Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Stoid]

Interesting, someone dug up some Florida case law about self-defense and being the aggressor…

An older Florida case which was decided before 776.041 was enacted involved a “pursuit” which is perhaps analogous to Zimmerman’s actions against Martin. In Mixon v. State 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for second degree murder where there was evidence that the defendant armed himself, pursued the victim, and shot him. The court stated:

The appellant and the man he later admitted killing had an altercation while the appellant was sitting in his jeep, the other man standing at the side of the vehicle. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he procured a revolver, while his adversary continued along the highway, afoot. The appellant, accompanied by his wife and their young daughter, then drove in the same direction until he overtook his former antagonist when both stopped. … Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant’s blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. (emphasis supplied)

Bowman v. State (1934) (“Killing is not justifiable or excusable if necessitated by accused’s acting wrongfully or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking difficulty.”)
Gaff v. State (1931) (“Accused, to successfully excuse homicide on ground of self-defense, must have been free from fault, or receded after having been aggressor.”)
Scholl v. State (1927) (“One interposing self-defense in prosecution for homicide must not have wrongfully occasioned necessity of killing.”)
*Landrum v. State *(Fla. 1920) (“On a trial for murder, it is proper to charge that one cannot acquit himself of liability for the consequences of a personal difficulty on the ground of self-defense, unless he is reasonably free from fault in entering thereupon.”)
*Stinson v. State *(1918) (“Defendant cannot avail himself of defense of self-defense when he himself brought on the situation under the compulsion of which he strikes the blow or fires the shot which he claims was justified.”)
Barton v. State (1916) (“If one wrongfully occasions necessity for self-defense, though he may have reasonable ground to apprehend a felony, or serious personal injury, and there is imminent danger thereof, he cannot justify a killing on the ground of self-defense.”)
Barnhill v. State (1908) (“One who seeks and brings on an affray cannot plead self-defense.”)
Kennard v. State (1900) (“The aggressor in a difficulty, one not reasonably free from fault, cannot justify homicide committed in such difficulty on the ground of self-defense.”)
Lovett v. State (1892) (“On a trial for murder, it is proper to charge that one cannot acquit himself of liability for the consequences of a personal difficulty on the ground of self-defense, unless he is reasonably free from fault in entering thereupon.”)

In the Zimmerman case the prosecution will make the following argument. Based upon his own statements to the police dispatcher Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, and then exited his car and followed him armed with a gun. Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime and was intent that Martin should not get away. Martin was completely innocent of any crime; he was simply walking home from a trip  to the store. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to “initially provoke” the ensuing struggle, no matter who struck the first blow. There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation. Accordingly, under 776.014, Zimmerman may not claim that he acted in self-defense.

Well, Professor Huhn and I at least see the argument the same way…

[Bricker]

@Fear_Itself

There are no settled facts.

What process must a proposed fact go through before it is settled?

[Stoid]

@Magiver

head on sidewalk, body on grass. Per Martin’s father’s recount of what the police said Martin’s body was astride the sidewalk.

Pardon? No. Martin’s body was on the grass, his legs extending out to the sidewalk.

[monstro]

I’m trying to imagine how Martin’s body “should” have landed, Stoid.

Zimmerman’s head is on the sidewalk and Martin’s straddling his waist. Zimmerman shoots and pushes Martin aside. Martin falls off. Is it the woman’s argument that his body should have been parallel to the sidewalk? If so, doesn’t this presume that Martin died instantly? Maybe he was able to twist around before went unconscious. I don’t know. Just playing Devil’s Advocate.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

ABSOLUTELY! I do not look to the killer for an unbiased report, no matter who he is.

You are supposed to judge it on it’s merits, as you would any other evidence. That you will not makes your whole analysis invalid, as you’ve admitted you are either unwilling or incapable of judging the evidence impartially.

Then he ain’t walkin’, cuz it’s not.

Yes it is.

[Magiver]

@Stoid

No. If the picture is him, it shows a wound, not a wound that suggests he had his head bashed into th sidewalk. (In fact the picture suggests a cut, since it appears to be a straigh line running orizontally across the back of his head).

The wound(s) at the back of his head are consistent with his story. The state has to prove otherwise. Your attempt to dismiss this based on orientation has no basis because you have no way of lining up.

