First off, we don’t know this. You keep conflating speculation and Zimmerman’s claims with fact. Which is scary pathetic.
Secondly, Martin was not under any obligation to return home. He could’ve been afraid of leading Zimmerman to home where his step-brother was. Or could’ve been convinced that he’d lost the guy running after him, and wanted to stay on the phone with his gf. It doesn’t matter. We have evidence he was afraid enough to run away and the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would be afraid.
The fact that he got killed by Zimmerman is proof his efforts to get away from Zimmerman were unsuccessful. Top that.
Or, and bear with me, the defense argues that Martin was afraid of being identified because he was casing houses and wished to avoid any involvement with police. He became frustrated that his efforts to get away failed and in a fit of rage he attacked Zimmerman. There are a lot of reasons why someone might run that don’t include a fear of assault.
Sure they can. The defense can offer an interpretation of the evidence found at the scene of the crime which includes Zimmerman’s wounds.
Or it suggests that Martin overwhelmed Zimmerman to the point where the latter could not mount an effective defense short of firing his gun.
We have Zimmerman’s wounds which are evidence that he was attacked. If the prosecution wants to argue that Zimmerman’s wounds are self-inflicted then I think they have a tough row to hoe.
So far as I’m concerned we’re already talking about a random dead gunshot victim. I don’t have any emotional attachment to either Zimmerman or Martin. I think it was incredibly stupid for Zimmerman to exit is vehicle but I don’t think that makes him a murderer.
“Uncontested” murder charge? The fact that there IS going to be a trial is a pretty good indicator the the 2nd degree murder charge is being “contested”.
The big question, or only question, would be whether the jury will believe that GZ’s life was in imminent danger at the time TM was shot? Can the prosecutor prove that GZ did not/could not believe his life was in imminent danger at the time TM was shot?? Can the prosecutor prove that GZ wasn’t in imminent danger at the time TM was shot?
According to FLA law -
*776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013*.
Neither GZ or TM did anything illegal up until the moment one of them started the fight. GZ states that TM began punching him. No 3rd party can testify that GZ started the fight. No 3rd party witnessed the struggle for GZ’s firearm.
If GZ had reason to believe that his life was in imminent danger, FLA law says he can use lethal force to protect his life.
That “proof” is disputed. TM certainly had the time to get far away from whomever was watching/following him. And yet, minutes later there he was, within yards of where GZ had lost sight of him. There are questions as to how he got there. Was he hiding? Did he run to where his father was staying and then return? Does it actually take him minutes to travel 50+ yards and back?
It’s not speculation. This is the location Martin gave to Dee Dee. He even verifies it by saying it’s the reason he doesn’t have to run. He’s already there. The meaning of the statement could not be any clearer.
this is not logical, he’s lost sight of Zimmerman. Open door. Close Door. Done.
Based on his behavior there is no sign Martin was afraid of Zimmerman or he wouldn’t have approached his truck and he wouldn’t have walked back from his house to confront him a 2nd time. There is no other way he could have gotten from his house to where the fight started unless he walked there or was dragged. Do you have evidence he was dragged there? What? No? Then he walked back and based on the evidence confronted Zimmerman. Martin confronted Zimmerman. Went out of his way to do it.
based on the injuries and witnesses it appears that Zimmerman could not get away from Martin. The person who went out of his way to confront him.
We know he said he was there, said he wasn’t running, and said he wasn’t scared, from Deedee’s statement. Unless you have evidence she was lying…
We also know, from the 911 call, that Zimmerman was no longer following Martin at this point.
No, the only obligation he was under was not to attack Zimmerman, unprovoked. The “unprovoked” should be unnecessary, of course, as there’s nothing that can legally provoke such an attack, but you seem to need to be reminded of it.
Now, whilst he may have been afraid (although that’s pure speculation), and it may have been reasonable to be afraid (which is debatable), it remains the case that the witness states he did not run, so your argument fails here.
