I’m not asking how this statement will be used in court, blah blah blah.
I’m asking people to offer a good explanation for why Zimmerman said what he did, if indeed he shot Martin in self-defense.
Because people had been harping on the fact that Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman wanted to explain that he didn’t know that Martin was unarmed.
Regards,
Shodan
See, that’s a problem for him. Did he assume TM was armed, and was surprised to learn he was not? If he thought he might be armed, why the hell would he start following him?
Wait no longer.
I’ve read that GZ saw a TV interview with TM’s mother in which she specifically said she’d like to see GZ answer three questions. GZ took that at face value and tried to answer them to her directly, and on being rebuffed, at the hearing. The questions were whether he knew that he was unarmed, the fact that he was only 17, and one other thing that I forgot.
I can’t swear to this, but I read it in some reputable media source, IIRC. I could posssibly hunt around for it, but perhaps someone else remembers a source.
I think people are making too much of these things. It’s not impossible that GZ’s claims about the dialogue are incorrect. Amadou Daillo claimed that the police officers who sodomized him said “it’s Giuliani time”, and that turned out to have been lifted from a movie. But Diallo’s basic story was true enough for the jury.
But besides for that, I think people are overconfident about what other people would or wouldn’t say, espcially in unusual situations. I think that the same reasons that might make GZ make up TM saying these things are the same reasons that TM might actually say them, corny as you might think they are. Everyone is being influenced by the same culture.
That still doesn’t make sense.
If a thug beat you up so bad that you had to shoot him to save your life, him being unarmed would be irrelevant. His fists are weapon enough. Your justification for shooting would have all to do with his fists. And so your assumption about him being armed would be irrelevant as well.
“I’m sorry. I didn’t know he was unarmed.” This statement clearly implies that his actions would have been different if he’d known the kid was unarmed. The question is, which action could he have been referring to?
Calling 911 on him? Not likely. Even though he throws hints that Martin is carrying on that call, more vague stuff about him looking weird and up to no good were mentioned first.
Chasing after him? Okay, well then if that’s the case, this suggests Zimmerman went looking for trouble then. Because chasing after a person that you believe is armed is not the behavior of a man that is afraid or conflict-averse. Nor is it the behavior of someone who is thinking rationally. Anyone who is escalating conflict with an armed person is looking a fight
Shooting him dead? This is the simplest explanation. Zimmerman was apologizing for shooting Martin when he made the comment about not knowing he was unarmed, which strongly suggests that he would’ve not pulled the trigger if he’d known upfront he wasn’t dealing with a true threat. Perhaps it means he would’ve tried to defend himself using his hands instead of his gun.
(In the spirit of the forum and thread title, complete and utter WAG speculation to follow: )
If GZ and his council were aware of some evidence/statements/texts/testimony that indicate that GZ pulled out his gun BEFORE any physical altercation, he may have made that statement in an attempt to set up a narrative where he asserts that he had a reason to believe that TM was armed and/or reaching for a gun. If it can be shown that GZ had drawn his weapon without sufficient provocation, it makes it much easier to portray him as the aggressor, and TM as acting in self-defense.
He may have pulled his gun before any physical altercation, then (quite stupidly) attempted to restrain TM from leaving with his other hand, and then a struggle (for the gun?) ensued.
-OR-
Take for instance, a scenario where GZ, in an attempt to detain TM, grabs him and tries to forcibly keep him there (this time, without pulling his gun) to await the arrival of the police. TM, having done nothing wrong, would be in his right at that point to fight off any such physical restraint. After a few punches are thrown by TM, they likely would have ended up rolling around on the ground, with GZ alternating between trying to restrain him from leaving, and trying to shield himself from TM’s efforts to forcibly make GZ let go of him. Even being “pinned” on the bottom of such a grappling altercation does NOT necessarily mean that GZ wasn’t still holding on to TM and not allowing him to leave. In fact, apart from his possible desire to restrain him there until the police arrived, the best method of defense when you’re on the ground with someone on top of you, is to hold on to them as tightly as you can. At this point, the most obvious and effective move for the (untrained in MMA) person on top would be to slam their body up and down, causing the person on the bottom who is holding on to them to be slammed into the ground.
So, at some point in this totally hypothetical scenario, GZ realizes that he’s on the losing end of this altercation that he started, and could have genuinely begun to fear for his life. In his mind, he was still the good guy doing his perceived civic duty to stop a criminal, and even though he’s on the bottom and losing badly, he may still have been holding on to TM, fearing that the beating would only get worse if he let him get up, or hoping that he could hold on long enough for the police to arrive. Either way, at some point he begins to fear for his life, and he manages to draw his weapon, and somewhat understandably from his current state of mind, decides to shoot the “criminal” that has got the best of him, in an effort to “defend” himself.
Yeah, that’s a whole lot of assumptions, but I think the above scenario does a pretty decent job of addressing the possible actions, motivations, and states of mind of both of the parties in the hypothetical.
If something like that did happen, and there were some sort of evidence to support it, GZ would be in need of some greater justification to use deadly force, since he would have been the one in the wrong. In any scenario, laying the ground for him believing that TM was armed would help him provide some greater measure of justification for his actions.
