That wasn’t the problem, and if you thinkthat was it, then there’s probably no point in continuing this discussion. I told you what I thought the problem was. Maybe I was wrong, but I don’t think so. You’ve been given advice-- take it or leave it.
The evidence (phone calls[sup]*[/sup], location of the truck, etc.) could either corroborate or contradict Zimmerman’s statement, and reflect on its credibility. There’s also the question of whether Zimmerman’s stated actions make sense. Didn’t he, at one point, claim to be getting out of his truck to look for a street sign? Google street view didn’t show any street signs in the area; and I would expect someone on the neighborhood watch to have noticed that.
And I don’t recall saying that the evidence of Zimmerman as the aggressor went beyond a reasonable doubt. I just disagree with the claim of the OP (and possibly others) that there is no evidence from before the confrontation that is relevant to the case. It may very well not be sufficient to prove it, but that doesn’t mean there’s none at all.
- I thought the call was to 911. Martin Hyde’s timeline says it was to the non-emergency number. My mistake.
You are killing me like Zimmerman over here.
But did any of things do that?
I’ve lived in my neighborhood for over 25 years, and I couldn’t tell you where the street signs are. This is just “reaching”.
If there is some evidence, then present it!
I don’t know, I wasn’t on the jury.
I have not read the whole thread. I am responding only to the OP, I apologize if my points have been covered.
Here’s the legal missing piece, baldly stated: Was Zimmerman the aggressor, either by provocation or directly?
The issue is whether Zimmerman’s behavior could be reasonably perceived by Martin as threatening, and if that was why Martin engaged in a violent altercation with Zimmerman, then it wouldn’t matter if Zimmerman was afraid for his life, because he would be the aggressor. The idea being you can’t provoke someone into self-defensive behavior, then kill them and claim self-defense yourself.
So two questions - Did Zimmerman provoke Martin (by whatever means into whatever act) AND, if Zimmerman was then legitimately and honestly fearing for his life because of Martin’s thus provoked behavior, did he exhaust every available means of escaping or ending the perceived threat to his life before resorting to lethal force, because that is the only way someone an aggressor can escape the act of their being the aggressor and claim self-defense anyway.
From what I understand, and from reading the jury instructions (and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me) Judge Nelson was somehow persuaded to leave out explaining this aspect of self-defense law to the jury. Which I find stunning, and which was guaranteed to make a conviction nearly impossible.
Then aside from this huge issue, there’s simply the fact that many of us would never have concluded that Zimmerman was genuinely afraid for his life, or even had enough doubt about it to stop us from convicting.
Thirdly, the defense did a stunningly bad job of making things clear. They just sucked. If they’d been better…
So, for many people, myself included, it’s not “shoulda convicted him anyway (even though he was really not guilty cuz of the whole self-defense thing)”, it was “shoulda convicted him because he was fucking guilty”.
Not really. This issue is whether the defense presented a case that, beyond a reasonable doubt, established that Zimmerman actually was the aggressor. Not that there might be some conceivable scenario where that could have happened, but whether the defense established that it actually did happen.
They didn’t.
I’m sure their client is happy he wasn’t convicted.
Here’s the problem you have:
A guy’s charged with robbery. He denies the crime. You are absolutely convinced that he’s lying. His explanation of where he was during the robbery is blatantly false, and contradicts itself in several places.
Can you convict him?
No. Even if you disbelieve every word he says, that doesn’t leave you with any positive evidence you can point to. You must, in other words, believe evidence that shows guilt. You can’t prove guilt by disbelieving evidence.
See the problem? Even if you completely disbelieve Zimmerman’s words, the effect of that is to erase his words, not to substitute other words.
Under the law of Florida, the provocation can’t be “by whatever means.” There has to be evidence in front of the jury that would allow them to conclude that Zimmerman provoked by force or threat of force. Not an inference from an inference, mind you – the jury needed to hear some piece of evidence that showed Zimmerman used force or threatened force. There was no such evidence.
The rule is described in Gibbs v State, 789 So.2d 443 (2001).
They got their client acquitted of all charges. Granted, the jury didn’t award him a medal, but under the circumstances, I think the defense did well.
I have to admit, I’ve been emotionally invested in this case from the beginning when I had little but conjecture and lots of zeal and spitfire to back it up. 
But…this and a few of the others posts in this thread seem very reasonable to me.
I understand *why *the jury reached their decision a bit better now.
