never be cast as “setting the conditions for a dangerous confrontation”
3) Answering “No” [i dont have a problem] and asking “what are you doing here” hardly qualifies as “inflammatory” this is just vitriolic opinion
See what I mean? None of even your most recent 3 actively declared “certainty’s” are certain on any level close to actual “certainties”
Ah ,,SlingBlade. how profound a response..wow. Did you go to the same school as Tony?
Shano,,were you there ? Did YOU witness what Zimmerman witnessed? Did YOU witness what Martin witnessed?
The answer is NO you were not there.
You cannot make the ASSUMPTION that “NOTHING needed to be ‘addressed’.”
With that being said, Zimmerman DID see something , HE felt needed to be addressed. Right OR wrong.
So did I last year. Hypothetically, If that person had been stopped and it was later found out that he was actually related to the old woman..
No harm ,no foul. I would have apologized to them.
The fact is he WAS committing a crime.
Shano,,here is a link you NEED to review
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/05/17/bill-oreilly-stunning-new-developments-trayvon-martin-case
Bosco,
The litany of questions was to illustrate a major difference between the actions that you describe in you own case and what Zimmerman did in his case.
A central one was the mater of following into the dark without knowing where the person was.
To address directly the David Larry question that you reposted
“It’s pretty obvious (NOW) that Martin was hitting Zimmerman. Did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself? Was he supposed to lay there and take the beating?”
What would have happened if Zimmerman did not have a gun?
At the time of the shot, the fight had been going on for some time. The neighbourhood was waking up and calling 911, but the cops were already on the way due to Zimmerman’s call.
In all of that time of the fighting, Zimmerman’s injuries were minor. He didn’t need any more medical attention than a wipe down. We can’t say for sure, but it seems unlikely, based on the nose fracture and minor cuts, that he would have sustained any significant injury.
We still don’t know which of them got actually physical first. That could have been a push as much as a blow. We never will know.
It’s unarguable that the fight broke out because Zimmerman is a stupid asshole who followed Martin into the dark.
No follow into the dark = no fight.
Both Zimmerman’s own and the girlfriend’s accounts of the conversation that took place show Zimmerman as responding provocatively to a challenge/question by Martin.
If Zimmerman did not have the gun, he would have got a whipping for another while and then the cops or concerned locals would have stopped it.
Now. Martin was not committing any crime. He was simply on his way home from the 7-11.
Was it right in all of the circumstances that he should die just to save Zimmerman from an extra bit of beating?
The question amounts to “In all of the circumstances, did Zimmerman have the right to kill Martin?”
The answer has to be “No”
The question amounts to “In all of the circumstances, was he supposed to lay there and take a beating?”
The answer has to be “People should not beat other people, but if it has to happen, then in this particular case – Hell yeah!”
Bosco: Witnessing something that needed to be addressed IS the only connection there is.”
The problem with the Zimmerman action is this- NOTHING needed to be ‘addressed’.
If I was walking home from the store talking on my cell phone I would be really annoyed if someone I did not know called the cops on me. Zimmerman made all sorts of completely WRONG assessments about a person he did not know. None of his assumptions were correct, but he acted on them anyway. And that caused the death of this young person.
Manny, the insane crowding in our jails is due to the ridiculous illegality of a harmless, non addictive substance in marijuana. Imagine if we had to lock up all the people who drink alcohol, a much more dangerous & addictive substance. Even more overcrowding and tax dollars wasted.
Manny O, you must remember this,, Tony C, is self proclaimed
‘RESEARCH SCIENTIST’. He must know far more than any of us do.
Here is something he said at another thread-
“I actually doubt Trayvon HAD his hand in his waste-band..”
Although you HEAR on the 911 tapes, Zimmerman in real-time describing what he is seeing it is being discounted by Prof Tony C. Why???
I don’t know. Maybe something to do with biased or prejudicial logic??
Tony – I understand your idealistic partition between dollars and lives, but the reality of our prison and jucicial system will never be blind to dollars. Its pragmatism
I am surprised that in one moment you declare a persons life as worthless essentially if they are found to be guilty of X beyond a shadow of a doubt
and taxpayers shouldnt be paying to fund this person watching daytime TV for the rest of his life.