Zimmerman did not chase, Martin did not run away.
You are ignoring the fact that he stopped trying to get away from Zimmerman, and returned to him. And yes, that is a fact - we know that he was, at one point, home and out of Zimmerman’s sight, we know Zimmerman was no longer following, and we know that they encountered each other again. That is proof he was not trying to get away.
Now, if it does turn out that Deedee was lying, it doesn’t change the fact that Zimmerman stopped chasing, and that he started acting as though he could not see Zimmerman - based on the recorded call to the dispatcher. Martin had escaped.
Yes, right. Do you still think that the right to defend yourself, and the right to stand your ground, are the same thing? They are not.
SYG is not relevant to this case, as Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat.
There is no evidence at all that Martin was casing houses or doing any other criminal act. I know he was a black kid and all, and thus ipso facto must’ve been a thug, but the defense can’t argue anything that isn’t supported by evidence.
Whether he was afraid of Zimmerman taking him to the cops or he was afraid of Zimmerman hurting hm, he was afraid. And he had every right to be afraid as most normal people would have frightened too. Zimmerman knew the kid was trying to get away from him and had had the necessary training to know following suspects was inadvisible, but that doesn’t stop him from further provoking the situation by exiting his truck to chase the kid down.
For the 100th time, this will require that Zimmerman takes the stand.
The state won’t have to argue anything about Zimmerman’s wounds, as they are immaterial to proving murder.
This isn’t answering my question. If a random person were found dead with a bullet in his/her chest but no other injuries, would be assuming that they must have overpowered their killer, provoking them to shoot in self-defense? What if the killer was an unarmed 150-lb woman and the killer was a 200-lb man?
We do have evidence he was doing that, although it’s not very strong. Zimmerman’s 911 call. Not that it matters what he was doing.
Nonsense. The only evidence we have of Martin’s state of mind shows that he was not afraid - although he arguably should have been.
No it won’t.
The second self defence is introduced, they become exceedingly material. They will either have to prove that the wounds are unconnected with the fight, or that they could not lead Zimmerman to be in such a state of reasonable fear that he is allowed to kill.
That has nothing to do with this case. We are not talking about a random person having been killed, but a specific person having been killed, where the killer is known, and who’s explanation of why he killed is on record, and matches the physical evidence and witness statements. And, if true, makes the killing legal.
Your hypothetical, like so much of what you post here, is an irrelevant attempt to hide the fact that your posts mostly contain lies, ignorance, and a multitude of things that have nothing to do with the case.
You need to focus on what the law says, and what the evidence shows, not your ridiculous counterfactual speculation.
It’s not uncontested, Zimmerman pled not guilty.
The State of Florida is not the finder of fact.
By your reasoning, no innocent person has ever been charged with a crime.
I suppose they could be counting on the defense to not introduce evidence of Zimmerman’s wounds, but that seems unlikely. The prosecution will have to account for Zimmerman’s wounds.
A fact Zimmerman could not have known at the time. That is a reasonable inference.
No, that’s not battery.
Zimmerman hasn’t been charged with battery. By your reasoning, this means evidence must not exist that he committed battery.
You account (and the NEN call) has Martin fleeing. And yet, the confrontation occurs minutes later and yards away from Zimmerman’s vehicle. How can the prosecution explain a chase that goes nowhere for minutes on end?
Also, as has been pointed out, DeeDee’s account is evidence of Martin returning to Zimmerman.
This all goes to discredit your narrative of Zimmerman hunting down Martin.
The dropped cell phone and flashlight tell us where the encounter happened. The timestamps and later 911 calls tell us the elapsed time.
By virtue of Zimmerman moving about in order to avoid a beating. Perhaps you have confused the inside-the-hip carry position with the less common small-of-the-back position.
My arm has an elbow, and I bet Zimmerman’s does too.
