Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Human_Action]

@Zyanthia

Sorry, it read more like a hysterical utterance than hyperbolic counter-example and I was trying to figure that out because nothing you had said so far had seemed so out of left-field.

Thank you for clarifying.

It’s important to understand that Florida law doesn’t remove the right to self-defense from aggressors under certain circumstances. Even if it could be proved that Zimmerman was the aggressor (and it can’t), that doesn’t disprove self defense on its own.

[Shodan]

@Honesty

While it may be painful to read, the best predictor of future behavior is an examination of past behavior.

Do you believe the above is true in general? For instance, would you think that an examination of Martin’s past behavior would assist in deciding if it was possible that he would attack someone who asked him what he was up to?

Zimmerman has a treasure trove to dig through and he’s had the added advantage of fully developed cognition that his victim, sadly, was not old enough to get to.

I think we had this exchange in the past.

If teenagers have poorer cognition and impulse control than adults, then based on that alone, Martin seems the more likely to be the impulsive attacker. If you want to consider their past behavior in deciding who it was, then let’s consider the background of both. And having done that, it seems pretty much a wash. Martin had a history of theft, vandalism, drug use, was interested in violent, macho sports, and had been sent to Florida because his mother couldn’t handle him. He got into trouble before, he got into trouble after. The trouble is, the trouble after had a gun.

It doesn’t bother you (or Data for that matter) that Zimmerman has every incentive in muddying the waters of culpability.

As has been mentioned many times over, this is not the case. Zimmerman defenders are fully aware of his incentive. That is partly why we, or at least I, keep repeating that we will not believe in those parts of Zimmerman’s narrative that are not backed up by the evidence.

Who gets shot and says “You got me” outside a movie or comic book? What Zimmerman alleges is a fantasy, plain and simple, and no jury is going to buy it.

OK, let’s assume that is true. There is no evidence that Martin said any such thing. Therefore, we don’t believe it - no evidence, after all.

So what? What effect should that have on the other parts of his story that are backed up by the evidence? Why should I disbelieve that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face and broke his nose and blackened his eyes? I have no need whatever to rely on Zimmerman to tell me this happened - I can see the medical reports detailing Zimmerman’s broken nose, black eyes, and the mark on Martin’s fist where he struck the blow.

Because of something that also gets repeated (and ignored). The person with an eidetic memory of a stress-filled event like being attacked and killing someone is a rare bird indeed. One is always going to be able to pick holes in the most honest story you can imagine. The important ones are the ones that affect the case.

In no sense does Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense rest on Martin’s having said “You got me” just before he died. Even if one could prove somehow that he didn’t say it, it would make no differeence. It is not material to the claim of self-defense, which rests on other evidence, none of which is evidence for which one needs to take Zimmerman’s word.

So the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin did not say “you got me” after Zimmerman shot him. (Nor can the defense prove that he did, but they don’t have to). Do I think it at all likely that Martin said that? No, I doubt very much that he did. Again, so what?

That has no effect on the other parts of his testimony that are backed up by the evidence.

To put it as baldly as possible, we need not, and should not, believe a word Zimmerman says, unless there is good evidence to do so. The thing is, there is evidence to back every relevant part of his story.

And there is no evidence of any alternate scenario. There is no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin. There is no evidence of Martin being in fear of Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by racial hatred for Martin. There is no evidence of Zimmerman giving Martin any reason to attack him.

There is no evidence of any other version of events besides what Zimmerman has said all along.

The whole idea of the Zimmerman-haters seem to be to keep making stuff up. Telling people that he was on anti-psychotics, misrepresenting the law, denying the evidence that is right there - two hundred pages of “Did not!” without a single piece of credible or direct evidence that Zimmerman did anything except exactly what he said all along - he spotted a suspicious character, who got out of sight, and then came back and attacked him.

Regards,
Shodan

[Condescending_Robot]

It can be, and is, true, both that “racists may still defend themselves against attacks by black people if the criteria for self-defense are otherwise met” and “a racist is probably not an ideal judge of whether a confrontation with a black person should be met with deadly force.” Racists are, by definition, not reasonable judges of the actions of black people. Trying to argue one to disprove the other is at cross-purposes and will prove nothing.

[Condescending_Robot]

@Shodan

OK, let’s assume that is true. There is no evidence that Martin said any such thing. Therefore, we don’t believe it - no evidence, after all.