Then in the next say it should never be about dollars
I see two phases, one establish they are beyond the pale and shall never see freedom again. If true, then move on to second phase
Whats the most cost effective way to make sure they never see freedom again? Their life is worthless as you imply so they have no say. Who has a say? The people paying to sustain the worthless persons punishment
Which is…dollars.
If its cheaper to execute this person, then execute them. If its cheaper to keep them in a cage with daytime tv then make it so
We are already facing a bloated protracted system of appeals, insane overcrowding in the penitentiary’s…so much so that they are actually RELEASING the least of the worst just to make room for the rest.
We have serious obstacles to overcome to ever make any progress on this issue and thats before someone says, hey its not about the money…!?!?
Im not saying someones determination of beyond a shadow of a doubt should be about money, I am talking about AFTER its a defacto conclusion they are beyond a shadow of doubt of guilt
@Manny O
If we lived in a near subsistence society with a reasonable expectation that every few years there would be crop failures and near famine, I would agree with you.
But we live in the richest society in history. I believe society has a right to protect itself. I question whether it is necessary for society to execute criminals in order to do that. Recent cases proving how capricious and arbitrary the death penalty is also call into question its use.
Of course I oppose the death penalty.
Ill respond to the litany of comments this way-
I will never feel guilty for having ALTRUISTIC principles.
I have lived my whole life with altruistic principles and Ive never put on ‘blinders’ to avoid responsibility.
We ALL have a responsibility to make sure that our communities, our people, are kept safe from ANY types of crime.
I never said that the Florida case and my experience were exactly the same. Witnessing something that needed to be addressed IS the only connection there is.
My motivation was not due to a prejudice or any profiling. I saw something that wasn’t right.The person in the ‘hoodie’ could have been ANY color ,my actions would have been the same.
I thanked David Larry for NOT being the type(like many of YOU) to fall for and create the sensationalistic psychobabble that is going on.
Now that the 200 pages of evidence (with more to come) had been released, we have this threading
“New Evidence .. Undermines Prosecution’s Case on Second Degree”
many here among us pick it all apart to unfairly discount any of it.
None of us know Zimmerman. None of us truly know what his motivation was. None of us know if he is altruistic.
All i read here from those that describe Zimmerman as being a racist murderer is biased CONJECTURE .
( This is just another one of those biased ‘playgrounds’ isn’t it? I do see the same racist attitudes going on here)
Bosco,
Both yourself and David Larry appear to be searching for a one-size-fits-all simple formula that will define the boundaries of reasonable action in a very generic situation.
There is no such formula.
If you try to define a formula you end up with something that makes as much sense as like Florida’s 10-20-life law. This very simple law obliged a judge to sentence Alexander to 20 years. The judge himself acknowledged that the only thing going for the sentence was that it was legal. THe prosecuter in the case had 3 years in mind, and it appears even that would have been OTT in the true circumstances.
Could you tell us about your own story please?
– When the person passed you did you get the impression that he noticed your attention?
– When you followed him, did you get any impression that he was aware of your following him?
– At what distance did you follow him?
– Why did you chose that distance? Was it because you judged that you could get away if he turned to threaten you in some way? Was it because you could not keep up?
– Was there street lighting?
– Could you see him at all times and thereby know that you were keeping a safe distance.
– Did you follow him down a dark side street and then turn into a darker one?
– Perhaps he didn’t enter such an area. If he had, would you have followed him?
– If he had come towards you, would you have stood there or would you have got out of there?
– Why did you stop following him?
You simply can not apply your experience to the Zimmerman/Martin experience. They don’t match in any real way other than a person being suspicious, calling the cops and telling them where they thought the person was headed.
– What if you were actually the local neighbourhood watch captain?
– What if you were very much exercised by what you saw a crime wave by young thugs?
– What if you didn’t actually see that person doing anything in relation to the car? What if you just didn’t like the look of him?
– What if in the course of your call to the cops you gave vent to your frustrations, saying “They always get away” and “F**king ****s”.
– What if you continued to follow after he turned down a dark alley – and you lost sight of him?
– What if you followed him down there in the dark despite not knowing where he was exactly and if he lay in wait?
– What if you suddenly met him in the dark and he asked you either politely or roughly what you were at?
– Would have taken to your heels immediately or would you have stayed and answered back in a way that was in no way going to calm anybody down?
