Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[DragonAsh]

@Magiver

He says best address he can give because he can’t give the actual address. If Martin was at the clubhouse at this point he would have said so. He’s not directing the police to Martin, he’s directing them to his truck. All the instructions to the dispatcher are directed to his location.

I disagree that ‘he was only directing police to his truck’. I think the very first address he gives - the Clubhouse - and his comments for at least the first 45 seconds are so are specifically directing the cops to where Martin is. He doesn’t know which way Martin will go; why would he direct police past the Clubhouse to his truck? He’s directing the cops to the ‘suspicious guy’, and this is confirmed when the dispatch asks, "he’s near the clubhouse now’ and GZ says ‘yeah’. And then he’s coming ‘towards’ GZ’s truck. He’s not at GZ’s truck yet, just moving in that direction.

@Magiver

He never during the entire conversation states Martin is at the clubhouse.

We can argue what ‘at’ means, but it doesn’t matter. Are you seriously going to argue that when he calls the dispatch Martin isn’t near the Clubhouse?

@Magiver

No, it’s about 120 to 130 feet. You can easily measure this on Google Earth.

No, I already did the math earlier. He had plenty of time. And according to Zimmerman’s 911 call he ran.

Yes it is, and no he most certainly did not. I did measure it, and you have got to be kidding me if you’re seriously going to claim that the entire walking distance is only 120-130 feet.

The direct distance from GZ’s truck to the first spot behind the houses on the dog walk where Martin would be out of site (GZ is very clear that he saw him turn right) is - at a minimum - 140 feet: Picture here.

But GZ’s re-enactment statement, if we ignore the ‘near the clubhouse’ bit altogether, has Martin walking a) from slightly ahead of GZ’s truck, b) to the dogwalk path and turning right, c) walking -back- to GZ’s truck, and d) circling it. We saw above that part c) above alone is 140 feet. If we factor in parts a), b) and d) we’re at around 300 feet…and that still leaves Martin right near George’s truck when he gets out!

@Magiver

The dispatcher clearly asks him repeatedly where he is located throughout the call and at 3:21 says it verbatim: “Alright, what address are you parked in front of?”

This is the first accurate thing you’ve posted. Unfortunately it is completely irrelevant, because it’s almost a minute and a half after Martin ran and George lost site of him, and George is no longer in his car!

And why is this important? Because George had already given the address for the Clubhouse and directed them to his truck. And if he wanted to give a closer address to his truck, he COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE HOUSE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS TRUCK. Check out his re-enactment video here, 07:38 in. Freeze frame here. And here’swhat a picture of the front of the house looked like the night of the shooting - picture #73.

@Magiver

Zimmerman never said he thought Martin was armed on the 911 call. He said he looked like he was on drugs or something.

And he says he has his hands in his waistband. He thinks he might be armed. Again, I don’t know how you can deny this and claim to be debating honestly.

@Magiver

There’s nothing in his re-enactment that is radically different from the phone call or more importantly relevant to the trial. We know the confrontation began near the T and ended behind the 2nd Condo. This is the entire trial.

Nothing except Martin walks faster than any human or animal alive, GZ hears instructions from the dispatcher that only he heard but that weren’t picked up in the recording, and his account of how and where he was punched and fell down. Other than that, no - nothing radically different. :rolleyes:

[you_with_the_face]

@Magiver

.Again, he started the call from the clubhouse. It’s a 10 second drive away from where he eventually parked. According to the video he drives by Martin, stops at the clubhouse, Martin walks by, He then calls the police and parks his car near the cut-through. where is the descrepancy? He doesn’t call from the cut-through, he calls from the clubhouse. But all the references are past the clubhouse. Martin is already down the road when he drives on. In his call he already states that Martin is walking about looking at houses.

The problem, once again, is that there is not enough time for Martin to have done all the maneuvers Zimmerman claims he did in the time between Zimmerman turning down Twin Trees and getting out of his car to follow the kid. Unless Martin had access to a wormhole that allowed him to traverse the time-space continuum, that is. Then even still, we have to reconcile all the things Zimmerman claimed the dispatcher said, with what was actually recorded. Maybe these inconsistencies can be attributed to a glitch in the Matrix. Ok, I’ll buy that for a dollar.

[Bricker]

@jtgain

But if you prove point #3 that the killing was “unlawful” then you dispense with all of the points that the other poster bolded, no?

No, because if self-defense is asserted, you must specifically also prove the accused had no reasonable fear. If it isn’t, you can prove the killing was unlawful without ever proving anything about the accused’s fear.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

I don’t know why you’re saying this. It concerns me because its clearly bullshit, but you seem to have no problems passing it off as fact. The SCOTUS language is as clear as legalese can be that the burden for the prosecution does not change just because someone asserts self defense.

