State v Zimmerman

[Coito ergo sum]

And you think that helps his case?

Sounds like a terrible nightmare for Martin. One that ended in him being shot to death.

What had Zimmerman seen Martin do prior to calling 911?

Zimmerman explains what he saw on the 911 call, and the prosecution's witness confirmed that it was suspicious enough to warrant inquiry (a call to 911).


If a person is against Stand Your Ground, when Martin is out of eyeshot from Zimmerman, and when he is supposedly on his way to a relative's house with his skittles, wouldn't it be incumbent upon Martin to run away? He hadn't even reached a situation where he had been attacked. Without stand you're ground, even if you are attacked -- even if you have right of self defense -- you have to run away if it would be reasonably possible for you to do so. Here, Martin HAD ALREADY RUN AWAY. He was gone and had plenty of time to be probably half a kilometer at least given the time interval between Martin running (recorded on the 911 call) and the later conflict occurring.

For those who are against stand your ground, they ought to be holding Martin to the requirement of running away, shouldn't they?

[Tero]

Martin is not on trial! We are establishing Zs contribution to the unnecessary confrontation. No burglary was in progress. If it was, he was to wait in his car.

[Coito ergo sum]

Martin is not on trial! We are establishing Zs contribution to the unnecessary confrontation. No burglary was in progress. If it was, he was to wait in his car.

Oh, so you are back to the trial. You seem to switch between "I'm not defending Martin or saying Zimmerman is guilty, I'm just saying they're idiots and he's the bigger idiot" and then talking about the trial.

If we are establishing Z's contribution to the confrontation, surely the fact that Martin was gone and away, and then apparently returned to the scene, has a little to do with it, no?

If Martin was on trial for assaulting and battering Zimmerman by bashing his head in the pavement in response to being followed, would Martin's actions have been justified by Zimmerman's actions?

[Sean Hayden]

He ran away. Why he ended up with Zimmerman again is not all that relevant no. There could be any number of reasons for it. We can't know for certain why because Martin was shot to death.

[Tero]

The case is of interest in defining gun use in FL. I doubt very much Z is going to be guilty. You can maybe determine that there was assault by Martin, but the details can't be determined, one witness is dead.

The issue at hand is use of deadly force.the confusing FL gun laws need to be simplified.

If you are the victim, someone completely unknown to you decides to stalk and rob you, sure, shoot the guy if the law allows it.

This Z case is much more a gray area

[Coito ergo sum]

He ran away. Why he ended up with Zimmerman again is not all that relevant no. There could be any number of reasons for it. We can't know for certain why because Martin was shot to death.

Why he ended up with Zimmerman is relevant as hell to the case. It is key to whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense. That's the case.

If there "could be any number of reasons for it" what does that mean in terms of reasonable doubt?

We can't be "certain" but we do have lots of direct and circumstantial evidence to look at. Part of that evidence is the fact that the physical injuries to Zimmerman are consistent with someone having been on his back and getting his head hit into the pavement. A lot will depend on the wound forensics. What was the trajectory of the bullet? How far away from the barrel was Martin's body? Does it indicate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman?

[Tero]

So far the forensics show that Ms shirt or hoodie ? was not flat against his chest but more loose as the bullet entered. You may hear more.

All I have is this analysis
http://youtu.be/ebEY9OU22wY

I'm not following tv coverage as the racist angle is of no interest to me.

[Sean Hayden]

Of course he acted in self-defense. I guess you could doubt that, but I don't need to.

He did it after he went out with his gun to watch his community. After he thought a kid was suspicious and decided to follow him. And after he escalated the situation into a chase, after which he waited around -still armed!

That he finally got to use his gun and in self-defense is hardly surprising. That anyone would consider that as capturing the spirit of self-defense is though.

[Coito ergo sum]

The case is of interest in defining gun use in FL. I doubt very much Z is going to be guilty. You can maybe determine that there was assault by Martin, but the details can't be determined, one witness is dead.

The issue at hand is use of deadly force.the confusing FL gun laws need to be simplified.

If you are the victim, someone completely unknown to you decides to stalk and rob you, sure, shoot the guy if the law allows it.

This Z case is much more a gray area

Well, I think the case will have nothing much to do with defining gun use in FL. It's not even being referenced in public discourse in that regard.

I think Zimmerman is at great risk of being found guilty. As can be seen from the reaction of most people here on Ratz, it is very easy for people to line up against him and to base it on things other than the facts of the case.

I think you are confused as to the laws at issue here. The use of deadly force law is the same as everywhere else in the US, and is consistent with common law in the US and England for centuries.