I have to say, reading through your posts in this thread has been informative, and I appreciate that you have been talking about this rationally and not in a condescending way.
Well, what sort of evidence could there ever be that would override the stand-your-ground defense? Dead men tell no tales. Trayvon Martin is not here to tell us whether he felt Zimmerman’s actions were a threat. No victim ever will be around to testify to that. What if there are witnesses and they disagree; some think a threat was made and some don’t?
If two people are alone, and one of them kills the other, how is this not carte blanche for the survivor to claim he was standing his ground if the only person to contradict him is dead?
The jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight afforded to different pieces (so to speak) of contradictory but credible evidence.
So, if they have five witnesses, two of whom describe a threat and three of whom do not, the jury assesses the credibility of each witness. Then, if there is still contradictory witnesses (and there well may be), the jury decides whose testimony gets greater weight. Who was closer? Who seemed to be more knowledgeable / better historian of the events? Who gave a more detailed account? Who was more forgetful or unclear about what happened? Did one account more fully jibe with the physical evidence than anothers? Etc.
If there were no other witnesses, then you’re right.
If there are witnesses, then the jury is entitled to weigh their credibility and decide who to believe. If six witnesses tell one story and one witness says something different, the jury can disregard the six and believe the one, if they wish. But if there are no witnesses, they cannot create a narrative out of no evidence.
Which is why many people – myself included – are urging a second look at stand-your-ground laws. A better solution is the classic self defense rule, which places the burden on self-defense on the person claiming it: if you kill someone, YOU have to show, by preponderance of the evidence, that you did so for reasons of self-defense.
But that means changing the law for the future. It obviously does NOT mean convicting Zimmerman using a law that didn’t exist when he pulled the trigger.
That’s not quite what I was getting at. What if the witnesses all give a similar account of the events, but disagree on whether it was credibly threatening? Some might say the shooter was making a serious threat, some say that he was kidding, or was too drunk (small, weak, whatever) to realistically carry it out. Seems like the deciding vote belongs to the dead man; did he consider it a genuine threat. No way to know.
What I keep asking, and never receive a reply to, is why Zimmerman’s own admission that he reached into his pocket just prior to receiving the punch by Martin, could not reasonably be considered as evidence of the “threat of force” (i.e., I thought he was reaching for a weapon). Serino makes this claim during the interview (my underline):
There are numerous cases where unarmed people have been shot for making a similar move (most famously perhaps was Amadou Diallo, who was reaching for a wallet). Why was it considered an imminent threat in those cases but not in this one? ISTM the fact that he was actually armed makes it even more compelling.
Reaching into his pocket may be perceived as a “threat of force” and thus sufficient, maybe, IMO, for Martin’s self-defense claim if there was one. But since Zimmerman was not, in fact, reaching for his weapon, the move is definitely not sufficient to make Zimmerman the “aggressor”. Perception is not enough for that.
There is only an indication as far as I’m concerned. And that’s when Trayvon tells DeeDee that he is near his father’s door. But he chooses not to go into the house. I’m thinking if he were truly terrified he would have sought refuge.
Well, the subjective perception of a threat is not hugely in issue.
I mean, technically one must have a subjective perception of a threat coupled with that perception being objectively reasonable. So, theoretically, you could defeat self-defense by showing that even though a situation is one in which it would be objectively reasonable to fear serious harm, one did not actually feel that way. But, this is only theoretical, no jury is going to reject an objectively reasonable instance of self-defense based on the fact-finding that the defendant was nevertheless not subjectively feeling threatened. This is just a consequence of the fact that, for the most part, you’ve just got to take people at their word about what they were feeling. (Sometimes, you can make some inferences based on other behavior as well. But here, where this situation was objectively threatening, that other behavior is not going to be present.)
So, what is mainly at issue is: Was the situation one wherein a reasonable ordinary person would have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. This inquiry goes to “How, precisely, did the interaction go down?” and “Would an ordinary person in those circumstances reasonable fear that he was facing imminent serious bodily harm?” Most plainly, the jury puts themselves in the parties’ position, and thinks about how they would perceive and react to the situation that occurred.
So, the witnesses will not testify that anyone was kidding, or otherwise speculate on the state of mind of the threat-maker. They may say, “He was laughing while he said it” or “He looked angry. [What do you mean by that?] He was shouting and using a lot of obscenities.”
Are you certain of this? Are you basing your answer on case law or a legal cite? It seems messed up that you could use perception as a defense to actually kill someone, but it is not adequate evidence when someone is killed.