– If you were a neighbourhood watch volunteer for that area, would you have indicated this immediately to the person – you know, the way even uniformed cops would shout “Police” or whatever?
We know ‘almost’ whole story Bosco.
We know the parts of the whole story that we can determine are not corrupted by special interests or selfish self interest.
@Bosco: According to sworn testimony, Martin did NOT turn around and go looking for Zimmerman, Zimmerman found HIM.
So yes, you should be aware, if you are following somebody that you find suspicious, do not get close enough to attack them, as Zimmerman did, because that will be seen by a jury as an assault by an act of intimidation.
If you should inadvertently find yourself in that position and are verbally challenged by the person, as Zimmerman was, then you have provoked them, and your best bet is to apologize fast, show your open hands, and back as far away as you can, out of sudden physical reach, because in the eyes of a jury your assault will probably be seen as an aggressive act that justifies their response and in the eyes of a jury that will probably invalidate any claim you have to self defense; in particular the use of lethal force in self defense.
You do have the right to call the police, you have the right to observe from a distance, you do not have the right to close in to the point that most people (as determined by a jury) would consider intimidation of another citizen, especially if you have no evidence they were doing anything wrong. I am sure Martin was hitting Zimmerman, but there is a difference between an unprovoked attack and a provoked attack. You, and David Larry, do not seem capable of comprehending that.
David Larry makes a VERY pointed rhetorical question and statement on May 18, 2012 at 11:19 am.
One in which I can relate to being that I live on the west-side of Chicago!
DL’s words-
“I’m interested because there might be a day when I see someone suspicious around my neighborhood. If that person goes around a corner, causing me to lose sight of them, and I go look to see where they went, can that person then come and injure me or kill me without me having the right to defend myself?”
“It’s pretty obvious (NOW) that Martin was hitting Zimmerman. Did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself? Was he supposed to lay there and take the beating?”
In my neighborhood one must always be aware of ones surroundings-ALWAYS.
I came home from work one summer night last year @ approx 11:30pm.
As I was parking in front of our apartment building I noticed a young man(wearing a “hoodie”) getting out of my neighbor’s car 2 cars ahead of mine at curbside. Instead of walking to the buildings front door, this person quickly walked away from the building and past me as i was getting out of my car. I did not recognize him as knowing or being related to the owner (an elderly woman) of the car. (His fast paced walk was somewhat erratic as well)
I sensed that something was not right. I followed at a distance to see where this guy was going because I was calling 911 to report it. The police appreciated that I provided details as to where he was going as I headed back to my building. They were sending a cruiser out to try and locate him. They also said that another officer would be at the building. The policeman that arrived spoke with me and we both went to the owners apt door . She answered and said that she did not know who he may have been. She was in bed at the time.
What i did was appreciated and a good thing to do for the community.
At times I have called the police and will always call the police if I see or sense something is not right.
So lets say that,as David Larry mentioned, this hooded person had turned around, came back and assaulted me. Would it have been my fault? Should I have done NOTHING? What If I were killed??
I will never feel guilty for having ALTRUISTIC principles.
Is that what Zimmerman has?? I don’t know nor does anyone else.
The point is there are way too many people on these threads that have categorically condemned Zimmerman before knowing the whole story.
Thanks David Larry for your point of view!
@Bosco
I had a similar experience when I lived in NYC. After hearing a banging noise that continued for many minutes, I looked out my door to see a strange man leaving my neighbors apartment with a bicycle and a TV set.
After the stranger reached the bottom of the stairs of our walk-up apartment, I followed.
In those days there were public pay phones on most every corner.
I made several calls to the police explaining that I believed they could capture a burglar. On the final call I finally pleaded ‘if you come now you can catch him. They must have dispatched rapidly, because a few minutes later a police car pulled up and took the man into custody.
My neighbor wasn’t very pleased. He complained that he spent more time at the police station trying to recover his stolen property than the burglar did for committing the crime.
I don’t think anyone questions the right to self defense. The question is whether the act of self defense is in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction and whether the act is reasonable and necessary. In my opinion, depending on the situation, there may be real differences in what is legal and what is reasonable.
Some have questioned Zimmerman’s actions in regard to the requirement of SYG law in Florida. Regardless of the legality of Zimmerman’s actions, I have questioned whether Zimmerman actions were reasonable and necessary. I don’t claim to have proof, but I believe it plausible to believe that at several points different choices by Zimmerman could have avoided this deadly situation entirely. I do not believe any of the changes in action, that I imagine, by Zimmerman would have resulted in ignoring a questionable situation.
