Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

[styrgwillidar]

This is the closest to how I see it. I don 't believe Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder, but had he stayed in the car and not pursued, as was instructed by 911 operators, he would have saved himself and the Martin family a lot of heartache.

First, to clarify- Zimmerman was on the non-emergency line not 911 on his initial call. He did not classify it as an emergency, simply the report of a suspicious person.

Second, the dispatcher did not ask him to stay in his car. According to the dispatcher’s testimony, what he did do, was ask a series of questions. One question was about which way the suspicious person was heading-- Zimmerman chose to get out of the car to try and provide that information. When the dispatcher realized that Zimmerman was out of his car, he asked if he was following the person. When Zimmerman said yes, the dispatcher said ‘we don’t need you to do that’. Zimmerman said ok (he stated he did stop following at that time. But did he really? I don’t know and dispatcher doesn’t either. However the girl on the phone stated Martin said he’d lost Zimmerman.) Dispatcher testified that Z said ’ they always get away’ he and Z discuss where police will meet Z. Z’s statement is he headed back to his truck to meet the police, and trying to determine street/address as he headed there. The dispatcher ends the call because he believes the incident is over, i.e. devolved to police follow-up vicing any more real-time info from Z.

Now, the prosecution’s challenge is to provide evidence that contradicts Z’s story.

Please recall, that the NW watch was started in response to a series of burglaries. The SPD NW coordinator testified these even included hot prowls- one of which was a woman home with a baby. Would the neighborhood be better off without a NW, without folks looking out for one another?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Why rehash?

We are not the jury.

My concern is the possibility of riots due to a lack of knowledge. The way this is portrayed in some places is cut and dried guilty of murder. Cut and dried innocent.

The problem is both men were carrying out completely legal and reasonable actions. Nothing either was doing was illegal. Unusual perhaps-- not a lot of folks choose to walk to the store in the rain. Not a lot of folks willing to call about suspicious persons, get involved.

And absolutely no one but Martin and Zimmerman knows what truly instigated this becoming a physical confrontation. Even according to the girl on the phone the first things each man said to each other were perfectly reasonable things to say-- ‘Why are you following me?’ ‘What are you doing around here?’

Why/Who/How things degenerated from there is a matter of opinion vice a strong basis in fact.

So, will one group or another do something stupid based an a jury decision? Especially a situation that has been very distorted in the press?

 

[MaryT777]

Well the Sanford PD neighborhood watch lead testified differently. She stated that folks should follow from a ‘safe distance’. The HOA president as well testified that was the understanding of the Police’s NW guidance and in fact a burglar was caught under that guidance- observers following from a safe distance.

Yet when Donald Obrien was asked directly if under any circumstances should someone on neighborhood watch follow a suspect he said simply “No.”

 

[kelvinf]

Sorry, the extent of injuries is a distraction.

Truly. If Martin had lived through this, killing Zimmerman, and had no absolutely no injuries, but claimed he did it because Zimmerman rushed him and Martin stated he was in fear of imminent serious bodily harm- that would be a valid claim to self-defense. The law does not require one to suffer serious injury prior to resorting to self-defense. Would be kind of foolish if it did- how do you read other person’s mind and be sure you know how far they’re willing to take it? If you’re suffering blows to the head, how do you know when you’re on the edge of losing consciousness, being killed?

A referee at a soccer match died recently from one punch to the head from one of the players. A relative of mine died from tripping and their head hitting the sidewalk.

You claim these are minor injuries. Which isn’t relevant. What is are the circumstances under which they were suffered. A 5’11 160 pound fit young man on top of another pinned beneath him. (assuming Zimmerman’s story is correct). How does the pinned person in those circumstances know what kind of injuries they’ve received. More importantly— do they have reason to fear that they are in fact in danger of serious bodily harm?

Don’t you need to prove self-defense? If A slaps B, B can shot A and claim self-defense. Well, B has to prove that.

If the injuries aren’t relevent, then why is the defense considering it? Seems like they don’t agree with.

You said: “A 5’11 160 pound fit young man on top of another”. What about a 5’11’’ 158 lb teenager on top of a 5’8" 200 lb adult male?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Yet when Donald Obrien was asked directly if under any circumstances should someone on neighborhood watch follow a suspect he said simply “No.”

from legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/

I have not been watching the trial but reading the transcripts and summaries at various sites.

