The starting of the fight, the failure to attempt to de-escalate it when Martin was yelling for help, and the pulling of the trigger.
I think if Zimmerman put his hands on Martin, and Martin is saying “get off” and “help” while defending himself, and then Zimmerman shoots him, that’s probably enough. But my knowledge is largely based on having watched the oral argument on this motion, and I haven’t read the cases cited by both sides.
Plausible is not enough to charge.
And in your example the words “get off” were heard faintly. That is more supportive of someone being away from the microphone which in this case is Zimmerman.
The starting of the fight, the failure to attempt to de-escalate it when Martin was yelling for help, and the pulling of the trigger.
I think if Zimmerman put his hands on Martin, and Martin is saying “get off” and “help” while defending himself, and then Zimmerman shoots him, that’s probably enough. But my knowledge is largely based on having watched the oral argument on this motion, and I haven’t read the cases cited by both sides.
ETA: To be clear, that’s enough to suggest he could have pulled the trigger out of malice or anger. Not enough to prove that in a court of law. I understood Shodan to be talking about what might have happened that is consistent with the evidence.
What do you understand to be necessary to charge?
That sounds more like “not inconsistent” than “consistent”.
And once you go down that route, anything is possible.
Let me put it this way:
I personally don’t find Jeantel’s testimony to be credible. But that doesn’t mean I know she’s lying. There is genuine uncertainty. There’s also uncertainty over whether, even if she believes what she’s saying, she interpreted what she heard correctly (as Magiver points out).
But she might have. All we really have to say otherwise is very circumstantial and open to debate. And she might be retelling it accurately. And if that’s right, it means Zimmerman is lying or misremembering. At that point, I think you’re pretty close to the account that I laid out (or at least, that account is as consistent with the evidence as any other).
I think that rises well above some kind of metaphysical uncertainty. It creates a fair probability that it went down that way. But we’ll never know for sure, or even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where do you get “anger or malice” from Jeantel’s testimony? That sounds like just speculation that might not be inconsistent with the evidence.
Yes, that is what I was asking for. Not “what can be proven in a court of law” but “what do you think really happened”.
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t get it exclusively from her testimony. What you “get” from her testimony–by which I mean what you could infer happened if you believe her account–is Martin saying “get off,” and a start to the encounter that contradicts Zimmerman’s account of it.
If the encounter was along the lines of Zimmerman approaches Martin, Zimmerman lays hands on Martin, Martin keeps yelling for help, Zimmerman kills Martin, then I don’t think it matters much that Martin punched Zimmerman at some point. It is still plausible that the decision to kill Martin was about anger or malice rather than fear or mistake.
Again though, the point is simply that such a scenario is one of several plausible scenarios.
(Bolding and seperating for clarification purposes)
If you find anything about the trial or the opinions of people following the trial to be startling, I suggest that’s because you aren’t following the trial and don’t require any current information that might change your preconcieved notion that GZ is guilty.
Di Maio testified earlier today that the gunshot was fired from 2-4 inches away from TM’s chest and TM must have been on top of GZ at that time. Di Maio testified that TM’s shirt and hoodie were hanging away from TM’s body when the shot was fired. Also that TM could not have been lying on his back or standing/sitting upright when the shot was fired because the shirt/hoodie and stippling would have looked different.
TM was on top of GZ when the shot was fired. According to Di Maio. In court.
You could also consider Shipping Bao’s testimony but more than an hour has passed since he gave it so it might have changed.
Plausible. But what’s the actual evidence for that?
Yes, I have been asking basically the same question. Among other things I would like to know how their bodies were positioned, according to the prosecution’s theory of the case.
It appears that the prosecution does not have a coherent theory of what exactly happened in the moments leading up to the shooting.
Of course, the big problem with creating such a theory is Zimmerman’s injuries on the front and back of his head. They can’t simply be dismissed by calling Zimmerman a liar or saying that eyewitnesses are mistaken.
I don’t know what “that” refers to in your question.
You may find this discussion on the issue, from Light v. State, 841 So. 2d 623 (Fl. DCA 2003) to be of use:
Your words.
“that the decision to kill Martin was about anger or malice rather than fear or mistake.”
What’s the actual evidence for that (granting that it’s plausible).
