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
you know what top shot. FU. Seriously, you have no class, no empathy for a family that is suffering a horrific wound that will never heal. You are one who only knows they HAVE to win this argument, so will do anything and say anything- Americans are disgusting in this way.
I said before this case is a microcosm of America, and you are a part of that. The type of Americans who cheer when saying a person should die if they do not have health insurance-that is YOU. A teen dies a violent needless death and you want to blame the victim. That is sick.
You are the hater. And a racist. Speak well of the dead and their family for a time of mourning. this is why the Zimmerman defenders have NO integrity, they seem to not have even the most BASIC human emotional connections.
Guess what? Right now, at this very moment you have at least 36 industrial chemicals floating around in your blood stream. Do they affect your actions? They may be lowering your IQ and your EQ.
Top Shot: “And why couldn’t he answer a simple question. The first words spoken, if they were in an aggressive tone, started the physical altercation.”
You ask “And why couldn’t he answer a simple question”.
This is a good question, and very relevant to the discussion.
I agree that the question asked had a very clear and extremely simple meaning in the circumstances.
We have two accounts of the conversation that preceded the fight. One from Zimmerman and one from the girlfriend.
Although differing in detail, the both agree on two things
1) The exchange began with Martin asking a question
2) Zimmerman’s response to the question that could not be considered to be doing other than inflaming a situation.
In Zimmerman’s account, the first thing said is Martin asking “You got a problem, homie?”
In the girlfriend’s account, the first thing said is Martin asking “Why are you following me?”
No matter what the actual choice of words were, the actual meaning of the question is plain.
Zimmerman has followed Martin in the dark. To Martin, Zimmerman is just some weird guy. Zimmerman isn’t in any sort of uniform.
Martin has a query that is perfectly understandable in this situation. It’s the question that you or I would most likely have for someone who had followed us down a dark path.
In both his own and in the girlfriends’ account, Zimmerman makes no attempt to answer this very simple question.
His failure to answer a very simple and reasonable question – even if the language was (2) above – would certainly have been a trigger for a spiral into aggression.
You asked “And why couldn’t he answer a simple question”.
My take is that Zimmerman is at best an incompetent with a limited mental capacity. He does not appreciate that other people might interpret the situation in other than the way he does.
At worst, he was in full vigilante mode, and had no interest in what ‘the punk’ had to say.
Either way, his failure to address the simple question was a fatal step.
Anyone who is half-way competent or had an intelligent take on the situation would have ignored the particular language in which the question was posed – if it had been posed as other than “Excuse me. I noticed that you have followed me down this dark path. Would you mind terribly informing me as to why you have done so?”.
This is because they would appreciate that the person asking the question would have had no way of knowing that they were talking to someone who was there because of a concern for security of the neighbourhood – and who would be spooked by some stranger following them in the dark.
Do you have any theories as to why Zimmerman couldn’t answer a simple question?
barkindog
mommy and daddy are getting rich off of there dead son. a patten on two phrases will make then, al and jesse plenty of money. mommy and daddy don’t want you to know anything about there son. especially about him attacking a bus driver. and the stolen jewelry, the pipe to go along with the residue, which just means pot was present at one time, defacing school property, not to mention his tweets that someone downloaded before that account was canceled. no, he was just a perfect little honor student. they investigated z. they need to inv. m. also. fair is fair. especially considering that fact that who the aggressor was is in question. his one tweet. fuck the haters,i’ll kill them all. should tell a little something about his frame of mind. and that’s on a regular day. and since when does having ANY amount of a chemical in your system not effect your actions?
@David Larry: Regardless of what rights were “in antiquity,” the current law (including in Florida) defines an “assault” as threatening behavior in act or word, and hitting somebody or trying to hit somebody is covered under “battery” or “attempted battery”.
As such, it is possible to be taking legal actions, such as following somebody, or questioning strangers, and still have them amount to assault.
