In a Florida Self-defense case I believe there is a *hearing *to decide if it was self-defense and thus the shooter committed no crime.
Not really sure the EMT report will play much of a part beyond verifying whether or not Zimmerman’s head showed signs of a fight. Nothing they would do at the scene would corroborate or refute the trauma delivered to Zimmerman’s brain beyond a dent in his skull. It did look like GZ had a big knot on the back of his head but I don’t think much of the quality of the video.
Nothing has changed my desire for a trial. My guess at what happened was formed based on the events. As I’ve said before, it’s not something I’m engaged to let alone married to.
This is a very emotionally loaded question that makes me think you can’t view the trial in a legal light. At worst, Martin was a punk who thought he could jack Zimmerman for insulting him. There is no “deserve” in this equation unless Martin intended to kill Zimmerman. If Martin was truly pummeling Zimmerman over an insult then he invited the end result independent of deserving it. The problem with pommeling someone is that the person on the receiving end doesn’t know when it’s going to end. That’s where fear sets in.
What someone thinks in the court of public opinion has no bearing on what happens in court. If, for example, Zimmerman turned his back on Martin and was sucker punched then he was unaware of the stupidity of his actions. I have been sucker punched by a punk after turning my back on him but I’m not streetwise as Zimmerman should have been as a bouncer. If that were the case then my opinion of GZ would go way down but again, that would be the court of public opinion and not what counts in legal terms.
Actually if you really study what I’ve said it has been from the perspective of what it will take in court to convict him. It has nothing to do with the possibility of Zimmerman’s guilt. The testimony of one of the participants will never see the light of day. Martin is dead. There is no 180 shift beyond the knowledge that Martin was much more capable of inflicting damage than originally portrayed. 100 lb little boy is different than 6’3 football player. His tweets and school suspensions paint a picture of a kid on the stupid side of 17 just as Zimmerman’s past paints him as someone who can over-react.
The reason I think Martin started it is because of the conversation between the two of them. Based on what he said to his girlfriend he was already paranoid by Zimmerman following him. He then confronted Zimmerman who answered him by challenging his reason for being there. Other posters have come right out and said that Martin “had the right” to punch him. This gives motive to Martin’s actions and would corroborate what Zimmerman ostensibly said in his 5 hr interview. We don’t know what Zimmerman said beyond a few 2nd hand accounts.
I know. It’s just weird, and I have read comments from lawyers that don’t seem to get this. So you’re not alone.
Let me try again.
In you ordinary state, with your ordinary set of laws, you just need probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. If we’re talking about, say, armed robbery, we don’t focus on each element of the crime and ask if probable cause exists for that element. We just ask if overall, there is enough evidence to make a reasonable man of prudent caution believe that there was likely a crime and the accused is likely to be the one that did it. We don’t ask specifically if there’s probable cause to believe he intended to permanently deprive the owner of his possession, or probable cause to believe he was armed with a weapon. We just ask if the totality of all the circumstances makes us believe the crime probably happened.
All of that still applies in Florida… AND wait, there’s more. We also have to answer the very specific question: do we have probable cause on one specific element of the crime: whether the force used was unlawful. That’s not the way we normally would do probable cause analysis, but it’s forced on the court by the language of 776.032.
But if there is not probable cause to determine whether he was using force unlawfully, how can there be probable cause that a crime was committed? If his force was justified, there wasn’t a crime in the first place. Does this in any way suggest that the crime might have been perpetrated by Martin against Zimmerman, this justifying the shooting? I would think not, given the charges leveled.
Wow, I never knew strawmen could jump that high.:rolleyes: Look, even if Martin jumped Zimmerman and was pounding the hell out of him, still Martin didn’t *deserve to die. *:dubious:
All that would mean is that Zimmerman’s only a unlucky idiot, instead of a unlucky idiot who is convicted of murder. He might just be able to get a jury to agree that despite the fact that Zimmerman was a idiot, and that Martin did not deserve to die, that maybe, just maybe there’s 'reasonable doubt" in that maybe Zimmerman did fear for his life, *even if that fear wasn’t really justified. *
No one thinks Zimmerman is in the right. Just that he *may *have enough reasonable doubt.
When someone jumps down my throat for simply expressing some skepticism about a claim that actually is kind of incredible, I have hard time thinking that person isn’t acting as defense attorney and hasn’t made up their mind about innocence.
I didn’t say Zimmerman is guilty. I said he has some 'splaining to do. Of course he does! And yet saying this is unreasonable and warrants a “GOOD GRIEF!”
A woman claims that five drunken horny frat guys raped her and from day one she was brandished as a lying whore. Some of the same posters who called her a lying whore from day one are the same ones yelling at me for being “emotional” and “biased” for saying that Zimmerman’s story has some weak points and some gaps. And they based their skepticism not on her story but on her race. I will never forget this because it screams of the most ugly hypocrisy. That is why I can’t believe people are actually as dispassionate and unbiased as they think they are.