Some on this site have raised questions along the lines of ‘suppose you are out for a stroll in your own neighborhood…’. I think that line of questioning is a bit disingenuous.
It is clear that Zimmerman considered himself to be in pursuit of, at the very least, a questionable person and perhaps a real threat to the community. Surely there is a difference in what is reasonable when you approach a neighbor while on a neighborhood stroll and what is reasonable when in pursuit of a threat to the community.
@Manny O: For me it comes down to dollars.
That is a logical error on your part, then. I do not equate other people’s lives to dollars, because I do not want my fate to depend on how much money some stranger thinks my life is worth.
I think it is a mistake to try and reduce human life, emotion, and potential to dollars, it unfairly makes the poor morally inferior to the rich, it means their lives are literally and inherently worth less than the lives of the rich.
For me, life and death decisions in the law are in their own realm and should be walled off from monetary concerns altogether. Paupers and billionaires should be treated equally. That does not happen now, but that is how it is supposed to work in this country, and how it should work.
My position is that when there is no shadow of doubt (a standard more restrictive than “no reasonable doubt”) that a person is a murderer, the rest of their life should be taken from them as they took it from somebody else, my calculus is within the realm of lives lost and ruined, and the risk, however minute, that further lives will be lost or ruined. There may be a monetary benefit in reducing care, but I would hold the same position even if it cost MORE.
Thanks Malisha, I am assuming these tapes are on the NRP link you gave. I wasn’t aware of them. I’ll check them Friday or Saturday. Now definitively gone.
…invert begone.
to be on the safe side.
From here on I stop checking:
theythe best thing for someoneGone, maybe watching occasionally, although I shouldn’t, constantly raises new questions, but otherwise honestly trying to finish my tasks tilll the end of this week.
Manny, back to your statement, and then I really have to leave for today, otherwise I get into serious troubles:
Why? I consider the statement by Zimmerman, that TM ran towards the back entrance as a wrong combination of the facts he witnessed, and mainly based on his belief that TM was a “potential thief”, just like others here. That his “detective” mind assumed once he had seen him, he ran, they best thing for someone discovered would be to get away, if he doesn’t turn around, the only other way for a stranger to escape would be via the back entrance.
If TM was closer and realized he talked to so. on the phone, Zimmerman’s most obvious combination would be that Trayvon realized he calls police!, while Trayvon may well have thought, considering he just talked to his friend, now he may get someone here to help him to do whatever.
Now I understand. So you agree the location of the car from what he says should be pretty clear. He may even have been the only one parked on the road at that time, residents surely either parked on the, I forget how it’s called in the newsletter, pavement in front or directly inside their garages. Why didn’t he simply tell the officer. Look it’s really easy, it’s exactly how I told you, they can’t miss me?
But you are assuming he was parked on the right? Correct? How could he see TM approaching him then, did he observe him via his back mirror? How could TM check him out, he may not even have paid much attention to him, if that was the case. Remember it’s dark already. If Zimmerman parked, did he turn off his light? If he hadn’t wouldn’t there be an excellent reason for TM to look at the houses? Was there movement somewhere, did this guy wait to pick up someone? I guess everybody would do this almost naturally under such circumstances. We are always trying to understand what is going on around us. Why does Zimmerman not take this into consideration? Why is he so sure, he knows already all there is to know?
Manny O,
You talked about how biased I and others are.
Don’t you yet understand that your postings here clearly demonstrate that you are massively biased?
Let me explain this to you:
It it clear from your postings above that you came to this table knowing absolutely nothing about the layout of the ground.
Discussions around this have been going on for nearly two months.
The first time that you appear to think about the place all this happened was yesterday, when you came up with an aerial view of the place. Your purpose in presenting that was to point out that the general layout of the gated area would allow someone to circle around behind houses and outflank someone.
It is clear from your postings that you had no idea where relevant points were within that photograph.
For example, You insisted that Zimmerman returned to his SUV and was accosted there by Martin. You had no idea where things were, so that left you asserting that Martin dragged Zimmerman about 200 feet during the course of a fight. Zimmerman says he was decked and pinned immediately, so Martin would have done a remarkable job.