In order for it to BE assault, a court must determine (by judge or jury) that the actions taken by the aggressor did or would reasonably instill fear in the victim.
I will say I do not think Zimmerman was “stalking” Trayvon, in Florida and other states I check online, stalking requires a pattern of repetition, not a single continuous instance of following.
I will say that, even though I find it borders on harassment because he had zero evidence of wrongdoing, Zimmerman was within his rights to follow Trayvon and report him.
However, at some point the following became Assault, it was intimidating behavior whether Zimmerman was aware of it or not. Although getting out of the car might be a gray area for some, I think that as a whole following somebody in a car, getting out of the car to follow them, and approaching within attacking distance all together amount to intimidation and Assault, and justify any actions Martin took in self-defense, especially since Martin was legally, by Florida law, a child, and not responsible for making decisions or taking action like an adult, and the standard for what a child might find intimidating or perceive as a threat is lower than that for an adult.
We know that Zimmerman did approach within attacking distance, or he could not have been attacked by Trayvon as he says he was. I think the jury will accept the sworn testimony of the girlfriend at least on that point, they were close enough to talk and scuffle.
For the crime of manslaughter, intent is not necessary. It does not matter whether Zimmerman knew Martin was a child, or Zimmerman intended to commit assault.
By analogy (and this is ONLY an illustrative analogy), consider if this were a case about a man raping a woman. His defense cannot be that he honestly thought No meant Yes, that she was just a screamer and biter and they were role-playing. Ignorance of the effect on one’s own actions on another do not constitute a defense against the crime. Ignorance of the law, concerning assault, also do not constitute a defense against a crime; in the rape analogy the man cannot claim, “I had no idea rape was against the law, because you cannot believe everything you hear and I have never actually studied the law.”
Zimmerman crossed the line from legal following to Assault by acts of intimidation at least by the time he was close enough for DeeDee to hear the conversation she has sworn under oath that she heard.
We may never know who swung first, but I fail to see why it makes a difference in this particular case. If Zimmerman was ignorant of the fact that he was creating fear in Martin, that ignorance is not a defense. If Zimmerman was ignorant of the fact that Assault by acts of intimidation was a Florida law to which he was a subject, that ignorance is not a defense. That ignorance could be a limited defense against “intent,” but not against Manslaughter, because no intent is required for Manslaughter.
People can be convicted of Manslaughter for negligence, recklessness, or just doing something stupid that resulted in a death when the jury thinks the person should have known better.
I think Zimmerman is at least guilty of that.
david larry
If Z. had any intentions of jumping M. he would have had to have a foot stool….. You’re right. his little friend on the phone would have clearly heard and said/screamed something/anything, if Z had been a half crazed stalker, hunter, cold blooded killer like uninformed people like to portray him then you can bet the girl would have heard more. As it is, what she did know was that M wasn’t in any danger and refused to go home. And what the hell did she hear? someone bump m. then she heard grass. she heard wet grass? i don’t know what wet grass sounds like. She heard a bump, how does she know it was T M that was bumped? She doesn’t. In fact, the only thing that she does know was that Z. was some distance away from M. if he weren’t some distance away M. would have said something to her or/and Z. and she would have heard it. How many times did she tell M to go home? and he said, ‘ I’m not going home.? He wasn’t interested in avoiding anything, he had plenty of chances to avoid the whole situation by just walking into his home. He chose not to. If he was such a scared little boy that’s what he would have done. Instead of avoiding, he chose to confront Z. And why couldn’t he answer a simple question. The first words spoken, if they were in an aggressive tone, started the physical altercation. Go to forensics pages, they have a special area on gunshots and stripling info. Two ft. away and there is little trace of stripling. He was sitting on the man, hitting him. why didn’t he just get up and run for his life if Z was such a crazed, psychotic stalker turned killer. OH yeah, lets call the cops before I go murder someone. Give me a break. Z. had his nose and mouth both covered, plus he had an xtra 160 lbs. blocking his ability to breathe. M, would have beaten him to death, I think, unless the cops got there first. He wouldn’t even stop when ppl were hollering at him to. Z. will be judged and found guilty, no matter the evidence. For anyone that can’t see that, something will happen to open your eyes one day.