The SPD neighborhood watch coordinator, responsible for providing training guidance to the NW volunteers:

"West focused in on that comment, asking, “when you say the shouldn’t follow someone, you’re not saying that if you see someone suspicious that you can’t follow at a distance to gather information, are you? You don’t tell people that they can’t follow someone from a distance, do you?”

“That’s right,” Dorival agreed, she was not saying that, but rather that it was not a good idea to engage someone."

The HOA president, O’Brien
" A few days later, these same workers observed the same 17-year-old black man wandering through Twin Lakes again. They contacted the police, and the burglar was successfully arrested.

Then he made an astonishing statement, given that he was a State witness and given the State’s theory of the case.

The arrest was made possible, he said, because the construction workers followed the suspicious person from a distance. O’Brien was, he said, so pleased with the successful arrest that he had sent the workers a letter of commendation from the HOA."

It will be hard for the prosecution to argue that following suspicious persons wasn’t allowable when the HOA president commended folks for doing just that.

 

[SwizzleStick]

My post from the “Trayvon Martin: ‘Shoot first’ law under scrutiny” thread from last year is just as true today as it was last year.

SwizzleStick:

We don’t know what happened. I wish that we did. Bottom line, deadly force was used and now a young man is dead because deadly force was used against him. Perhaps it was necessary as defense because a head bashing on concrete can be just as deadly as a bullet. But, the whole horrible incident was avoidable, if only …

I wish there was clarity and truth. Unfortunately, I doubt we get that clarity and truth, considering the way things have been handled thus far.

Post quoted from: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9119175&postcount=723

 

[styrgwillidar]

Don’t you need to prove self-defense? If A slaps B, B can shot A and claim self-defense. Well, B has to prove that.

If the injuries aren’t relevent, then why is the defense considering it? Seems like they don’t agree with.

You said: “A 5’11 160 pound fit young man on top of another”. What about a 5’11’’ 158 lb teenager on top of a 5’8" 200 lb adult male?

Sir, I’m 5’10 175 pounds and very fit. I seriously doubt that if someone 5"11 and 158 lbs got on my chest I’d have an easy time getting them off.

Burden of proof in self defense gets pretty interesting. It varies in jurisdiction. It used to be that a claim to self-defense was an affirmative defense requiring the accused to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that their fear of imminent serious bodily harm (to themselves or others) was reasonable. It’s gone more towards the accused simply having to show that the conditions existed and the prosecution having to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt the the fear wasn’t reasonable.

It also gets complicated by roles can shift during a fight. You can defend yourself but not avenge yourself/pursue. In a case in CA, a bunch of kids with skateboards said a man tried to attack them and they fought back, he ran and they chased him into a laundromat where they beat him with their skateboards. While their initial action may have been justified, chasing down the person who was running away makes it hard to argue they were still in fear of imminent bodily harm.

The A slaps B is a good example. Yes, B is going to have to prove the reasonableness of their fear.

If a good friend I’ve known for years slaps me for some reason while we’re joking around it would be hard to argue that I was truly in fear of imminent bodily harm.

If A is an aggressive violent ex-husband and B is a woman whom he has been beaten severely in the past, then a jury would be more likely to find her fear reasonable.

In Z vs M, as I mentioned before, they’re strangers. Neither knows how far the other is willing to take it. Or whether they have weapons on them etc. Why my Dad discourage fighting. A lesson I saw several times in the Navy. One guy thinking it’s just a punch up becomes surprised to find, for the other guy/guys (in some cases additional participants materialized out of the crowd against them) it’s life/death/life long disability.

So the A vs B argument is part of what the jury will have to decide, in accordance with Florida law on what reasonable is.

As to the defense, since there are injuries it does demonstrate Z was being hit, he couldn’t know how far it would go. But, as I said they could be making the same argument without the injuries. Remember, it works the other way as well. Some like to point out that Martin having no injuries is somehow an indication of him being the aggressor. Not true. He was under no obligation to allow Zimmerman to injure him prior to defending himself. Being good at defending himself is not a crime. If Zimmerman rushed him, and Martin managed to avoid the blows and pin Zimmerman, as well as take advantage of being on top because he was in fear for his life, being uninjured wouldn’t lessen his claim to self-defense.