If it was discovered tomorrow that Zimmerman had sent a text message to his wife, saying that the mere sight of Martin had filled him with hate and this is what compelled him to go after him and physically show him who’s boss, this would be damning evidence for murder. But you’re seriously trying to say that, even with this evidence, the prosecution would have to directly address whether or not Zimmerman’s fear against Martin was reasonable? Really? You really expect us to buy this, Bricker?

Yes. Even if that happened, the prosecution would have to directly address whether Zimmerman’s fear was reasonable.

That is the requirement the prosecution has, and every single criminal defense lawyer on this board, or elsewhere, no matter how liberal or conservative they are, no matter what they believe about the ultimate facts of this case, will say the same thing.

Really.

[you_with_the_face]

Bricker, it time you cough up some cites to support what you’re saying.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Bricker, it time you cough up some cites to support what you’re saying.

I have previously provided cites, but let’s do a set wrapped up in one post.

The jury must find each and every element of a crime true beyond a reasonable doubt. Cite:

@Pagan v. State

However, if the State’s evidence is wholly circumstantial, not only must there be sufficient evidence establishing each element of the offense, but the evidence must also exclude the defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258 (Fla.1996)

When an accused claims self-defense, the state must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Cite:

@Brown v State

While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The elements of second degree murder are as cited above. Cite:

[

To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Q](Jury Instructions - Supreme Court)

[DragonAsh]

@you_with_the_face

The problem, once again, is that there is not enough time for Martin to have done all the maneuvers Zimmerman claims he did in the time between Zimmerman turning down Twin Trees and getting out of his car to follow the kid. Unless Martin had access to a wormhole that allowed him to traverse the time-space continuum, that is. Then even still, we have to reconcile all the things Zimmerman claimed the dispatcher said, with what was actually recorded. Maybe these inconsistencies can be attributed to a glitch in the Matrix. Ok, I’ll buy that for a dollar.

Ah, but Magiver has no need for these far-fetched things such as ‘physics’ and ‘facts’. Spare me your ‘physically impossible’ rhetoric; if he believes it to be so, than it must be so.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Magiver

I suffer from a severe reading disorder? You realize you’re in great debates and not the Pit don’t you? …

Umm, Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) > Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread.

CMC fnord!

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

I have previously provided cites, but let’s do a set wrapped up in one post.

The jury must find each and every element of a crime true beyond a reasonable doubt. Cite:
When an accused claims self-defense, the state must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Cite:
The elements of second degree murder are as cited above. Cite:

Q

Since none of this says anything about the state needing to show that the accused’s fear was not reasonable, why bother even posting this? This material supports my position not yours.

The prosecution is only required to prove that the defendant committed the crime they charged him with. In doing this, they automatically disprove self-defense. Which makes perfect sense. A murder can not be justifiable, by definition.

[Magiver]

@DragonAsh

I disagree that ‘he was only directing police to his truck’. I think the very first address he gives - the Clubhouse - and his comments for at least the first 45 seconds are so are specifically directing the cops to where Martin is. He doesn’t know which way Martin will go; why would he direct police past the Clubhouse to his truck? He’s directing the cops to the ‘suspicious guy’, and this is confirmed when the dispatch asks, "he’s near the clubhouse now’ and GZ says ‘yeah’. And then he’s coming ‘towards’ GZ’s truck. He’s not at GZ’s truck yet, just moving in that direction.

We can argue what ‘at’ means, but it doesn’t matter. Are you seriously going to argue that when he calls the dispatch Martin isn’t near the Clubhouse?

He states in the video that: “This is where I stopped to call … to call and then he walked past me and he kept looking at my car and still looking at houses and stuff”. None of that is in the phone call except looking at houses so it’s already happened. When asked to describe Martin he gives it in the past tense and then reverts to the present tense in the same sentence when he says he’s staring at him: “He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring.”

The phone call transcript we see starts at 00:25 seconds. He’s already been on the phone for 25 seconds and he says in the video that Martin had walked by him when he called. In the phone call he says he’s just walking around looking at houses. He says the best address he can give is the clubhouse which is not the same as “the address”. If he was at the clubhouse at the time he could have nailed down the location by saying “at the clubhouse”. One is a specific statement and the other is a general reference. When you combine that with all his future attempts to direct the police he tells them to drive past the clubhouse which reinforces the idea Martin is not at the clubhouse and his truck is parked by the cut-through.

@DragonAsh

Yes it is, and no he most certainly did not. I did measure it, and you have got to be kidding me if you’re seriously going to claim that the entire walking distance is only 120-130 feet.

