ftr, I didn’t say that Z said he thought M was armed. I said that Z was concerned that M MIGHT BE armed. And it warrant a mention. That’s how I came to know about it, because Z mentioned it.
I am curious what your interpretation of Z’s discussion of M’s waistband was about?
Of all the various things Z could have said, why did he choose to mention M’s waistband? What made that bit of information significant enough to Z for him to mention to the PD? Just in your opinion. I don’t expect you to read minds.
Imho, Z seems to have expressed concern that M may have been armed. Sure sounds like Z considered the possibility that M was armed.
idk.
Maybe it’s unreasonable to think that Z may have considered the possibility that M had a weapon.
If Z didn’t consider it, it seems reasonable that he should have given that he thought M was a suspicious punk and an asshole who might be up to no-good.
Personally, I think the consideration that Z might be armed was the reason that Z decided to talk about M’s waistband.
Z’s gun was in his waistband when the PD found him. Just saying.
But I am open to being swayed if you can think of some reason that Z’s talking about Ms waistband cannot be a sign that Z was thinking about the possibility that M was armed, or some more likely scenario, or something else meaningful.
Excellent point. (And by reference – excellent points to Stoid and BiigT.)
So let’s tweak the hypo a bit.
Now our lady lab worker is still at work when her co-worker leaves, and then hurries back in a moment later. “There’s a creepy guy hanging out in the corner of the parking lot,” she says. “I don’t want to go out alone; I’'m calling the cops.”
“No,” says our subject. “I’m not going to live my life intimidated about going from my job to my car any time I please just because I’m a woman. I’m going out there now.”
As she shuts down her computer, her office mate says, “I’m on the phone with 911. They say don’t go, there’s a car on the way.”
And she says, “911 isn’t going to be around to protect me every second of my life. I’'m not going to live in fear. I’m going.”
And she does, and events proceed as in the first hypo.
Ok. But just so you know, the jury generally can’t.
Items like this are generally called “404(b)” evidence after the section of the evidence code that excludes them. And the general rule is that the prosecution can’t put prior bad acts of the accused in evidence in order to prove that the defendant acted the same way this time.
There are some exceptions.
One exception is that if the accused testifies in his own defense, then the jury is allowed to hear about the existence of prior convictions under the theory that those convictions affect his credibility.
Another exception has to do with ‘absence of mistake.’ If the accused’s defense is that his conduct was not criminal, but the result of a good-faith mistake on his part, a prior conviction for the same act would be admissible to show the unlikeliness of this claim.
Yet another exception is acts that show a common plan, scheme, or motive. This has been the subject of intense debate in the legal world, because prosecutors (naturally) want to interpret this exception very broadly, so that someone accused of the rape of an adult woman could have his prior conviction for child porn introduced under the theory that it shows his general lustful disposition. And the defense bar has naturally taken the position that this exception should be read narrowly.
But the way the rules generally work is that in my example, none of the prior robbery convictions would likely be admissible. The only things in common about them were the robbery itself. Gas station, guy in alley, and armored car robberies don’t share a common plan or scheme, and the common motive needs to be something more than the general desire for money that presumably animates all robbery.
On the other hand, if the prior convictions were all for gas station robberies in which the attendant was lured out of his bulletproof sanctuary by a fake baby in a baby carriage and then bound with duct tape and told to count to 100 before moving, and the present case also involved a fake baby and duct tape, then those prior convictions would probably be admissible.
Again, this inference makes zero sense. Z described M’s actions in detail. If he thought Martin might be armed, he would have said so. Certainly that’s a far more relevant fact than the fact that Martin was wearing a button.
Zimmerman was simply providing a running commentary of Martin’s actions. The fact that he mentioned it isn’t significant at all.
Any idea how long before trial? I hope they don’t screw around 3 years like they did with Casey Anthony. The child died in June 2008 and the trial started in May 2011.
Zimmerman’s in that same court system. I think its even the same court district. Maybe this time they’ll get him on trial in the next year or two.
