Shodan - it’s entirely possible that Martin was just continuing his walk when he ran into Zimmerman who was following him - there is no reason to conclude that he was ‘spoiling for a fight’.
It’s also entirely possible that the ‘punch to the nose’ was a defense tactic - its one my dad taught me along time ago to ‘get away from bullies’ - punch them in the nose.
So - my scenaro that has zimmerman the aggressor and Martin the defendant is simple -
Martin turns to ‘continue his innocent walk’ - encounters Zimmerman who ‘confronts him’ - Martin is already cautious - Zimmerman grabs a sleeve, etc of Martin - Martin responds with the punch - there is scuffle - in which time the positions roll enough to cause the injury to Zimmermans head - at some point, Martin ends up on top - goes to push away - it is at this point that Zimmerman shoots.
Both parties may have reason to yell for help - both parties have reason to ‘fear for life and limb’ - both parties have the right to ‘self defense force’ - except in this scenario - Martin had won and was de-escalating - only to be shot by Zimmerman.
Fits all teh facts that we ‘know’ -
SHould Zimmerman be prosecuted? Absoltuely - this needs a ‘jury of his peers’ to decide if his actions were warranted, etc.
I’m not sure what your point is that is relevant to the one I’m making.
Ah. Then I am not your man. I think Zimmerman is pretty much telling the truth, possibly exaggerating a bit. I find all of the street sign business just so much red herring, and the kind of thing you find whenever you dig into the crooked timber of humanity.
I do think that any plausible scenario has to involve Martin punching Zimmerman and them mutually struggling on the ground with Zimmerman on his back at some point. I just think you can sort of move those pieces around in time depending on which witnesses you believe, and the ordering of the events, how it started, and how you fill the unknown gaps can change the outcome quite a bit.
It is if you want to fit the scenario to the evidence. Ms. Jeantel testified that Martin was “at the back of” the townhouse. If the encounter was at the T, as Zimmerman’s dropped keys and flashlight suggest, as well as some of the witness accounts, then Martin must have gone to Zimmerman, rather than Zimmerman coming to him. In which case, who the aggressor was becomes yet more muddled; if Zimmerman was so bent on capturing Martin, why didn’t he pursue him to the townhouse?
Then at the very least this demonstrates that Martin was not afraid of Zimmerman. Nor does this explain what Martin said to Dee Dee.
It depends on what Martin was “defending” against. According to Dee Dee, the only words spoken by Zimmerman were ‘what are you up to?’ It is not legally (nor, IMO, morally) acceptable to respond to a question like that with a punch in the nose.
Not AFAICT. It does not explain the conversation with Dee Dee, nor is there any evidence that Zimmerman grabbed Martin or that it was ever a question of mutual combat. Again, the one-sidedness of the injuries apart from the gunshot wound indicate that the beating went one-way. And the grass stains seem to indicate that Zimmerman was never on top.
Zimmerman was on the way to the townhouse - or atleast trying to find Martin again - Martin turned from the townhouse to continue walking around ‘talking to his girl’ -
IMHO - who the pursuer was in this case is the one who thought ‘someone was going to get away with something’ - Martin had no ‘obvious’ reason to ‘pursue’ Zimmerman - he may have turned around just to see if this ‘creepy’ person had left the area before he called police (no evidence of this, but it is plausible).
I’m really trying to take your posts seriously and put thought into trying to understand your position, but you’re not really making it easy.
For example:
You say that if you were on the jury you’d convict, but you haven’t been watching the trial closely.
You say that you haven’t been watching the trial closely, but that the state hasn’t proven its case.
You claim that you’re looking at evidence “directly” as the reason for your differing opinion, but can’t point to anything specifically that differs from what the jury has seen or will see.
Or it could be any number of things - including Martin simply checking to see if he was still being followed - He may not, at that point, been ‘afraid’ of Zimmerman - he may have just been being a good citizen as well -
From Dee Dees acount - the phone ‘dropped’ or got disconnected - this could be the moment when Zimmerman ‘grabbed’ Martins arm, etc -
What evidence would there be for a simple arm/wrist grab? Could be that Zimmerman did get in Martins face enought to provoke the first punch without any prior physical contact.
We have zero evidence for WHY the punch was thrown or WHEN during the encoutner - we only know that it was thrown.
In your scenario, sure, though perhaps not in reality. Important to keep those concepts distinct.
But, prior to this, Zimmerman was carrying on a phone conversation with NEN and banging his metal flashlight at the T. After which, he turned on his backup flashlight. It’s hard for me to believe Martin wouldn’t have noticed any of that and thus known where Zimmerman was, and what direction (north) Martin should avoid if he didn’t want to run into Zimmerman.
You’re free to argue that the statement “these assholes always get away” carries an implicit meaning of “therefore, I personally shall prevent this”, rather than being Zimmerman bitching about the police response time or just flapping his gums.
But, arguing that is just as flimsy and subjective as the idea that Martin wanted to impress Ms. Jeantel by fighting a guy, or that his male honor was offended by Zimmerman allegedly asking what he was doing there, or that he felt shame at having run in the first place, and thus wanted to start a fight.
I can see your “these assholes always get away”, and counter with “creepy ass cracker” and “rapist” and such.
In Fowler v. State, 921 So. 2d 708 (Fl DCA 2006), the accused was convicted of second-degree murder after he shot one Samuel Dunbar once in the head, a fatal wound.
The appeals court overturned this conviction. They said:
It’s absolutely untrue that merely pulling a gun and shooting is alone sufficient to trigger the “ill-will” requirement.
Self defense - is enough to turn over the ‘ill will’ component - without self defense - pulling a gun is enough to establish it.
Thats what the jury has to decide here - was it ‘ill will’ or was it ‘self defense’ - if they do not believe ‘self defense’ then the act of pulling the gun would be enough to establish "ill will’ as a component of M2.
I don’t recall ‘rapist’ in any of the conversations with Dee Dee - I will give ‘creepy ass cracker’ as a comment that teenagers make (to other teenagers) - I hold a “neighborhood watch captain” who carries a gun to a higher standard with the “these assholes always get away” along with the other prior comments he has made.
Beyond that - I am simply arguing what was requested - one plausible scenario that has Zimmerman as teh aggressor -
(Nothing personal but there is another thread for speculation about this case. This is the “trial” thread. just sayin’ )
Florida has Grand Juries that can handle situations like this. The State’s Special Prosecutor chose to not send this case to a Grand Jury. She wanted a court trial.
GZ still has the option of asking for a SYG hearing before a judge (no jury for SYG hearing) but I’m not sure if that would have to be held before “this” judge.
You’re right, Ms. Jeantel said that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist, not that Martin told her that. My mistake.
None of those comments can reasonably interpreted as a vow to hunt down and capture Martin, though, and more so than “creepy ass cracker” is a vow to go beat Zimmerman. That’s the point, you can’t reasonably infer intent from either remark.
Fair enough, and I don’t mean to hound you about it, but crafting a scenario is harder than making sure it fits all the evidence, you see.
Nothing except close up video with audio that can be proven to be unedited would do so - how much evidence in any murder trial is objectively proven truth? Almost none; hell, even forensic evidence is often influenced by subjective interpretation and analysis. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t need finders of fact to begin with. Objectively true facts are the sorts of things that are stipulated to and can be summed up in requests of the court to take Judicial Notice and if there are that many there is no trial because there would be no chance of winning. You plead out.
Agreed and agreed - I was only focusing on the ‘event’ itself - the altercation to the death - and was giving Martin the ‘benefit of the doubt’ as to his intentions and using Zimmermans statement to infer his - not letting the ‘suspect’ get away.