Speaking of mental gymnastics…
You maintain both that a) Martin didn’t cause Zimmerman’s injuries, and b) Martin was provoked by Zimmerman into physically protecting himself.
Stop being a jerk here, Steophan. People are making up stuff BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION DOES. We’re speculating on what the evidence might be.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that we don’t have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That’s already a given. No one contests that. But you have to come up with why the prosecution thinks they can possibly make a case for Murder 2. And, yes, that means making up shit.
Your job is the harder one, I’ll admit. You have to make up what they came up with, and then disprove it. And it’s hard as heck to make both plausible without them seeming like a strawman. But the position you decided to take when you decided to get involved in this thread.
Several people, including ywtf, are, indeed, claiming that Zimmerman will be convicted using the evidence that has been publicly released.
I think the prosecution knows, definitively, that they cannot possibly make a case for Murder 2. They charged Zimmerman as a sop to the inflamed black community, and not because they thought they could actually convict him.
I’m basing my argument, like everyone should be, on the evidence available. Don’t forget, there’s only a tiny amount of things that the prosecution could theoretically use as evidence without releasing to the public in advance.
Plenty of people are contesting it, that’s my problem. They should not be making shit up, then claiming it’s evidence.
Nonsense. It’s remarkably easy to see from the evidence that Zimmerman was acting in self defence. What evidence, that would be admissible, that isn’t currently in the public domain, would change that?
His lawyers have not moved to have the case dismissed due to insufficient evidence, which means they concede the state has probable cause for 2nd degree murder.
They are under no obligation to account for Zimmerman’s wounds. Murder defendants often have wounds on their body. These things don’t matter to the prosecution if the wounds are irrelevant to the elements of the crime in question. In Zimmerman’s case they are irrelevant.
This is like arguing that there was some law of nature that precluded Zimmerman from hanging up with NEN and continuing his pursuit of the kid until he found him.
We know that Martin, at one point in the night, ran away from Zimmerman. The prosecution does not need to explain how Zimmerman eventually caught up with him, just like the prosecution didn’t need to explain what route OJ took to Nicole’s house that night. A There was no need for the prosecution to prove which streets Scott Peterson took when traveling to the site where he killed his wife either. These details are not essential to proving that Zimmerman killed Martin unlawfully.
No it isn’t. Her statement says nothing about him moving to confront Zimmerman.
From what I’ve read, both Martin’s cell phone and Zimmerman’s inoperative flashlight were found south of Martin’s body. So I guess that means the fight started no where near the T, huh?. Only the keyfob flashlight and keys (objects that Zimmerman never were mentioned in any of his accounts) were found near the T.
Zimmerman claimed the kid was leaning on top of him and that he was flat on his back. For him to have been capable of pulling out his gun, he would’ve needed to sit up. Having the ability to not only sit up but also effectively put Martin in a wrist lock belies his claim that Martin posed an imminent threat to him.
You can not fanwack a scenario in which Zimmerman could have been capable of pulling out his gun without simultaneously rendering Zimmerman’s story false.
I never said a). I said that there is no evidence that Martin caused Zimmerman’s injuries that exists outside of Zimmerman’s idiotic claims. Someone asked how the prosecution could prove that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear, and I explained how the prosecution could do that. Provocation greatly lowers the bar to prove a defendant lacked reasonable fear.
False. It may be evidence of that, but it doesn’t prove it.
False. The wounds are evidence that it was self defence. The prosecution must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was not self defence, and so must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Martin did not inflict the wounds.
They can’t.
That may be the worst analogy you’ve used yet.
We neither know that Martin ran away - indeed, all the witnesses say he didn’t - nor that Zimmerman caught up with him - indeed, the circumstantial evidence makes it look like the opposite is true.
Her statement says he was nowhere near Zimmerman at the time Zimmerman stopped looking for him. Therefore, it’s evidence that Martin is the one who went out hunting.
Yes, we are all well aware that Zimmerman was capable of movement after being punched.