Bigfatmike and others,
I thought it had been well established that Zimmerman is not a Neighborhood Watch person. Although he has been attending criminal justice [sic] classes, he has had no training or instruction for or by Neighborhood Watch. He is a self-appointed vigilant (turned vigilante).
Read an article yesterday that Zimmerman repeatedly used racial slurs against someone (not Black). Z was fired for too many calls to HR turning people in for chickens… Sorry I didn’t save the link. Will post it if I run across it again.
manny o
i know what you mean. all her talk about making sure that everyone’s constitution rights, including z.will be upheld was a big joke. she couldn’t pull herself away from the martins long enough to worry about anything or anyone else. she bragged that none of her cases ever went to grand jury. that just means to me that her interest in justice is her opinion. that’s what g. jury’s are for. to hear evidence and render a decision on facts only. she has the audacity to brag about that. i would be ashamed of it. and who the hell is she to go over another prosecutors head. she was brought in and told what to do. she’s so stupid to realize she was used. now that’s what i call a conspiracy.
CLH,
Here’s an article that youmight find interesting:
Trayvon Martin Case: Does Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claim Depend on Who Started the Fight?
By DAN ABRAMS, ABC News Legal Consultant
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/
Hundreds of pages of documents released yesterday in the Trayvon Martin case shed new light on a number of important aspects of the investigation . Maybe most importantly, it seems clear that George Zimmerman took a beating. Probably a pretty bad one. Bloody lacerations on his head, grass stains on his back, a “swollen” or “broken” nose and more than one witness claiming to have seen what must have been Martin on top of Zimmerman during the altercation, all support Zimmerman’s longstanding claim. But it is also pretty clear from the other evidence we know of — the 911 call where Zimmerman ignores instructions not to follow Martin, and the account of Martin’s friend who was on the phone with him immediately before the incident- that Zimmerman likely followed Martin and initiated whatever altercation eventually ensued. While these facts remain in dispute, if Martin was effectively defending himself from Zimmerman, then started punching out Zimmerman, can Zimmerman still claim he killed Martin in self defense under Florida’s stand your ground law? Maybe.
I started thinking about this more in depth last night after receiving an email from a well respected attorney who suggested that I misstated an aspect of the law during a television appearance. In particular, he believed I was wrong to say that “under Florida Law you can’t start a fight, start losing a fight and then claim you were standing your ground.”
The Florida Stand your Ground Law passed in 2005 reads as follows:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
So the law is pretty clear that if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, he could use deadly force “if he. . . reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself.” Who was the aggressor becomes a, and probably the, crucial legal question. But its not the only question. While the law also states that the defense “is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself,” there are 2 exceptions. First, if:
“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.”
There is nothing yet to suggest that Zimmerman will claim he tried to withdraw but since he was the only witness to the events just preceding the altercation, it could still become an issue. But the second exception is far more likely to be relevant. The law also states that the initial aggressor is permitted to invoke the law and claim self defense if in response to his own aggression,
“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.”
So in theory this could mean that Zimmerman chases down Martin, Martin defends himself and starts pummeling Zimmerman and Zimmerman could still claim he was “standing his ground” because he now feared for his life. Essentially Wild West rules would apply, whoever shoots best and last wins. When asked about this potential issue, the law’s sponsor Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley said, “That scenario was never discussed.”
I think its beyond a leap to suggest that “losing a fight” as I described it is akin to exhausting “every reasonable means to escape” and some in the legal community have argued that provoking the incident immediately eliminates any opportunity to invoke the defense. In particular, I think the defense would have trouble arguing that after getting your butt kicked by someone you chased down and provoked, that you could then argue that you were in any way shape or form “reasonable” in your effort to escape. But there is at least an argument, and probably more than one, that Zimmerman could make to try to invoke the Stand Your Ground Law even if he were to concede (or it was proven) that he was the aggressor. So if I have more time maybe I should say “under Florida law you can’t start a fight, then start losing a fight, and then, without reasonably trying to escape first, shoot and kill someone?”
