http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/interview-with-witness-of-sanford-teen-shooting/vGYPW/
WFTV interview with witness. 16:16
Missed edit window. According to this witness, the fight and the shooting were in different places. The shooting took place in her backyard and the fight toook place 4 houses down.
That’s an intriguing development. If true, how the hell can this guy get away with “standing his ground” if he had to walk four lots away to do it?
When all the information comes out it would not surprise me in the least if I will strongly disagree with what the police did. Like I said upthread more than once, right from the beginning I can make my own assumptions about what kind of guy a wannabe cop neighborood watch guy with a 9mm is. I can make assumptions about what happened. But I don’t tend to join in with RO threads and I hope that most whose judgement is not clouded by emotion understand that I was simply trying to inform about procedures.
BTW: it’s homicide.
I think what you’re missing is that the police were objective. They looked at all available evidence and concluded that under the letter of Florida law they did not have cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. That’s pretty much what this entire thread- indeed the whole public controversy- is hung up on. You (and many others) appear to be taking the position that the circumstantial evidence presents a prima facie case of manslaughter if not outright murder, refuted only by Zimmerman’s testimony, which should by definition be considered suspect. But that’s not the case.
As mentioned upthread, killing somone in FL is not in and of itself a crime. And the fact that Zimmerman chose to follow Trayvon is not in and of itself initiating a confrontation. Did Zimmerman in fact initiate a confrontation when he caught up with Trayvon? He may well have, but no one can actually say that he did. Did he resort to lethal force because he was losing a fight? He may well have, but no one can actually say that he did. The fact is, people offer bullshit stories to the cops all the time, and the cops know they’re bullshit, but if there isn’t enough proof to show they’re lying the police have to let them go.
Here’s a reworking of your rape hypothetical that perhaps is a better analogy. The police respond to a report of suspicious noises and find a guy in an alley with his pants around his ankles next to a dead woman. The coroner’s report shows that the woman died of a stroke after a violent sexual encounter. The man claims that she initiated rough sex. The district attorney has to decide if the sex was voluntary and her death incidental and therefore no crime was committed, or if the guy raped her and she died during the commission of a felony, making it murder. The guy’s story may stink like week-old fish, but if there’s no way to refute his account they technically would have to let him go.
Are you saying that the authorities should have arrested and charged Zimmerman even if they knew that they didn’t have a case against him, simply so that they could say they tried? In some jurisdictions that could lead to a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution.
How do you know what you so unequivocally state?
Well duh- we don’t know, but we don’t know that they weren’t. I was refuting the presumption that the only possible way that the police could have decided not to charge Zimmerman was to unquestioningly take his word.
I know that we don’t know, but you stated they were objective. Italicizing yours.
But it doesn’t seem like they did look at all of the available evidence. Just the opposite actually, you have a witness saying she was blown off and had to pester the police just to get them to listen to her. It seems to me that if somebody shoots an unarmed kid you should probably not listen to the shooter’s story while ignoring (or even correcting) a neutral witness.
What this thread is up hung up on is how much discretion we should allow cops to use in deciding who should and should not be locked up for homicide. That you matter-of-factly declare that the police were objective in their analysis doesn’t speak well of your own objectivity.
But thanks for correcting my spelling.
@ Loach, I understand what you and Martin Hyde were doing and my last post was not a gotcha. I expected this thread to go at least 6 pages. There seem to be at least 2-3 ‘Unarmed Black Man Killed by White Man’ stories that make national headlines a year. Usually those white men are cops. This guy isn’t. But it seems like the police are taking his word.
Florida State law, Title XLVI: CRIMES, Chapter 776 : JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE also talks about a duty to retreat (and refrain from using deadly force) unless it is “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”
On the face of it, it seems clear-cut that a man who was told by the 911 dispatcher to not pursue a subject, but chased after him anyway and shot him dead, even though the young boy had reason to be in the neighbourhood and had not committed any crime, and was, in addition, much smaller than his attacker; it seems clear-cut that this man was not preventing imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, or preventing the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Of course, one could try to concoct various scenarios to explain why the much larger, heavier man holding a gun was in fear for his own life, but the simpler assumption is that he was never in a position to fear for his own life before he forced a confrontation. When the police release him from custody saying they believe the attacker acted in self-defense, they should expect a wave of criticism. Would it be hard for me to believe that the police had a built-in prejudice against the young black teenager, and in favor of the white neighbourhood watch captain? Not at all. I’ve worked with police officers (moonlighting as security guards for extra cash) who told me that if they saw a young black male walking in a predominately white neighbourhood at night, they would automatically consider him suspect and stop and question him.
Did any of them mention times when they found a white guy had shot some black stranger, and they just shrugged their shoulders after a token investigation and said, “Oh well, another dead nigger - nobody will miss him.” Because that is more or less what is supposedly going on here.
I listened to some but not all of this. If I understand her correctly, she did not see the shooting happen, the police took a written statement from her, and I am not clear on what information she gives in the interview that contradicts self-defense. She says she heard some “whining” and then a gunshot, and looked out to see Zimmerman standing over the body, either looking down on it, or perhaps giving it CPR, either then or later. Then Zimmerman told her to call the police, who arrived a few minutes later.
Or perhaps Zimmerman stopped crying as soon as he shot the boy.
