Instigator. Required to exhaust all non-lethal alternatives.
The only one of these that is relevant is the firing for being over-aggressive, and I’m not sure whether that is admissible as evidence. There’s no actual evidence that he restrained anyone, drew his gun illegally, or chased anyone. Ignoring the 911 operator’s recommendation is, as you have been repeatedly told, relevant to nothing whatsoever, and neither is the fact that he pissed a few people off.
My understanding is that if, as he claims, and no-one has yet disproved, he is not the instigator, he is not required to exhaust any other options before using lethal force. Is that correct?
I mean what the police report said:
Because the state needs only probable cause to press charges. Frankly, even then, I would say the affidavit does not establish probable cause, but even if it does, there’s not enough there to allow a jury to convict. If the state presented no more evidence than we’ve already seen, handed it to a jury, that record wouldn’t be enough to support a verdict of guilty.
It would be enough to support probable cause, though.
I will concede that Zimmerman’s injury claims are consistent with the police report, if you will will concede that neither Zimmerman’s injury claims nor the police report shed any light on who committed the first assault.
But that’s not very likely, is it?
Angry Tough Guy follows an unarmed kid he doesn’t recognize. Kid is on the phone, telling a person that he is being followed and is scared. Angry Tough Guy, against the wishes of the police, follows kid and has a confrontation. In the confrontation, kids’ voice is heard screaming for help. Angry Tough Guy shoots kid in the chest.
Seems pretty probably cause-y to me and more than enough to submit to a jury. And all I know is what is in that affidavit.
Not at all likely.
About half of your “facts” are either not proven, or demonstrably false.
Your description of him as “angry tough guy” is prejudiced, and unacceptable.
He had no direct contact with the police, and certainly no communication from them regarding what they wished him to do.
You imply that he started the confrontation, which is contradicted by the evidence from Martin’s girlfriend, who claims that Martin first spoke to Zimmerman.
One or more people were heard screaming. Relatives of both Martin and Zimmerman have claimed it was them. All the expert views on who was screaming have been challenged by other experts.
You have probable cause, you do not have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without further evidence, it is unlikely to even pass the judge at the self-defence hearing, let alone a jury.
Judging by the testimony during bail hearing, there isn’t any explosive new evidence. Hell, even the audio analysis, including that done by FBI, that so many people are hanging their hats on was dismissed by the prosecution investigator:
O’MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon’s mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin’s voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?
GILBREATH: Did I?
O’MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?
GILBREATH: The “Orlando Sentinel” had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.
O’MARA: Is that part of your investigation?
GILBREATH: Yes.
O’MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?
GILBREATH: No.
You were (are?) a prosecutor, IIRC?
Are you seriously telling me you would submit those facts, and only those facts, to a jury and expect a conviction that would survive an appeal for insufficiency of evidence? Where’s the evidence for ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent?
Why would the bail hearing be indicative of the sum of the prosecutions evidence?
From Light v. State, 841 So. 2d 623 (Fl. DCA 2003)
Emphasis added.
So Zimmerman getting out of his truck to follow Martin doesn’t count as “starting the confrontation” but Martin asking Zimmerman why he’s following him does? Even if that’s your contention, I seem to recall Zimmerman’s immediate response was, “What are you doing here?” So if the conversation is the key, then I vote the guy who responded to a question with a demand of his own is responisble for instigation.
And that is just as much proof that Zimmerman started it as you have that Martin started it.
If the prosecution doesn’t have more evidence against Zimmerman, would it be relevant to discuss malicious prosecution?
You still don’t get it. If you have “just as much proof that Zimmerman started it as you have that Martin started it”, Zimmerman walks.
Zimmerman refered to Martin as an asshole, and possibly a punk or coon, who was “definitely up to no good”.
Sounds like evidence of instant hate to me.
I don’t doubt it. But I’ve long given up on Florida’s cockamamie laws which pretty much make vigilantiism easier to pull off. I’m just sick off all of these intimations that poor, poor Zimmie is being railroaded just because, gosh, he had to kill a kid.
One reason might be that it didn’t exist.
Quite true. But if they can’t demonstrate and show these things, then Zimmerman walks. Because he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman falsified his injuries, then Zimmerman cannot be convicted based on the idea that he faked them. Unless the prosecution can prove that it was Martin on the tape, then Zimmerman is entitled to have it presumed that it was him.
Regards,
Shodan
Yep. For now it’s were.
We both know that’s not how it works, nor should it be. Of course I wouldn’t rely only on the affidavit at trial. Silly question counsel.
But the undisputed facts are that Zimmerman followed, shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin had no weapon, had not threatened Zimmerman, was scared of Zimmerman, and was calling for help right before Zimmerman shot him. And Zimmerman started the confrontation (against the wishes of the police).
Zimmerman might claim self defense, and hell, he might even succeed. But there’s certainly enough to submit to a jury on the issue if the only thing you look at is the affidavit. Which is all I did.
Zimmerman was angry, using epithets to describe people he thought were like Martin. He went well out of his way to follow him. He ignored the commands of the police to do so. He carried his gun with him while he did it. During the confrontation, Martin was calling for help, calls ignored by Zimmerman who then shot him in the chest. I’m not sure what you call it, but that kind of evidence, especially the bringing the gun with him, is more than enough to establish a “depraved mind regardless of human life”.
I know next to nothing about this case, so I have no interest in delving into the specifics (which is a complete folly at this point, but don’t let that stop all of you), but the affidavit does establish facts enough to submit the issue to the jury.