That’s what we were discussing in Zimmerman’s apology, which appears to be in response to questions from Martin’s mother. He said that he didn’t know Martin was unarmed, because Martin’s mother apparently asked him that question.
So yes, Zimmerman thought about the fact that Martin was unarmed, after he found out that Martin was unarmed and the media articles mentioning it multiple times as a reason why the shooting was so reprehensible.
Sure, after the fact at least. There is no indication that he thought Martin was armed. Otherwise, he may have mentioned it in the 911 calls, just as he did his (apparently accurate) assessment that Martin was a drug user. And if he thought Martin was armed, I wonder why he approached Martin with his hands empty. If I were approaching someone who was armed, I would be sure I had the drop on him.
I am going to need a cite from the Neighborhood Watch guidelines that were in effect in Zimmerman’s neighborhood, and some indication that they are rules to be followed and not suggestions. It is rather like the 911 operator telling Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that” - not the same thing as “I order you not to do that”. I would like to see, in other words, that the neighborhood watch guidelines for that neighborhood impose some duty of obedience on Zimmerman, and that they state clearly that Zimmerman is not to communicate with suspicious people in any way, but merely observe.
Besides, isn’t that what Zimmerman was doing (if his story is accurate)? He was following Martin, lost him, and then either he saw Martin or Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman and Martin initiated the conversation.
So if you got, I would like to see a cite for the neighborhood watch guidelines for Zimmerman’s neighborhood, and some indication, like a signature, that they had been communicated to Zimmerman and that he agreed to be bound by them.
The pictures don’t include the surface that played a part in the lacerations.
I think that is why the position of M’s body is related to the back of Z’s head.
Those lacerations, as small as they are, could be caused by a number of things. Head-bashing on a concrete sidewalk is one. But they are also consistent with an incidental injury incurred after being knocked on the ground by a punch in the nose. Or one incurred while scuffling on the grass, trying to restrain someone against their will.
If the police corroborate Tracy Martin’s statement that the body was found where he says they found it, then it does not square with a story involving head-bashing on the sidewalk (with Martin straddling Zimmerman at the waist) and instantaneous death/unconsciousness. Either one or the other happened, but not both.
If the body was initially sprawled out and Zimmerman flipped him over to restrain him (as other witnesses report), then that’s above and beyond fucked up. It would show that the guy was more intent on “catching a punk” than saving his life.
If the body wasn’t sprawled out as Witness 6 reports and this is the same witness that saw Martin landing punches MMA style, and the same witness that says Zimmerman was the one screaming, then I have to wonder whether Witness 6 is that reliable.
It seems that Z expressed his concerns about the possibility that M was armed in his call to the PD’s non emergency number.
Whether Z thought M was armed or not, Z probably considered that M could be armed.
Idk for sure that Z considered the possibility that M could be armed while Z was suspecting M. But it is a reasonable thing to do when you’re suspecting a bad guy up to no good who has hand in his waistband.
So, whether or not he decided to go with the assumption that M was armed or with the assumption that M was not armed, it seems reasonable thing for someone in Z’s position that night on the phone to the PD to consider.
Honestly, I would be surprised to find that Z did not consider it.
I would be just as surprised to learn that having considered it, Z declined to reach an operational conclusion.
They have the same strength of influence on Z’s actions in re staying safe as they would have on Z’s action in re changing locations to further observe M.
As such, it’s not relevant to my point whether they were guidelines or suggestions.
If we start with the premise they had enough power to influence Z’s decision to follow M, then they should have enough influence Z’s decision to follow M.
They have to cut both ways or not at all.
So, if we decide that the NHW guidelines don’t have the power to have an impact on Z’s decision to follow M, then we should stick with the line that the NHW guidelines don’t have the weight to influence Z’s decision to follow M.
It doesn’t seem right to use the weight of the guidelines to explain Z decision making when the guideline indicate a different course of action from what Z chose.
Either they have weight and are meaningful in re his decision to follow Z or they do not.
But it’s not that they do and do not have that weight.
If the guideline impose no duty of obedience, then they cannot be used as the reason why Z chose to follow M.
They either impose something or they do not.
But they can’t impose the duty or justification to follow M and not impose a similar duty to follow the guidelines.
Even if he did die instantly on being shot, he was on top of Zimmerman at that point, and Zimmerman would have had to move him. There’s no reason to assume the place the body was found is the place he died, absent a witness statement to that effect.