Mark O’Mara was on NPR and he was talking about 2013. I would think the self-defense hearing would happen before that. If the judge rules the homicide self-defense, then there wouldn’t be any trial. Speedy trial rules say 175 days, but they don’t say anything about the defense dragging their heels.
This depends on how one defines “in detail” I s’pose.
I wouldn’t have chosen that phrase personally. His description of what M was doing isn’t detailed imho, it’s more vague.
“looks like he’s up to no good” not particularly specific imho. ymmv
“looks like he’s…on drugs” not particularly specific imho. ymmv
“…or something.” not particularly specific imho. ymmv
“…walking around, looking about.” not particularly specific imho. ymmv
I am not seeing what I would characterize as describing “M’s actions in detail”
But different people use the same word to mean different things I have noticed.
So, w/e
Possibly.
Possibly he did communicate the possibility that Martin could have been armed by mentioning that Martin has his hand in his waistband.
He didn’t mention where M’s other hand was nor any of the jillions of other possible things that he could have mentioned in his “detailed” account.
You might not find it significant, but there was something about it that seemed significant enough to Z that he mentioned it.
I’m a little confused by this part. I Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, then is seems to reason that Martin was doing something.
I am reasonably certain Martin was “fighting” with Zimmerman. Fighting to get away from Zimmerman’s attempt to physically detain him until police arrived. I agree Zimmerman has to pay as he created the situation, however, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Martin’s actions escalated the confrontation. I could be wrong. Zimmerman might have been out for blood from the get go and nothing Martin would have done could have changed the outcome. But that doesn’t seem the most likely scenario to me. I think this was a bit of it takes two to Tango, however Zimmerman it seems responded excessively and unnecessarily and for that he is rightfully going to be tried.
Yes… What are you comparing this to again? The reckless disregard in second-degree murder? Are are you still mixing this up with people’s assertions about Zimmerman’s choice to ignore the 911 dispatcher? Because I explained why I brought that up and** it wasn’t as a singular significant incident.
You seem to be comparing cautioning a woman against doing something normal because there is a danger known to be present with cautioning someone against doing something abnormal based on their own suspicions about someone who is doing nothing wrong. and that’s an important distinction: Zimmerman may have been doing something technically legal, but it wasn’t normal or advisable or called for or necessary to his normal and expected daily life activities to follow and approach martin. The woman simply insisted on carrying out her normal daily life activities rather than doing something abnormal for her which would be to not go to her car. Zimmerman created an unstable and dangerous situation deliberately, by insisting on doing something which no one wanted him to do and which cannot be reasonably considered a normal and expected part of everyday life.
There’s a difference between looking for trouble and doing things that create it, and trouble finding you because you refuse to change your life to avoid it. It’s like comparing a woman who breaks her neck in a car accident because she chose to drive on icy roads without chains to someone who breaks their neck bungee jumping.
It isn’t clear who precipitated the confrontation. Yes, Zimmerman got out of his truck, but it also appears that Martin doubled back to confront him. The only thing I am certain of is that both could have avoided it.
What makes you certain that Martin doubled back to confront him? It seems the only thing we know about the moment they encounter each other is that Martin was having a conversation with his girlfriend… Why would he confront Zimmerman while he was having a conversation with his girlfriend? It seems clear to me that Zimmerman came upon Martin and Martin was surprised by him.
I don’t think Martin doubled back. I think he hid next to one of the dividers separating the town homes and Zimmerman walked past him in the dark. When Zimmerman turned around to return to his truck, then Martin was silhouetted against the fence. The meeting was essentially an accident and neither one planned on confronting the other.
Because there is a time gap of IIRC 2-4 minutes between the time Martin first runs and when the confrontation occurs. In order for the confrontation to happen when it happened, Martin either needs to double back or stop.
There’s not much evidence at all regarding what Martin did in the 2-4 minutes we have between him running and the confrontation.
Maybe. We know Martin was talking on the phone, which seems like a poor idea when you are trying to hide. There are reports about that conversation, and none of them suggest that Martin was hiding. It also wasn’t claimed by the prosecutor. I would think she would have if she had an indication of that, as it would help her case tremendously.