Dr. Valerie Rao is kicking O’Mara’s butt. He just can’t shake her opinion that George had trivial injuries.
It’s possible…
The prosecution seems to think that all it needs to do is create a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn’t defending his self and it will win.
You agree.
I ask:
I’m not surprised. If you believe that the second an armed person has a gun in hand, he should no longer have been in fear of his life, it will be very difficult to imagine a scenario in which self-defense wins when that armed person faces an unarmed person.
And yet, the caselaw is replete with examples where self-defense is found when an armed person shoots an unarmed person.
So in light of that, I invite you to consider that your personal concept of how “fear” works in self-defense cases may not be accurate.
I think this is the entire point - there is no doubt that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin - the question is if it was ‘justifiable’ as self-defense.
What the prosecuation has done - IMHO -
- proven that Martin did not start it (he was on the phone when the phone went silent) - if hew was going to attack first, ‘most’ people would hang up first
- shown that there was no reason for Zimmerman to get out of the truck for the reasons stated
- shown that Martin had just as much to fear from this ‘stalker’
- shown that Zimmerman’s story does not match eye/ear witness accounts
- shown that Zimmerman’s injuries were not ‘life threatening’ or took as ssevere a ‘beating’ as he stated
- shown that Zimmerman was into MMA ‘atleast enough’ to require treatment for sparring injuries
- shown that until this encounter with Martin - Zimmerman had always let the police do thier job and he stayed in his ‘role’ - this time - perhaps due to taking MMA - he felt like he could do ‘more’.
none of this says he didn’t fear for his life at the end of the encounter - but he did start it.
I assume the Prosecutions case is about done.
(eta - I have only been reviewing the HLN “blog” - there may be points on both side I am not aware of - but based on what I have read from that only - and if I were on the Jury - that is where I stand)
If that’s true, and they haven’t done anything to prove that the fear wasn’t reasonable, they have no case.
Bricker, is the standard or threshold of reasonable fear the same for both parties in an altercation, regardless of whether or not only one of them is armed, or has some other type of advantage over the second person?
‘Fear’ is a hard thing to prove - but the evidence so far suggests strongly that Zimmerman’s statement of ‘fear’ does not match the physical evidence that is available from the altercation.
There has to be some standard for “reasonableness” that one can objectively come to on wether or not his ‘fear’ was ‘justified’.
By all accounts, it was a very short scuffle - one from which (other than the gunshot wound) Martin has no signs of being in - this COULD mean that Martin so overwhelmed Zimmerman or it COULD mean that Zimmerman went to take down Martin and got it reversed - and then fired (as he MAY have had the gun already in hand) - putting Martin as the one who feared for his life.
Indeed. However, if both of those are scenarios reasonable people could think the evidence supports, then there is reasonable doubt that he’s guilty. So, the jury should (in the moral and legal sense of “should”) find him not guilty.
I will add that Martin had one sign he’d been in a fight - that is, an injury to his hand consistent with having punched someone.
I may have missed the injury to his (Martin’s Hand) - and overall I agree - there is ‘reasonable doubt’ as to what happened here - but there is little doubt over what started the events.
Events that Zimmerman had ‘no business’ starting - he had not witnessed Martin doing anything other than ‘walking slowly’ - it was not until AFTER Zimmerman started ‘watching’ Martin that he (Martin) changed his behavior.
What difference does that make? Likely nothing in this particular case - ‘Stand your ground’, IMHO, is meant to mean against an attacker - in this case, Zimmerman was the Attacker - no matter who threw the first punch or who ended up starting to lose the fight. And the responsibility (legal and moral) for Martin’s death falls on him - its clearly not Murder 1 (premeditation) it’s questionable for Murder 2 (what I think they have him charged with) - but in my mind, it is without a doubt ‘manslaughter’ and he should do time for it - less we end up with EVERYONE claiming self defense like this (slippery slope, I know).
This is why this case had to come to trial - not for ‘zimmerman or martin’ perse - but for the review of the law itself - because this one is so murky.
Had Martin been on trial for killing Zimmerman “by pounding his head into the ground” - with the same relevant facts before me? I would say Martin was ‘standing his ground’.
(FYI, I have a feeling he will be aquitted simply because there is so much “doubt” as to the events that occured and his “fear” - but I do not think he ‘should’ be given what I stated above)
This isn’t a “Stand Your Ground” case, so that’s not relevant. The point is not whether Martin changed his behaviour in response to Zimmerman, it’s whether that change was legitimate. Based on the evidence we have, we can’t say it was - there is, literally, no evidence that Zimmerman did something to cause the level of imminent fear that would justify Martin defending himself. Following someone, asking them questions, demanding they identify themselves, refusing to identify hisself - any of the things Zimmerman has been accused of - are neither illegal nor justification for a punch in the face.