The story that has been relayed by surrogates DOES have weak points and gaps. You’d have to be blind not to see them, and yet I am the crazy one for pointing them out. Good grief indeed.
We will see what the evidence turns up. As I said before, I await to read/hear Zimmerman’s statement. Perhaps he clears up the points of mystery and I’m no longer scratching my head. And if he doesn’t, well, I will be convinced that he’s lying. This makes more sense than taking what he says at face value, no matter how far-fetched.
There may not be probable cause that he used force unlawfully, however in Florida a judge only initially considers “ordinary” probable cause. So essentially in the “ordinary” probable cause hearing in Florida a judge isn’t going to spend much time considering whether the force used was unlawful or not. The judge is just going to see there is probable cause that second degree murder was committed, this other stuff is left to the jury to decide in a normal probable cause hearing. Judges don’t generally have to decide in a probable cause hearing how strong a defendant’s self-defense claims are.
Under the SYG statute, Zimmerman is entitled to have an entirely separate probable cause hearing that only addresses whether or not there is probable cause that the shooting was unjustified. This is very different from most other states, and the determination of the “regular” probable cause hearing is not an indication of how the special probable cause hearing will turn out. In several of the SYG cases that prosecutors in Florida have attempted to try, it was at the special hearing to see if the shooting was unjustified that judges have dismissed the case–but these came after previous hearings found general probable cause.
I linked to this article earlier which explicitly explains this: here. The article sums it up well with its title “Law Gives Zimmerman Extra Chances In Legal Fight.” That is exactly accurate, in a normal case the probable cause part is done with now. In SYG case the prosecutor has to prove PC on a specific element of the crime (which is more difficult, as should be obvious, than just proving general PC), and failure to do so bars prosecution of the defendant.
This is actually what is happening right now in the Dooley / James case, by the way. Dooley was arrested a week or so after he shot James, and they found probable cause to try him. But now Dooley has requested his special hearing under SYG demanding the prosecution prove probable cause that the shooting itself was unjustified. I think in the Dooley case that hearing has already happened and the judge is still deciding, but I could be mistaken on that.
In a normal homicide, generally if I’m a prosecutor and show some fact-based evidence that:
a) Someone is dead
b) Defendant is responsible
We’re going to have a trial. PC is generally not a herculean fence to clear because any sort of fact based evidence showing the defendant is the person who committed the killing should generally sustain probable cause to have a trial.
In any shooting case anywhere in the country, the defendant may argue that he shot in self defense, and that the killing was thus legally justified. Whether or not that is true isn’t as big an issue in a preliminary hearing, in most States deciding if the killing is justified or not is left up to a jury. In egregious cases where self defense is overwhelmingly obvious, the judge may step in an end the case on the grounds the prosecution’s case is extremely weak, but generally juries decide this issue.
In Florida, a judge actually has to specifically decide that there is probable cause that the shooting itself was unjustified. Normally, a prosecutor can just show that there is a dead person and a shooter where we have evidence against the shooter showing they pulled the trigger. Issues like self defense are left to the trial proper, that’s why NPR correctly says that SYG gives Zimmerman an “extra chance.”
Something else that should be noted is you can’t infer a whole lot about how the SYG probable cause hearing will go because in the normal PC hearing Zimmerman’s lawyer did nothing at all. Essentially the State’s version of events was uncontested by the defense, so it would have been highly irregular for that hearing to have gone against the State, it would essentially indicate Angela Corey was incompetent and her case was massively weak if the judge stopped it right there without defense counsel actually making an argument.
That’s also part of the reason a normal PC hearing is pro forma in most cases, defense attorneys will often not contest the issue of PC because it’s a low bar to meet in any case and in the “strategy of the trial” the defense counsel will usually want to avoid letting the prosecution see the specifics of how they intend to conduct their defense until the trial itself. If the defense goes all out at the PC hearing they typically will make it more obvious how they intend to conduct their defense at trial which hurts their strategic position.
In a SYG hearing though, where the bar is a lot higher for the prosecution, it will be worth it for the defense to go full barrel trying to undermine the State’s claims–because there’s a realistic chance of ending the prosecution at that point. An ordinary PC hearing, because of the low barrier to be met, it’s just not worth contesting by the defense and doing so can actually weaken your position in the trial itself by giving the prosecution extra time to prepare attacking specific elements of your defense.