Regardless, this law is incredibly protective of the defendant and for everyone who has pointed fingers of blame at the police and prosecutors in connection with this case, now that we know a lot more about the evidence, I think any fingers would have been far more accurately pointed at the Florida legislature.
Thanks Elaine =)
But quite Frankly, when the page click results in the server having to sick up 1 Grillion-comment page, then things begins to have a downside.
Instead of people happily clicking all over the Prof’s blog pages, they are making a nice cup of tea or clicking in a different tab while waiting for single monster threads to download.
Gad I hate when JT trolls for page clicks with these pointless posts. Prof, if you want to drive traffic put up a post suggesting nude pictures of Scarlet Johansson or something.
This thread might make some people have a heart attack & they might sue you.
SlingTrebuchet 1, May 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm
MannyO: “Shano neither of us are familiar with the details of the community topology or where the numbers are,etc , but its not beyond plausibility that he may need to walk quite a ways to get to a point where he can actually read a specific house number.”
Doesn’t the police call indicate that Zimmerman parked his SUV on the sidewalk close to mail boxes? There is a plot plan on the internet (referenced on this site in another thread). I think that plot plan indicates the SUV would have been no more that the distance of a front yard from street numbers on the front of the buildings.
If Zimmerman were looking for street numbers it seem likely he would have walked to the rear of his SUV and away from his confrontation with Martin. Depending on the lighting, it is entirely conceivable he would not have had to leave the driver position of his SUV.
I could certainly be wrong and I would appreciate a correction if I am. But at this point ‘looking for street numbers’ is not a very convincing explanation to me.
@Elaine M. “BTW, insulting people is not the best way to win an argument.”
I have to agree with you Elaine. Real arguments are so much more convincing. If the person insulting you had meaningful arguments to make they surely would.
Calling names is a clear indication that the name-caller has nothing left to contribute – they are out of ammunition and they know it.
I think you should take name calling as a well deserved congratulations on your superior presentation.
BigFatMiie, “If Zimmerman did not identify himself as neighborhood watch and did not explain that the arrival of police was expected then I think it calls into question if Zimmerman was acting as neighborhood watch or acting appropriately as neighborhood watch.”
First of all, his identifying himself as “neighborhood watch” would not have given Trayvon Martin any kind of reasonable assurance that he was not in danger. Anybody can say that. Many kidnappers actually have a very good story ready when they approach their prey. That might be one. If Zimmerman couldn’t pull out a badge and show he was a duly-appointed authority (such as police or FBI or park police, etc.), no kind of self-referencing “authorization” would or should have been acceptable under the circumstances. He could have rolled down the window of his vehicle, when he first spotted Martin, and stayed on the phone with the police while he called out, “Hey you, Sir, I’m with the Neighborhood Watch around here; may I help you?” But following the guy for long enough that the person notices it, evades it, and mentions it twice to his girlfriend on the phone is not reasonable and no little self-authorizing statement would be appropriate in that context.
Secondly, it not only “calls into question if Zimmerman was acting as neighborhood watch,” it flies in the face of it. Real neighborhood watch specifically DIRECTS ITS MEMBERS NOT TO SEEK INVOLVEMENT, only to watch and report. Also, you are not supposed to be armed when you’re on “watch” duty. To get out of your vehicle with a loaded gun and chase somebody you have already phoned in to the police is NOT a neighborhood watch activity. It is specifically ruled out.
@David Larry May 18 11:42 am “asked Zimmerman something along the lines of “Why are you following me?” With Zimmerman responding with “What are you doing here?” Neither are fighting words.”
In this series of questions and answers to Elaine, I think you have it just about right.