So what? What effect should that have on the other parts of his story that are backed up by the evidence? Why should I disbelieve that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face and broke his nose and blackened his eyes? I have no need whatever to rely on Zimmerman to tell me this happened - I can see the medical reports detailing Zimmerman’s broken nose, black eyes, and the mark on Martin’s fist where he struck the blow.

Because a liar is a liar. If Zimmerman is lying about any aspect of the incident, I get to ask if he panicked after the shooting, rubbed his jacket on the grass, and whacked himself in the head with the flashlight a few times. The reason to give him the benefit of the doubt ends as soon as he’s caught in a lie, which he has been on multiple occasions.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

That evidence rebuts the claim of self-defense. Zimmerman claims he killed to defend himself but the evidence you mention contradicts that claim, showing that he killed “because I didn’t want anyone to see us.” The state would carry its burden in that instance. It would then be for the jury to decide what they believed – but the record would be legally sufficient.

So here is your chance to describe evidence which is sufficient to prove 2nd degree murder but is not sufficient to disprove self defense. You’ve had a kabillion pages worth of chances to do this, but you can’t.

The text messages that I hypothesized are unambigious pieces of evidence for murder. But they don’t directly tell us whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent harm from Martin’s actions. They don’t address how Zimmerman got the cuts on his head, they don’t address whether Martin verbally threatened him, they don’t prove that Martin didn’t hit first, and they don’t address whether Martin got on top of him and hit his head into concrete.

As it stands, if the State has the minimum evidence needed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin due to ill intent etc (e.g. the kid was yelling and I didn’t want to be seen), then that disproves he killed Martin in self-defense. You’re essentially saying as much with this response, but you don’t want to come out and say that.

[Terr]

@you_with_the_face

The text messages that I hypothesized are unambigious pieces of evidence for murder. But they don’t directly tell us whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent harm from Martin’s actions.

The second fantasy text message shows that he did not have that fear, and that the reason for his shooting Martin was other than fear.

[Human_Action]

@Condescending_Robot

It can be, and is, true, both that “racists may still defend themselves against attacks by black people if the criteria for self-defense are otherwise met” and “a racist is probably not an ideal judge of whether a confrontation with a black person should be met with deadly force.” Racists are, by definition, not reasonable judges of the actions of black people. Trying to argue one to disprove the other is at cross-purposes and will prove nothing.

Then don’t take the racist’s word for it, look at the evidence. You are putting way too much stock in Zimmerman’s statements, and way too little in every other piece of evidence.

(Zimmerman’s racism being an illustrative hypothetical for the purposes of discussion, as evidence for it is rather wanting).

[Shodan]

@Condescending_Robot

Because a liar is a liar. If Zimmerman is lying about any aspect of the incident, I get to ask if he panicked after the shooting, rubbed his jacket on the grass, and whacked himself in the head with the flashlight a few times. The reason to give him the benefit of the doubt ends as soon as he’s caught in a lie, which he has been on multiple occasions.

And the defense gets to ask, “What is your evidence that he did rub his jacket on the grass, pick up Martin’s dying body and rub its knees on the grass, put the mark of a punch on Martin’s knuckle, put Martin’s body back on the ground, whack himself in the back of the head with a flashlight twice, hard enough to gash himself, punch himself in the nose, sprain his own back, convince a witness that he saw Martin sitting on top of him, all in the few seconds in between shooting Martin and the police arriving on the scene?”

So, what is the evidence that this all happened? I agree we need not believe what Zimmerman said without evidence.

What is your basis for believing things he didn’t say, without evidence?

Regards,
Shodan

[Condescending_Robot]

Oh, also:

@Shodan

OK, let’s assume that is true. There is no evidence that Martin said any such thing. Therefore, we don’t believe it - no evidence, after all.

So what? What effect should that have on the other parts of his story that are backed up by the evidence?

There’s good evidence that he probably didn’t say any such thing, since he had just been shot through the lung and heart. Zimmerman is projecting his movie-fantasy version of how people talk onto the real world (more evidence for his superhero/vigilante complex) and also trying to downplay that he was an excellent marksman who shot directly through his target’s heart in one go. He looks more dangerous to the jury if he’s able to just execute people, as opposed to flailing about desperately for a gun while being pummeled. So again, reason to lie, evidence of lying, evidence of delusional character.

