So it seems to me that Martin’s mistake was that he didn’t kill Zimmerman first. Because then he would have been able to plead self-defense/stand your ground.
It seems to me that what this law does is encourage people to ensure that if they get into some kind of altercation, the other party should not survive it.
The girlfriend reports that Martin asked Zimmerman what the problem was, and he responded back aggressively, followed by sounds of what seemed like altercation.
If Zimmerman never mentions this encounter and phone records indicate that Martin was on the phone after Zimmerman had hung up with 911, he has some 'plaining to do. How probable is it that someone engaged in a cell phone conversation would be chasing after someone? I mean, it certainly is possible. Martin could have been telling his girlfriend, “Yeah, I’m about to hurt this guy right now! Hold up a second while I take care of business!” Or he could have had the phone on without saying anything.
This witness’s account is just as valid as anyone else’s, however. Jon reports having seen Martin on top of Zimmerman. The girlfriend reports hearing someone who could have been Zimmerman asking Martin questions. John’s lone account lends support to Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was the aggressor–although I don’t think anyone has rejected the idea that Martin didn’t throw in some punches. But while the girlfriend’s story does not counteract John’s, it also establishes prior contact between the shooter and the victim outside of the “fight” scene. So I’d be scanning Zimmerman’s statement for any part of his story where he mentions talking to Martin, aggressively or not. If it’s not there and the phone logs support the girlfriend’s account, a big red flag is raised.
One question I do have is about Jon. Presumably he was calling 911 when he looked out of the window and saw Zimmerman standing over Martin. Did he just hang up the phone or did he put the call through? Seems like if I had a phone in my hand or nearby right after seeing something like that, it would make sense to go right on ahead and dial those numbers. Especially if he didn’t know which one was the bad guy in the altercation.
I agree, but I don’t think he would have been given the same leeway granted to Zimmerman. Apart from the race and youth angle, Martin was an unknown entity to the police. Zimmerman HAD called him in as suspicious. I’m seriously doubting that he would have not been arrested.
Of course, I will be told that we have no way of knowing this and that it is meaningless to speculate. But I know I’m not the only one who carries this belief. I can’t imagine that even the Dispassionate would disagree that this is how it would have likely gone down, and that this is one of the major reasons why people are so upset.
I’m kind of expecting that someone somewhere will pipe up to say that this shows that everybody should go around armed, because then Martin would have been better able to protect himself from any perceived threat. We all know that shoot outs are a great way for two people who are not doing anything illegal to solve misunderstandings.
He could have, but perhaps not with the same story.
Zimmerman can claim that he was as gentle as a lamb while following Martin. Never initiated physical contact. Never threatened or was explicitly aggressive. Never said any racial slurs. Never implied he was about to initiate a physical conflict by saying something like “you’re coming with me now”. Just followed at a distance being polite until Martin turned around, closed the distance, and attacked.
I find that story highly implausible, and hopefully a hole will be found in it that enables him to be prosecuted.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, I don’t think he could have used the story above. So the same story would not support both of them.
As Digby said, it’s interesting that when discussing this incident, gun types aren’t talking about how Martin should have been carrying for his own protection.
They can’t help focusing on their pathological-fear-of-the-darkies agenda to remember their advocating-firearms-for-personal-defense agenda.
MSNBC reported this morning that Treyvon Martin called 911 about the time of the incident, and that some of the verbal exchange is on tape. They didn’t specify a source. I’m very skeptical about the report, given that he was purportedly on the phone with his girlfriend at the time. It would seem the only possible way this could have happened is if Treyvon hung up on her in order to call 911, in which case the entire exchange might be on tape.
The other reason for doubt is that other 911 calls have been released, and there hasn’t been even a hint until now that there might be more.
Well, no, he couldn’t have used the same story. But he could have used a story that was even more plausible.
He was in the neighborhood just minding his business when he notices this guy following him in a menacing way.
When he turns around and asks him what his problem is, the guy demands to know what’s he doing 'round these parts.
He tries to walk off but the guy grabs him, demanding he explain himself.
Reflexively, he punches the guy and runs off.
Zimmerman chases him into a nearby yard and tackles him.
They roll around. There’s a period of time when they break away from each other, and then Zimmerman comes at Martin. Martin notices the gun at this moment, panics, and starts fighting with all his might. He’s thinking he has to knock the guy unconscious, because if he runs away the bastard might shoot him in the back.
Zimmerman, feeling overwhelmed by all this intensity, ends the fight the only way he knows how. By shooting Martin in the chest.
This story jibes with all the witness accounts and explains Zimmerman’s wounds. Really, the only thing that I had to ignore is Zimmerman’s SUPPOSED claim that Martin ambushed him from out of nowhere after he had hung up on 911. This is not corroborated by anyone else and also challenges common sense. One moment, according to Zimmerman’s recording, Martin is coming towards him menacingly. The next moment, Zimmerman is following him. This does not sound like Martin was coming at him head-on but rather walking past him. So for what he supposedly said to be true, Zimmerman would have had to stop following Martin on foot, return to his truck, either get back in it and then step right out to check the street sign OR drive to another intersection to do the same thing, and THEN he gets whacked on the head.
He needs to explain how he could have followed Martin AND been ambushed by him. I hope the police questioned him about this. If they didn’t, the investigation was a joke.
Both. You don’t expect that at the time, either knew whether the other was armed?
No. The law clearly and explicitly says no. Maybe you should read it?
Next strawman, please.
Again (and again, and again). The law says that Zimmerman is in the right shooting Martin if Zimmerman had reasonable fear for his life no matter who initiated the actual physical confrontation.
Well, it always works out in the movies. . . and it’s fun to watch! They need to pass a “self-defense” law for juniors, too.
Whose name had more letters?
Oh, sorry, I thought this was Irrelevant Question Day.
How is it relevant whose fear was more reasonable?
I thought the call with the girlfriend ended when the physical altercation began.
Hmmmm… Maybe we don’t know all the facts yet? Crazy idea, huh?
sure.
Which is why I said from the beginning I wanted to know what Zimmerman’s statement said before I reached any conclusions.
I’ve always suspected you were a racist, and now you’ve gone and proved it.
In that case I know a few people I’d like to vacation with in Florida.
Step 1: initiate physical confrontation
Step 2: fear for my life because I am a wuss
Step 3: shoot him
replace “because I am a wuss” with “because there is reasonable fear for my life”
Accept the idea that you may get shot first, and the guy will walk if he was in reasonable fear for his life.
True. And if Martin had used that story, do you really think people would have been clamoring for his arrest? I don’t.
You are oversimplifying it. If Zimmerman is the one who attacked Martin first, threatened him with violence before the altercation, or if he used racial slurs, that is absolutely relevant. It would make his defense just as laughable as the example of a man killing his cheating wife because she “tried to mug him”.
In other words, his defense would be completely unbelievable instead of merely implausible.
Have you read the law?