I agree those are the two biggest areas that need to be explained.
But there is a question about witness tampering, if that’s what it is called. At least one witness has indicated that she was corrected by the detective when giving her account. She has come forward with this allegation; I suppose we will be encouraged to ignore this, since it has not been corroborated? But then why should we believe what any of them have to say? All of the witnesses could be lying, right?
And then there is the allegation that the detective was heard asking Zimmerman potentially leading questions at the scene. Did someone make this up out of whole cloth? Would the PD ever admit that this happened? Perhaps it’s not really that big of a deal…although it seems to me in a case that rests almost exclusively on Zimmerman’s word, it would be. Simply asking him, “You didn’t chase this kid, did you?” could give Zimmerman all he needs to know to craft a good story. I don’t know how situations like this work, though. It would seem strange for the police not to ask Zimmerman any questions right then and there at the scene. But maybe it is customary to immediately haul confessed killers down to the precinct to get their statement down on paper and recorded, with no idle chitchat beforehand. I don’t know. Seems to me that if it is, this accusation shouldn’t be ignored.
Looks to me like you are saying that in madmonk’s scenario, if, by some miracle, he managed to actually kill a police officer with a knife in that situation, he would be exonerated? BEcause what, a jury would agree that of the two options, applying deadly force and backing off, killing the police officer was even equally reasonable to backing off? Really?
It’s not as though the law is saying either one is ok, you know, it’s very much dependent on the totality of the circumstances, and in madmonk’s scenario I’d bet everything I have that the jury would find that it was not at all reasonable for madmonk to kill a police officer with whom he was struggling as a result of his own aggression. I think that the jury would find that the more reasonable course of action would have been to drop his weapon and say “I surrender”, and his choice to kill the police officer was unacceptable.
Same here: Martin did nothing wrong, Zimmerman basically fantasized that the kid might be threatening, and scared the kid into defending himself against a reasonable perception that Zimmerman was a threat. Given the fact that Zimmerman outweighed him by a hundred pounds and Martin did not have any kind of weapon, Zimmerman’s choice to shoot him in the chest and kill him was excessive and unnecessary, especially since he did have the gun, which he could have turned to as a kind of “nuclear option” if Martin somehow managed to become a genuine threat to Zimmerman’s life. But getting punched out wasn’t going to kill him, and he could have punched back.
So, you are arguing that any citizen has the right to chase down and question any other citizen and that it is not reasonable for the citizen being chased (by someon with a gun) to feel threatened by this behavior? I am then going to assume that you would be okay with the Black Panthers dispatching armed members to largley affluent white neighborhoods to question passersby as long as the people being questioned are not compelled to answer?
Sorry, but it sounds like you have an axe to grind here. Yeah, this issue has made a lot of black people angry, but it is crazy to pretend that race is not a potential factor and that they are getting angry because that’s just what they do best.
The cavalier behavior shown towards the victim and his family is not just a mere PR blunder. It, like Zimmerman’s actions, feeds into the idea that Martin is getting the “same ole, same ole” treatment that has always been associated with people of his demographic in this country. It would actually take a great leap of faith to conclude that there was never any bias involved. Not only do I not think Martin would be dead right now if he had been a white kid, but I don’t think the police would have jumped to Martin’s defense in the way they did Zimmerman, if the tables had been turned. This is not only a race thing, but also a “good ole boy” thing. That is what the police told the family. That Zimmerman is a “good ole boy” and therefore credible. They said this without even knowing his criminal background. Just because one doesn’t have to be white to be in the “good ole boy” network doesn’t mean it’s fair.
There’s a lot of bullshit craziness in this comment, but I don’t care enough to pick it apart. Suffice it say, though, there are a whole lot of people who apparently care about this. Even conservatives who have not been great fans of “the blacks” have weighed in against both the police department and the law. Who are they “appeasing”? A group of people who have absolutely no interest in voting for them? Or maybe there’s enough stuff that went wrong with this case to make everyone just a little disgusted.
I think it’s kind of ironic but in a beautiful way that although racial bias may have been in the mix regarding Martin’s death, race does not seem to be affecting people’s assessment of this situation.
We don’t know if either 776.041(2)(a) or (b) has ben met. Austin said, according to ABC news, they were seperated. That was Zimmerman’s chance to “escape such danger.”
You can’t have it both ways.If Zimmerman is the agressor, then Martin has the right to “stand his ground” and subdue his assailant. Surely Martin would have been within his self-defense rights if he punched Zimmerman to death.
