Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
5803

Imho, focusing on the injuries at all misses the point.

It’s not about his injuries so much as his fear of injuries. At least as far as I understand it. It’s not that you have to wait until you have been seriously injured. Iirc, it’s that you have to be in fear of imminent serious injury or worse.

Certainly, having a serious injury makes it hard to say that someone is not reasonable afraid of receiving further serious injury, but the severity of the injuries are not the determining factor. …unless I am mistaken again.

That said, the “totality” of Z’s injuries don’t seem very serious to me. ymmv. Imho, if an injury is serious, you need someone’s help to get better the right way–having a bone set, stitches, or something similar to or greater than those things more or less is a vague, ill-defined standard I would use as a juror.

Anything which I could take care of myself with some basic wound care, ice and some band-aids isn’t likely to make me think “serious injury.” If I were on the jury anyway.

Further, as I recall Z’s narrative, Z doesn’t decide to reach for his weapon as a result of the injuries he sustained.
Z’s narrative says that he decided to shoot as a result of M declaring an intention to kill Z and then M reaching for the means to imminently carry out that threat.

I understand that a juror can decide that Z killed M based upon the injuries Z sustained despite Z’s account of why killed M. That’s one of the cool powers of a juror.

But, if I were a juror, I would certainly weigh the fact that Z’s narrative says that Z decided to kill M because of M threatening Z and then reaching for the means to kill Z more heavily than internet speculation that Z decided to kill M because if the injuries Z received.

Z’s narrative fulfills the requirements for self-defense quite well. The narrative is exemplary on that count as far as I can tell.
Another narrative could only be more clear-cut by a matter of a small degree–there’s not much room for improvement in a justification of homicide than someone you are fighting declaring that he’s going to kill you while he is reaching for a gun to kill you with.
I’m not sure how a narrative could be any more clear-cut, but I am allowing for the fact that my imagination is fairly limited.
Perhaps an attorney with experience in the criminal courts or a fiction writer would know or could imagine some details which could improve that scenario as far as the justifiability of the homicide goes.

Despite that, the internets are pretty concerned about the extent of Z’s injuries.

5804

I’d like to point out again that Zimmerman did not claim self defense due to injuries. He claimed self defense because he feared for his life as well as a struggle for the gun.

This involves 2 events.

1 - the extended length of the beating. This wasn’t a punch in the nose in an argument. It was a beating that started with a punch in the nose. It involved having his head slammed into the cement which is backed up by evidence. The evidence fits his account of what happened. Head trauma and the expectation of additional head trauma (fear for one’s life) can be substantiated with medical testimony.

2 - a struggle for the gun adds greatly to the fear factor. It lacks any form of evidence beyond Zimmerman’s account. Bricker can explain the weight it holds in court better than I but there is reason to believe a struggle would occur given the length and nature of the beating.

5805

It’s not a function of the seriousness of the injury, it’s a function of the likelihood it would continue and lead to greater injury and whether this would generate a fear for one’s life.

There seems to be an attempt to weigh the injuries incurred against the death of Martin. This is literally not the case before a jury. The jury only needs to believe that the beating (and struggle for the gun) would lead Zimmerman to fear for his life.

5806

Steophan, you’re all over the place.

Are you now conceding that it doesn’t matter if George Zimmerman’s nose was actually broken? That his case for self-defense hinges much more on the supposed threat to his life (“Tonight you’re gonna die”) more than a punch to the face and whatever it is that happened to the back of his head?

Because this is a much more reasonable argument than your insistence that the severity of his injuries are meaningful to his claim for self-defense. He lacks evidence of serious injuries, but the prosecution has plenty of proof that they were minor. What the prosecution lacks is evidence that Trayvon didn’t threaten his life. This is what YOU seem to be overlooking, not anyone else.

As I said to you reams of posts ago, the threat is what you should be focused on, because this is what may get him off the hook. Not some piddly “broken” nose and vague indications of black eyes. Playing up his injuries the way you have been doing illustrates that you are not evaluating the evidence rationally as much as just painting Zimmerman as a victim. His defenders have made much more to-do about how injured he was than his lawyer, which tells me that even O’Mara knows it’s not important to his client’s claim.

5807

Good post.

But also keep in mind, what evidence is there that Martin actually said those words (besides Zimmerman)?

And yes, piggybacking on PartiotX’s comments, yes, Zimmerman defenders (especially) seem to be real focused on the injuries and as an extension (my words) the fight itself.

The circumstances leading to it have weight also–doesn’t it?

So then it is okay for someone (non-law enforcement) to put himself in a position for something to happen and use his gun to bail himself out?

And one thing: is there a distinct possibility that Martin was in fear for his life? Maybe he was fighting for that–and lost.

