Easy. With Trayvon dead, he can concoct any ole story he wants and get off under SYG.
If Trayvon is alive, he can’t concoct any ole story. It’s his word against Trayvon’s. Plus, if the cops see him brandishing a weapon in front of a screaming kid, he knows he’s going to catch shit. What’s he gonna say in his defense?
I personally think it was the screams that set him off. The screams indicated that he wasn’t fooling around with a gangsta thug, but a kid scared out of his mind. And the screams alerted everyone in the vicinity of this fact. He knew it was just a matter of seconds before people rushed out to answer that cry for help and then he’d be in trouble.
I don’t think Zimmerman’s repetillian brain was even thinking about the cops. I think he was afraid of what his neighbors would think if they came running to the scene. Deep down he knew he had crossed a line.
Of course, I know you don’t think those screams belonged to Martin. But I do, and so do others who were there.
Why do you think this? Do you not take Zimmerman at his word that the kid threatened to kill him? Or are you like me and think that its implausible a kid who had been minding his own business minutes before would suddenly go into murderous rage?
He was shot square in the chest. It doesn’t take Columbo to know a fatal shot when you see one. It also takes a fair amount of pressure to shoot one of those guns. One shot and he could be fairly confident of zero witnesses. With each extra shot, the potential for being spied upon increases.
Because he knew the kid was on death’s door.
If Zimmerman was in so much fear for his life, why did he get on top of Martin after he shot him? That is not a self-defense posture. Furthermore, why did he immediately reholster his weapon, despite supposedly not knowing the kid had been hit? If a mad man had been bashing your head into concrete for a minute or more, would you do any of these things? Or would you shoot and get as far as away as you can?
Again, the jury is going to be instructed to apply the reasonable person standard when assessing Zimmerman’s story. No reasonable person who thought they were in moral danger from a “thug” would think to voluntarily put themselves in intimate contact with said “thug” moments after the “thug” retreated. This is the epitome of unreasonable behavior.
Because he was confident the cops would not arrest him. The fucked up thing is that his confidence wasn’t misplaced. The good ole boys almost let him get off scot free, but gosh darnit, Martin’s parents kept asking questions.
I was too vague before. How about this: what would Martin’s damning story have consisted of? Given Zimmerman’s injuries, and Martin’s lack of same, I just have a hard time conceiving of a scenario where it’s Zimmerman who stands to face legal consequences, whether or not he’s holding a pistol when the police arrive.
It may just be failure of imagination on my part. Can you explain?
Not exactly; since it apparently can’t be determined to any satisfactory degree who was screaming, I’m ignoring that aspect to the extent possible. I think that’s the best course.
False. On two grounds. Firstly, he doesn’t have to come up with a story of any sort to claim SYG, the simple claim is enough. And secondly, unless the claim matches the other evidence - as it does in this case - he won’t necessarily get off due to it.
Also false, unless you know of a witness who’s not yet produced a statement who either had prior knowledge of what Martin sounded like screaming, or who was watching closely enough to be able to tell.
Really, what is the problem you and others have with dealing with the actual facts, rather than ridiculous, baseless speculation?
Well, brandishing a weapon on a person is against the law, unless you are doing a citizen’s arrest. Which Zimmerman lacked the justification for. So this is not an irrelevant detail.
If Martin told the cops that Zimmerman had tried to tackle him and in the process had slipped and bumped his head on the ground, he’d not only be able to explain Zimmerman’s injuries, but he’d also be implicating Zimmerman in a crime.
Zimmerman would have his own story all right, but it could be contradicted by Martin’s. With Martin out of the picture, Zimmerman could be assured that people would give him the full benefit of the doubt no matter how ridiculous his account was. And he would be right.
What’s messed up is that I think even if Martin were alive to give his side of the story, people would still automatically side with Zimmerman. The fact that people can’t even concede that there are weird parts to Zimmerman’s account supports this hunch.
If he could have gotten off under SYG, he would have already. His lawyer gave up on this a long time ago. Isn’t it about time you do as well?
Do you think the witnesses will not be asked to describe nature of the screams? Will the screams not be dissected in any way during the trial? What is going to keep the jury from thinking whatever the hell they want when they hear those recordings played in court over and over again?
