It’s compelling evidence that he did not reasonably believe that Martin ever posed an imminent threat to his life, yes.
Again, you’re having problems with internal consistency, and it’s hard to take what you post seriously. You can’t claim in one breath that things were moving too fast for him to think straight, “OMG, how was he supposed to know the fight had really ended?” and then in the next breath, claim that Zimmerman recognized that Martin no longer was a dangerous threat and thus was safe to restrain. Pick one of these ideas and stick with it, please. Your arguments are scattered.
That ain’t my point. My point is that Zimmerman decided to unlawfully restrain Martin the exact instant he had a clear opportunity to deescalate the conflict by either withdrawing force or running away. Thus, this tells us that Zimmerman’s primary interest was NOT defending himself, but rather it was to win the fight by subduing the kid by any means necessary. This is incompatible with self-defense.
I could care less what he should actually be charged with, but by his own admission, he committed battery. Citizen’s arrest has nothing to do with this, just like it has nothing to do with Jim Bob Brown at the local dive tackling the guy looking sideways at his girl.
And what better way to ensure you get hit again by this mysterious invisible object than by getting right on top of your “assailant” and messing with him some more. This is about as sensible as prodding the lion who just mawled your face with a stick, but okay bro.
“Safe to restrain” ?. You restrain people because they are a threat, not because they aren’t one. The idea that the safe play with an attacker is to stand there, as opposed to making sure they can’t attack again, also makes no sense.
Do you think policemen refrain from restraining people who’ve fought with them?
There’s no consistency problem. You don’t need to be thinking straight to be aware that the person who was atop you, beating you, is no longer atop you or beating you. However, it does take some observation and awareness to conclude that the person is no longer any sort of threat, because that’s a much more complex calculation and requires observation, which is impaired by darkness.
If “win the fight” means “not get pummeled any more”, than sure. You act like those two goals are wildly different, when they aren’t.
Then the legality doesn’t matter.
A better way to ensure you get hit again is to stand there doing nothing until the attacker gets up, or to turn and run so the attacker can attack you again.
I agree that all that matters is Zimmerman’s state of mind when the shot is fired, but you with the face believes that his actions after the shot are evidence of his state of mind, so here we are.
Zimmerman thought Martin had something in his hand when he was striking him. We know Martin was carrying a can of ice tea and may very have used this during the assault.
because we heard the keys in warning on the audio tape and
GZ says of his truck, the keys are in it and
the 2 minutes or so of “unaccounted” for time and
GZ’s keys were found somewhere other than his truck
I think that
after getting off the line with NEN
GZ went back to his vehicle to get at least his keys and
then returned to the area where he lost sight of TM
I think that as a finder of fact, I would be allowed these conclusions
whether you agree with them or not.
I just can’t get past this idea that restraining someone indicates that they are not a threat to you, whereas standing nearby indicates that they are a threat. I think that’d be news to every police department in this country, for one.
This is coupled with the equally-shaky notion that Martin was inherently physically dominant in any possible confrontation with Zimmerman, as opposed to Martin landing the first blow and seizing the initiative.
And so, you with the face’s state of mind evidence seems contrary to logic.
The only one who has created this false dichotomy is you. Zimmerman’s options were not limited to either jumping on top of Martin or standing there with his mouth agape. He could have also retreated from Martin, obviously.
When someone poses a threat to you and has already proven themselves to be much stronger, it is antithetical to common sense that you would throw yourself on top of them and attempt to restrain them. Not when you have the ability to run away. Sorry if this concept causes you to scratch your head, but it’s not that hard to understand. The lion analogy should have cleared this up for you.
Fear of imminent death is an absolute thing. Whether it be a lion who has just mawled your face, or the teenaged boy who supposedly just bashed your head into concrete, if you’re in fear for your life, your behavior should demonstrate that. Zimmerman’s behavior did not. None of it.
Human Action, if you find it hard to imagine yourself hopping on top of a lion to restrain it after it nearly killed you, why do you accept without question Zimmerman doing this to Martin following an act of self defense? If we are to take the guy at his word, Martin came at him with the force and ferocity of a rabid beast. If he was confident in his own ability to restrain the kid bare-handed (he put his gun away, remember), and he didn’t even know the kid had been hit (again, this is what he told us), then this is an admission that he didn’t believe Martin was a real threat to him.
Of course, his actions post-shooting tell us what his state of mind was during the fight. Why wouldn’t it be? As with any possible crime, the behavior of the defendant after the incident can provide clues into his guilt or innocence.
I asked, “So him standing there indicates fear, but him jumping on his attacker does not?”
You answered, “Uh, yes.” So, once again, would Zimmerman just standing near Martin be evidence that he really was afraid for his life, or not?
On bad joints, with a head wound, turning his back on a younger, faster man. That’s not a good idea.
You’ve got Zimmerman in a no-win scenario, here. If he did just stand there, you’d likely say that that was proof that he had no fear of Martin. If he ran, you’d likely say that it was proof that by being willing to turn his back, he was in no real danger, or that Zimmerman was fleeing a crime scene to avoid being identified. If he shot Martin more times, you’d likely say that it was proof of executing a wounded, non-threatening Martin.
