Zimmerman approached Martin, who was innocent as far as Zimmerman knew, in a hostile fashion, despite Zimmerman knowing police were en route. This much is undisputed unless one wants to quibble about “hostile fashion.”
Is it odd for a small man to approach a large strong-looking stranger in a way likely to provoke physical violence? Perhaps not if the smaller man is carrying a lethal weapon.
Let’s stipulate that Martin now bloodied the Zimmerman nose. Zimmerman responded by shooting Martin dead.
I’m not introduced in your opinion of the law here, Bricker. I’m curious if you’re willing to offer a moral opinion about any of the players in this incident.
You can use prior inconsistent statements to impeach the credibility of a witness. And you can (as you were once not allowed to do) impeach the credibility of your own witnesses (i.e., witnesses called by the prosecution). Fed. R. Evid. 613.
Notice that this goes to the credibility of the witness, not as substantive evidence of the matter therein asserted. Were these statements offered as such, they would be inadmissible hearsay. (There are also party admissions, but Dad is not a party.)
Here’s the opportunity for mischief: counsel calls as witnesses parties he/she knows will not testify helpfully at trial, such as the accused’s father. Counsel asks Dad, “Did X take place on that fateful night?” where X is what Dad said on TV, but which is inconsistent with the accused’s testimony and Dad’s testimony at trial. Dad denies it. Then counsel impeaches with the prior inconsistent statement.
This is called a subterfuge, as it has allowed counsel to introduce otherwise inadmissible statements by calling a witness only for the purposes of impeachment (this is why, formerly, you were not allowed to impeach your own witness). It is generally forbidden.
The issues we have with this case is more media related. Information have been contradictory.
From what I understand, the neighborhood Zim patrolled had seen an increase in crime statistics from young black men. Presuming this nugget of info is true (cant say either way), I can see Zimmermans suspicions in following the young man. Remember, this wasnt the 14 y/o in the picture, this was a 6’2" male.
I believe Zim suspected the young man because he was a black young man (Possibly matching previous information from the statistics). So I do believe race was an issue. Following after Martin, after Zim was “advised” not too, was a bad decision, but not one that was against the law.
The info I have read also seemed to indicate that after the confrontation, Zim went back to his vehicle, losing sight of Martin for a short period. Martin then showed up confronting Zim and demanding to know why he was following him.
It was then when Martin bloodied Zims nose, then after knocking him down, slamming his head against the ground. Injuries sustained to the back of Zims head, and grass stains seems to be physical evidence to corroborate this. I believe it was the UPI that reported that a witness saw Martin on top of Zim at this point.
It was at this point Zim pulled his gun killing the young man.
Is this what happened? Who knows. But the injuries sustained by Zim seems to indicate assault.
Morally I would say that Zim should have never confronted the young man. Additionally, the young man should have never returned in aggression.
Yes, they can be subpoenaed, but Zimmerman’s statements to them would be hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted. They would not be hearsay if offered for some other reason, such as to show Zimmerman’s state of mind or explain why Zimmerman took a particular action.
Yes, I’d like to quibble about it. Does hostile fashion mean he asked him, “What are you doing in this neighborhood?” in a snooty tone of voice? Or does it mean he grabbed Martin’s arms and said, “You’re not going anywhere, punk; just give me a reason to blow you away!”
If you give me a complete set of facts, I’ll give you my moral opinion about the players in that set of facts.
I have no moral opinion about this set of facts; I have no idea what “hostile fashion” means.
No, that’s OK. Remember, hearsay is a statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. His prior inconsistent statements (if they are inconsistent) can be introduced to impeach his credibility, and his prior consistent statements can be introduced to bolster his credibility.
Not Dad’s credibility though, I don’t think. Or rather, you can’t call Dad as a witness to get him to say “Whatever George said on the stand, that’s what he told me.” so that you can impeach him and then bring in his otherwise inadmissible TV statement.
Correct. There’s a good-faith requirement to impeaching your own witness. You can impeach your own witness if it turns out he’s harpooned your case, but you can’t call a witness knowing you’re going to impeach him with what would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay. (And of course as always you can’t impeach on collateral matters with extrinsic evidence, but we assume here that none of the issues will be collateral).
Actually the story is that MArtin approached Z’man in a hostile fashion when he was on his way back to the truck. It may not be true but we do not know who approached who.
However, I think it was CNN that released a cleaned up video of Zim arriving for booking and it was clear he had injuries to the occipital region of his head and scalp.
If I were walking alone at night and a stranger approached to ask me what I was doing, I might call that “hostile.” Certainly I have enough experience to know that sudden violence might be imminent.
But the bottom line is: Two strangers tangled. The one without a gun is dead now and can’t tell his side of the story. Whether Zimmerman is “good” or “bad” there probably would have been no violence at all if he weren’t fortified with a gun. I hope that most Americans who “approve of widespread gun ownership” acknowledge that this application seems to go too far.
No, it was not clear. At best, the altered photo show a smudge on GZ’s head. There is no way to determine if it was an injury, a grass stain, or a photograpic artifact unrelated to the scuffle.
Then I agree. If Zimmerman already had his gun in hand, brandishing it as he approached Martin, then Martin was legally entitled to use force and Zimmerman is easily on the hook for at least manslaughter if not second degree murder.
ER… Did Zimmerman have the gun already brandished?
I don’t know. I hope it can be determined at trial. It seems marginally plausible if he wanted to apprehend the suspect (assuming he thought he had a right to make a citizen’s arrest), at which point Martin may have resisted. That said, there are other ways in which he could have been hostile that may have meant he initiated the aggression without using the firearm. I can’t claim that scenario as more likely than Martin initiating force based on the minimal data I’ve read in the threads so far though.
No, they are not. They are a reponse to cases in which people are forced into a violent confrontation against their will, react in an instant, and then go bankrupt defending themselves in court. The immediate cause was a widely-publicized case of an old man put on trial for defending himself.
It may or may not be a bad law, but the *intent *was to eliminate those kinds of situations. As the senator who sponsored it says: