<p>The issue for me is not whether Zimmerman did or did not have legitimate reason to fear for his life, because once a certain level of force enters the picture - and I think there is certainly evidence to suggest that level of force might well have been used - I don’t think it is the responsibility of the person being beaten to calmly assess whether or not his life is really in danger or not. There was a case in NJ recently of a woman being savagely beaten by a home invader in front of her two young children. The whole thing was captured on a nanny cam - it is hard to watch. At the end of the day, her injuries, while considerably more severe than George Zimmerman’s, weren’t even close to life-threatening, but I don’t think there are many people watching that tape who wouldn’t have considered it justifiable for her to shoot the intruder if she had a gun at hand. Zimmerman may be deliberately exaggerating the fear he felt, but it is plausible to me that in that isolated moment in time, the shooting was a legitimate act of self-defense. For this reason, I don’t see GZ as guilty of second degree murder - or rather, while he may or may not actually be guilty of second degree murder, he doesn’t meet the legal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Manslaughter is another issue, since it looks beyond that single moment of fear and to the events that precipitated it. Plenty of people less directly involved with a death than Zimmerman is have been convicted of manslaughter based on a criminally culpable level of negligence. Zimmerman wasn’t walking through his neighborhood that night, he was in his car. If he had stayed in his car, he would never have been in a position to feel threatened at all.</p>
<p>Getting out of his car, however, isn’t the whole story. If GZ had been unarmed, left his car to investigate someone he saw as suspicious, and then wound up killing TM in the course of a fistfight, his behavior would still be stupid, but I think we’d be having a different conversation. But Zimmerman had a gun. When someone deliberately walks into a situation he could have avoided while armed, his level of responsibility changes. Florida may not be a state with a requirement to retreat - quite the contrary - but saying that someone is not required to retreat is very different from saying that someone is entitled to seek out a potentially dangerous situation and then be absolved of all responsibility if things go wrong.</p>
<p>agree poetgrl. if this was “self defense” then once GZ was out of danger, why such a depraved indifference to human life. </p>
<p>I hope the prosecution highlights this state of mind. and no I don’t believe it was because he was in shock, because he maintained this state of mind throughout that evening and since.</p>
<p>Zimmerman never refers to Martin’s race unless he is asked for a description. That has been consistent through out the evidence. It is clear to me the Martin family falsely alleged Zimmer to be a racist and falsely alleged the Sanford PD to be racists. </p>
<p>The prosecution is stuck with the facts it presents including the audio statements of Zimmerman made to the police officer. I have to wonder if the prosecutor will also show the video statements made by Zimmerman at a recreation of the incident and then tray to argue Zimmerman’s audio statements and video statements were inconsistent. It will be interesting to see what happens.</p>
<p>Florida law with respect to justifiable use of force does make a distinction for the case where the person provoked the use of force against himself/herself. If that is case, then there is a duty to retreat.</p>
<p>I read somewhere this morning that TM’s “step-mom” of 14 years gave an interview last Friday in which she said that she was not saying GZ was a racist who picked out TM as a black person to follow. I heard that TM’s mom is sure it was racial. </p>
<p>I don’t think you can judge the two people involved by family member’s antics whether it is GZ’s family or that of TM.</p>
<p>so razorsharp, since you personally don’t believe there were racial issues, that means the Martin family made “false” accusations about GZ and Sanford PD? hmm…</p>
<p>are you aware of the history in Sanford PD?</p>
<p>Yes, I was aware of this. The key word is - history. The allegations were made about the Sanford PD in the Martin/Zimmerman case and the allegations are untruthful so far. In addition, allegations were made about the inadequacy of the investigation yet all I see is competent and thorough investigation techniques. The police took audio statements and video statements. They looked at the evidence. I don’t see where there was an incompetent investigation. </p>
<p>I have to admit I am surprise by my conclusions because of the Sanford Police’s history and what the Martin family and backers said that I believed at that time.</p>
<p>I get that, UCB, but I’m not sure that we can rule out 2a, which states that EVEN IF the accused provoked the conflict, if the force was sufficient to leave him in reasonable fear for his life, it can still be self defense.</p>
<p>As I said, however, as far as I can tell, not being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin constitutes murder two doesn’t preclude a (IMO) more appropriate manslaughter charge from sticking based on the sheer irresponsibility of all of GZ’s actions that night.</p>
<p>recent history razor. very recent history. 14 mos before this incident.</p>
<p>Lee’s predecessor, Brian Tooley, retired early when faced with criticism that Sanford police dragged its feet in arresting Justin Collison on charges of knocking out a homeless black man.
It took a month for Collison, the son of a police lieutenant, to be arrested and charged in 2010 with battery, even though the attack was captured on video. Collison eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to probation late last year.</p>
<p>and in 2005 a similar pattern of delayed arrest in the shooting of a 16 yr old boy.</p>
<p>I said some pages ago that my main issue was how to square GZ saying his head was being beaten into the concrete, while TM’s body was many feet away from any concrete.</p>
<p>I now hear that GZ said he was going back to his car when TM came up out of the bushes and sucker punched him. Looking at where the body was found, where are any bushes?</p>
<p>^If that’s the case, then there would be no way for hired security officers to actually do their job. You confronted someone, so you are the reason they punched you? They are not instigating an altercation by following someone to question what they are doing, they are trying to maintain security on property. There is NO WAY TO KNOW whether they are up to no good, or if they are there under good intentions except to question and investigate.</p>
<p>^THE DIFFERENCE BEING that GZ was not a hired security guard. He wasn’t even on duty for his neighborhood watch gig. And the officer testifying now said it seemed to her to that he was looking for a reason to get out of the car (looking for street signs? really?) even after being told by the authorities not to.</p>
<p>“I now hear that GZ said he was going back to his car when TM came up out of the bushes and sucker punched him. Looking at where the body was found, where are any bushes?”</p>
<p>Hayden, Hayden, Hayden … the police spent a couple hours on a Sunday doing a “competent and thorough investigation” (to use razorsharp’s words). Don’t be bringing up any facts not in the police report because, you know, it might make it look like the “hold GZ a couple hours then let him go” investigation might not have been so “competent and thorough.”</p>
<p>GZ was not a security guard, he was a neighbourhood watch person and his training says not to follow anyone ever. If he had training on how to approach a suspect, then maybe that would be a different matter.</p>
<p>The officer really handled GZ with kid gloves. I know he was cooperating at that point but shouldn’t she have maintained some skepticism? She took his statement but didn’t attempt to trip him up at all. I’d think a cop would seize the opportunity to poke some holes in the story. At least use the “repetition technique” of asking about the same things at different points in the interrogation to see if the account remains the same. </p>
<p>Lost opportunity and now the prosecution is stuck with putting on Zimmerman’s unchallenged statements.</p>
<p>It is interesting to me to see how much people bring their own experiences and background into this. It seems to result in people seeing what they want to see and ignoring that which doesn’t align with their beliefs.</p>
<p>An example is the issue of GZ following TM. The 911 dispatcher said that “we don’t need you to do that” in regards to following TM, and some want to read that as prohibiting GZ from from doing so, thereby negating the self-defense claim. However, later in that same 911 call, GZ first agrees to meet the police by the clubhouse mailboxes, and then says, “actually could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?” to which the 911 dispatcher says, “okay yeah that’s no problem.” I read this as GZ saying that he is going to find the address where TM is, and that the 911 dispatcher agrees with this approach.</p>
<p>I truly hope that the jurors will consider all of the evidence that is presented at the trial and will not merely pick out those pieces of information that support their previously-held beliefs.</p>