5808

Yes, it’s called evidence. The wounds are consistent with his statement.

5809

Because the injuries are an indication of the beating. It is the evidence that backs up his statement which in itself is evidence.

Again, the length of time of the beating is partially recorded by the screams heard on the 911 tape. Multiple people called the police because of the assault. This plus the injuries show a scenario of an event with no indication of ending. The jury is left with pictures of Zimmerman’s head covered in blood listening to the screams and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn’t in fear for his life.

5810

As I said in the rest of my post:

The circumstances leading to it have weight also–doesn’t it?

**So then it is okay for someone (non-law enforcement) to put himself in a position for something to happen and use his gun to bail himself out?
**
**And one thing: is there a distinct possibility that Martin was in fear for his life? Maybe he was fighting for that–and lost. **

5811

Whether Martin was in fear for his life is irrelevant to the law. All the law says is if you’re in reasonable fear for your life and cannot retreat, even if you’re the “aggressor”, you can use lethal force. It says nothing about whether your opponent was in fear for his life, or what the “circumstances leading to it” were - apart from the “aggressor” part and, as I mentioned, even if you’re the aggressor, your actions in such circumstances are still self-defense.

5812

That is a curious statement.

So then, I will go out and put myself in Zimmerman’s position and end up shooting someone.

I will fully expect to be exonerated.

This is quite an interpretation of the law–and not the society I would like to live in.

5813

I guess a lot of people would be covered under your interpretation:

–Muggers who had victims fight back and ended up killing them.

–Potential rapists and stalkers.

A whole bunch of dangerous people can use your interpretation and get off for what they did.

Again, this is not the society I would like to live in.

5814

Yes. If either of them did something illegal then that can be weighed. Striking someone is assault and that’s where it all begins. Prior to that neither person is doing anything wrong.

That statement doesn’t make sense unless the person is psychic. Prior to the assault Zimmerman was doing exactly what he was entitled to do and should have done with or without a gun. He called the police to report a suspicious person and tried to keep him in sight while waiting for them to arrive.
**

If Martin was in fear for his life he should have gone home and called police. Instead he confronts Zimmerman who is still on the same sidewalk he was on while talking to the police. It’s safe to say they were both in fear for their life at the exposure of the gun and a race ensued to get it but prior to that Martin was pounding the tar out of Zimmerman.

5815

It’s not a “curious statement”. It’s what the law, explicitly, says.

It’s not an “interpretation” of the law. It’s what the law says, in clear and unambiguous language. Did you bother to look at the law before you came into this thread?

5816

No, the law doesn’t allow “self-defense” during or immediately after commission of a felony.

“Potential”? Yes, definitely.

5817

I don’t want to live in a society where I can’t defend myself. I don’t carry a gun but I carry other weapons and I fully intend to use them if attacked.

Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin at the beginning of the attack. There’s no way to know if he had the capacity to do so but getting smacked around is reason enough to pull it out and give warning. Unfortunately, many laws are written in such a way as to make that problematic.

The best way not to get shot is don’t attack people.

5818
  1. Striking someone is NOT ALWAYS ASSAULT. Would you charge a women fighting off a rapist with assault if she strikes him?

I have a big issue with you saying Zimmerman was “doing nothing wrong” prior to the moment that the PHYSICAL INCIDENT ensued.

For instance, if I follow someone and (I am making up a scenerio) say brandish a weapon or scream at them something threatening, that in itself can get me into trouble. You can’t just do that to people like that–that’s threatening.

I have a HUGE problem when people say that Zimmerman was in the clear legally before the actual PHYSICAL confrontation ensued.

I am being honest here: Zimmerman is flat out CREEPY. His behavior was creepy that night. Very. I could only imagine what must have been going through Martin’s head. That is one scary dude.

  1. Entitled according to whom? Should have done what exactly?

  2. If, if, if, if, if…
    If that woman had called a cab then she would be alive right now.
    If he had simply given the guy his wallet then that wouldn’t have happened to him.
    If, if, if, if, if.

**Spare me. **

**Everything needs to be seen continuously and not as discrete parts. **

It is the COMBINATION of events which led to Zimmerman being in this legal predicament. You can’t just cut the event up in piecemeal fashion and then say: well, part 1 is legal. Part 2 is legal, and so on.

It doesn’t work that way.

As I heard from someone, you can drink as much as you want. Assuming you are overage, that’s legal. You can drive as much as you want, assuming you have a license–that’s legal.

However, put the two together, you’re going to jail. Kill someone while you do it, you’re probably looking at some prison time.

5819

Yes, it is YOUR INTERPRETATION.

How do you know that applies to Zimmerman?? How do you know Zimmerman will benefit from this?