[Zyanthia]

So using you with the face’s counter example (except I changed hate crime to forcible felony to match with the instructions):

I chase after someone with the intent to commit a forcible felony against them, they then turn around and start beating me up, and I shoot them.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony.  See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony)

If I’m reading this right, as long as the state charges me with the forcible felony as well as the murder, I am not allowed to use self defense in the first charge.

Of course now the prosecution has two crimes to prove, not jut the one.

[Human_Action]

@Shodan

And the defense gets to ask, “What is your evidence that he did rub his jacket on the grass, pick up Martin’s dying body and rub its knees on the grass, put the mark of a punch on Martin’s knuckle, put Martin’s body back on the ground, whack himself in the back of the head with a flashlight twice, hard enough to gash himself, punch himself in the nose, sprain his own back, convince a witness that he saw Martin sitting on top of him, all in the few seconds in between shooting Martin and the police arriving on the scene?”

So, what is the evidence that this all happened? I agree we need not believe what Zimmerman said without evidence.

What is your basis for believing things he didn’t say, without evidence?

Regards,
Shodan

Also, once he’d gotten his head bleeding, he needs to get some blood on Martin’s clothes. He has a few seconds until Witness 6 returns outside, and he KNOWS that Witness 6 saw them fighting and stepped inside to call 911.

[Magiver]

@Honesty

Whether someone is “suspicious” is entirely subjective, which is precisely why, as a general rule, one should mind their business.

that is not a logical statement to make. Suspicious activity is subjective but the correct thing to do is let the proper authorities handle it. This is what Zimmerman did. It’s not rocket science to observe someone’s behavior and pick up on subtle ques. I gave an example of someone just standing on the sidewalk who I called the police on. I took into consideration the age of the kid, the time of day, and how he was behaving. All this took a few seconds to observe.

@Honesty

For example, if I think white men have a propensity to molest children compared to Asian-Americans, should I start calling 911 every time there’s a white guy walking past an elementary school? What is the white man was on the playground with children? What if he was tickling them? What if he was waiting outside on the steps of the building? What if a white man was outside the school at nigh, while it was raining without an umbrella? The answer is, of course, an emphatic no. Unless you know what’s going on, one should mind one’s business.

lets compare your example to the case at hand. If you knew the man was not related to the children then you should be suspicious of his behavior. Zimmerman knew the owner of the house in question. He also knew it was dark and raining out which makes the combination more suspicious. He was also aware of burglaries that occurred nearby. He was also aware of the descriptions of the suspects who were caught with items stolen from houses nearby.

@Honesty

If Zimmerman minded his business, Trayvon would be living his life and George Zimmerman would not be on trial for first-degree murder. That’s a fact.

If Martin had called the police instead of going back to confront Zimmerman he’d be alive today. The difference is that Zimmerman chose to do the right thing and call the police and Martin chose the wrong thing and assault someone.

Given the conversation between Zimmerman and Martin as relayed by Dee Dee there was no threats that justified what Martin did. He died exactly how his girl friend predicted he would die because of his behavior.

[Stoid]

I’m generally trying to avoid too much debate regarding the specifics, but this post jumped out at me, triggering a few questions.

The post I’m referring to ENDS by saying:

@Human_Action

Almost nothing hinges on what Zimmerman said.

Which made me do this: :eek: :dubious:

Because (again, I haven’t been following all this time, if I get any facts wrong, and it’s a sure bet I will, PLEASE correct me…) my recollection is that just about everything hinges on “what Zimmerman said”. Absent Zimmerman speaking, both on the 911 call before and everything after he killed Martin, evidence for what led to the killing is tissue thin.What little there is doesn’t say much anyway, certainly not much to exonerate Zimmerman. So without “what Zimmerman said” I think it’s a sure bet he’d be convicted of murder in a trial that would last about a day. (Actually he’d probably cop a plea.)

But help me test that belief:

1. No Zimmerman 911 call.
2. No post-killing statements to police or anyone else. He is utterly mute.

What does that leave in terms of evidence (likely admissible, we will leave it to our learned Counselor to let us know if anything is blatantly unlikely to be allowed) and what story does that evidence seem most likely to tell? (I’d also like the Counselor to weigh in on the real world rules about how much spinning each side may do in closing. I believe I know that in opening they may only speak of things for which they have some kind of evidence they plan to present, but they have a little more leeway in closing to spin a tale from what the jury has seen.)