But if Zimmerman was acting as neighborhood watch then I would argue that Zimmerman’s answer “What are you doing here?” is absolutely unacceptable. It is well understood that neighborhood watch are not to intervene. I would argue that a corollary to that would be that if neighborhood watch find themselves in a confrontational situation they should immediately identify themselves, explain their purpose and make clear their suggested course of action, such as calling or waiting for the arrival of police.
If Zimmerman did not identify himself as neighborhood watch and did not explain that the arrival of police was expected then I think it calls into question if Zimmerman was acting as neighborhood watch or acting appropriately as neighborhood watch.
If Zimmerman was not acting as neighborhood watch then it makes much easier the interpretation of him as harasser, stalker or vigil ante.
I think it is fair to say that state of mind of an individual is a reasonable consideration when we evaluate the appropriateness of actions of an individual. Actions of Zimmerman which might have seemed friendly or benign in one context might seem threatening in another. It is easy to believe that Martin reasonably perceived Zimmerman actions to be threatening based on Martin’s understanding that Zimmerman was following him and Martins African American heritage.
I don’t want to give cover to the easy use of violence by anyone. But Martin might have had a very understandable and reasonable belief that Zimmerman’s intentions were bad and that harm was imminent.
@EEO Irish “definition of intermediate range is all over the place.”
That may be true but that does not mean that imprecise terms like ‘close, intermediate, and far’ cannot be useful.
It is entirely conceivable that all the evidence will allow is a determination of whether the shot took place a few inches, a few feet or a few yards from the victim. It is also conceivable that those approximate distance are all that is necessary to determine the outcome at trial.
The statement ‘intermediate distance’ may indicate that the shot took place within an arms reach – close combat distance.
Lack of powder residue indicating the shot took place at a greater than intermediate distance might be all that is necessary to refute the claim of grave threat or suicide because the victim was no where near the gun when it fired.
I don’t know about the forensics of gun shots. I just wanted to make the point that lack of precision in a measure does not mean that we cannot determine everything necessary to draw a reasonable conclusion. .
In some cases ‘intermediate’ might be all we know and all we need to know.
But in the case of Zimmerman and Martin ‘intermediate’ is just one more frustrating piece of information that almost but doesn’t quite tell us what we really want to know.
David Larry: “It’s pretty obvious that Zimmerman didn’t have any intention of confronting Martin himself. That’s why he called the police, and why he didn’t roll down his window in an attempt to talk to Martin.”
It is possible to keep a distance from someone for as long as you can see them.
The moment you lose sight of them the possibility of confrontation arises. You don’t know that you will round a corner and find yourself face-to-face with them. You don’t know if he’s meeting up with associates. You are jumping into the dark.
“When Martin decided to confront Zimmerman, I don’t think he gave Zimmerman the chance to say who he was, and if Martin (as Zimmerman stated) said “You got a fuckin’ problem?” and then punched him, I don’t think Zimmerman was given a chance.”
Can you explain this “*When* Martin decided to …”? Has someone published an interview with him concerning the incident?
When you say “I don’t think he gave Zimmerman the chance”, what is this opinion based on? Zimmerman’s own story contradicts your opinion.
*Even by Zimmerman’s own account, he had a clear chance.*
Zimmerman reported as follows:
Martin: “You got a problem, homie?”
Zimmerman responds: “No”
Martin says: “You do now”
By his own account, Zimmerman was basically asked to explain his actions.
Any sane person/competent person would have replied by saying that they were with the local Neighbourhood Watch and that they didn’t recognise the person.
Zimmerman says that he was asked and that he simply answered “No”.
He says that it was only after he answered “No” that Martin says “You do now” and *then* hit him.
Even by Zimmerman’s own account, Martin did not “jump” him. They exchanged words before any blow was struck.
Zimmerman says that he answered “No”.
In the circumstances, where Zimmerman is following Martin down a dark pathway between the backs of rows oh houses, that’s a very confrontational answer.