The text messages were brought up briefly at the bond hearing (O’Mara shut it down):
From this exchange it appears he made remarks about a Reverend (Sharpton?) and Tracy Martin, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he also gloated about “beating the rap” or something similar, since he did the same thing on an old MySpace page after that assault incident in 2005.
Yes exactly. And since when is it the default assumption that everyone is armed until proven otherwise? This little statement says a lot of about how Zimmerman sees the world.
Interesting. It certainly sounds like the text messages will be brought up in trial.
I’ve called the police many times over 20 some years and have kept visual contact on the person in question. Martin used the sidewalk which would have taken him through the back of the houses and out of sight of Zimmerman. For Zimmerman keep him in sight he needed to get out of his vehicle. The whole point of a neighborhood watch is just that.
If the timeline is correct then Martin doubled back with the intent to confront Zimmerman. From his girlfriend’s recount it was Martin who initiated contact. Combine that with visual confirmation that he was indeed on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of him it would appear that Martin went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and the result was a violent assault.
I guess since we are in IMHO, you are free to express any unfounded opinion you want. None of that is supported by the facts we know, however.
- Martin is still using illegal drugs despite being suspended from school for using illegal drugs. I would conclude that he exhibits poor judgement.
As far as I know, Zimmerman has not stated that he assumed either way.
Because he was the neighborhood watch guy.
But I don’t think Zimmerman assumed either that Martin was armed, or that he wasn’t. His remark in the apology came later, after there was talk about how Martin was unarmed.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Shooting him dead? This is the simplest explanation. Zimmerman was apologizing for shooting Martin when he made the comment about not knowing he was unarmed, which strongly suggests that he would’ve not pulled the trigger if he’d known upfront he wasn’t dealing with a true threat.
[/QUOTE]
I guess I agree with your point, but I don’t see the relevance. Zimmerman didn’t shoot him because he thought Martin was armed; he shot him (he says) because Martin was bashing his head on the ground.
The reason he mentioned that he didn’t know Martin was unarmed was because people were saying how much worse the shooting was because Martin was unarmed. “You shot him, even though he wasn’t armed!” Zimmerman could have responded, not just “I didn’t know he wasn’t armed” but “I didn’t shoot him because I thought he was armed - I shot him because he was trying to bash my head in” but that’s not the sort of thing you say when you are trying to apologize to the mother of the person you shot.
If anyone does know the source, I would be very interested in seeing the cite.
No, you are correct - it is certainly not impossible. And perhaps I am over-analyzing. But Zimmerman’s version of what was said are the weakest part of his story, IMO, and not least because it is the only part so far that hasn’t been backed up by the evidence.
I can believe Martin sucker punched him, because Zimmerman had a broken nose. I can believe Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head on the ground, because Zimmerman had cuts on the back of his head. I can believe Zimmerman was screaming for help, because somebody was screaming, and the lack of injuries to Martin (apart from the scraped knuckle) and the nature of the injuries to Zimmerman make it pretty clear that it was a very one-sided fight, up to the point where Zimmerman shot. And it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to be screaming for help while you are pounding the snot out of someone. While someone else is pounding the snot out of you, more like.
That’s a good point - Martin was a teenager, and sometimes they get their dialog from some crappy movies. Didn’t Martin’s Facebook account or webpage or something show him as something of a gangsta wannabe?
Regards,
Shodan
I think you’re right. I remember seeing this interview in the news as well. I don’t remember a third question though.
Amadou Diallo was gunned down by the NYPD when he fumbled for his wallet to get his ID card. You’re thinking of Abner Louima.
I don’t understand your point at all. Not even a tiny bit. Martin was found straddling the sidewalk. That is consistent with Zimmerman’s location where he said his head was slammed and where he said he maneuvered off of. It all took place along the edge of the common sidewalk behind the houses.
It was something like NO LIMIT NIGGA. not sure of the spelling. He also sported a fake set of gold teeth (grillz?). I have no idea what to make of it. there was also some reference about hitting a bus driver but surely that would have come to light by now if he had. I don’t think any of this is admissible without connecting it to something else but IANAL.
This is another of those points I don’t follow, like the idea that Zimmerman wasn’t really injured but convinced the police to say he was. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, then it stands to reason that Martin would move relative to where he was when he was bashing Zimmerman’s head (if that is what happened) when Zimmerman got up from under Martin. Plus, what reason would he have to re-arrange the body if he was guilty? If he moved the body, he had only a few seconds to do it. And again, if Martin didn’t really bash his head into the ground, where did Zimmerman get the cuts?
Regards,
Shodan
Except his body was reversed though, right? His feet were near, or on the sidewalk, so his head would have been, what, 6’3" away from the sidewalk. How could Martin have been bashing his head into the sidewalk while he got shot and somehow end up reversed like that? Was he bashing Zimmerman’s head with his feet? Head to toe style?
That’s a good argument to change the insane statue, then.
But certainly not to ignore it and convict Zimmerman anyway.
I suppose the defense would propose that Martin got that way when Zimmerman pushed him off him after shooting him.
It seems pretty easy to visualize - Martin is on top pounding Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoots, Martin rears up in reaction and Zimmerman pushes him off. Martin lands on his back reversed. Then Zimmerman leans over to see if he is alive - and the police arrive.
And again, if he moved the body, why? If they were nowhere near the sidewalk, where did Zimmerman’s head wounds come from?
Regards,
Shodan