What does that even mean? The claim is that Zimmerman’s story is inconsistent on the point. If he says he was following Martin, how could it be that he got out of his truck only to look at street sign?
There is an answer that allows both to be true, without contradicting each other.
So it resolves the apparent contradiction, but since it is itself speculation, it doesn’t resolve the ultimate truth of what happened.
Well, sorry, but that’s just how we do things. We don’t decide criminal cases by presenting some news stories to monstro and then doing whatever monstro says. We have a different process.
clearly he was pursuing someone to the exclusion of the police (who were enroute) based on his perceptions. Death ensues. The picture is one of stalking so “chase” will fill in naturally at trial.
interesting what you get when pulling up the definition:
The authors of the law in Florida are on record that Zimmerman is not protected by it.
Oh for god’s sake, Steophan, you bend any further backwards to find ways to make Zimmerman’'s actions acceptable and I swear you are going to sprain something.
If we know that Martin’s body was found on X spot, but we have no clue whatsoever how it got there (we do, but give me a minute), any suggestion that the shot happened anywhere other than a few feet away from where Martin’s body was found has to be explained one of two ways:
or
Assuming we knew NOTHING else, (but we do) the plausibility of #2 is pretty shaky simply because there would be some blood evidence between Spot Y (Presumably somewhere near Zimmerman’s truck where he got out to look at the street sign and was jumped and attacked with Skittles and ice tea) and Spot X, where Martin fell. Unless that hoodie was made of ShamWOW!, it’s hard to believe not a drop of blood between Y and X would have fallen, showing that Martin was shot somewhere other than where he was found. Hell, I nick myself shaving and there’s blood everywhere I turn, a gunshot to the chest is going to be a gusher.
But none of that really matters, because we DO know something else, from eyewitnesses:
So what do we reasonably deduce from this? That both Martin and Zimmerman were in “the backyard”. Together. Making the noises that let people know something really bad was happening. So either Zimmerman shot Martin out near his truck on the street, then pursued the fleeing and mortally wounded boy to watch him die, or he didn’t shoot him anywhere near his truck- he pursued him and then shot him.
And nowhere in any of these possible scenarios does Zimmerman look anything like a man fearing for his life and needing to protect himself. He looks like a fucking murderer.
Depends on how you define “wrong”. Me, I think it’s wrong to pursue someone for no good reason with a loaded gun and scare them and, one way or another, create a situation that leaves the innocent party dead before he’s old enough to drink. And I’m not alone, it seems:
And hey, these laws are just bitchen:
How does stopping to verify location to the police negate the fact that he continued (by admission) to pursue Martin. He’s on tape saying he can’t believe the kid’s getting away. Getting away from what?
what it boils down to is that he instigated a confrontation where someone dies.
Nonetheless, the dispatcher does not say “chase.” and monstro said that the dispatcher said “chase.”
By the same token, we could say “gunned down” or “shot.” Each is defensible. But if we’re ascribing quotes, let’s stick to what was said.
And for whatever it’s worth, “follow” could mean “observe and report.” which would NOT be chase, right?
Your timeline is completely hosed. He says right at the beginning that they always get away.
How do you know he instigated the confrontation? He says he simply followed Martin. Perhaps you mean that action is confrontational. Perhaps it is, but it’s legal. The question is which of them crossed the line into illegal actions first.
If I was the prosecutor I would BEG the defense council to use this as a point of contention. The trial revolves around the unnecessary pursuit of Martin which appears to be driven by Zimmerman’s perceptions.
At some point defense is going to present Zimmerman as a caring individual who only wanted to help his neighborhood and at that point I would be playing mental reruns of the Andy Griffith show to the jury.
The fact that you disagree with me on an issue of the law, with your history, is the strongest evidence yet that I’m correct.