@Stoid

However you did point out part of the evidence that makes it highly unlikely to impossible that Martin was bashing Zim’s head on cement, and that’s Martin’s body on the grass, his legs extending to the sidewalk.

Combine that with Zimmerman’s wet back with grass on it, the very narrow timeline, and the body positions, and it’s pretty much impossible to imagine how in the world martin could possibly have been bashing Zimmerman’s head against concrete.

Zimerman said he had his head bashed on the sidewalk. It is consistent with the witness who saw them on the grass combined with Martin’s body located partially on the sidewalk. Zimmeran’s body is in the grass and his head is over the sidewalk. From the perspective of the witness they are on the grass which accounts for the wet shirt. His injuries and Martin’s body verify they were right there at the sidewalk.

Oh, and I’m glad you can take a punch to the face without feeling pain. I have been hit in the mouth and head, and it hurt which I suspect is the result most people experience. And I’ve been hit in the nose without it breaking and that hurts like hell. But again, YMMV.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

Can you quote the witness’s statement that would support “not near the sidewalk” part?

CNN.com - Transcripts

COOPER: Was the – you saw, essentially, two different struggles, you said, or two different – you saw – you saw one initially and then you saw a second one. Were they both in the exact same location?

UNIDENTIFIED EYEWITNESS: Yes.

COOPER: And was that location grass or was it sidewalk or was it concrete? Do you know?

UNIDENTIFIED EYEWITNESS: It was – it was grass.

COOPER: It was grass. Was there a sidewalk anywhere nearby here, concrete, or was this all on grass, on ground?

UNIDENTIFIED EYEWITNESS: Well, there’s grass on both sides with a sidewalk down the middle. But they were definitely closer on the area where it was all grass.

[Magiver]

@Stoid

Pardon? No. Martin’s body was on the grass, his legs extending out to the sidewalk.

yessss. That’s what I said. It places them in the area of the sidewalk. If Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in the wet grass it would have dirt and grass in it. Not reported to my knowledge by the police.

So far, everything fits to his account. Not saying it can’t change but right now it all fits within his version of what happened.

[Stoid]

@Magiver

The wound(s) at the back of his head are consistent with his story. The state has to prove otherwise.

No they don’t, because it doesn’t matter, as previously explained.

Your attempt to dismiss this based on orientation has no basis because you have no way of lining up.

No clue what you’re saying here.

Zimerman said he had his head bashed on the sidewalk. It is consistent with the witness who saw them on the grass combined with Martin’s body located partially on the sidewalk.

Incorrect. It is NOT consistent. Read the detailed explanation above.

Zimmeran’s body is in the grass and his head is over the sidewalk.

no, incorrect. There is zero evidence for this and evidence that shows the reverse.

His injuries and Martin’s body verify they were right there at the sidewalk.

No, they don’t. Read it again. Seriously, Magiver, you do not read carefully at all. Remember the multiple times you accused me of making racist rants, even AFTER I pointed out how the OPPOSITE was true? READ CAREFULLY.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

CNN.com - Transcripts

You do realize that’s not the same witness we were talking about, right?

[Stoid]

@Magiver

yessss. That’s what I said. It places them in the area of the sidewalk.

Fail! “in the area of the sidewalk” is meaningless goo.

If Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in the wet grass it would have dirt and grass in it. Not reported to my knowledge by the police.

A. not necessarily
B. we have at least one report of Zimmerman’s hands being placed on his head directly after the shooting (the report described it as him pacing with his hands on his head in the unoiversal gesture of “oh shit I screwed up”) Not at all difficult to see how a couple of clinging blades of grass might be brushed off if they were there to begin with.

So far, everything fits to his account.

So far, almost nothing fits his account.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

You do realize that’s not the same witness we were talking about, right?

It is an eyewitness that contradicts Zimmerman’s self-serving slamming-his-head-on-concrete story. That is all that matters.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

It is an eyewitness that contradicts Zimmerman’s self-serving slamming-his-head-on-concrete story. That is all that matters.

Oh please. Your words:

“But it is the same witness who said they were on the grass, not near the sidewalk!”

You were wrong. Admit it and move on.

[Magiver]

@Stoid

No they don’t, because it doesn’t matter, as previously explained.

You’ve explained nothing regarding the wounds to the back of his head which both photographs and police reports show.