For example, at one stage you tried to explain a distance between the SUV and the killing by reasoning that Martin would have run towards the clubhouse to better get the attention and assistance of the incoming patrol car. You didn’t know that the clubhouse was in the opposite direction.
It seems you no longer insist that Zimmerman had returned to the SUV. Well, you had to give that up because once you look at the relative locations, it is clear that this is impossible unless Zimmerman back at the SUV then decided to follow Martin again.
What does this mean?
It means that you came to this table with a fixed idea. That idea was that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim.
What was that idea based on?
It certainly was not based on any assessment of what was actually known v. what was inescapably the geography.
You simply chose to believe in a version of a story, but made no attempt to evaluate that story.
You came to this table in a completely prejudiced frame of mind.
You had decided the case without making any attempt to check the stories.
———————————–
Am I biased?
My bias is to search for the truth.
When I heard about the controversy, the first thing I did was to get the layout in my mind.
I got looked at on-line maps, satellite images and what videos and photographs of the scene were available.
I listened to the recordings.
Out of that I came to a conclusion that Zimmerman was behaving recklessly. He was heading into the dark, not knowing where exactly the person was. He seemed to believe that the person was armed (“He’s got his hand on his waistband.”) The suspect might have stopped. The suspect might have met associates. Zimmerman might well find himself suddenly confronted by one or more thugs. Zimmerman had a gun.
Reckless behaviour resulting in a death is manslaughter.
Real neighbourhood watch rules forbid what he did. They do that for a good reason. If the RA or Zimmerman didn’t want to pay to ensure that their boy was properly trained for the job, then the NW manuals are still freely available on the Net.
If Zimmerman didn’t read them, then he at least had constructive notice of them.
What is manslaughter for an ordinary individual become more serious when it is done by someone purporting to be acting in a formal role, and should have been aware of the obligations of that formal role.
I never saw this as a racially-motivated killing.
After looking at what was available, I came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an incompetent idiot – a wingnut with a Walter Mitty delusion about being a cop.
——————-
We’ll never know for sure what happened when they met.
Zimmerman reports one conversation before anyone got physical.
The girlfriend reports another conversation.
Both versions demonstrate that Zimmerman had an opportunity to state that he was neighbourhood watch.
Both versions show Martin asking a question and Zimmerman being either a smartass (his own version) or ignoring the question and bullying that he’s the one asking questions.
To Martin, Zimmerman remains a weird guy who has been following him in the dark. Even when the weird guy is given an opportunity to explain his behaviour, he doesn’t explain.
The geography and time of day demonstrates that Zimmerman screwed up by recklessly going down there.
Even Zimmerman’s own account of the meeting demonstrates that he screwed up again by not saying who/what he was when he encountered Martin.
We won’t ever know who got physical first.
All we know is that after the fight started, Zimmerman seemed to coming off worst.
Manny O: “There is no doubt that Martin was running since Zimmerman had no reason to lie and we already established that martin was on the foot path so martin was WAY past the point where he was found dead.”
There you go again.
You have Martin running *and continuing to run* because you have Zimmerman’s “He ran”.
On that logic, why can Zimmerman not continue to follow as he said that he was following? He never says that he stopped following. His “OK” is followed by 10 seconds of exactly the same walking sounds as before – without the glimmer of a break in stride.
You insist the the 10 seconds have him walking back to the SUV, but that leaves him back very near it.
It’s entirely logical that Martin got off that roadway and onto the path as fast as he could. The weird guy is in a SUV and can’t follow. Thereafter he could relax and get back to concentrating oh his girlfriend. He’s back to walking around.
And then – the weird guy is back again, walking. “Why are you following me?”
We don’t know what physical route over the ground Zimmerman says he took. The reconstruction video will be interesting. It’s been made and can’t be unmade. The timings on the recording are made and can’t be unmade. The geography can’t be unmade.
It’s not impossible that Martin got physical first. It’s equally not impossible that Zimmerman got physical first. We’ll never know. This is not the decider however, because it happened within a context. The fight is not a container outside of which we can not look.
What is certain is that
1) Zimmerman was reckless
2) He set the conditions for a dangerous confrontational situation down a dark pathway.
3) When he had a chance to calm things down, he – even by his own account – inflamed it instead.