Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

Zimmerman's Word

Three issues worth noting in that context:

(1) There is a telephone witness who claims Martin exchanged words with Zimmerman, asking, "Why are you chasing me?" This undermines the idea that Zimmerman was blindsided.

(2) Lately released police station security footage appears to contradict the suggestion that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose.

(3) Not only does the security footage also appear to undermine claims of Zimmerman's head injury, another problem arises: If we combine witness statements that cries for help went on for a minute with Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him from behind, broke his nose, and then started bashing his head against a concrete sidewalk, that suggests Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head for an extended period. The back of Zimmerman's head shouldn't just be cut, it should be mush.​

Beyond that, the rest of Zimmerman's statement is constantly decaying, as well.

One of the big questions is whether or not the power of self-defense is transferable. As Charles M. Blow explained to Lawrence O'Donnell:

I think the crucial point here is the initiation of the encounter, right? So, all these other stuff really makes no difference whatsoever. The question is—you know, the central issue is if you start a fight and you are losing it, you don't have the right to claim self defense.

If the lawyer is saying that he has witnesses and the police department is saying that they have a witness who says, not that there was a fight—I fully believe there was a fight, but that Trayvon Martin initiated that fight, that's real information that we, as the public and Trayvon's family needs to know, because that changes the dynamic. However, if George Zimmerman initiates a fight, starts to lose that fight, and then starts to claim self defense. It's a different idea. And what we have—this is more of a legal, analytical point. Can the concept of self defense switch parties?

For instance, I start a fight with you. You are winning. I, in the middle of getting my behind whupped, I started to say, oh, Lawrence is hitting me so hard that I now feel like that my life is in danger. Can the concept of self defense switch parties from me to you? And the other thing is, could Trayvon also have been covered under the concept of the "Stand Your Ground" law. If a stranger follows you, who you can identify is armed and the police department has said that he's wearing his gun in a holster on his waist, a stranger with a gun follows me, gets within arm distance of me, do I then under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, have the right to meet force with force? And that's a crucial part of this, as well.​

As Zimmerman's word becomes less and less reliable, Blow's point becomes more and more important.

It is clear from the 911 tapes that George Zimmerman chose to pursue Trayvon Martin with the intention of confrontation.

Zimmerman's claims about what happened next become less reliable with each emerging piece of evidence.

The key phrase, as Pandaemoni has noted, is, "If you take Zimmerman at his word".

And Zimmerman's word does not appear to be reliable. He won't be criminally convicted, but I do wonder what implications Florida's laws have for an otherwise seemingly legitimate wrongful death dispute.
____________________

Notes:

Blow, Charles M. Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 26, 2012. Television. MSNBC.MSN.com. March 29, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46869236/ns/msnbc_tv/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to Pandaemoni, Zimmerman would be immune to any civil suit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

#1 isn't from an inpartial witness (Martin's girlfriend) and had she come forward before March 19th, before the 911 tapes had been released, it would hold more weight. None the less, her testimony, even if fully accepted as fact, doesn't actually refute the claim that Martin struck the first blow or shed light on their initial orientation when they met.

#2 doesn't particularly matter, in that only the fear of great bodily harm is needed to defend oneself in Florida, and the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (a high bar) that wasn't the case. As long as the other supposedly impartial witness testimony, that Zimmerman was crying for help as Martin had him pinned and was "pounding" him is not impeached, the actual severity of his injuries, (as long as he has some in the back of his head to support the assertion that he was on the ground) isn't that important.

#3, I'm sure Zimmerman would be resisting someone slamming his head into the ground, so Martin might not have been able to do that much damage before being shot. Again we get to the statute, where it's the fear of great bodily harm that is the bar one has to meet in Florida, not actual great bodily harm.

Source?

And no it's not Zimmerman's word. This case seems to hang on this other eyewitness who claims that Martin was on top and pounding on him before he was shot that is keeping him out of jail.

And unlike Quad's unsourced assertion, no one has yet shown that this key piece of testimony, the one that makes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" a serious bar to prosecution, has been contradicted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Um arthur Zimmerman account and the alleged witness account have contradicted many times all ready. You just refuse to accept any other than completely exculpatory evidence for Zimmerman as valid

 

You and Quad and now both claiming that's the case but won't provide any support.

But, unless he has changed his mind after the last post, even Tiassa agrees with me:

Does he not know what you know?

Like Tiassa, the Florida DA says he doesn't have the evidence to charge him, let alone convict him.

Why is that?

Well,
No one has claimed to have seen how the fight started.
No one has claimed to have seen the shot fired.

But ONE witness has said he saw Zimmerman crying for help while Martin was on top of him pounding him.

That's the State's hurdle.

That's the key testimony that I think has been keeping Zimmerman out of jail and that I've not seen anyone contradict.

If, as you say, that key piece of eyewitness testimony had been contradicted that wouldn't be the case.

So simply post a link to support your assertion, or even simpler, just post the testimony that you claim contradicts it.

 

>>the rest of Zimmerman's statement is constantly decaying, as well.

>Source?

1) Video showing no injuries after the incident.

2) Police records indicating he had a judgment against him for domestic violence and an arrest for assault of a police officer.

>And unlike Quad's unsourced assertion, no one has yet shown that this key
>piece of testimony, the one that makes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" a
>serious bar to prosecution, has been contradicted.

That is not the standard of proof required. All that is required for an arrest is "a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found." Given that he killed a teenager after pursuing him, given that he has a history of violence and overzealous patrolling, and given that his story has been shown to be (at least in part) false, that standard has been met.