The direct distance from GZ’s truck to the first spot behind the houses on the dog walk where Martin would be out of site (GZ is very clear that he saw him turn right) is - at a minimum - 140 feet: Picture here.

I measured it from the corner of the house to the truck. If you want to add 10 that doesn’t change any calculation substantially. It adds 2 seconds to the walking time to his truck. At the average walking speed of 3.1 mph he would cover 140 feet in 30.8 seconds. From the time he say’s he’s coming to check him out to the time he says he’s running is 42 seconds. All of this fits his video and phone call.

@DragonAsh

But GZ’s re-enactment statement, if we ignore the ‘near the clubhouse’ bit altogether, has Martin walking a) from slightly ahead of GZ’s truck, b) to the dogwalk path and turning right, c) walking -back- to GZ’s truck, and d) circling it. We saw above that part c) above alone is 140 feet. If we factor in parts a), b) and d) we’re at around 300 feet…and that still leaves Martin right near George’s truck when he gets out!

This is the first accurate thing you’ve posted. Unfortunately it is completely irrelevant, because it’s almost a minute and a half after Martin ran and George lost site of him, and George is no longer in his car!

And why is this important? Because George had already given the address for the Clubhouse and directed them to his truck. And if he wanted to give a closer address to his truck, he COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE HOUSE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS TRUCK.

Without the name of the street an address is meaningless. He’s right back to telling them to go past the clubhouse and look for his truck.

@DragonAsh

And he says he has his hands in his waistband. He thinks he might be armed. Again, I don’t know how you can deny this and claim to be debating honestly.

He never claims in either the phone call or the video that Martin has a gun. Even if he did - staying in his truck wouldn’t protect him from bullets. It actually makes him a captive target with no immediate place to run. Getting out of the truck allows him a better chance to keep Martin in his sights.

[doorhinge]

@you_with_the_face

I don’t know why you’re saying this. It concerns me because its clearly bullshit, but you seem to have no problems passing it off as fact. The SCOTUS language is as clear as legalese can be that the burden for the prosecution does not change just because someone asserts self defense.

If it was discovered tomorrow that Zimmerman had sent a text message to his wife, saying that the mere sight of Martin had filled him with hate and this is what compelled him to go after him and physically show him who’s boss, this would be damning evidence for murder. But you’re seriously trying to say that, even with this evidence, the prosecution would have to directly address whether or not Zimmerman’s fear against Martin was reasonable? Really? You really expect us to buy this, Bricker?

If things were different, things would be different. Is there any such evidence or are you trying to pass your fantasy off as fact?

The State will present their evidence to support a charge of 2nd degree murder against Zimmerman. Zimmerman/O’Mara will present contrary evidence and prove that Zimmerman isn’t guilty of 2nd degree murder.

It will be up to the jury to decide if the State proved it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, Zimmerman walks.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Since none of this says anything about the state needing to show that the accused’s fear was not reasonable, why bother even posting this? This material supports my position not yours.

The prosecution is only required to prove that the defendant committed the crime they charged him with. In doing this, they automatically disprove self-defense. Which makes perfect sense. A murder can not be justifiable, by definition.

Good grief.

You saw the cite that said the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, yes?

When an accused claims self-defense, the state must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Cite:

[Quote=Brown v State, 454 So.2d 596 (1984)]

While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/quote]

What, specifically, does that mean?

Cite (PDF)

@3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

The use of deadly force is justifiable only **if the defendant reasonably believes **that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or…

[Magiver]

@crowmanyclouds

Umm, Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) > Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread.

CMC fnord!

Still not the Pit.

[Bricker]

Or the continuation, same PDF:

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or…

[Magiver]

@you_with_the_face

The problem, once again, is that there is not enough time for Martin to have done all the maneuvers Zimmerman claims he did in the time between Zimmerman turning down Twin Trees and getting out of his car to follow the kid. Unless Martin had access to a wormhole that allowed him to traverse the time-space continuum, that is. Then even still, we have to reconcile all the things Zimmerman claimed the dispatcher said, with what was actually recorded. Maybe these inconsistencies can be attributed to a glitch in the Matrix. Ok, I’ll buy that for a dollar.

there is nothing in the phone call that ties him to the clubhouse. He says he begins the call there in the video and there is no mention of Martin by his car at this point. If Martin has gone by him before he dials and disappears from view there is no time marker to say when he was at the clubhouse. Zimmerman sees him walking around looking at houses and then disappear around the corner. He gets his phone out, looks up the non-911 emergency number and places the call. He drives down the street. It takes less than 2 minutes to walk comfortably from the clubhouse to the back of the buildings. No transporter beam involved. 110 seconds assuming he doesn’t cut through the property like he’s already done to save time.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

Good grief.