Every time you say this, I can’t help but think you’re projecting. Because if there’s anyone who keeps ignoring the basic facts, it is you.
I tend to doubt anyone’s recall under extreme stress, so I don’t give all that much weight to Zimmerman’s account of the most stressful part of the encounter; I’m more focused on the physical evidence. I’m sure that the most honest person alive would get things wrong after the fact after something like this happened.
Also, people say crazy things during fights. Martin threatening Zimmerman isn’t proof that he actually intended to kill him.
People survive chest wounds from handguns all the time. Would you be confident, in the dark, that you’d hit your target in the heart? Because with handguns, unlike rifles, generally only vital-organ or artery shots are lethal.
Do you mean the trigger pull? The PF9’s is five pounds. I have a Taurus Model 65 with a 12 pound pull, and you can fire them plenty quick, believe me.
Spied upon doing what? It would be clear no matter how many shots were fired that Zimmerman shot Martin, and he’s never denied that; once shots are being fired, the part Zimmerman had to lie about is over. His self-defense claim wouldn’t be changed by shooting more times, but the odds that Martin would live sure would.
Again, I find this highly unlikely. It’s not like he’d hit Martin square in the forehead, he’d hit him once, in the chest, in the dark.
Again, that’s consistent with self-defense, and shooting to stop the threat. What are you saying, that Zimmerman jumped on him to make sure he was dead, instead of just continuing to shoot?
Because the threat was gone, I imagine. Again, much more consistent with self-defense than with murder.
“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”
I don’t think anyone on the jury can know exactly what they would do in the seconds after shooting / shooting at an attacker, who then crumpled to the ground. Trying to restrain them doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but acting irrationally from panic doesn’t either.
Your theory hinges on Zimmerman, subsequent to events that have left him but not Martin beaten, deciding in an instant that he’s better off killing Martin, that the police would let him off scott-free, shooting Martin once in the chest, determining in the dark that Martin was lethally wounded (despite Martin not being killed instantly), and jumping atop him anyway.
That seems wildly implausible, especially compared to other theories.
So you think a crying, panic-stricken Martin who claims Zimmerman held him at gunpoint for groundless reasons would pose no problem for Zimmerman? What legal basis would Zimmerman have had to hold the kid at gunpoint?
It is more plausible than Zimmerman shooting Martin in self defense, immediately putting away his weapon, and then unnecessarily restraining the kid that supposedly just put him in fear for his life. In the dark, mind you.
How he was able to assess that Martin was no longer a threat (and thus safe enough to restrain), but somehow he couldn’t know a center chest wound was fatal (and thus not requiring extra shots), is something only you seem able to grasp. Let’s hope O’Mara shares your lack of internal consistency. It’ll make for good TV.
It’s odd that you can just wave this away as insignificant because it is the basis of Zimmerman’s argument. If we aren’t supposed to believe that Martin went all “I kill you now”, then why should we believe Zimmerman when he says he was in fear of his life? His wounds aren’t evidence of a near-death encounter. His actions aren’t consistent with someone who was in mortal fear (people in mortal fear run away from, not tackle and pin down, the monster who just tried to kill them). So all we are left with is his Martin’s cartoon dialogue. If none of that happened the way Zimmerman said it did, then there’s no reason to believe any of it happened.
A guy on the losing side of a fight can’t claim self-defense just cuz he got his ass kicked.
Except that wouldn’t explain Zimmerman’s injuries, which show repeated blows to the front and back of his head.
Zimmerman, as the defendant, would be assured full benefit of the doubt in any case. If their stories contradicted, then one would have to focus on the physical and witness evidence, which mostly sides with Zimmerman.
No, we just don’t think it matters that there are weird things to Zimmerman’s account. He could be lying through his teeth about all of it, and it would not be enough to implicate him. The prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin, and even if they can show Zimmerman to be utterly unreliable, they haven’t done that.
Once again, why are you ignoring both the law and the facts? You’ve been told, over and over, what they are. You can’t pretend you don’t know them, so it’s clear that you are simply pretending they don’t exist because you don’t like them.