For human witness testimony (see caveats below) outside of experts or other professionals who may take the stand to opine and explain various things, we have:

1. Martin’s girlfriend regarding their call.

2. More than one, fewer than five? people who saw Zimmerman and Martin

3. More than one, fewer than ten? people who heard Zimmerman and Martin

4. More than one, fewer than 5? who both saw and heard Zimmerman and Martin

5. Police statements about what they observed.

6. Medical personnel statements, (I believe they were both at the scene and after, taking care of GZ?)

7. People who knew Zimmerman, and people who knew Martin. (This is where it gets fuzzy about what’s allowed and also what might be argued under this hypothetical scenario)
   My recollection is that physical evidence was sloppily gathered, no doubt because the person who killed Martin was standing in front of them so they probably didn’t feel the need to spend too much time and energy playing CSI:Sanford. But what we have includes the gun, body, photos, video, clothing, autopsy.

We also have 7-11 video, I think, showing Martin making his purchases.

And of course, we have somewhere between seven and ten 911 calls from neighbors, some of which include the sounds of someone screaming for help and the shot.

And I think that’s it.

In considering the value and weight of any witness statements, we all know (don’t we?) that “eyewitness” testimony is shockingly unreliable and extremely vulnerable to various outside influences. If research can be believed, it can be so bad that it’s not simply worthless, it’s actively damaging, especially in funky circumstances like these (night, rain, violence, leading to fear and confusion, followed by lots of media crazy).

My biggest concern is timing in terms of when witness statements were first given in relation to media as well as to things overheard or heard directly from the police or Zimmerman himself. Also, who among the witness, if any, actually knew either of the men makes a difference in the reliability of their statements. So if we know the answers to these things, I think it’s critical to include that and adjust accordingly.

The rest of the **Human Action’s **post (my emphasis):

@Human_Action

..Zimmerman allegedly fired his pistol in response to being pinned and beaten. The evidence supports this account. Not a lot can be “confused” in such a situation, either you’re being pinned and beaten, or you aren’t. If Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin for coming toward him in a sinister fashion, then his judgement might have some bearing. But that’s not what Zimmerman says, and ***that’s not what the evidence indicates. ***

Again, your thought process here is highly suspect:

1. Martin wasn’t doing anything suspicious.
2. Zimmerman reported that he was.
3. Thus, Zimmerman has poor judgement.
4. Thus, Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin in self defense.

Setting aside the tenuous connection between 3 and 4 in this particular case, you can’t prove 1. You can assume it, but that’s of no value.

Almost nothing hinges on what Zimmerman said.

So, anyone want to take a stab at telling us what happened that night using only the evidence as outlined? (The most compelling of which has to be the 911 calls, in my not so humble opinion.)

[Human_Action]

@Condescending_Robot

Oh, also:

There’s good evidence that he probably didn’t say any such thing, since he had just been shot through the lung and heart. Zimmerman is projecting his movie-fantasy version of how people talk onto the real world (more evidence for his superhero/vigilante complex) and also trying to downplay that he was an excellent marksman who shot directly through his target’s heart in one go. He looks more dangerous to the jury if he’s able to just execute people, as opposed to flailing about desperately for a gun while being pummeled. So again, reason to lie, evidence of lying, evidence of delusional character.

Possibilities:

1. Martin did say it, a punctured lung doesn’t make one instantly incapable of speech.

2. Martin didn’t say it, Zimmerman is misremembering (Link is to study on the effects of exertion on recall and recognition. The effects are dramatic), filling in details based on the emotions he recalls.

3. Martin didn’t say it, Zimmerman really did shoot in self defense but wants his case to be as strong as possible.

4. Martin didn’t say it, Zimmerman didn’t really shoot in self defense but thought it up later to explain himself.

How do you prove which it was?

[Shodan]

@Condescending_Robot

There’s good evidence that he probably didn’t say any such thing, since he had just been shot through the lung and heart. Zimmerman is projecting his movie-fantasy version of how people talk onto the real world (more evidence for his superhero/vigilante complex) and also trying to downplay that he was an excellent marksman who shot directly through his target’s heart in one go. He looks more dangerous to the jury if he’s able to just execute people, as opposed to flailing about desperately for a gun while being pummeled. So again, reason to lie, evidence of lying, evidence of delusional character.

So what? What effect should that have on the other parts of his story that are backed up by the evidence?

Also, you consider him an excellent marksman because he could hit Martin from less than eight inches away?