By his own account, Zimmerman is an idiot. And because he was carrying a gun, he’s a dangerous idiot.
There is no particular reason to believe Zimmerman’s account of a conversation over that of the girlfriend who reports overhearing a conversation. That report has Martin asking explicitly “Why are you following me?” and Zimmerman not taking a clear chance to explain.
“We have no evidence that Martin had a justified use of force against Zimmerman. We only have evidence that would support Martin hitting Zimmerman. We have no evidence that Zimmerman laid a hand on Zimmerman before that.”
The only evidence that we have about the fight is that
– there was a fight – as reported by witnesses
– Zimmerman was not doing well – by comparison of injuries
– Zimmerman ended the fight by shooting Martin
There is absolutely no evidence – other than Zimmerman’s say so – as to who used physical force first. None. Even the girlfriend can’t assist on that question. She simply reports the conversation followed by sounds like those of a scuffle before the call dropped.
Elaine- Great links to various news articles, they have been most informative. You have kind of become my one stop shopping location for the Zimmerman case. I just wanted to leave my own unsolicted, and probably idiotic and uninformed two cents on this topic.
The fact that Zimmeran shot Martin is not disputed. The fact that he initiated contact is not disputed. (By that, I mean he initiated the interaction, not that he necessarily created an incident by which he could not invoke self defense). The fact that he was physically injured by Martin is not disputed. It seems that everything else is up for grabs. So the question before the judge (pre-trial motion to dismiss on SYG) or before a jury is going to hinge on two major issues.
The first is whether Zimmerman had an “objective reasonable person” belief that he was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, and that shooting Martin was the minimum force by which he could have prevented those things. Simply being assaulted does not, by itself, grant such leave. The injuries to Zimmerman do tend to at least suggest an incident of aggravated assault (not saying that Martin was unjustified in using that level of force, which goes to the second issue) which is to my understanding a reasonable basis to judge an imminent threat of great bodily harm. Those standards can be a little fuzzy to people, (and to me, and I’ve had extensive military training regarding use of force continuum and ROE) and I’m sure to juries in general. How that is going to be presented in court is something I’m not sure of. I don’t see a lot of people saying that, in isolation, the use of force in this case was excessive. By that I mean, if this was a case where a person was assaulted and beaten to this degree in a random encounter (such as a mugging), I don’t think there are too many people who would argue that the person didn’t have a reason to believe that he/she was in danger of great bodily harm.
Secondly, they will have to determine whether or not Zimmerman acted in such a way as to revoke his rights to lethal self defense under SYG. This will be, I think, the critical issue, and the only one in real contention. David’s posts asking whether or not someone confronting, even pursuing, a person constitutes initiating aggression against someone are, I think, the most pertinent questions to ask, especially as this seems to be the most divisive issue. Personally, I honestly don’t know. I can’t find any precedent (I don’t really have the tools to find them) regarding what constitutes initiating aggression. My opinion is that, facially, the actions of Zimmerman takien indepenently do not consititue an act of aggression. But collectivley?The truth is I just don’t know, and I would love for some of the eagles on here to point out some case law regarding what the therm “aggressor” legally means in 776.041 (2), and if there is any case law regarding the two exceptions to the bar against use of force by aggressor, mainly the use of the word “provokes”.
The angle of the gunshot (I believe that someone else above mentioned it, but I’m a bit too lazy to scan back through and find it) can actually be consistent with very close combat. In fact, the more oblique the angle from a front entrance wound, if both parties are squarely facing each other, the closer the engagment tends to be, because a direct shot means that the gun is pointed directly at the combatant, which is very difficult to do when in close quarters, because the overall distance from between the centerpoint of the gap between the radial bone and the scaphoid bone to the end of the barrel has to be taken into consideration. I have fairly large hands, and that distance, when using a Browning Hi-Power .40, (a fairly average sized handgun) is around ten inches.. My personal military experience with shooting someone who had engaged me with a knife at around three feet of separation ended with me shooting from approximatley sternum high, about even with my armpit, and with my elbow out and down relative to horizontal ground, that angled the barrel from right to left relative to facing the target. The target grabbing the barrel of my sidearm in an attempt to divert the shot helped to skew that further, I believe. The round entered from below the sternum, about two inches from the centerpoint of his heart, penetrated his heart, and mushroomed against his shoulderblade on the opposite (left, as facing tatarget) side. My point of all thiis is that the angle of a shot can only be considered in context with all the other evidence, and never alone, because there are just to many different factor to take into consideration.