The case says it’s equally plausible to infer from the facts in that case a non-murder-2 intent. I agree. I’m not saying otherwise with respect to those facts or the facts of this case. My point is precisely that both factual possibilities exist consistent with the evidence.
All I’m offering is a plausible account of what happened from the viewpoint of those supporting Martin. Even if there’s no evidence at all, either way, about Zimmerman’s depraved mind, the absence of evidence isn’t relevant to this particular navel-gazing because the question is just what factual scenarios are consistent with the evidence. We agree that, as a legal matter, the absence of such evidence is quite fatal to his conviction.
Which is not to say I think there is no evidence. I think some of this evidence, if viewed in favor of Martin and lending him all reasonable inferences, does suggest a depraved mind. In particular, if Martin didn’t sucker punch Zimmerman, and is saying “get off” and screaming for help during a mutual tussle, it is within the bounds of reason to infer that Zimmerman could have ended or de-escalated the fight but instead chose to shoot Martin out of anger or malice. Even under those facts, I wouldn’t call it the most likely possibility. But certainly one reasonably plausible scenario.
The eyewitness testified that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman, beating him up (ok, if you prefer, “making up and down motions with his arms”). The eyewitness called out and asked them to “stop it”. At that point Martin definitely had a way to “end or de-escalate” the fight. There was another guy there, and if Martin stopped and got up, there was no danger to him. But he completely ignored the call to “stop it” and continued with the “up and down motions”. There is your anger or malice.
I find the terms “usually” and “normally” sufficiently vague here - and I ‘appreciated’ the prosecutions argument that Zimmerman “thought” he knew the type of person Martin was - with sufficent ‘recognition’ to call him a “<expletive> punk” that “gets away with it”.
While he may not have personally known Martin prior to the incident - he felt he knew enough about “this punk” that he needed to pursue him.
Secondly - as the prosecutor pointed out in his argument - pulling and pointing a gun is sufficient to satisfy the “ill will” component - even if in self defense - the act of pointing (and pulling trigger of) a gun is ‘ill will’.
Thanks, and I appreciate this. However, what I am hoping for is a “best guess” on what you think actually happened, not merely what is plausible within the evidence. If you don’t know, or haven’t formed any self-consistent scenario, that’s fine - no one is obligated to obsess on the case the way some of us have. (And I do mean ‘us’).
I suppose this could lead us back into the thorny thickets of arguing the case, but it is hard for me to view the evidence of the grass stains and wetness on the back of Zimmerman’s jacket, and the grass stains on Martin’s knees, even in a way favorable to Martin, and conclude that there was ever a moment in the fight when Martin was on the bottom and Zimmerman on the top, and therefore Zimmerman could have de-escalated or ended the fight.
OTOH, I concur that if Martin didn’t punch Zimmerman in the face and/or it was Martin screaming for help, then that would begin to push me in the direction of concluding guilt on the part of Zimmerman. I just cannot come up with a reasonably believable scenario where Martin was screaming for help and didn’t punch Zimmerman in the face.
People scream for help when they are scared. Martin’s actions in returning from “right by” his father’s house and confronting Zimmerman, do not demonstrate fear, but rather that Martin was spoiling for a fight. People don’t scream for help when they are winning. The one-sidedness of the injuries incurred during the fight suggests that Martin was winning. And we have witnesses that it was Zimmerman screaming for help.
Interpreting the evidence in Martin’s favor seems to draw me into oddball theories about Zimmerman hitting himself on the back of the head in the few seconds between the shooting and the arrival of the police, or being able spontaneously to come up with a story that fits all the known facts even before he knew what those facts were going to be. And yet still contradict himself in minor ways, like was he punched once or twice or “up to 25-30 times”.
It’s like a lot of conspiracy theories - it covers everything without explaining anything. Or maybe it’s like a bikini - revealing much that is interesting while covering everything that is essential.
Regards,
Shodan
The prosecutor can say it but that doesn’t mean Florida law agrees with him. The "act of pointing and pulling the trigger of a gun during a “self-defense” situation may be legal assuming an “imminent danger” situation.
The State of Florida, within certain rules, allows it residents to carry firearms for self-defense of themselves and others.