I’m not bending anything, I’m straight up observing the facts, and any speculation I may make is nothing more than that. I’m going to repeat something I said earlier, though, as it may have been before you joined the thread. Zimmerman is entitled to a presumption of innocence. If there’s a reasonable interpretation of the facts that shows him to be innocent, regardless of what other interpretation may show, he is innocent. This is not a debate with two equal sides. The burden of proof lies solely with the side that claims he is guilty.
This is not a thread about whether Zimmerman is a decent human being. This is not a thread about whether he is morally culpable for Martin’s death. This is not a thread about the fairness of Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. It’s a thread asking whether he should be arrested and charged with a criminal offence related to the homicide of Martin.
It’s not even a thread asking whether the police are entitled to arrest him, although that’s a relevant side question, as it could still be a waste of time to do so even if they are.
I’ll restate my personal belief on the issue, based on the evidence I’ve seen. Zimmerman probably committed manslaughter. The evidence is nowhere near secure enough to allow for a conviction. It would be a waste of everyone’s time to arrest him. I reserve the right to change my view as I see more evidence. One final belief - anyone who thinks he should be arrested even though he can’t be convicted is an idiot, and should be kept as far as possible away from making laws and policies of law enforcement.
With speculation, which is what everyone is doing since there is no direct eye-witness and never will be, unless the police have one. And what is the harm? This is IMHO and nothing said here will ever have any bearing on anything in the real world.
Some people don’t find Zimmermans story credible with what has been released so far. So what? It’s hard to construct a scenario that fits. Even Chief Lee thinks it is implausible that Zimmerman got out of his car to check a street sign. Bearing in mind that Zimmerman was seen on top of the dying Martin, how did they get to that site if he was jumped by Martin as he headed back to his car. Exactly where was Zimmerman standing his ground. Bottom line, the most logical scenario has Zimmerman following and attempting to restrain Martin. “These assholes, they always get away” has bearing. The girlfriend’s account has bearing. Zimmerman calling the cops whenever he saw black males he didn’t recognize, even if they were sitting in a car or chatting by the gate, has bearing. I don’t understand why some people get so shrilly about accepting Zimmermans version.
Also, how can anyone say Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything wrong or that there wasn’t a threat? Martin didn’t know why this guy was following him. Who is he? A mugger? A serial killer? It is laughable to claim race wasnnt a factor either. Trayvon Martin is dead, in part, because of his color or maybe we’ll find out that Zimmerman called the cops whenever he saw a white kid walking home, talking on the phone to his girlfriend.
When the dispatcher tells him to stop following, Zimmerman continues but only from his truck. He hangs up the phone for some unknown reason. He finds himself at an intersection and gets out to see what the street names are (for some unknown reason). Between the time that he stops tailing Martin and then he gets out of his car, Martin is able to cross the distance between them and assault him from behind.
Zimmerman is afraid for his life at this point. He runs over to a backyard, screaming for help, while Martin gives chase.
The two tumble onto the yard and start fighting. Zimmerman manages to get on top of Martin (as described by a witness). Martin makes a menacing gesture like he has a gun, and that is when Zimmerman makes the split decision to shoot.
You know what? I would buy all of this, if this is in fact what Zimmerman says happened in his statement. It would square with all of the known evidence (body found in yard where witnesses report seeing and hearing the fighting, as well as Zimmerman’s wounds). But I would think–and maybe this is just me–that the police would have readily released such a nice narrative at the first sign of impatience. Or at least by now.
None of the descriptions of the statement I’ve read contain the details that I filled in. Zimmerman states that he felt afraid for his life when he was assaulted, next to his truck. There is no mention of him being chased into the yard–which you would think would be kind of in the forefront of your mind when relaying the story (I was so afraid that I just ran like a maniac, screaming “halp!”). There is no mention of Zimmerman being afraid for his life while the two scuffled in the yard–where Trayvon was shot according to witness statements (and supported by 911 recordings). The fear is placed in the context of the initial attack in the intersection. Not at the actual scene where the shooting occurred.