Again, I don’t see how that follows. If she had seen them before she heard the shot, then she would be able to testify whether or not there was a struggle, and who was attacking who. But if all she heard was whining, how does she know there was no hitting going on?
I can imagine a number of scenarios that mean Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. I can imagine others that make it a clear-cut case of self-defense. But I don’t see anything so far that disproves self-defense, and that would be what the prosecution would have to do.
Regards,
Shodan
This has been said repeatedly throughout the thread. I am curious why people think that a murder conviction is not possible.
It is true that imperfect self-defense (an honest but unreasonable belief that one needs to use deadly force) can mitigate the charge to manslaughter. But as you can imagine, it takes more than the defendant’s say-so that he had such an honest but unreasonable belief. (Think about it: If all it took to beat a murder rap was to say “Gosh, I honestly thought I had to kill him!”, we would have no murder convicts in our prisons.)
I think Zimmerman is going to have a very tough row to hoe, considering that he approached Martin against police advice and that Martin was just walking down the street, if he wants to show he had even a subjective, but unreasonable, belief that his life was in danger.
Keep in mind, courts do not rely just on the accused’s own report of his state of mind. We can also infer it from contemporaneous statements and behavior—and discard subsequent, self-serving testimony that conflicts with it.
If that happened, I doubt that they would have told me. But I’m not supposing that this is what is going on here. What I am supposing is that police will have a tendency to think “black teenager walking at night in rich white neighborhood = up to no good” and “neighbourhood watch guy = upstanding truth-telling citizen.”
She also said that the argument happened 4 blocks away from where she saw the dead youth lying on the ground with the shooter standing above him. I don’t see how these two facts can fit into a self-defense scenario.
I believe she said the argument was 3 or 4 houses away. He was shot in her back yard.
If this is the way the law in Florida works I don’t see how one couldn’t murder their spouse anytime they wanted and get away with it. Just walk up to them and shoot them in the chest, and say it was self-defense. Drop a kitchen knife in their hand and you actually have more of a defense than Zimmerman does; a knife’s a heck of a lot more of a threat than Skittles.
As I understand this side of the argument, I can legally shoot anyone in Florida, as long as I shoot them where nobody sees me do it, because I needn’t provide any evidence of my claim of self defense.
Am I correct?
In this particular case, I think there is enough evidence (IMHO) to suggest that it likely wasn’t self defense (e.g. 911 call with vague “suspicious behavior”, ignoring instructions to wait for police, witness statements that the fight and the shooting took place in different locations so Zimmerman must have followed the guy, size disparity paired with only Zimmerman having a gun, etc…)
In your hypothetical of murdering your spouse and claiming self defense, most people don’t randomly decide to kill their spouse. So any past history of abuse or violence or arguing or adultery or pending divorce or whatever it was that lead to the murder would discredit their claims of self defense.
AFAIK, if anyone were to commit a random murder where nobody sees you do it, and there’s no physical evidence, and there’s no past history between you and no possible motive, then sadly it is very likely that you would get away with murder.
Really, if someone wanted to be a murdererer and picked a totally random person to kill and ensure there were no witnesses and no physical evidence, then it is very likely indeed that they would not be caught. Thankfully (?) most murderers don’t work like that. Although I do sometimes wonder how many unknown serial killers there are out there who are cautious and only pick random victims who won’t be missed.
Isn’t the burden of proof on the prosecutor? Based on the absence of witnesses, wouldn’t Zimmerman be able to get acquitted even if he offers no defense?
I don’t doubt that this is true.
If it was four blocks away, it is hard to see how she overheard the argument. If it is four houses away, as MacCat says, then it becomes easier to believe she overheard an argument, or “whining” at least.
But I can make up a scenario where it is self-defense. Four houses away, Zimmerman confronts the kid. They argue. Zimmerman turns to go get the cops. The kid follows him, and hits him on the back of the head with the bottle of water (that’s how Zimmerman got cut). Zimmerman turns, the kid hits him in the face with the bottle and bloodies his nose and knocks him down. The kid raises the bottle as if to smash in Zimmerman’s head. Zimmerman, dazed, can only see the gleam of the bottle as if it is glass and he is about to have his skull caved in. He draws his gun, and fires once. The kid staggers back, and falls. Zimmerman runs over to see if the kid is hurt, and that’s when the neighbor sees him, and Zimmerman tells her to call the cops.
Is that how it went down? I don’t know. Neither does anyone else know that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood, and then bloodied his own nose and cut himself on the back of the head in the couple of seconds between firing the shot, and the neighbor (and the cops) showing up to see him standing over the kid.
I don’t know what the totality of the circumstances are. Maybe the angle of the bullet showed that the kid was standing and Zimmerman was lying down. Maybe the kid has a juvenile record as long as a donkey’s prick and nobody has mentioned it yet. Maybe the tox scan on the kid will come back positive for high levels of cocaine.
Or maybe Zimmerman confronted the kid, who ran. Zimmerman chased him, and caught him, and the kid sucker punched him in the face and knocked him down and Zimmerman hit his head.
And then the kid laughed at him, and Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him.
I don’t know all the circumstances. But the police do, presumably, and they decided not to arrest Zimmerman. Hence the thread, with all its discussion about “how could they possibly not arrest this guy?”
It happened, so it must be possible.
Regards,
Shodan