To make this very clear - it is a fundamental part of justice that the defendant is given all the benefit of the doubt. As a moral point, this must apply not just at trial but in general.
The clock is ticking. If O’Mara is going to seek immunity for his client, he should be filing any day now. If all we hear is crickets by the end of the week, will you reexamine your optimism? Or are you going to keep clutching to this lost cause?
You really don’t understand anything about the law in question here, do you? The SYG law is the one that means that Zimmerman doesn’t have to demonstrate that he was allowed to use self defence, merely claim it, and also states that he wouldn’t be required to attempt to escape even if that were possible, both things that will be relevant, and will work in Zimmerman’s favour, at trial.
It also contains the immunity provision, which O’Mara has waived. See Magiver’s cites from earlier, but bear in mind that he can still claim immunity at the trial if he can prove it - also mentioned in the cites.
That said, I don’t think he will seek immunity for a number of reasons. The first one being that it requires positive proof that self defence was justified, and failing on that is a distinct possibility. Secondly, it provides the prosecution with a great deal of information on the defence’s strategy. And thirdly, people like you will say he avoided trial, something you won’t be able to say when he’s found not guilty.
I suspect that there will be a later claim for immunity after he’s found not guilty, and then Zimmerman will, at minimum, be protected from any civil action.
Then Martin has a hell of a big fist, as there’s marks on both sides of Zimmerman’s face.
So, even in your pro-Martin story, you still have Martin punching Zimmerman, and then climbing on top of him. Unless you think that part - independently witnessed - is also a lie.
The medical report indicates no marks on the sides of the face. It notes blackened eyes, a potentially broken nose, and lacerations on the back of the head. Please keep your facts straight.
I think he may have been confused. He has already retracted some of what he had said. So I’m not sure even he knows what he saw.
But let’s say he did see Martin on top of Zimmerman:
“Trayvon, why did the witness see you on top of Zimmerman, if all you did was punch him?”
"After he fell, he ran after me and tackled me. We wrestled in the grass for awhile. That was when I started screaming for help. He kept grabbing at me, and I kind of pinned his arms to the ground to get him to stop. Maybe that’s when the witness saw us.
“Then he pushed me off. That’s when I looked over and saw this kid with a dog watching us.”
There actually was a kid who claims he saw the two of them apart. His story does not match Zimmerman’s. Funny that.
I think the guy with the injuries is going to get the benefit of the doubt over the guy without them. Unless your hypothetical does not include Martin beating Zimmerman.
Also, setting that aside, Zimmerman could just flatly deny holding Martin at gunpoint (it’s not easily proved, after all), or point to his injuries and claim that he drew in self-defense.
Again, when the police come up on two men in a dispute, the one who’s been beaten isn’t the one who has the most to worry about.
Settle down, no need for the derisive tone. I’ve been polite to you.
Frankly, no, your scenario is not more plausible. In the dark, you can tell if someone is no longer atop of you or if they’re crumpled on the ground, much more readily than whether you’ve shot them in the heart. That seems self-evident.
It’s not insignificant, it’s just unprovable, one way or the other. You can believe Zimmerman or not as to what Martin may or may not have said, but since it can’t be independent verified, I don’t give it nearly as much weight as things that can be so verified. YMMV.
His wounds are evidence of an attack, and one concentrated around his head. As stated above, I don’t find it beyond the realm of reason that one might restrain an attacker who is no longer atop them and attacking, as opposed to shooting them / shooting them again (depending on it you knew your first shot had struck), or immediately fleeing, when you have sacroiliitis and have just been struck in the head repeatedly.
We can’t ignore what Zimmerman said, though. Unless we want to wave away everything.
f you don’t know nuthin’ about the condition of the scary monster who just attacked you visciously (he didn’t know Trayvon had been hit, he didn’t know if Trayvon was armed, he didn’t know if Trayvon was truly surrendering), why would you get on top of him? Why wouldn’t you take advantage of the monster’s surrender by running away? Or at the very least, continue to scream your fool head off? If Zimmerman didn’t know if he’d shot Martin, why did he stop screaming so abruptly?