I’m going to continue doubting Zimmerman until the police reveal the parts of Zimmerman’s statements taken on that night which would explain the questionable parts of his claim. THAT seems more reasonable than accepting his word when he has every reason in the world to lie, the police didn’t even bother giving him a sobriety check or gathering all the evidence at the crime scene (Martin’s cell phone), and witness accounts (including from Martin’s girlfriend) cast suspicion on his story.
How does that hose a timeline? All that admission does is give reason to his stupidity. The timeline in court is going to start with a time stamp of when Martin was at the 7-11 going about his business of buying CANDY. Then it proceeds to the 911 call by Zimmerman followed by a 911 call from a neighbor stating where the fight took place. The fight starts with Zimmerman getting in Martin’s face. That’s what the defense has to deal with. Martin’s girlfriend can testify as to what SHE said and her phone will play out a time frame. It’s all going to neatly stack up against Zimmerman that in a very short time frame he took it upon himself to stalk someone he thought to be a criminal and in the process of this unnecessary confrontation, shot him.
Martin was confronted with a man who admits to the police that “they always get away”. So yes, randomly confronting a stranger you think is burglarizing the neighborhood and shouldn’t get away is confrontational. It’s legal to be an asshole but it’s also the basis of starting a fight to which Zimmerman was kind enough to bring a gun to.
The more I look at this statement, the more flabbergasted I am.
Tell me, which is more threatening, a kid walking down the street doing absolutely nothing strange, unusual or threatening, (The best Zimmerman could do to make Martin sound like a threat was say he was “looking”, and had “something” in his hands. Of course, there’s the fact that the kid was black, and wearing a hoodie, but last time I checked that wasn’t threatening either.) or a guy in a car watching you intently and following you, (pick your pace, the key issues would be the following and staring).
You’ve made it pretty clear you think that Zimmerman following Martin is NOT evidence of any threat. Ok. Can you explain what “evidence of threat” Martin was giving off that made Zimmerman’s benign stalking something that Martin should have felt okay about?
No, and this is actually more evidence that Zimmerman had no intention of not pursuing Martin: he struggles with agreeing to a fixed meeting place with the police and finally backs out of giving one, getting the operator to agree to have the police contact him when they arrive so he can tell them then where he will be. Because of course he intends to continue to follow Martin so he doesn’t know where he will be by then.
Care to clarify which facts you think are being twisted? Care to point to a shred of evidence anywhere that in any way whatsoever even hints at the idea that Martin was anything OTHER than completely innocent?
Because he is. Apart from the man who murdered him making a completely incredible claim that Martin attacked him, (and if he did, even the SYG authors think that Martin was on firmer ground attacking Zimmerman, his stalker, than Zimmerman was to attack Martin, who was doing nothing wrong at all.) nothing he did that day or any other day suggests that Martin was anything other than a perfectly normal, non-violent, innocent 17-year old boy. Remember presumption of innocence??? If we’re going to give that to someone standing trial, can’t you summon it up for a kid who was sentenced to death already??
And it should. That’s all that a judge or jury ever does, really, since in any situation there are unknowns, even if it is simply the unknown of what is in people’s hearts. You look at the evidence and weigh it against your reasonable understanding of the world and how it works, and come up with the answer that makes the most sense.
You better hope they are, that’s how it works. See the previous.
It gives you hope to see that the people involved (originally, anyway, the police) take at face value the statement of a man who has just killed someone and has every reason in the world to say whatever he needs to in order to keep from going to prison? Even though there is other evidence available, and the statements themselves don’t really make sense in light of physics, biology, and various other realities that make the statement made by the shooter something less than perfectly sensible? this gives you hope for what, exactly?
There’s a reason why neighborhood watch programs dissuade members from carrying guns. This is it.
As far as I can tell the Miami Herald quote is false. The other references to it I’ve found cite the Miami Herald. As far as I can recall George Zimmerman has made no public statements at all and the Sanford police didn’t report him saying anything like that. He did tell the 911 dispatcher that he was getting out of the car to check an address.