 

[MaryT777]

from legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/

I have not been watching the trial but reading the transcripts and summaries at various sites.

The SPD neighborhood watch coordinator, responsible for providing training guidance to the NW volunteers:

"West focused in on that comment, asking, “when you say the shouldn’t follow someone, you’re not saying that if you see someone suspicious that you can’t follow at a distance to gather information, are you? You don’t tell people that they can’t follow someone from a distance, do you?”

“That’s right,” Dorival agreed, she was not saying that, but rather that it was not a good idea to engage someone."

The HOA president, O’Brien
" A few days later, these same workers observed the same 17-year-old black man wandering through Twin Lakes again. They contacted the police, and the burglar was successfully arrested.

Then he made an astonishing statement, given that he was a State witness and given the State’s theory of the case.

The arrest was made possible, he said, because the construction workers followed the suspicious person from a distance. O’Brien was, he said, so pleased with the successful arrest that he had sent the workers a letter of commendation from the HOA."

It will be hard for the prosecution to argue that following suspicious persons wasn’t allowable when the HOA president commended folks for doing just that.

As I said, when push came to shove Obrien cracked. I have watched a lot of the trial and heard it “with my own ears”.
“Under any circumstance should someone on neighborhood watch follow a suspect?”
NO he said.

 

[styrgwillidar]

As I said, when push came to shove Obrien cracked. I have watched a lot of the trial and heard it “with my own ears”.
“Under any circumstance should someone on neighborhood watch follow a suspect?”
NO he said.

Thanks. I seem to remember him having said the same as the SPD coordinator at one point. I’ll take your word that the final answer was not to follow.

Fun for the jury though, trying to integrate/correlate the various statements. Actions in commending someone for doing something he stated they should never do.

The Brits had a good line something like , ‘You are hereby awarded a Victoria Cross, downgraded to an a** chewing second class.’ Should have sent the construction workers a letter of admonishment vice a commendation. Perhaps that was one of the things behind the HOA providing a settlement so quickly to the Martin family.

ETA: Interesting if the jury finds guilty of manslaughter vice murder. That would make him civilly liable for damages to the Martin family.

 

[MaryT777]

from legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/

I have not been watching the trial but reading the transcripts and summaries at various sites.

The SPD neighborhood watch coordinator, responsible for providing training guidance to the NW volunteers:

"West focused in on that comment, asking, “when you say the shouldn’t follow someone, you’re not saying that if you see someone suspicious that you can’t follow at a distance to gather information, are you? You don’t tell people that they can’t follow someone from a distance, do you?”

“That’s right,” Dorival agreed, she was not saying that, but rather that it was not a good idea to engage someone."

The HOA president, O’Brien
" A few days later, these same workers observed the same 17-year-old black man wandering through Twin Lakes again. They contacted the police, and the burglar was successfully arrested.

Then he made an astonishing statement, given that he was a State witness and given the State’s theory of the case.

The arrest was made possible, he said, because the construction workers followed the suspicious person from a distance. O’Brien was, he said, so pleased with the successful arrest that he had sent the workers a letter of commendation from the HOA."

It will be hard for the prosecution to argue that following suspicious persons wasn’t allowable when the HOA president commended folks for doing just that.

’

The HOA in the subdivision where Martin was killed settled a wrongful death case
with Martin’s family. There was not to be following so the case was settled.
The 911 operator did NOT say “keep following at a safe distance” did they?
They said We don’t need you to do that. (follow him like he was some criminal)

 

[kelvinf]

Sir, I’m 5’10 175 pounds and very fit. I seriously doubt that if someone 5"11 and 158 lbs got on my chest I’d have an easy time getting them off.

I was just providing those of Zimmerman since you mentioned those of Trayvon.

Well, if someone (and I don’t care how big or small the person is) got on top of me and is punching me, I will fight back. I will use the 2 hands I have to punch him in return. Like the ground-and-pound thing one witness said: “The person on top being able to punch the person on the bottom, but the person on the bottom also has a chance to get out or punch the person on top. It’s back and forth,” John Good.