Regards,
Shodan

[Terr]

@Zyanthia

So using you with the face’s counter example (except I changed hate crime to forcible felony to match with the instructions):

I chase after someone with the intent to commit a forcible felony against them, they then turn around and start beating me up, and I shoot them.

If I’m reading this right, as long as the state charges me with the forcible felony as well as the murder, I am not allowed to use self defense in the first charge.

Of course now the prosecution has two crimes to prove, not jut the one.

You forgot the word “independent”. So no, you’re not reading this right.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

Stoid’s hypothetical juror was justified in convicting:

I did not see this post until today. Thank you for giving the Lawyer Guy Stamp of Approval.

The only thing I think Stoid might be a bit off-base on is with respect to what elements the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once the defense has entered even a scintilla of evidence that supports self-defense, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conditions necessary to claim self-defense did not exist.

To be continued…

[Zyanthia]

@Terr

You forgot the word “independent”. So no, you’re not reading this right.

Can you please correct what’s wrong then? I honestly thought that as long as I was charged with both crimes (The murder + Forcible Felony) and the forcible felony was proven, that I could not use self defense in the murder. How am I missing the use of the independent?

[you_with_the_face]

@Human_Action

Setting aside any legal obligations of the state, do you believe that the jury could or would reach a reasonable guilty verdict, even if the state never mentions Zimmerman’s wounds or other evidence that suggests self defense?

Yes, I think they could still secure a guilty verdict. In the hypothetical text messages, I hope you noticed how they are completely silent on the subject of Zimmerman’s injuries. But that didn’t stop you from rightly concluding that this evidence would prove Zimmerman is guilty. Gee, ain’t that something? You were adamant a page or so ago how the State must prove that Martin didn’t hit Zimmerman. Now suddenly, when the evidence for murder suddenly becomes obvious even to you, you abandon that position without even seeming to realize it.

Zimmerman’s injuries were so minor, a juror could reasonably infer that he incurred them in the process of pursuing or fighting Martin. Now, if half of Zimmerman’s brain was exposed and he had a gouged out eyeball, then it would be a lot more difficult for the prosecution to ignore this. But the two nicks on his head and minor scratches on his face do not beg for an explanation above and beyond what is already inarguable: there was a scuffle between the two players. If the State feels that it is necessary to prove there was a physical conflict, then they very well may talk about his injuries. But they don’t have to. There were witnesses who saw and heard a fight. The injuries are not essential to demonstrating that.

That said, if the State never introduces his injuries into the conversation, then I have to assume the defense will raise the subject. If they don’t put Zimmerman on the stand, that means they will have put up witnesses to speak to the injuries they saw on him. Since the defense can’t use hearsay, these witnesses can’t speak on how these injuries came to be if all they can report is what Zimmerman claimed.

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

I’m generally trying to avoid too much debate regarding the specifics, but this post jumped out at me, triggering a few questions.

The post I’m referring to ENDS by saying:
Which made me do this: :eek: :dubious:

I don’t think you got my meaning. I believe Zimmerman should be acquitted, and 0% of that belief is motivated by my taking him at his word as to the events of that night. It all comes from non-Zimmerman evidence, or lack thereof (i.e., inculpatory evidence).

@Stoid

1. No Zimmerman 911 call.

Not sure why you’d exclude that, since it happened in real-time. Unless someone were to allege premeditation, that Zimmerman was planning to kill Martin since the moment he picked up the phone and/or had scripted the call ahead of time, complete with running/wind-noises, to cover himself when he did so, the NEN call isn’t at all the same as his post-shooting statements; it can’t be a distortion to cover up an event that hadn’t happened yet.

@Stoid

So, anyone want to take a stab at telling us what happened that night using only the evidence as outlined? (The most compelling of which has to be the 911 calls, in my not so humble opinion.)

If Zimmerman had, say, gone catatonic after the shooting and I were tasked with sorting out what happened, I would likely conclude:

1. Zimmerman saw Martin, and called police.
2. Zimmerman left his vehicle to follow Martin, who had run off.
3. A fight occured, in which Martin was atop Zimmerman. Zimmerman was wounded about the face and head, Martin only scraped a knuckle.
4. Zimmerman shot Martin.

With all that, I’d conclude that there was insufficient evidence to convict on a murder charge: reasonable doubt exists, as it’s unclear who started the fight, or why, only that a fight occured and left the otherwise-uninjured party dead. That supports either murder or self defense, and thus a not-guilty verdict.