@Stoid

Incorrect, read my account above it.

The position of the body shows they were located near the sidewalk. Zimmerman said his head bashed against the sidewalk. His shirt was wet from the grass. The eye witness would have seen them in the grass from his perspective. There’s a reason why sporting events have line judges because referees can’t see when something crosses over a line. This was also at dusk with a grass line above the sidewalk. Zimmerman says he scooched his head off the sidewalk at some point so it’s all consistent with shirt stains, injuries, body location and witness perspective.

[Magiver]

@Stoid

B. we have at least one report of Zimmerman’s hands being placed on his head directly after the shooting (the report described it as him pacing with his hands on his head in the unoiversal gesture of “oh shit I screwed up”)

Really? The universal “oh shit I screwed up” gesture. Well that’s certainly an objective view of things.

[Magiver]

@Fear_Itself

It is an eyewitness that contradicts Zimmerman’s self-serving slamming-his-head-on-concrete story. That is all that matters.

It’s an eye witness account that shows Martin was on top and accounts for the wet shirt. Martin’s body location accounts for proximity to the sidewalk.

[Bricker]

@Stoid

I’m getting really sick of people saying that Zimmerman “had every right” to follow and question Martin as though it is identical in meaning to saying that Zimmerman was not prohibited from doing it. Not really the same thing. And if you doubt it, let’s have you followed and questioned randomly and see if you want to characterize the people doing it as “having every right” to do it. People also have a right to be unmolested when they are innocent of wrongdoing, what about that right?

It doesn’t exist.

But if you think there’s a genuine possibility that it really was Zimmerman, I urge you to take a crack at the prosecution questioning Zimmerman as I did above, show us how Zimmerman answers those questions, how the idea of him screaming for help when he had a gun in his hand makes sense. Please.

I’ll take that challenge. We can start a new thread, ignore anyone else who tries to step in and derail it, and you pose questions to me as though I were Zimmerman, and I 'll answer them based on my understanding of the evidence and fill in the blanks with a scenario I create.

And FTR: pretty much everyone who was there and heard it in person, along with experts and everyone else, does not find it remotely credible that the voice in the background is Zimmerman’s.

The experts are not unanimous. Nor are the witnesses.

[Hbns]

@Stoid

However you did point out part of the evidence that makes it highly unlikely to impossible that Martin was bashing Zim’s head on cement, and that’s Martin’s body on the grass, his legs extending to the sidewalk.

I wouldn’t read too much into Martin’s body position. Unless the autopsy report shows a severed spinal cord, all that position tells us is that he was probably somewhere in the general vicinity of the sidewalk when Zimmerman shot him.

It really won’t matter if Zimmerman’s head was being beat into the grass, the sidewalk, or hard ground. I would think Martin beating Zimmerman’s head into anything will be pretty damning to the prosecution.

I still think it is more likely that Zimmerman’s injuries are the result of a scuffle that ensued when he tried to bodily restrain Martin. The injuries seem to my untrained but somewhat experienced eye to be more consistent with singular blows in an attempt to break free of that restraint, than evidence of a beating.

[BlankSlate]

@Magiver

Really? The universal “oh shit I screwed up” gesture. Well that’s certainly an objective view of things.

Perhaps he was bashing himself in the head with his gun.

[Magiver]

@Bricker

I’ll take that challenge. We can start a new thread, ignore anyone else who tries to step in and derail it, and you pose questions to me as though I were Zimmerman, and I 'll answer them based on my understanding of the evidence and fill in the blanks with a scenario I create.

Hell start 2 threads, you can be the prosecutor AND judge and I’ll take the defense side without a law degree.

I truly hope they have something juicy to nail Zimmerman with because I think carrying a gun has a moral responsibility to disengage from a conflict as much as possible. If either Zimmerman or Martin had stated their case in conversation this wouldn’t have happened. But since Martin is teenager with academic issues (read attitude problem) I think the adult Zimmerman carrying a gun should have worked harder to stay away from the legal line of self defense. Being on the right side of the law isn’t exclusive of exercising forethought to avoid bad outcomes. He could easily have shot one his neighbors in the process.

But we’re talking about the LEGAL aspect of what happened. If Zimmerman’s account is correct then Martin crossed the line and paid for it with his life.