 

[styrgwillidar]

’

The HOA in the subdivision where Martin was killed settled a wrongful death case
with Martin’s family. There was not to be following so the case was settled.
The 911 operator did NOT say “keep following at a safe distance” did they?
They said We don’t need you to do that. (follow him like he was some criminal)

Yes, and according to Zimmerman, he did stop following. According to the dispatcher and tape (not really 911, they were on a non-emergency line) Zimmerman says ok. They always get away. Then they discussed Zimmerman meeting the police who were on the way at his truck. Did he really head back to his truck, I don’t know. But the idea that he was continuing to follow is contradicted by his testimony and the girl on the phone with Martin, her saying Martin had made it to outside his father’s home and no longer saw Z.

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, and according to Zimmerman, he did stop following. According to the dispatcher and tape (not really 911, they were on a non-emergency line) Zimmerman says ok. They always get away. Then they discussed Zimmerman meeting the police who were on the way at his truck. Did he really head back to his truck, I don’t know. But the idea that he was continuing to follow is contradicted by his testimony and the girl on the phone with Martin, her saying Martin had made it to outside his father’s home and no longer saw Z.

I guess it boils down to the fact if you really think some person has the right to follow around another person with a loaded gun. (Even at a safe distance as you noted )
It’s simply dangerous and deadly.

The experts all agree Zimmerman will be acquitted but I only point this out as to how we can prevent deaths like this in the future.

 

[LisaA]

’

The HOA in the subdivision where Martin was killed settled a wrongful death case
with Martin’s family. There was not to be following so the case was settled.
The 911 operator did NOT say “keep following at a safe distance” did they?
They said We don’t need you to do that. (follow him like he was some criminal)

I’ve read through this and watched much of the trial as well as hearing the analysis following. My undertanding is that Zimmerman wasn’t “stalking” or “hunting” Martin as some have claimed, in fact no one is sure whether he was actually following him or following the instruction of the dispatcher to get the address. It sounds from the testimony that Martin surprised Zimmerman, was verbally confronational and unfortunately the situation got out of hand.

A couple of things make me less suspicious that Zimmerman had a desire to use deadly force or that he wanted to confront Martin. Why didnt he pull the gun first and tell Martin to stop if he were truly trying to hold or stop him? He’s apparently been a neighborhood watch member for some time. Does he have a history of getting into fistfights with suspicious persons? The Prosecution played tape after tape of Zimmerman reporting suspicious persons in an effort to indicate he was looking for blacks. However to me this shoots their theory in the foot because Zimmerman reported the potential prowlers, he responded to questions with racial info he did not volunteer it, and he did not confront, follow or stalk other suspicious persons he reported.

I think this was an unfortunate ‘perfect storm’ of events that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. Like an aircraft crash, it’s not one thing that happens but a series of events. If we believe the testimony, that Martin surprised Zimmerman, why aren’t we asking what if about that? What if Martin had not been walking under the eaves of the homes (this is apparently what Zimmerman meant by his walking around)? This is something a prowler does and thus his behavior was suspicious.

Further if a gated community, the neighbors know who belongs and who doesn’t. I live in a suburb, it’s NOT gated, but we clearly know when there are strangers wandering around. Often it’s someone dropped off to promote or sell something but I admit to feeling uneasy when I see someone I don’t recognize, who doesn’t look like they belong in the neighborhood, who seems to be just walking up the street in the dark, hovering under the eaves of a home. Our area isn’t high crime certainly but it may be that we DO keep an eye on who’s in the area and we do report suspicious activity.

I know much was made that Zimmerman MUST have thought Martin suspicious because he was black but I think had his behavior been different, he would NOT have even noticed Martin. A kid in a hoodie on a rainy night, walking up the street with a sack of groceries is not particularly suspicious, regardless of color. A kid sort of hulking under the eaves, moving from house to house but no seeming to be going anywhere…just walking around…does look suspicious in an area where there was a crime problem.

I truly believe that had it not been grabbed up by the race baiters and other usual suspects who decided it WAS race without considering the facts, that it never would have reached the national consciousness like this story has done. There are too many people getting camera time and not enough looking at the facts.