Just saw this:
Smart is when you believe half of what you hear.
Brilliant is knowing which half.
New Trayvon Martin Evidence: 10 Things You Should Know
The most relevant new pieces of information in the trial of George Zimmerman from the the Florida special prosecutor’s new 183-page report.
By MADISON GRAY
May 18, 2012
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/new-trayvon-martin-evidence-10-things-you-should-know/
Excerpt:
• Trayvon Martin may have been running from Zimmerman at first.
The Seminole County Sheriff’s Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch shows that Zimmerman called police to report a suspicious person, then told them the subject was running from him. The exchange between the dispatcher and Zimmerman shows that he was advised not to continue to follow Martin. One witness interviewed said she saw one of the subjects chasing the other, but could not see who was who. A recording of a female identified as Martin’s longtime friend who was on the phone with him just before the shooting said he began to run when he realized Zimmerman was following him.
• The lead investigator felt that there was enough evidence, based on what he saw, to charge Zimmerman.
Although much of his statement is redacted, Sanford PD investigator Chris Serino questioned witnesses over the course of weeks, listened to audio of 911 calls and analyzed information from the general practitioner Zimmerman went to the day after the shooting. He felt that based on his investigation, whose details he forwarded to Brevard/Seminole Country State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, there was enough to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. According to the police capias request, or request for charges to be filed, another official felt that Zimmerman could have avoided any trouble if he had either stayed in his vehicle or at least identified himself to Martin.
Martin Spoke of ‘Crazy and Creepy’ Man Following Him, Friend Says
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
Published: May 18, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html
Excrpts:
A girl who talked on the phone with Trayvon Martin on the night of Feb. 26 has told a state prosecutor that she heard rising fear in Mr. Martin’s voice that peaked with words like “get off, get off,” right before she lost contact with him and he was shot to death.
In the sworn interview recorded on April 2, which runs more than 22 minutes, the unidentified 16-year-old said Mr. Martin described a man who was “crazy and creepy” and on the phone, watching him from a vehicle before he started to follow him on foot.
The girl implored Mr. Martin, 17, who said he put his sweatshirt hood up because of the rain, to run to the town house where he was staying with his father, his father’s girlfriend and her 14-year-old son.
“I could hear the wind blowing” and “he said he lost him,” said the girl, who is from Miami and who said she had known Mr. Martin since kindergarten. She has not been identified because she is a minor and a witness in the case.
“He was breathing hard,” she said, and “his voice kind of changed. I know he was scared. His voice was getting kind of low.”
*****
In the taped interview with a state prosecutor, the girl said that Mr. Martin, after evading Mr. Zimmerman for a while, noticed that he was being pursued again and mentioned this to her.
A sense of urgency grew. Mr. Martin alerted the girl to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman “was getting close to him.” She strongly urged him to run, but she could tell he did not because he was out of breath and tired, and kept saying he was close to the town house where he was a guest.
The girl, who talked with Mr. Martin several times that evening, told the investigator that she then heard Mr. Martin ask, “Why are you following me for?” She heard the other man ask, “What are you doing around here?” Earlier, Mr. Martin had temporarily sought cover from the rain by one of the buildings.
After calling out “Trayvon” several times over the phone, and getting no response, she heard somebody bump Mr. Martin.
Subsequently she heard him utter what sounded like, “Get off, get off.” Then the call ended.