The gun laws are not at all "confusing." You can carry a concealed weapon with a valid permit. Here is the law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... pter%20790 Carrying a concealed firearm without a permit is a felony. Open carry of firearms -- i.e. - walking around with it in hand or openly displayed is unlawful. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 3#0790.053

What is confusing? And how will the trial clear anything up or operate as a catalyst to clear it up?

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course he acted in self-defense. I guess you could doubt that, but I don't need to.

He did it after he went out with his gun to watch his community. After he thought a kid was suspicious and decided to follow him.

I am with you up until this point.

And after he escalated the situation into a chase,

This is refuted by the 911 call. Martin ran BEFORE Zimmerman exited the truck. Zimmerman for a few seconds starts running, but then says "ok" an stops running after being told to do so. According to the conversation on the audiotape, Martin is gone from view -- he has run away and Zimmerman walks around for a good minute and twenty seconds (or something like that) before hanging up with the dispatcher. A teenager "running" would be able to cover about 440 yards/meters at full run, and certainly 250 meters at slow pace.

after which he waited around -still armed!

Of course he was "still armed" -- But the gun was not drawn as far as anyone has alleged. He was apparently wearing it in the normal concealed fashion, so the gun did not prompt any action by Martin.

That he finally got to use his gun and in self-defense is hardly surprising. That anyone would consider that as capturing the spirit of self-defense is though.

Yes, it is unfortunate.

Actually, if I were to say what bothers me the most about Zimmerman here is something that has not yet come up, and I don't know if it ever will. But, I have to say, listening to that 911 audiotape. I have a sneaking suspicion that Zimmerman was popping back some booze while he was on the lookout there. He sounds half in the bag to me. Go back and listen to the tape with that in mind - I wonder if you agree?

If they drew his blood at the time he was being treated, I wonder if he showed any alcohol level in his blood. That would be an interesting turn of events.

I'm not saying for sure the guy is innocent. But, I find the mad, impassioned pleas to hang this guy to be rather disturbing, because they appear to be more directed at convicting gun owners than convicting a murderer.

[Sean Hayden]

I thought he sounded off when I first heard it. But I try to ignore that kind of thing because it can be so unreliable. Still now that you mentioned it I'd like to know too.

I haven't thought about this as a gun rights issue. It has always been about Zimmerman's behavior.

[Seth]

Nobody is allowed to attack someone for something they said. But idiot Zimmerman put himself in a situation where he was forced to use a gun.

You see? The gun did not prevent anything. It got Z in trouble.

Kept him from having his brains splattered all over the sidewalk.

[Seth]

And you think that helps his case?

Sounds like a terrible nightmare for Martin. One that ended in him being shot to death.

What had Zimmerman seen Martin do prior to calling 911?

Yes, a terrible nightmare caused by Martin, who didn't do the reasonable and prudent thing, which would have been to call 911, not his girlfriend, and report that he was being followed while at the same time seeking to BREAK CONTACT and find a place of safety, like the house he was staying at, while waiting for the police to sort things out...being that he was both unarmed and in an unfamiliar neighborhood where he was a guest.

If Martin had called 911 they would BOTH have been on with a dispatcher and hopefully the dispatchers would have calmed the situation till the police arrived by telling Martin to avoid circling back to confront Zimmerman, just as they told Zimmerman to stop his pursuit...which he did.

Martin is at fault for initiating the fatal confrontation by seeking out Zimmerman.

[Seth]

He ran away. Why he ended up with Zimmerman again is not all that relevant no. There could be any number of reasons for it. We can't know for certain why because Martin was shot to death.

It's absolutely relevant. It's the key to the case in fact. If Martin ran away and then came back to confront Zimmerman, who was near his truck, then Martin was the initial aggressor in a NEW confrontation and Zimmerman was the victim of an attack which eventually justified his using lethal force. In that case, Zimmerman's use of deadly force was likely lawful.

On the other hand, if Martin and Zimmerman were never out of contact with one another, it's much more difficult to determine who said what and who might have been the initial aggressor. In this case, unless the prosecution can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor (and by that I mean essentially the one who threw the first punch because having a discussion, even a heated one, is not considered "aggression" under the law, even if it involves insulting language.) and that Zimmerman's physical actions placed Martin in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm BEFORE he jumped Zimmerman and started bashing his head on the concrete.

That's a pretty high hurdle for the prosecution. I see Zimmerman being acquitted. If not at trial, then after appeal.

[Collector1337]

The prosecution's "star witness" sure didn't help their case any.