So you’re saying that if a person has assaulted someone in the past – say, oh, I don’t know, an undercover cop or something – then we can assume he’d probably assault someone again?
Good to know.
Blah blah presumption of innocence blah blah. (Sorry, I can’t be arsed to explain it all again). Just remember it applies to Zimmerman and not Martin.
But you are basically right. For anyone except a criminal defendant, it’s acceptable to extrapolate from previous behaviour.
Blah blah blaming the victim. And here we go, wearing a path around the mulberry bush.
The problem is, it’s not straightforward to say who’s the victim here. If Zimmerman was, as he claims, assaulted by Martin, then he is the victim, and there’s been a shitload of blaming him here. It’s also far from certain that Martin was the victim of any crime.
So, victim blaming is not appropriate. Carefully examining the situation to see who is the victim is always appropriate. Perhaps you should stop with all the attacks on Zimmerman’s character until such a point as we know he’s not the victim here.
They must have been running back and forth on that path, since it takes seconds to run 52 feet, the distance the body was from the T, not minutes, totally contrary to DD’s story.
The criminal defendant on trial for 2nd degree murder is really the victim and the unarmed guy who he shot and killed is really the criminal. Boy, that’s convenient.
You would have to look at the background of both. If Zimmerman pushed a cop once, and pushed his ex-fiancee once, and Martin had been expelled from school and had a history of theft, vandalism, and drugs, then it would be pretty much a wash deciding who was the more likely to have initiated the assault. In that case, we would go with the evidence, which tends to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman instead of vice versa.
Of course, if it came out that Martin had posted videos of himself allegedly refereeing a street fight, then that would seem to show that he was at least a wannabe tough guy and street fighter. And that would reinforce what the evidence seems to show. Same if Zimmerman were found to have assaulted a lot of people in the course of his actions as the neighborhood watch person. If that had happened, then that would be an indication.
One has to look at the totality of the evidence.
Of course, it is also possible to say “white guy shot a black guy - white guy is guilty” the way some posters have done, but I am talking about trying to figure out the truth based on the evidence. To the extent possible.
Regards,
Shodan
This is where we run into the same problem that has plagued this discussion before: we fail to make clear the distinction between legal standards and ordinary “I wonder what actually happened” discussion. And for this subject, there’s a very significant distinction.
In a criminal trial, the accused’s prior bad acts are generally inadmissible if offered to prove he acted in conformity therewith. In shorter words, this means a prosecutor could not offer evidence against the defendant of the variety that Shodan did above:
This is called 404(b) evidence after the section of the evidence code that forbids it.
However, prior bad acts evidence CAN be offered to prove that someone else, not the accused, acted the same way this time.
So I take your comment to semi-sarcastically question a seeming dual standard. I don’t know if it makes you feel better or worse, but that double standard is enshrined in the evidence code.
So, yes: at trial, the defense can say, “Martin started fights a lot; he probably started this one.” At the same time, the prosecutor CANNOT say, “Zimmerman assaulted a police officer, so he probably assaulted Martin.”
I don’t really care if it’s convenient, but it’s a strong possibility based on the evidence available. Why do you say that Martin being unarmed, or Zimmerman shooting and killing him, has anything to do with who’s the victim here? If Zimmerman didn’t start the fight, he’s a victim of an assault. What happens after that doesn’t change that. If Martin was killed in self defence, he’s not a victim of anything, and whether he was armed or not doesn’t change that.
It is indeed.
FWIW I am more interested in what really happened. Therefore, it seems perfectly legitimate to me to discuss Zimmerman’s past bad acts as well as Martin’s.
When you do that, ISTM that it is pretty much a wash - Martin was suspended from school three times for vandalism, drugs, and theft, and he apparently thought of himself as a tough guy (No Limit Nigga and the video of himself allegedly refereeing a street fight). Zimmerman pushed his ex-fiancee, and also pushed an undercover cop when a friend of his was arrested. Neither man was ever convicted of anything.
Based on their respective pasts, I don’t think you can say who is the likelier to have made the first attack. For that, I look more to the rest of the evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
Here are photos of the area. The most interesting thing is the number of security cameras, none of which apparently worked around the time of Trayvon Martin’s trip back and forth from the 7-11, though they probably worked just fine before and after the event. Amazing coincidence.
Here are photos of the area. The most interesting thing is the number of security cameras, none of which apparently worked around the time of Trayvon Martin’s trip back and forth from the 7-11, though they probably worked just fine before and after the event. Amazing coincidence.
Martin approaches Zimmerman twice. We have Zimmerman’s description of it on the phone call and we have DD’s description of it when Martin starts the verbal confrontation. This is followed by a serious beating which again, is well documented.
Yes but Martin was suspended from school and Zimmerman was sentenced to some kind of alcohol program.
Looking at the evidence it appears that Martin’s actions indicate some level of agitation. Twice he goes out of his way to confront Zimmerman. The 2nd time he asks him why he’s following him. If he’s already in an agitated state then Zimmerman’s response isn’t going to go over well at all. He questions Martin’s reason for being in the neighborhood.
