Okay, in your view, what is the strongest evidence, and which part of Z’s narrative does it reinforce?
This thread is long enough without my re-posting what I have already said. Read post #5816.
Regards,
Shodan
The injuries to Zimmerman, and lack of injuries to Martin, back up the part where he shot him in self defence.
How many examples from combat sports where the victor was more battered and bloodied than the loser would you like to see to make you doubt your opinion? Just because TM was unmarked, you shouldn’t assume that he was winning or that he was the more aggressive.
I’d lose the will to live before I’d responded to every aspect of that post, so I’ll just tip my hat to your ability to drive home your opinion.
I wasn’t aware they were engaging in a combat sport.
Well, pulling out a gun in a fist fight isn’t very sporting, I agree, but I suppose it makes up for TM’s alleged sucker-punch at the start of the contest. I mention combat sports because TM is alleged to have been giving Z a mma-style beating, hence, they seemed relevant.
As to the value of any witness to a part of the event being able to determine who was getting the better of who in less than ideal lighting conditions, I bring to your attention the amount of fights that are called controversially by professional judges in almost perfect viewing conditions.
But the lack of injuries to M’s knuckles and the lack of defensive injuries on Z indicate something other than the narrative provided by Z.
I’m disagreeing that the definition you posed applies to Martin’s behavior. I am saying that Martin had a grant of implied privilege to be where he was, and unless that privilege was first withdrawn by someone with authority ordering him to step off the property, his presence was not criminal.
Maybe before you two pull it all the way out of your pants, we can get back to the point that obviously Zimmerman is not a lawyer, a law student or probably made a 100% definitive decision about the legitimacy of Martin’s ‘right’ to be on that spot of property at that given time.
Furthering, I highly doubt Martin had the same (or lack there of) knowledge of his ‘right’ to be in that spot at that time.
Unless someone will come forward and testify that Martin (or the family of residents) are permitted to be in the gated community whenever they please, then it’s a moot point that won’t lead to anything?
What we can agree on is that due to the past and present circumstances (at that time) and the conditions of the evening in question, Martin looked more suspicious than he may have otherwise.
OK.
How is that relevant to the elements of the crime with which Zimmerman is charged?
If it could be demonstrated in some way that Martin had injuries to his knuckles consistent with his having punched someone, would that tend to indicate that Zimmerman’s narrative was true?
Regards,
Shodan
Bricker, it may not be what the jury will hear - I don’t know.
For our speculation and argument’s sake, it at least helps us discuss the potential mindset of George Zimmerman.
That’s fine – but what I see happening repeatedly in this thread is a confluence between a discussion of admissible evidence at trial and a generalized discussion of the evidence in what be called “shooting the breeze.”
Which makes it all the more reckless of him to get out of his truck and take after Martin with a gun.
It would add credence to the assertion that M punched Z’s noggin multiple times.
As you are no doubt aware, Martin did have injuries to his knuckles consistent with his having punched someone at least once. And Zimmerman had a broken nose and black eyes, consistent with his having been punched in the face.
So I think we can agree that credence has been lent to Zimmerman’s narrative that Martin punched him in the face at least once.
So we don’t have to take Zimmerman’s word for it - we have examined the evidence, and found that it backs up that part of Zimmerman’s story.
Now we don’t know whether or not Martin punched Zimmerman multiple times - we have only Zimmerman’s word for it. So we can’t assume it’s true. We have to look at the evidence, and there isn’t any.
All there is is negative evidence - Martin only had marks on his hand consistent with having thrown only one punch. It’s possible that Martin punched Zimmerman multiple times without leaving more than one mark on his hand, but that is not very likely (in my opinion). So we should regard Zimmerman’s assertion of multiple punches to the head as unproven at least.
So how likely is it that Zimmerman was wrong about this? Pretty likely, IMO. So Zimmerman is either lying or mistaken about that part.
We cannot throw out his whole narrative - important parts of it have been validated by the evidence. So, considering only those parts of his narrative that are backed up by evidence, what is most likely?
Did Zimmerman make the whole story of the attack by Martin up? Not likely. We already know that Martin did, in fact, punch Zimmerman in the face. We also know from eyewitnesses that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at some point during the fight, and we know from the lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head that somebody bashed his head on the ground in the two minutes between the end of the phone call and the arrival of the police.
So part of the narrative appears to be true, and part unproven. But assume Zimmerman is exaggerating the number of times he was struck, either consciously or unconsciously.
I don’t see that it makes much difference. Even if we leave off the part about multiple punches as exaggeration, it still sounds like a fairly serious attack - enough to put someone in fear of death or serious injury. Or maybe it isn’t even exaggeration - just that getting suckerpunched and having your head bashed into the ground makes it difficult to keep an exact tally of the number of times you have been punched, and that there is nothing particularly sinister about saying you were punched several times and had your head bashed on the ground instead of being punched once and having your head bashed on the ground.
As far as we know, and leaving out all the parts of Zimmerman’s story that can’t be backed up independently, it still sounds pretty much like it happened pretty much as he has described it from the get-go.
Zimmerman spotted a suspicious character, started following him while he called police, he lost sight of him while on the phone to the cops, arranged to meet the police at a nearby location, got out of his truck at that location, Martin showed up, they exchanged words, Martin punched him, knocked him down and bashed his head on the ground. Zimmerman was screaming for help, no help came, Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin saw it and grabbed for it, Zimmerman got the gun out and fired, once. And then the police arrived.
And then the SDMB writes tens of thousands of posts nitpicking every detail to death.
Regards,
Shodan
“In recent months, as the neighborhood saw an uptick in crime, including burglaries and a shooting”
I think that’s stretching things quite a bit. Imho. He had a single injury, iirc, not injuries. Iirc, it was a scrape which was 1/32 in^2. I have gotten similar scrapes from who knows what and not even noticed them.
While I suppose that a single small scrape could have been the result of punching someone in such a way that a tooth or fingernail or some such had incidental contact with the skin on M’s finger. Or it could have come about from a myriad of other things.
I guess I could say that a single small scrape is not entirely inconsistent with a single punch.
Seeing a small scrape on someone’s finger would never lead me to the conclusion that the someone had just punched someone else. ymmv.
I don’t think Zs narrative is that M punched Z in the face once. Iirc Z says M hit Z multiple times.
Having a single small scrape on one finger is not consistent with dealing multiple blows to a human head. At least not imho and imhe. ymmv.
Yet I s’pose one could be making that argument that a scintilla is more than none. So I s’pose there may be some technical scintilla of credence added. Not enough credence to make the assertion credible, but more than 0. I guess. :shrug:
I don’t find a single, small scrape to add any measurable credence to the idea that M punched Z. ymmv
From the above link
It’s no surprise this guy was made to bow out when he’s making statements like that as though they are a nailed-down fact. Do we even know if Z had any credit cards or money on him when he was taken to the station?