Martin wasn’t “much stronger”, he got the first punch in and got on top of Zimmerman in the ground-and-pound position. The lion analogy is bunk.
You seem to be trying to backdoor-in a duty to retreat, in effect.
The fear of imminent death occured when Martin was atop Zimmerman, beating his head. Once that was no longer occuring, the fear of imminent death was gone. Zimmerman wasn’t afraid for his life from Martin in some general way, he was afraid for his life in the very specific circumstances of having his head beaten against a sidewalk.
Consider the implications of your logic. If Martin himself is the lethal threat, rather the the circumstance of having his head beaten against a sidewalk, then any action other than shooting Martin six or seven more times is evidence that Zimmerman didn’t really think of Martin himself as a threat.
You are, thus far, unable to demonstrate that jumping on Martin after the shooting is credible evidence that Zimmerman tried to jump on Martin before the shooting. This is because of the intervening event: a beating, which is, on its own merits, rationale to restrain an attacker.
I just can’t get past this idea that restraining someone indicates that they are not a threat to you, whereas standing nearby indicates that they are a threat. I think that’d be news to every police department in this country, for one.
This is coupled with the equally-shaky notion that Martin was inherently physically dominant in any possible confrontation with Zimmerman, as opposed to Martin landing the first blow and seizing the initiative.
Zimmerman had various small puncture wounds on his face.
It would give a lot more credence to his position, yes. If he was just standing there, then at least he’s not giving the appearance of prolonging the conflict or trying to “win” as opposed to live. Immobility is a common reaction when afraid. Haven’t you ever heard of being “paralyzed with fear”?
Internal consistency is your friend, once again. If he was in too bad of shape to flee from Martin (and when I say “flee”, I don’t even mean run…he could have slithered away), then he was not in any kind of shape to wrestle him to the ground. Go back to the lion attack analogy. If a lion just gnawed at my body, there is no way in hell I’d feel up to the task of accosting this animal, even if I’d just shot it. I’d be crawling out of there as fast as I could. Why did Zimmerman put himself at risk of another beat down by holding down the kid?
No I wouldn’t. Only you seem fixated on the idea of him just standing there. I think the more reasonable and instinctual course of action would have been for him to retreat.
This is like saying a lion isn’t a lethal threat, but rather the circumstance of having your face crunched in between the lion’s jaws. If a lion suddenly stops biting your legs, you’re still going to be afraid of it. Your fear doesn’t just suddenly dry up because now the lion is 3 feet away licking itself. Your first and only instinct will be to get away from there.
[ul]
[li]How was Zimmerman supposed to run (or “slither”) away when Martin was sitting on his chest?[/li][/ul][ul][li]There is no evidence that Zimmerman wrestled Martin to the ground. All the evidence known to date is that Martin wrestled Zimmerman to the ground.[/ul][/li]
Again, ‘trying to win’ and ‘trying to not be beaten anymore’ look exactly the same.
It was Zimmerman’s call to make; neither of us know exactly what sort of mental and physical condition he was in at the moment he had to decide to jump on Martin, flee, slither, what have you. Just being heavier, and able to bear down on someone, isn’t something that erodes from injury. Being able to run does.
Martin was already on the ground.
Because there’s a higher risk of another beat down if you don’t hold him down? If you’re unaware that he’s been shot, there’s every chance that he will get back up. Again, no referee comes in and ends the fight.
The next time you are attacked, feel free to run, slither, or anything you wish. Deciding that your, long after the fact, suppositions about your instincts must match Zimmerman’s is entirely unreasonable. There’s no handbook that must be followed to the letter to use self-defense, as long as the actions are reasonable. If you think fleeing would have been a smarter choice, that’s fine. But it was not the only reasonable choice available.
And consider the implications of this. There is no duty to retreat before using lethal force in self-defense, if there’s a reasonable fear for your life. But, you’re claiming that a failure to retreat is evidence that there was not a reasonable fear. This is incompatible with no duty to retreat.
Martin was lacking a 550-pound body weight, claws, and fangs. There is no intelligent comparison to be made between a 17-year-old human and a jungle cat. I see why you want to hammer on this analogy, but it’s pretty senseless.
That said, though, you’re right: the immediate, lethal threat is being crunched in between the lion’s jaws. The lion just being nearby is a different level of threat.
If the threat was purely Martin himself, and not the circumstances Zimmerman found himself in, then would Zimmerman be legally justified if he’d pushed Martin off of him, shakily regained his footing, took a few deep breaths, crossed himself, and then fired six more shots into Martin as he lay on the ground?
Correct - which she considers to be an assault, and evidence that Zimmerman had no fear of Martin. Which is silly, because even if Zimmerman wanted to slither away, he would still have to get Martin off him.
Plus the misstatement of fact where she alleged that Zimmerman wrestled Martin to the ground, for which there is no evidence.
And the oddball notion that checking someone for weapons after they attack you and beat your head on the ground shows that you are not afraid of them.