I’m not assuming it. I’m still waiting to hear from Zimmerman what happened.
If Zimmerman says that Martin was found right where he fell, never to move again and he says that he didn’t flip him over, THEN that would be suspicious to me. I’m already not understanding how Martin could slip off of Zimmerman and fall on his stomach with his hands underneath him (seems like he would have fallen back, with his arms sprawled outward.) But I really don’t understand how Martin could have done this and also oriented himself in the opposite position that you’d expect him to be. If Martin had been banging Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk, you’d expect the kid’s head to be near the sidewalk. Not his feet. (This is also assuming that only Zimmerman’s head was on the sidewalk, with the rest of his body on the grass).
So it rests on what Zimmerman said that night. If Zimmerman allows for some flailing and flip-flopping, this is not an issue. But if Zimmerman says anything like, “After I shot him, he said ‘You got me!’ and fell to the side like a ton of bricks. I didn’t move him at all since I knew the police were coming, but I knew he was dead” then I’m going to be saying “WTF!” I will want to know how Martin came to be positioned in a way that does not jibe with the other claims in the story.
Probably you should ask “Honesty” that question since he brought up the issue of the DUI cutoff.
From a legal perspective, I would say it goes to Zimmerman’s state of mind. To illustrate, imagine that before going out that night, Zimmerman had put a message on his facebook page that he was hoping to kill a punk that night. The prosecution would be entitled to introduce such a statement into evidence to show that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and therefore the jury should be skeptical of his testimony that Martin initiated the violence between them.
By contrast, if it turns out that Martin was high, it corroborates and bolsters Zimmerman’s claim that he had a legitimate reason to initiate the encounter with Martin.
Of course, the THC is also important from an emotional perspective, since the prosecution would like to be able to portray Martin as a sweet innocent angel.
No it doesn’t. Zimmerman has never had a legitimate claim to initiate contact with Martin. Martin was in a place where he had a right to be and wasn’t commiting a crime.
So I was mistaken about the knee in the back. But my point stands that Cutcher and her roommate did not see a “sprawled out” Martin, but a face-down Martin. And that Zimmerman had been “restraining” him in this position.
You are oddly quiet about Witness 6, Terr. How do you explain the discrepancy between what he saw and what other witnesses saw? How do you decide which one to believe?
I’ve given the advice before in GQ threads, but what I would do immediately after killing someone in self defense is put the gun out of my hands so that there is no chance police shoot me when they arrive, and I would repeatedly state “I shot him in self defense, I feared for my life.” (The second part Zimmerman didn’t say.)
Of course my standard advice in such situations is that is all you say, any further interactions with police I’d demand counsel be present.
I think a sidewalk is a more credible place to get lacerations than grass. Seems to me if you want to explore every possible angle of how the lacerations were obtained, you should do the same for how witness could be mistaken about how they interpret what they saw. Eyewitnesses are notoriously easy to discredit, and it was dark, after all. And there is no reason to assume he died or became unconscious instantaneously.
Huh? What discrepancy? Witness 6 saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. He was looking from 10 yards away. Not one other witness definitively contradicts this. One, I think, claims that they saw a “wider man” on top - it will be so much fun when defense in response dims the lights in the courtroom, puts up Zimmerman 100 feet away next to someone with Martin’s weight/height, and asks the witness which one is “wider”.
Let me ask you this: Which is better for the prosecution: (1) Zimmerman approached Martin because he (Zimmerman) was hoping for a fight ; or (2) Zimmerman approached Martin because Martin was acting suspiciously.
Or let me put the question a different way:
Suppose it turns out that Martin really was acting as if he was high on drugs when Zimmerman made his report to the authorities. Does that help the prosecution or hurt the prosecution?
There are people who have neurological conditions that could make them look drugged and scary. Hell, one could easily surmise from Zimmerman’s prescription drug regime that he has such a condition. You could easily flip this picture around and say that Zimmerman may have fit the profile of a suspicious figure based on the drugs floating in his system (and underlying psychiatric symptoms these drugs are supposed to treat), and that Martin had a legitimate reason to believe he was being confronted by a scary person. A scary person with a gun, no less. The defense REALLY does not want to go down this path. It’s lined with primrose and will bite Zimmerman in the behind.
Zimmerman is not a police officer trained to spot drugged-out individuals. So he had no legitimate reason to do anything but put in a call to the police and watch Martin from a safe, non-confrontational distance.