You’re soooo eager to insist that ‘Martin started the confrontation’. Martin asked a question - ‘why are you following me’.
Does that sound like he’s ‘going out of his way to start a street fight’?
What if GZ actually started the the ‘verbal confrontation’ first, only it wasn’t picked up by the phone? ‘What are you doing here’?
Besides, George’s description of the confrontation does not match DD’s statements. Nor does it match any version of reality we live in.
In George’s statement, Martin approaches him *from behind, *then completely ruins the element of surprise by talking to George. :rolleyes:
George, being the completely innocent, ‘just going back to my truck like I said I was, even though I told dispatch not to meet me at my truck just call when you get here while I track down this not-running-away asshole punk’ guy that he is, says that he backs up towards his truck and *takes out his phone to call 911. *With Martin right in front of him. Because obviously the first thing you’d do when confronted with a possible gun-totin’ asshole punk is to dial 911 in the hopes he won’t notice you’re trying to call the cops on him.
Not yell for help. Not try to run away. Not pull out his gun. No, he pulls out his phone.
In a long string of really really stupid, completely unbelievable statements, that is by far the most retarded thing George says.
Unless he threatened Martin when he did so, it’s irrelevant.
Also, we have evidence, from both DeeDee and Zimmerman that Martin started the verbal “confrontation”. There is, as far as I know, no evidence that he didn’t.
According to Dee Dee’s testimony, Zimmerman responded by saying “what are you doing around here?” or words to that effect. Does that sound like Zimmerman is going out of his way to start a street fight?
As you mention, Martin was the first to speak. There is no evidence of Zimmerman saying anything that would cause a reasonable person to attack. So, in a court of law, of course, Zimmerman is not guilty (absent any other kind of evidence). In a forum like this one, where we (or at least I) am trying to figure out what really happened, not what can be legally established, it doesn’t seem to fit the facts as we know them so far.
It is very difficult to find any time where Zimmerman would have a chance to initiate any kind of verbal altercation - the 911 call from the neighbor, wherein Zimmerman’s screams for help were recorded, started at 7:16:11 according to the 911 call server. So the fight started sometime before that.
As Bricker points out, it is not clear that the cell phone servers and the 911 call servers are exactly in sync, since the cell phone times are apparently rounded to the minute, but Martin’s phone cuts out before anything is recorded that would represent Zimmerman starting a fight. Dee Dee reports the exchange between the two as recorded above, then a bump, and then she hears nothing but “grass”, which may mean the wind on the grass, or the sounds of a struggle on the grass, but in any case does not mean anybody saying anything.
IOW, Zimmerman did not expect Martin to attack him. A reasonable person would not have attacked Zimmerman. And Zimmerman did not have his gun handy. IOW, he was not preparing to start any fight, had no racist or violent intent, and was not preparing to say anything inflammatory.
Zimmerman, therefore, did not display anything resembling the state of mind necessary to prove second-degree murder, or indeed any kind of murder. One does not commit murder with a phone.
Regards,
Shodan
Why wouldn’t you want the other person to notice that you were calling the police? That creates a disincentive to attack you, if the police are on their way; it creates an incentive to either flee, or to remain calm and talk to the police. Most people aren’t violent, after all.
So, you suggest that Zimmerman did not, in fact, reach for his phone? What do you suggest that he did?
Based on the evidence yes. He goes out of his way to approach Zimmerman.
We already have evidence of the sequence of the conversation. You’re “what if” is a function of your eagerness to believe something happened rather than look at the evidence available.
It doesn’t match your belief system. It matches DD’s account. Both have Martin starting the confrontation with a question to Zimmerman and both say it’s a brief exchange. DD says Martin asked him why he was following him, Zimmerman says Martin said "yo, you got a problem? What you seem to ignore because it doesn’t fit your scenario is that Martin appears out of nowhere. Zimmerman is walking around in plain sight and would have seen Martin the entire length of the sidewalk if he was walking out in the open. Zimmerman is walking back and forth on the top of the T and would be clearly visible and we know by his phone call that he’s speaking in a normal voice. According to DD Martin lowers his voice after he runs from Zimmerman. quote: “His voice was getting kind of low”. So we have Zimmerman walking in plain sight talking in a normal voice, and Martin doing the opposite. Instead of going into his house which he says he’s standing next to he goes back 300 feet and confronts Zimmerman. This is what the evidence shows.
your statement makes no sense unless you contend the conversation never took place.
He hadn’t been attacked prior to this. Calling the cops to update them would be the responsible thing to do. It puts Martin on notice that they will arrive shortly. You on the other-hand are recommending Zimmerman break the law.
I find it disturbing that you think he should have drawn a gun on a kid prior to being attacked.
Just to follow up on this:
It should be kept in mind that to Zimmerman, all Martin was was a suspicious person, and possible burgler, and he treated him as such. Stating that Zimmerman should have illegally drawn his pistol or run away instead of calling the police ignores this reality.