Wrong on both counts. If Martin was on top of him, he was an imminent danger, and we know Zimmerman got his gun whilst Martin was on top. Being incapable of escape doesn’t mean being incapable of all movement.
Why would you imagine someone couldn’t reach their side whilst being on their back?
Firstly, this is false, as I’ve just shown. Secondly, rendering Zimmerman’s story false does not prove anything else true, so won’t lead to him being convicted, no matter how much you’d like to think so.
There is evidence. There are the witnesses that saw them fighting, there is the injury to Martin’s hand, and there is the fact that no-one else could have caused them. This is not, of course, proof beyond reasonable doubt that Martin caused the injuries, but that is not required.
Who provoked the fight in the first place has no bearing on whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear at the time he shot Martin. Firstly, there is no level of provocation that allows you to punch someone in the face. Secondly, even if Zimmerman started (not provoked Martin to start) the fight, if he was unable to escape he would still have been entitled to shoot Martin.
So, even with your false claims added in, Zimmerman is still not guilty of murder.
Let me make it clear for you. Even if Zimmerman hunted down Martin and provoked a fight with him, he was still entitled to defend himself if Martin left him no opportunity to escape, and the burden is on the state to prove that he had that opportunity.
How do you see them proving Martin was not on top of Zimmerman at the time the shot was fired?
Earlier in the thread, Bricker wrote that this could be done only after the prosecution presented its case.
Also, probable cause /= beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they fail to account for them, the wounds constitute reasonable doubt on their own.
Found him yards away, but minutes away? What kind of pursuit is that?
Whether, and how, Zimmerman caught up with Martin is not a detail. Remember a page ago, when you wrote about the elements of the charge? There’s no ill will, depraved mind, or reckless disregard for life if it was Martin who came to and attacked Zimmerman. The state must prove that this didn’t happen, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Comparing this to hypothetical or unrelated cases serves nothing. Simpson didn’t claim self-defense, he claimed that he was never at the scene. Peterson didn’t claim self-defense, he claimed that Laci disappeared.
If the defense can put forward a scintilla of evidence of self-defense, the state must prove that self-defense wasn’t justified beyond a reasonable doubt.
It places Martin at the townhouse he was staying at, far from where the shooting occured. Zimmerman didn’t come to Martin, or that’s where the confrontation would have occured. Unless Zimmerman dragged or teleported Martin to him, this means Martin moved to Zimmerman.
Ah, I stand corrected. Zimmerman’s keys and flashlight were found at the T. This suggests that the confrontation began there.
No, he’d need to raise his right hip about an inch and a half, or roll over slightly. Neither of which constitutes escaping from Martin.
Clearly you’ve never wrestled or fought. Or carried a pistol.
Well, there are witness statements that place Martin atop Zimmerman, and a lack of any other plausible explanation for Zimmerman’s wounds. And if the prosecution argues that Zimmerman provoked Martin into fighting him, as you suggest, that naturally involves conceding that it was Martin who injured Zimmerman.
This is crucial. you with the face seems to believe that if any part of Zimmerman’s story can be disputed, then he’s guilty of murder. This has the burden of proof backward, again. She writes as though Martin were on trial for assault, and Zimmerman were the state, and seeks to overcome reasonable doubt for Martin rather than Zimmerman.
Both. The state must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. That is, his fear must have been real – he actually felt it – and reasonable. For example, a person who claimed to use lethal force against a threat of a voodoo curse would not be entitled to a claim of self-defense.
(There is a doctrine of “imperfect self-defense” available in some jurisdictions which reduces (but does not erase) the criminal liability for some who unreasonably but honestly believes he faces a fatal threat.)
Because the state can show he didn’t have reasonable fear, based solely on the actions he took that night. They can also show he forfeited self-defense by aggressing the conflict and failing to retreat when he could have.
The prosecution does not have to explain how Zimmerman got his injuries. Do you disagree with this?