Basically, if Zimmerman was forced to defend himself, then the sole responsibility for Martin’s death is Martin. He had the option to flee, or to phone the police, or to simply ignore Zimmerman and carry on doing what he was doing, but chose none of them, but instead punched Zimmerman.
The law does not need review. It protects people acting legally, including people being nosey arseholes and pissing people off, to the (large) extent that that’s legal, and does not protect those who want to stop people’s legitimate behaviour with violence. I’m good with that. One should not, legally or morally, be required to walk on eggshells in case someone decides to punch you, one should have every right to defend oneself in that case. If some guilty people go free, well, that’s something society has to accept if we want to be protected ourselves from malicious prosecution. And I have no doubt that this case is a prime example of malicious prosecution.
Legally it makes a great deal of difference who threw the first punch, because that is how legal responsibility is determined. Neither Martin nor Zimmerman violated the law prior to the fight. Martin was legally entitled to do everything he did before the fight - so was Zimmerman.
Zimmerman did not incur any legal responsibility by following Martin for the period he did, nor for finding his actions suspicious, nor for calling the NEN number and arranging to meet the cops, nor for getting out of his truck, nor for carrying a weapon. All of these were entirely legal actions. The evidence indicates that the first illegal action was by Martin, when he punched Zimmerman in the face, knocked him down, and began pounding his head on the pavement. That was illegal.
Regards,
Shodan
You;re correct - this is not “stand your ground” - it is “self defense” - but I disagree that a claim of self defense should automatically apply IF you were the one that started the altercation.
Just as much as Martin could have ignored Zimmerman - Zimmerman could have ignored Martin (as he had done all the times before) instead of approaching him since he had no real reason to do so.
Had Zimmerman approached Martin and identified himself as a ‘member of the neighborhood watch’, etc - offered to help Martin if he was lost (he could have been) etc - then everything else you say is true.
Basically - this boils down to communication and people already living on ‘eggshells’ - no one talks - everyone assumes the worst -
Zimmerman assuming Martin was an ‘[expletive] punk who always gets away with it.’
Martin with his “creepy cracker” assumption that Zimmerman was stalking him - which, in fact - HE WAS.
Given those two assumptions - who was in the ‘defensive’ frame of mind here?
Facts not in evidence - we only know that Martin punched Zimmerman - we do not know what caused that punch to be thrown - it could have been Zimmerman ‘grabbing’ or otherwise getting in the face of Martin. We only have the ‘survivors’ statement as to that first punch.
You’re right. Could have been Martians, too.
Yes.
Well, no - we have the physical evidence that Martin was the only one who threw a punch or inflicted any damage. And I wouldn’t start talking about “facts not in evidence” and then mention something for which there is no evidence, like Zimmerman grabbing Martin. There is no evidence of this.
Regards,
Shodan
First of all, “stalking” is a word with meaning, and doesn’t apply to this case (unless you think Zimmerman had been following Martin for days), so everyone should stop using it. Secondly, your claim that Zimmerman approached Martin should not be presented as fact based on the evidence we’ve heard so far, and indeed at least one reasonable interpretation of the evidence - that Martin had returned to the house he was staying in before going back to the T - contradicts it.
IF Zimmerman started the altercation, and IF Martin’s use of force was legitimate*, and IF Zimmerman had another way to escape the fight apart from lethal force; OR was not in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, he was not entitled to shoot Martin. Otherwise he was. The prosecution will have to prove either the first three, or the fourth, beyond reasonable doubt.
*This part is probably debatable, it may be the case that if, for example, Zimmerman grabbed Martin’s sleeve, and Martin then used the level of force that Zimmerman described, Zimmerman would still only be legally allowed to shoot in the circumstances that he was the aggressor - that is, if he had no other means of escape.
Exactly, we do not know, so we cannot infer as to his reason. So, we have not proved that Zimmerman was the aggressor. If he was not (proven to be) the aggressor, he had no duty to retreat.
Neither, of course, did Martin, before anyone brings that up. It would have been the most sensible option, for both parties, to avoid each other entirely, but not taking the most sensible option is not generally illegal, and does not generally reach the standard of recklessness.
Everyone: stalking does not require “days” - the law clearly states:
So the legal concept of stalking is defined by “continuity of purpose”, *not *time period.
Cool. Now please find where “course of conduct” is mentioned in this:
“Any person who willfully, maliciously, and **repeatedly **follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”