It leads to questions about his judgment. As I explained above.
It demonstrates poor judgment that led to a homicide. The police knew GZ was neighborhood watch, and they told him “we don’t need you to do that”. Neighborhood watch volunteers should not be following someone when they are unsure if they are armed or not. Following does not have to be a crime itself to contribute to culpability.
I found the interview. She made this statement after an earlier statement about the incident being an accident.
Even though I think this could be a plausible explanation for his unarmed comment, I still see it as incriminating. It makes perfect sense for Martin’s mom to see this as extra tragic because her son was unarmed. But it doesn’t make sense for Zimmerman to focus on that detail to the extent that he incorporated it in his apology.
Never mind that he answered untruthfully too. From the start he knew Martin was a teenager. He also had to have known that Martin was unarmed too, at least eventually.
I am glad that I’m not on the jury either. Not because I’m any more biased than you are, but because I wouldn’t want the responsibility. But anyone with two brains cells to rub together knows what to say to get on a jury.
I don’t think my questions are so crazy to be so dismissive.
It’s more of clue into his state of mind. If he thought Martin was armed (and he did as evident from the 911 call…glad you agree) and pursued him anyway, that strongly suggests that he was voluntarily stepping into a situation that he could potentially turn into a gunfight. Which suggests he was ready and willing to put his own weapon into play.
This makes it unlikely he was reaching for his phone when things first got heated. It’s a stretch to believe he went into that conflict without being prepared to whip out his gun the minute Martin resisted.
Um… Yes, if. And if Zimmerman had fragile bone syndrome, that could also explain it. But I haven’t heard the slightest suggestion that he had either fragile bone syndrome or a prior broken nose. So… is this something you’ve heard?
O’Mara said he saw the interview and discussed it with Zimmerman prior to the bond hearing. IMO, it was a strategy by the defense to have Zimmerman respond in that way. It’s not impossible that someone could be remorseful or want to apologize, but there was nothing to indicate remorse on Zimmerman’s website prior to his arrest, and we’ll just have to wait and see what those text messages say.
If that was their idea of good strategy, I really cant wait for this trial to start.
No I haven’t. Just suggesting a way the prosecution could easily take the persuasiveness out of Zimmerman’s injuries in the event his nose has been broken before.
Well, I agree that if his nose had been broken before, you’d be on to something. I’m just not all that sanguine – no blood pun intended – about the chances of that being true.
Yes. I am growing increasingly curious about those messages.
You just don’t want to think that Corey tried to pull this indictment on no evidence whatsoever. I guess we will find out at SYG hearing.
Maybe not, maybe yes. The guy used to be bouncer, so it ain’t out of the realm of possibility.
So in addition to the 711 surveillance video, there’s also video of Martin at the clubhouse.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/17/149214/evidence-released-in-trayvon-martin.html#storylink=cpy
Anyone else intrigued by how technology has figured into this case? Seriously, it gives me goose bumps thinking about it. Multiple video footage, recorded phone conversations from at least 9 different people, text messages, headset phones…it’s insane.
What is there to explain, really?
His injuries were not remarkably extensive for the sort of scuffle he was in. From them, we know that he was struck at least once on the nose, and that his head made contact with the ground in such a way as to produce those two small lacerations.
The one witness who had described Martin repeatedly punching Zimmerman (“MMA style”) amended his statement when questioned further:
The same witness is now also not prepared to assert that it was Zimmerman was calling for help:
But back to the injuries, I still don’t see anything that compelling supports a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, considering:
Syllogisticly, how did Zimmerman come to believe that he was in for more than a simple beating?
A cynical person might think the suffocation stuff was Zimmerman’s way of sealing the deal on his claim about being afraid for his life. But if reports are to believe, it may have had the opposite effect.
I agree on all counts, and I’ve never thought Zimmerman had anything but poor judgment, from very early on. I guess I don’t see where it makes the prosecution case against him stronger, in Florida it isn’t illegal to confront someone on the street unwisely, as long as you don’t antagonize them into a fight or don’t physically start a fight with them you are not committing a crime.
Yes, but none of that is criminal.
I don’t think it makes it more or less likely. In a State like Florida with super liberal firearms laws and ultra liberal self defense laws I don’t think you’ll have great success convincing 12 Floridians selected from a jury pool that just because Zimmerman had a gun and was approaching someone who might have a gun that he was instantly going to turn into a crazed cowboy.
Hell, even remove all that stuff about Florida and its gun laws, you have no actual evidence that Zimmerman pulled his gun first and I seriously doubt you ever will, unless Zimmerman was dumb enough to say that to a third party or such, which means this line of reasoning can’t really be substantiated by evidence sufficient to go BRD on the matter.
I believe Bricker used to be a prosecutor so there’s a bit of the “club” mentality where he probably sincerely hopes that someone isn’t making political decisions out of such an important office. I’ve seen enough cases where that happens to know that prosecutors do make political decisions in their prosecution of criminal cases.
[Standard disclaimer about us not knowing if that is the case here until further developments.]
I’d turn that around. Do you know of any jurisdiction in the United States where a person who is pinned down and unable to escape, and is suffering a physical assault, is precluded from using deadly force to end the assault? I think the assumption in American common law is being beaten with fists and unable to escape or effectively defend yourself hand-to-hand is all the justification you need to shoot someone, because that is a situation that any court would find to put a reasonable person in fear for their life.
You aren’t required to just take a simple beating in the United States, and it’s good policy too, because there’s no such thing as a simple beating. People suffer life-altering TBIs (I know people in permanent minimally conscious states from “simple beatings”), death and etc from beatings. Since it’s unreasonable to expect people to analyze the likelihood the beating they are presently suffering has of inflicting such injuries on them that’s not the sort of standard I imagine any American court would use in analyzing a self defense claim. Obviously situations of “genuine mutual combat”, or in which the person employing the self defense claim was the initial aggressor or in which a huge man is claiming he was pinned by his 105 lb wife and etc can create different levels of believability which would affect the trial results.
Speaking of evidence that was not made public…
The FL law about “confessions” not made public:
[exemption applies to] Any information revealing the substance of a confession of a person arrested is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, until such time as the criminal case is finally determined by adjudication, dismissal, or other final disposition.
Which is a bit of a stretch, calling Zimmerman’s interrogations/interviews “confessions” (and he was not “arrested”) but ok…
But for the texts/videos etc the law says:
All records supplied by a telecommunications company, as defined by s. 364.02, to an agency which contain the name, address, and telephone number of subscribers are confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
Since we saw in the released evidence all the names/addresses etc. blacked out, the same could be done with the telecom records of texts/videos. I wonder if the newspaper lawyers will request that next.