If you want to assume everything you read in the newspaper is perfectly accurate, then you might like to address this quote from the Orlando Sentinel.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,1716605.story
Sure, let me ask a few questions:
1.Where is the full text of Zimmermans statement posted? Have you read it?
Have you read the Medical Examiner’s report? How about Zimmerman’s Doctor report?
Have you read the CSI investigators report?
Have you read the ballistics report?
What is the extent of Martin’s Juvie record?
What do Zimmermans phone records show? How about his emails?
What do Martin’s phone records show?
Look, some people here have asked some interesting questions about what Zimmerman may or may not have said. All of those questions- and about a zillion more- will be asked at the Grand Jury hearing. Zimmerman wil likely be there. If so, he will HAVE to answer every question put to him. His lawyer may be there but Zimmerman can’t “take the 5th”, and Zimmermans attorney may not take part in the questioning nor present any evidence.
Interesting things will come out. For example if Martin has a juvie record it may come up- but it is very doubtful his lawyer could get it admitted at the trial.
WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE, we know less than 1% of the evidence that the GJ will hear.
And people here are clamoring for arrest and charges, when they obviously dont know the law- the DA can NOT charge Zimmerman with murder. The DA must get a indictment from a GJ. So the answer to the question- why hasn;t the DA charged Zimmerman with murder? Because he *can’t. * Not “doesn’t want to”- **can’t. **
Many dudes here are willing to lynch Zimmerman based upon hearing a 911 call and reading some biased news articles. No one here knows the facts. No one here has access to the ME, CSI, Ballistics and other reports. I agree- it doesn’t sound good for Zimmerman. But I don’t know the facts either.
So the question asked above is meaningless, no matter how politely it was asked. The State is proceeding in this case exactly and precisely as Florida law and the US Constitution requires them to do.
It would be tough to prove motive that Zimmerman intended to murder Martin. I think it would be easy to show that he instigated a fight knowing he could back it up with a gun. If the defense truly wants to use Zimmerman’s own words that he thought Martin may be armed then Zimmerman’s assumed level of rational thinking goes way down.
I don’t know if its* false, *but I do know that the Police have not released Zimmerman’s statement yet. Nor the ME’s report, etc.
Thus it’s very suspect. Mind you every good newspaper has PD leads, and someone might have leaked something. But even if so, it’s clearly out of context.
I’ve stated it outright.
No. There’s no reason to. Unless you are suggesting that someone walking towards you and asking why you are there is automatically a threat to life and limb, and I hope you’re not, as that would be proof of idiocy and/or insanity.
How is the claim of someone with facial injuries that the only person nearby attacked them “completely incredible”? It’s entirely credible. I didn’t actually think anyone seriously doubted that Martin punched Zimmerman at some point, although as you seem to there’s a perfect example of the fact-twisting I was referring to.
Also, spare me the rhetoric about Martin being “sentenced to death” or presumed guilty. It’s untrue, irrelevant posturing from someone who understands nothing about the law.
I would expect them to evaluate the statement in conjunction with the other evidence, and, if it fits, let him go. But yes, I would expect them to take his statement at face value unless the other evidence contradicts it. I’m far from convinced that it does even to the level of probable cause, and certain it doesn’t to the point of reasonable doubt (based on the evidence I’ve seen, which is not the totality of the evidence). I’ll repeat this slowly, to see if it will sink in.
You. Have. To. Presume. Him. Innocent.
I’m really not sure how I can explain that further, it seems to me entirely self-evident.
As an aside, I’m quite amused by your reference to “various other realities”, as I’m becoming more and more convinced you exist in one of them.
Nice post. Unfortunately, no one will listen or heed it, and we’ll go on for another 5 pages at least in this thread, and someone will start another thread like this the next time a situation like this comes up.