A question directed to the criminal law lawyers that have stepped into this thread:
This CNN article quotes Zimmerman’s lawyer as saying that his client is cooperating, evidenced by the fact that Zimmerman is cooperating with law enforcement in questioning without legal counsel present. It is unclear from the article if this is something that Zimmerman is choosing to do on his own or if he counsel is advising this approach. However, the way Zimmerman’s counsel discusses Zimmerman’s unaccompanied questioning makes it sound as though he at least tacitly approves.
How in the world is this a good thing and why is the lawyer discussing it so casually? Who is telling this guy he should be talking to the investigators without a lawyer present? Or is there something else I am missing?
No. The police will now almost certainly wait until the DA gets done with the Grand Jury. Unless Zimmerman turns into a flight risk (which is very unlikely as he’s quite possibly in protective custody) they need to wait until the Grand Jury finishes their deliberations and decides what charges to bring. No matter how much new evidence come up, etc. More or less, it is now out of the hands of the Police. A Grand Jury has been called, it’s now in their hands.
Really, you folks just do not understand how the justice system works in the USA.
From what little I know, it’s now pretty tainted and many tests can’t be made on it. DNA could of course. I was actually assuming that’s what Martin wanted the blood for, but he seems to want to run other tests? Zimmerman was likely given medical care, they likely ran tests then. Those will be shown to the GJ if they are relevant. Is that want you want, martin? I am confused about what you think the blood may show.
If Martin caught just a glimpse of that gun, it just might have been enough to make him think “fight for all your life!”
The question that I think is important is, if both of them were alive and claiming self-defense, who would I believe had a more reasonable cause to be afraid? Martin doesn’t really have to concoct a complicated story to explain why he’d be afraid. Just seeing that gun would be enough for anyone to crap their pants.
But for Zimmerman’s claim to believed, we gotta have a lot of information. Like, why would he be afraid? Did he see Martin with a weapon? Did Martin threaten him verbally? When Martin punched him, was it in response to something Zimmerman had done (like trying to grab him after a hot pursuit). Or did Martin ambush him from behind? How could he do such a thing, when Zimmerman had presumably been following him? Why would he do such a thing when he wasn’t armed and had no motive?
Martin doesn’t have to explain much. I would want to know if Zimmerman really did chase him and if so, what did he do once they made contact. And I’d want to know if he saw the gun before or after he started wailing on Zimmerman. But that’s about it. Zimmerman would have to spend a little bit more time in the room with me. He could very well have perfectly believable answers to all of my questions. But I’m not just going to accept his word that it was self-defense without making sure there’s no unexplained “WTF?” in his story. I hope the police had the same goal in mind when they questioned him.
So the one who has the simplest defense to make is dead. The question is: do we continue to solicit answers from Zimmerman until his story hits a certain level of credibility compared to the defense the dead person would likely provide, given the known facts? Or do we assume that Zimmerman’s account is the most likely one since it is the only one that exists…and then work to disprove it?
I hope the police, as they collected evidence from the crime scene, considered the possibility that Martin might have had good reason to wail on Zimmerman.
So your understanding would be that when the serial killer rapist is raping and strangling his victim, and she manages to to grab a knife and raises it to stab him, but he manages to grab it from her and instead plunges it into her heart and kills her, he’s in the clear.
I will admit my immediate reaction was that Zimmerman should be in jail, and I couldn’t understand why he wasn’t. But an armed man stalking an unarmed teen is apparently perfectly legal.
We can say “Martin found himself being chased by an armed man and naturally fought back” but if it is perfectly legal for an armed man to chase you, then this common sense doesn’t work. If it is legal to go around chasing people armed, then it cannot also be ok to take the fact that someone is armed and chasing you as a statement of violent aggression. That has to be true, right?
Therefore, to me, it comes down to what actual physical confrontation Zimmerman initiated, or what he said to threaten. Not chasing. Not being armed. If he chased and GRABBED Martin before shooting him, no way in hell can I buy his defense. If he threatened or said any slurs, no chance. But if he was following him without saying anything like that and Martin turned around and attacked his armed stalker, then even though I completely understand why Martin would do so, I think the law could be on Zimmerman’s side.
Of course, that is only one aspect of the case. There is also the issue of whether the self defense was out of proportion with the danger, and the question of whether the shooting occurred after they were already separated.
No, Carmady, it’s not just whether actions are legal or not, as we covered just yesterday. Something can be legal and still end up leading to another’s death, at which point the person who undertook the legal action can be held to account for it. Go through yesterday’s posts…