You saw the cite that said the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, yes?

When an accused claims self-defense, the state must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Cite:

What, specifically, does that mean?

Cite (PDF)

Proving murder is tantamount to disproving self defense. Your cites says as much. So does SCOTUS. The State is under no special obligation to attack the idea that the accused had reasonable fear or not. All they are obligated to do is show they committed the crime the accused is charged with. In Zimmerman’s case, murder.

You really take us for a bunch of fools, don’t you?

[you_with_the_face]

According to Bricker’s logic: the prosecution could show that a wife had plotted to kill her husband for a year to get his life insurance payment. They could show that she shot him dead during an argument one night, and took advantage of his previous history of domestic violence to say she killed him due to self defense. She has a bruised eye that she claims was inflicted on her by him right before she shot him. The prosecution could supply witnesses who said the wife had always said she was going to kill her husband one day. The prosecution could even provide a expert who says her bruised eye was probably an old bruise based on its appearance. The prosecution could even furnish a diary entry written by the accused prior to the shooting, that describes a planned strategy for killing her husband and getting his life insurance money that is oddly similar to what actually occurred. The diary entry even says she will implement this plan on the night the shooting occurred.

With this evidence, the prosecution is successful in proving 1st degree murder.

But according to the logic in Brickerland, none of this good enough unless the State can directly show the wife wasn’t truly afraid of her husband the night she shot him. If they can’t show that, then they don’t disprove self-defense. Right.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Proving murder is tantamount to disproving self defense. Your cites says as much. So does SCOTUS. The State is under no special obligation to attack the idea that the accused had reasonable fear or not. All they are obligated to do is show they committed the crime the accused is charged with. In Zimmerman’s case, murder.

You really take us for a bunch of fools, don’t you?

No, but I do think you’re very confused about this concept.

What do you think this red highlight quote means?

[Quote=Posted by Brown v State, 454 So.2d 596 (1984)]

While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/quote]

What, specifically, must the state prove in order to meet the red text?

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

According to Bricker’s logic: the prosecution could show that a wife had plotted to kill her husband for a year to get his life insurance payment. They could show that she shot him dead during an argument one night, and took advantage of his previous history of domestic violence to say she killed him due to self defense. She has a bruised eye that she claims was inflicted on her by him right before she shot him. The prosecution could supply witnesses who said the wife had always said she was going to kill her husband one day. The prosecution could even provide a expert who says her bruised eye was probably an old bruise based on its appearance. The prosecution could even furnish a diary entry written by the accused prior to the shooting, that describes a planned strategy for killing her husband and getting his life insurance money that is oddly similar to what actually occurred. The diary entry even says she will implement this plan on the night the shooting occurred.

With this evidence, the prosecution is successful in proving 1st degree murder.

But according to the logic in Brickerland, none of this good enough unless the State can directly show the wife wasn’t truly afraid of her husband the night she shot him. If they can’t show that, then they don’t disprove self-defense. Right.

Yes, if the wife claims self-defense and makes a prima facie showing of it, then absolutely correct: despite all that evidence, the state would also have to show that she wasn’t truly afraid of being killed by her husband, or being seriously injured by her husband. Exactly right.

And every lawyer here, or anywhere, will tell you the same thing.

[DragonAsh]

@Magiver

I measured it from the corner of the house to the truck. If you want to add 10 that doesn’t change any calculation substantially. It adds 2 seconds to the walking time to his truck. At the average walking speed of 3.1 mph he would cover 140 feet in 30.8 seconds. From the time he say’s he’s coming to check him out to the time he says he’s running is 42 seconds. All of this fits his video and phone call.

I’m not sure I’m following you. You’re saying that Martin going out of sight down the cut-through (as stated in the re-enactment), occurred *before *the start of the phone call? So that when George is on the phone and talks about Martin coming towards him etc, all of this is Martin coming from the east towards the truck, never from the west from behind the truck?

Without the name of the street an address is meaningless. He’s right back to telling them to go past the clubhouse and look for his truck.

Interesting – you’re saying he need a street name. Then why doesn’t he go up and down the street he’s on if he was really looking for a street sign? Why did he go up the cut-through? There’s no street sign there. Why did he go all the way through to the other street? He knows what that street is, doesn’t he? A street sign there doesn’t help him.

@Magiver

Even if he did - staying in his truck wouldn’t protect him from bullets. It actually makes him a captive target with no immediate place to run. Getting out of the truck allows him a better chance to keep Martin in his sights.

So if you’re in your car and you see a guy with a gun, you’re safer getting out of the car. Got it.
For the record – please tell me why you think George got out of his car.