Lisa

 

[vz71]

His injuries do not at all reflect his life-threatening description of the supposed beating he was receiving. Also, it is important to analyse the duration of the beating.

Soothsayers and sorcerers.

You cannot reasonably predict what the injuries from a beating will look like.

My boss dropped a 20 pound computer on her foot. An hour later there was no indication that she had hurt it. 5 days later her entire foot is purple and swollen.

That an injury does not appear to be what you expect it should have looked like says more of your lack of knowledge of the event and the injury then it does the injury itself.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I was just providing those of Zimmerman since you mentioned those of Trayvon.

Well, if someone (and I don’t care how big or small the person is) got on top of me and is punching me, I will fight back. I will use the 2 hands I have to punch him in return. Like the ground-and-pound thing one witness said: “The person on top being able to punch the person on the bottom, but the person on the bottom also has a chance to get out or punch the person on top. It’s back and forth,” John Good.

Well, hopefully you get the advantage like Martin and manage to get on top. They have the advantage, which is why the UFC fighters try to do that. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, than it’s perfectly reasonable for him to get into that position, if he can, and continue punching Z until he thinks Z is no longer a threat. Hard to figure out when that point is reached. When do you give up your advantage if you truly believe your life is in danger?

Under CA law, if Z had stopped struggling and loudly declared I give up, Martin would have then legally become the aggressor. That is, no longer in fear of serious bodily harm. Tough situation to be in- how do you know they’ve really given up? Won’t start again if you give up your advantage?

I don’t have a problem with Martin’s actions if Zimmerman started the actual fight. But that’s the real problem for the prosecution-- proving that point beyond a reasonable doubt. How did it get physical, who was really the aggressor? We’ll never be sure if the jury’s verdict is the correct answer - only whether it’s the correct legal answer given the evidence they are presented.

 

[MaryT777]

Soothsayers and sorcerers.

You cannot reasonably predict what the injuries from a beating will look like.

My boss dropped a 20 pound computer on her foot. An hour later there was no indication that she had hurt it. 5 days later her entire foot is purple and swollen.

That an injury does not appear to be what you expect it should have looked like says more of your lack of knowledge of the event and the injury then it does the injury itself.

I certainly agree; but one would think one would seek immediate care if their head was repeatedly slammed against the cement. Most people are aware that can cause serious injuries you can’t necessarily “see”.

A computer drop is a lot different situation and not remotely an analogy.

 

[LisaA]

I guess it boils down to the fact if you really think some person has the right to follow around another person with a loaded gun. (Even at a safe distance as you noted )
It’s simply dangerous and deadly.

The experts all agree Zimmerman will be acquitted but I only point this out as to how we can prevent deaths like this in the future.

Mary that is REALLY jumping to a conclusion. I don’t know where you live but in some areas there are many people with a conceled carry and in fact it is in these areas that there is LESS violent crime because criminals may be dishonest but they are not stupid. There is nothing in the carrying of a gun or even following someone that is “dangerous.” The gun isn’t going to jump out of the holster and shoot somebody. I’d far rather be in a community where trained gun owners may have a CC than in a “gun free” zone which is frankly an oxymoron.

Lisa

 

[SwizzleStick]

I guess it boils down to the fact if you really think some person has the right to follow around another person with a loaded gun. (Even at a safe distance as you noted )
It’s simply dangerous and deadly…

That happens every day in many places with concealed carry and it isn’t dangerous or deadly in most cases.

 

[MaryT777]

Mary that is REALLY jumping to a conclusion. I don’t know where you live but in some areas there are many people with a conceled carry and in fact it is in these areas that there is LESS violent crime because criminals may be dishonest but they are not stupid. There is nothing in the carrying of a gun or even following someone that is “dangerous.” The gun isn’t going to jump out of the holster and shoot somebody. I’d far rather be in a community where trained gun owners may have a CC than in a “gun free” zone which is frankly an oxymoron.

Lisa

Do you want someone following you around because you look suspicious?
Seriously. That is frightening enough to begin with.

The Homeowners dues in that subdivision have probably skyrocketed now. It was a senseless murder that could have been avoided.

I don’t want someone following me around if I’m black or white or purple telling the dispatcher
These *******s always get away…no thanks I"ll pass