Nothing about Zimmerman’s story holds water, at least the accounts I’ve seen. I guess we’ll need to see what his ‘official’ version is, but based on the March 26 newspaper version:
Martin approached GZ from behind and decked him with a single punch? Really? Because if Martin attacked GZ from behind and decked him with a single punch GZ would be complete toast, because GZ obviously would have fallen forward. Martin isn’t going to drop him with a single punch, get him on the ground, and then helpfully turn him over to face his attacker. Martin would have started bashing his head into the ground while GZ was still face down. Even with the weight difference, GZ would have had very little hope of getting back up again.
If the fight started with both men facing each other and Martin somehow managed to get on top of GZ, straddling his chest, the most natural, instinctive, and simplest thing to do (as anyone that’s seen fights during high school can attest to…) is to simply start whalin’ away, punching the guy in the face. Trying to bash his head in to the ground makes no sense - you have to hunch over more to get your hands down and maintain contact through the pull up / shove down motion - which, btw, is really hard to do with one hand, and using two hands means you’ve left the guy’s two hands free to hit you back…unless you’ve managed to get your knees on the guy’s shoulders, in which case you can’t really pull the guy’s head up anyway (and in that instance GZ is never able to get the gun out). Doesn’t make any sense.
There’s no evidence that Martin was a skilled fighter…but GZ had worked as a bouncer at parties…hmmm.
The video of GZ just 30 minutes after the shooting most certainly does -not- show someone that had been the victim of a brutal ‘fear of death’ attack. His face, head, clothes, demeanor all look perfectly fine. This is supposed to be the guy generating the animal-like shrieks of pure terror in the 911 calls?? This is the guy that was decked from a single punch and had his head slammed repeatedly into the sidewalk, leaving him ‘bloody and battered’?
Sorry, does not pass the smell test.
Not according to the newspaper accounts of Zimmerman’s story. Zimmerman and Martin exchanged words, then Martin punched (or otherwise struck) Zimmerman, knocked him down, and got on top of him and began slamming his head in the ground.
Again, based on some forty years of experience in ground combat, I disagree. It makes perfect sense.
Yes, you can do a ground and pound. But grabbing by the neck and slamming the head into the ground (as Zimmerman supposedly alleges) is better, because it is easier on the hands than punching the face. And, even if your arms are free, it is difficult to hit back against someone who has achieved the mount - you have to punch upwards, and you cannot drive your weight into the punches, and you can’t draw your arm back very far because your elbow hits the ground.
The “correct” response (or at least, one response that has a chance of working) is for the person on the bottom to grab the fingers of the hands on his neck, pull the arms free, then bridge and roll your assailant to his back, pass the guard, and either pin him and wait for help, or work for a submission. That can work, but (obviously) you have to be quick, and know what you are doing. And it takes a good deal of practice before you can bring it off in the terrifying chaos of a street fight, especially after you have taken a few shots to the head.
I am not aware that either Zimmerman or Martin had any serious ne-waza experience. I suppose you could argue that Zimmerman should have applied sankaku-jime from the guard instead of shooting, and I certainly agree it would have been better, but the average guy, even the average neighborhood watch guy, would probably not be able to bring it off before getting his skull knocked in.
Regards,
Shodan
Because an arrest and trial can be sustained if there’s probable cause about the other elements of his crime, so that overall, we look at all the circumstances we know, and we are satisfied that there’s enough there to make us think there was probably a crime and he probably did it. We don’t necessarily need to have any information about the use of force, as long as we have other things about the entire crime that support this belief of ours.
So in this case, let’s imagine that Ms. Corey has uncovered Zimmerman’s membership in the KKK and the fact that the rest of the KKK chapter, suspicious of a Hispanic’s motives in joining them, had told him he can’t become an officer in the chapter until he gets blood on his hands from a race killing. That doesn’t shed any light on the force used that night – maybe Zimmerman told Martin, “You know, I’m a KKK member,” and Martin became so enraged he attacked Zimmerman. But it does help probable cause to believe that Zimmerman had an evil motive in his actions.
See what I mean? Normally probable cause can rest on a number of different perches, a number of different elements of the crime. But now, in addition to that overall requirement, the state has to show specific probable cause to believe the force used was not legal.
In that case something is clearly off, because the 26 March edition of the Orlando Sentinel clearly has Zimmerman’s account being ‘attacked from behind’, with ‘law-enforcement officials’ named as sources. If the account is now different, either a) the original Sentinel reporter just made shit up, b) the LEO sources were just making shit up, or c) GZ’s story changed when they realized it didn’t make any sense.
Perhaps makes sense to someone with 40 years of ground combat experience. But I highly doubt that a 17yr old kid with no known history of violence is thinking about how to go ‘easy on his hands’ when he suddenly finds himself in a fight.
In any event, I think the whole point is kinda meaningless, because based on the video I saw 30 minutes after the altercation, I see absolutely nothing to suggest GZ was subject to any sort of ‘head repeatedly slammed into sidewalk’ assault.