 

You mean the guy who said the police "corrected" his testimony?
Because that is the only witness I have heard of that gave any comment on the relative positions of the two of them. And links gave been given to you. You refused to accept them as valid probably because it proved you wrong

 

You made that claim in post #51, but you posted NO LINK to support that claim.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2919706&postcount=51

If you do have evidence that was the case, present it.

 

The video is after he was treated by Paramedics.
The police report says he was bleeding from his face, back of his head and had a fat lip. The video doesn't refute that, but it does indicate that he wasn't severely beaten either.

But, that's not actually a requirement in Florida anyway.

As to the police record, not quite as you put it, no assault on a police officer and pushing isn't domestic violence.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-teen-punched-article-1.1051015#ixzz1qXikKtjp

No, his statement that night, that it was self defense was corroborated by the only witness to the struggle. (still waiting for someone to show that isn't a true statement) and no one has shown that he has a history of violence.

It is the Florida Standard:

But even so they took him into custody and they interviewed the witnesses and they looked at him and Martin and all that was taken into account in the decision not to arrest him. Indeed, the lead investigator wanted to, but the DA said they didn't have a case. That DA was replaced. The new DA hasn't arrested him either though.
Like I've been saying, as long as that one witnesses statement holds up, it's highly unlikely the state can make that burden.

 

Agreed. It indicates he was not severely beaten and got no blood on his clothing, indicating that he was not bleeding severely either.

You are correct. The restraining order was issued by a court in a domestic violence case unrelated to the police officer assault. It was a separate incident.

He has an arrest for violence and a court judgment against him for violence. That's a history of violence no matter what spin you put on it.

That is correct. The police chief has since stepped down over that decision.

 

That's an odd source request ....

What, seriously?

Okay, let me start with what might seem a slightly condescending question: Are you capable of reading critically?

See, the reason that I ask is that you're asking me for a source on what is a matter of perception and opinion.

Now, maybe when Zimmerman and his defenders assert something and the evidence emerges showing calling that claim into doubt, it reinforces their credibility in your eyes. But for the rest of us, the arguments made on Zimmerman's behalf—such as the broken nose—keep turning up fishy.

The bottom line is that George Zimmerman appears to have gotten away with murder. No, I can't convict him, but as a juror I would also hope to not let sentiment override statute.

Politically speaking, I do believe shooting black people is one of the reasons these laws were passed. This sort of situation was entirely predictable, and the problems it brings are not in the slightest unexpected. The idea that these SYG laws would run up against such a test was one of inevitability, and on this occasion, the test is devastating that law. Even the law's sponsors are stuttering as this shot echoes 'round the world. But nobody should actually be surprised. That is, I would find it more surprising that someone might actually have believed this wouldn't happen.

There is a difference, in assessing George Zimmerman's culpability, between not guilty and innocent.

He's getting away with murder.

It sucks, but this is one of the tolls of democracy. Occasionally majorities pass really stupid laws, and someone has to die before society takes that stupidity seriously.

Life goes on ... for the living.

 

Are paramedics providing make-up to cover gashes, broken noses, and bruising; cosmetic surgery; and fresh, clean clothes which are identical to those he was wearing during this alleged "assault" these days? Who knew?

 

Umm where is the paramedics case card? They are legal documents which are regularly called up as evidence in court so where is it? If it supports his version then he would have no problem releasing it.

 

The law does not say that you are allowed to use deadly force in a fist fight, so this idea that Zimmerman was legally safe so long as Martin was on top of him is bunk. The law itself states that one must have a reasonable expectation that their life is in danger, and there certainly would have been no cause to believe that, not even if Martin was pummeling him.

 

And therein lies the problem.

If there are people out there who really, honestly believe that blacks/hispanics/people wearing hoodies/violent neighborhood watch types are often bent on violence, then they can shoot such a person on sight and be protected by the law. It doesn't matter if they really are a threat. The law states if "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another . . ." they can use deadly force, rather than just retreat.

Thus the onus is not on the person to determine whether they are really a threat. It is just their BELIEF that determines whether they can shoot someone.

Let's take the opposite case. In a month a black teenager in Florida walks home from the store. A white man with a gun gets out of a car and says "hey, what are you doing there? Don't walk away from me!" If, based on the teenager's understanding of the risk this places him in (and based on recent events) he decides that he is at risk of being shot, he can turn around, take out his own gun and kill the person, quite legally. Even if it turns out that the guy is an off-duty cop, and even if the kid robbed a store the previous day.

If this is what this case devolves to, then expect some pressure on this law to be repealed.

 

Ah, that's part of the problem that Tiassa was mentioning.

NO

The Florida statute only says if you are in fear of great bodily injury.

That's not the same as saying your life in danger.

 

And isn't that what I said in my first post?

 

Tiassa you do know the obvious solution for his family don't you? Act suspicious in this dick heads area get him to chase YOU and then shoot him. Of course this is a bad precidet but if the law protects him then it protects you too and obviously you would "be in fear" of the basted who killed your brother/son/lover etc

 

The video is not clear enough to state he got no blood on his clothes, and a broken nose doesn't have to be displaced or a gusher, so again, the video seems to indicate that he wasn't seriously hurt, but the Florida law doesn't require that to be the case anyway.

 

Yes I am.

Zimmerman hasn't been talking.
Only a general outline of what he said has been leaked.
So I was curious as to the source for your contention that "the rest of his statement is decaying."

So Tiassa, enough with the ad hominums, my reading is fine.

And that's fine, if you want to say you have no source for that statement and it's just your opinion, that's an ok answer.
I just thought you might have had more.

But that "evidence" didn't show the statment was false and so your "into doubt" does not equate to a "decaying statement".