I think you’re mixing my point up with someone else’s point.
You presented the idea of carrying the gun as not being reckless because it’s legal to carry the gun. So we (I, anyway…) were discussing the concept of “recklessness” or, to put it in 2nd degree murder terms: “reckless disregard”. And that’s what I was describing: Zimmerman made a series of stupid decisions which a reasonable man could predict might lead to violence, even death. Not an absolute slam dunk for reckless disregard, but not a ridiculous stretch, either.
I brought up the fact of the dispatcher (and the neighborhood watch, and any law enforcement expert) to illustrate that it is fair to say that understanding the inherent danger in following and approaching people you suspect of being criminals is known to be unwise. If that were not true, law enforcement experts would not consistently tell people not to do it. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Zimmerman’s actions were reckless, particularly in light of not only that particular exchange with the 911 operator, but because he was fascinated with law enforcement and it’s a virtual certainty that he had been repeatedly exposed to various law enforcement sources cautioning people against doing exactly what he went ahead and did. So while average Joes could tell you it was a bad idea without all that law enforcement fascination, there’s no question that Zimmerman knew better. Making the case for recklessness even stronger.
Ok. Apply those same rules to our lady working late at the lab.
It’s a virtual certainty she’s been told many times to park in a well-lit area. She was told it was unwise to walk alone at night. And she knew better.
Looks like that’s exactly what they believe it shows, according to the affadavit.
I also think that his language in the call will be used to show intent. The jury instructions for 2nd degree:
Since the probable cause affadavit pointed out that GZ said “these fucking punks” and “these assholes”, I think it’s a pretty sure thing they are going to say that he was operating with ill will, at the very least, and they would be right.
And unless John saw Zimmerman’s lips forming the words that he simultaneously heard being screamed, then his assessment of what someone unknown to him was screaming vs. a mother’s assessment that its her son won’t mean much.
She is behaving in a manner that is not just technically legal, it is completely normal behavior that millions upon millions of people regularly engage in every single day, behavior that is directed at no one: going to her car. She is only being “reckless” by not taking extra precautions to ensure her own safety. She is not, by her willful actions directed at someone else, actually creating an unstable and dangerous situation between two law-abiding people.
You may need an expert to convince a jury, depends on the jury and individual jurors of course (some will intrinsically trust a mother, but some may intrinsically distrust her and believe she is only interested in seeing Zimmerman convicted at any cost) but certainly not to establish cause for trying a case.
I seriously doubt the ability of anyone to identify a person screaming in the background of a cell phone call. Certainly I won’t take their judgment over someone who was there and watching the altercation.
Unless he watched who was screaming while they screamed, you’d be making a very big mistake to regard his judgment as worthwhile. If he didn’t SEE the screamer AS they screamed, and both parties are strangers to him, he’s doing nothing more valuable than guessing.
I’m assuming that did the bare minimum they needed for the affidavit. Notice how it doesn’t mention anything that already wasn’t already public knowledge, so they prevent further contamination of the jury pool. Also if most of is excluded at trial, then no harm no foul.
The sucky part is that the self-defense hearing will probably be closed and we won’t hear any of the evidence.
She wasn’t disregarding a specific instruction but a general one. She also didn’t intentionally violate the instruction so that she would meet the potential attacker.
I guess I really need to use the sarcasm icon more. I don’t really expect the prosecution to use Sybrina Fulton’s testimony at trial. I don’t know if they plan to use anything from the affidavit besides Zimmerman’s statement at trial.
I thought you were saying something about “circumstantial evidence and innuendo” being the only hope.
w/e
There could be another relevant dimension besides the mere legality of minding the person on the phone. It may be used to demonstrate some other element. It’s value to the prosecution may not rest entirely on that single acts legality or lack thereof.
I agree that this situation varies from Z’s in that the woman would had to have known that there was someone there who she deemed a probable rapist and decided to proceed like normal anyway.
Z knew that M was around. Z felt he had reason to believe that M may have been up to no good and Z seems to have expressed concern that M may be armed [mentioning the stuff about M and M’s waistband].
So Zs actions aren’t very analogous to our poor woman unless our poor woman knew that there was someone she deemed a probable rapist in the parking lot at that point in time when she headed to her car.
I don’t get speculation like this. Zimmerman makes mention of the fact that Martin has a button on his shirt, but the fact that Zimmerman thinks Martin is armed doesn’t warrant a mention? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It’s just searching for the slightest thing to support your argument.
Wow, I thought the most we’d get was a grand jury indictment of manslaughter. But the prosecutor skipping indictment by jury and charging murder 2 makes me wonder if there was new evidence or if the new prosecutor just sees the old evidence very differently, or if the public pressure has had a larger influence than they are claiming.
I would say PR + bargaining ploy. I don’t see any downside for her charging 2nd instead of Manslaughter. As far as I can tell it doesn’t make any difference during the self-defense hearing and she can always leave an out for the jury to convict on Manslaughter if they don’t buy depraved indifference. This gives the defense incentive to settle. I doubt that much will happen until after discovery and the defense sees what cards the prosecution is holding. If Zimmerman loses the self-defense hearing, then there might be a serious attempt at a plea bargain.
Absolutely. You said “convictions”. If you were arrested and released, not necessarily. If you were arrested, released, but maintain associations with those you were found guilty, yes.
But I see what you mean with the previous reports given by Zimmerman. He’s not on trial for those, and if he were a threat but overlooked by Sanford police, then we’d have to look at both George and the Sanford police. Until the night in question, maybe the excessive calls to the police don’t matter much?
Here is some comic relief. The Daily Mail is discussing the details of Zimmerman’s stay at the Seminole County Jail. The Daily Mail actually had a copy of the receipt of Zimmerman’s purchased at the Jail store.
I don’t know how comic it is, but I have to say I was surprised to recognize how satisfying I found it to read that he spent the night sobbing. Because whatever the legal outcome is, my personal feeling is that George Zimmerman behaved very foolishly, very recklessly, and very dangerously, and I do not believe that Trayvon Martin was doing anything that reasonably called for losing his life. If GZ didn’t really believe his life was in danger but shot out of some fucked up cowboy thing, then he deserves to suffer. If he DID sincerely believe his life was in danger, he brought it on himself by being an asshole and deserves to suffer. A young man who was doing nothing untoward is now dead and all the people who loved him will carry the weight of that grief until they die- George Zimmerman needs to have some kind of hurt put on him for creating that reality, no matter what.
I find myself very torn on this subject. I can absolutely see how unfair it might be to drag someone’s past in to influence a jury into believing something, and I can also see how important it can be to demonstrate a pattern of behavior.