I further find it difficult to believe that GZ could go from the shrieks of pure, unadulterated, wet-your-pants terror as in the 911 calls, to stopping his scream MID-SCREAM exactly as the gunshot goes off.
I don’t believe it does.
Here’s the Orlando Sentinel from 3/26/2012, which states -
So you are not correctly characterizing what the Orlando Sentinel said. Their account is that Martin approached him from behind, not attacked, and that the two exchanged words, presumably face-to-face. Then Martin knocked him down, and began slamming his head on the ground.
So the attack came from the front, not behind, as far as can be determined from the Orlando Sentinel article from the date you mentioned.
Again, that is a question I have asked before. The police report mentions that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and head (IIRC). Why would they say that if there really wasn’t a mark on him? If someone tells you “I’m bleeding from the nose and head” and you see that they aren’t, why would you take their word for it?
That’s what doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. There is a good deal of carping that the police didn’t do an exhaustive enough investigation, since they let Zimmerman off without arresting him on the spot. But it doesn’t take a very exhaustive investigation to tell if someone is bleeding from the nose and head - you can tell that at a glance. So it seems like a really silly thing for Zimmerman to lie about, and an even more silly thing for the police to fall for.
I can believe his nose wasn’t bleeding a while later - nosebleeds don’t last forever. But I have seen the enhanced video, and it sure looks to me like Zimmerman has some cuts to the back of his head.
So AFAICT, and based on the evidence to date, it seems to me that Zimmerman was, in fact, bleeding from the nose and head when the police arrived. But there wasn’t a mark on Martin besides the single gunshot wound that killed him. So if there was a fight that night, Zimmerman sure wasn’t getting the better of it. And given the initial advantage the attacker has in almost all street fights, Zimmerman’s scenario of “I was following a teen-ager I didn’t recognize, I lost him, I got out of my truck to look at the street sign, he approached me from behind, we argued, then he punched me in the face, knocked me down and began slamming my head on the ground, I couldn’t get away and I was afraid he was going to smash my skull in, so I pulled my gun and shot once” sounds pretty plausible to me.
And a lot of the objections to Zimmerman’s story are pretty strained. That he faked his injuries? That the police believed he was bleeding even though he wasn’t?
That doesn’t seem likely to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Orlando Sentinal March 26th
Apparently you are mistaken about what the Sentinel said.
Media attorneys today asked the Sanford judge overseeing the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin murder case to unseal the court file.
Attorneys for Zimmerman and the state last week agreed on Thursday that they wanted paperwork in the file kept secret.
Seminole County Judge Mark Herr agreed, without signing an official order.
But media attorneys today filed an eight-page motion, saying there had been no showing that sealing the file is warranted.
They also pointed out that much of the evidence in the case has already been reported.
The motion was prepared by the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP on behalf of several media companies, including the New York Times, Miami Herald, The Tampa Bay Times, The Florida Times-Union, CNN, NBC, several broadcasters and other publishing companies as well as The First Amendment Foundation, a non-profit media advocacy group in Tallahassee.
So if the EMT’s report says that they found abrasions and a swollen bump on Zimmerman’s head, consistent with striking a hard surface such as a sidewalk, you will… what? Leap off a building, because the world just doesn’t make sense to you anymore?
I know that line comes off as facetious, but I’m genuinely curious. You see nothing on that video, and maybe that’s because there’s nothing to see. But the video is not exactly high-def, 1080p resolution. At least one news source claims to have done an enhancement that shows some sort of mark or wound. Are they crazy?
I just am puzzled… why it’s necessary to have such a strong opinion now, when the EMT report is still under wraps. Why not simply say that you’re waiting for the EMT report and the rest of the evidence?
Trying to pick details out of CCTV video that compressed is like looking for pyramids on Mars.
That one produced frame asserted to show trauma might be anything - it is just as likely to be an artifact of compression that has been sharpened and darkened as anything that was actually in the room. I would give that the same weight as claims that voice biometrics have ruled out Zimmerman as the person doing the screaming: None.
Then I will ask the same question of you - why would the police report say that Zimmerman was bleeding when he wasn’t?
Regards,
Shodan
OK. And how much weight, then, would you give to the claims that the video proves there is no injury?
I hope the Martin case hasn’t attracted some wackjobs to the area. We have had some rather odd murders and attempted murders in the area. Sunday morning we got up with news that found the remains of two burned dead bodies off a bike trail. Monday it was someone driving on I-4 that was shot by a sniper at 3:00 AM.
http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/orange-county-deputies-investigate-double-homicide/vGw5B/
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/shooting-investigation-shuts-down-i-4-eastbound-ma/nMZd5/
I was already disturbed by the 4 people shot in drivebys in the last few weeks in Sanford.