That’s the question.

Yes, I looked at the law. I don’t believe Zimmerman will be able to take advantage of it.

5820

None that I know of.

Yes, they do. An important thing to keep in mind is, what evidence do we have to show what those circumstances are?

It depends on what you mean by it being “okay” and “put himself into a position for something to happen”.

As far as I know, there is no real evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal. Nor is there any evidence to show that Martin was legally justified in attacking Zimmerman.

It is not against the law to be the neighborhood watch officer for your neighborhood. It is also not against the law to stop someone on the street and ask what they are doing. It might not be a good idea - it might even be stupid. But it is not against the law.

It is also not against the law to tell someone who stops you on the street to piss off, or walk away from them. It is against the law, if someone asks what you are doing, to punch them in the face, knock them down, and bash their head against the ground.

It is also not against the law, if you are not doing anything illegal, to shoot someone who attacks you and puts you in reasonable fear of being killed or suffering serious injury.

The trouble is, all the available evidence seems to indicate that the way things went down is:
[ul][li]Zimmerman sees a suspicious person in his neighborhood. (We know this from the 911 transcript.)[/li][li]Zimmerman starts to follow him. (This we also know from the transcript).[/li][li]Zimmerman calls 911 to report possible trouble, as he had done many times in the past. (We have records of several 911 calls from Zimmerman in the past. He was the neighborhood watch guy - it’s most of what he does).[/li][li]Zimmerman starts to follow the suspicious person, and then loses sight of him. (Again, from the transcript where he says “these assholes, they always get away” and from the not-terribly reliable Dee Dee, who says Martin told her he had “lost” the person following him. But still, that’s what she claimed, and it matches what Zimmerman said on the transcript.)[/li][li]Zimmerman then arranges to meet the po-pos (from the transcript).[/li][li]Zimmerman then gets out of his truck. We know he got out of his truck, because that’s where the fight happened. Zimmerman says he was looking for a house number or street sign. It is possible that he spotted Martin again, either before or after he got out of his truck, and that’s why he got out of the truck. We don’t know for certain - we have only Zimmerman’s word for it. So we don’t know.[/li][li]In any event, Zimmerman and Martin then encounter each other. [/li][li]We know very little of the nature of the words exchanged between them. Dee Dee claims Martin said “Why are you following me?” or the equivalent. Zimmerman says Martin said “You got a problem?”* Which it was, or if it was something else, we don’t know.* [/li][li]The fight begins. There is no evidence to establish what, if anything, happened between the initial encounter and the start of the fight.[/li][li]Martin punches Zimmerman in the face and knocks him down. We know this from Zimmerman’s broken nose, black eyes, and the mark on Martin’s knuckle consistent with Martin having punched Zimmerman in the nose.[/li][li]Martin then jumps on top of him and bashes his head on the ground. We know this from the lacerations to the back of Zimmerman’s head, the wetness on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt, and the account from “John” who has stated that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.[/li][li]Zimmerman claims Martin was grabbing for his (Zimmerman’s) gun. We don’t know this - we have only Zimmerman’s word for it.[/li][li]Zimmerman was screaming for help. We know someone was screaming, because witnesses heard it. We can reasonably infer that it was Zimmerman, because the only person who witnessed the struggle made the observation that a reasonable person would make, which is that the person getting his ass beaten would yell for help rather than the person doing the beating.[/li][li]Zimmerman then draws his weapon, and fires once. We know this from the fact that Martin is dead from a single gunshot would at less than point-blank range.[/li][li]Martin, fatally wounded, then rolls off Zimmerman. We know this because the first person on the scene saw Zimmerman over Martin.[/li][li]Zimmerman says he was trying to restrain Martin, not knowing that Martin was dead or dying. We don’t know this - we have only Zimmerman’s word for it.[/li][li]The police arrive. [/ul]That’s what we have for evidence (so far). [/li]
None of the circumstances, as far as they can be determined by the evidence, show anything illegal by Zimmerman, or offer any justification for Martin to attack him. There is also no evidence, as far as I am aware, that would disprove Zimmerman’s claim that he was acting in self-defense.

It’s possible. What evidence do you have that he was?

Regards,
Shodan

PS - we also don’t have any evidence that Zimmerman used a throw to take Martin to the ground, nor that there was a third party involved in the fight, nor that Zimmerman hit his head on a dog sign or a sprinkler box.

Unless you can come up with a cite for any of this that does not involve taking Zimmerman’s word for it.

5821

Apparently you haven’t read the law. Or, if you did, you didn’t understand it.

Do point out how it wouldn’t apply.

5822

Is this what you are referring to?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Or maybe this–this one seems more fitting to me.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.