Many new facts/twists to Martin-Zimmerman case

BCEagle91 · May 19, 2012, 9:47pm

If a wife starts an argument and he starts beating her and she shoots him to death, is she at fault? If she just fires a warning shot, is she at fault? Apparently so in Florida.

vonlost · May 19, 2012, 10:02pm

^ Parties known to each other muddle the issue, as would gangs with established personal vendettas. Do S.Y.G. laws address this? The issue may be different if M and Z had already known each other.

kleibo · May 19, 2012, 10:25pm

[Number</a> of “stand your ground” cases rises as legislators rethink law - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy]Number”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy)

The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.

In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.

In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.

Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.

Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)

The Times analysis also shows that “stand your ground” is being invoked with greater frequency.

In the first five years the law was in effect, it was invoked 93 times. In the last year and a half, it has been invoked at least an additional 37 times. “Justifiable homicides” reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement have increased threefold since the law went into effect.

Proponents say the law is working, allowing citizens to protect themselves from harm without worrying about legalities in the heat of the attack.

But the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shoot-outs and road-rage incidents

The analysis shows the law is being unevenly applied across the state. A case that’s dropped in Tampa might make it to a jury trial in Miami.

BCEagle91 · May 19, 2012, 10:26pm

I am not terribly familiar with SYG laws. I don’t even think that SYG applies here - just basic self-defense laws probably apply. I just checked on our state and was quite surprised to find that we are a SYG state - it passed last year. NH is already a gun-friendly state and a state with low crime rates and it doesn’t appear that there’s been a case in NH where SYG would apply. In NH, SYG extends rights to defend yourself in your home into public places. There are some additional subtle differences:

“The Florida law appears to be different from New Hampshire’s in at least one key element: Florida says police cannot arrest a person for using deadly force in self-defense “unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful,” according to its statute.”

“New Hampshire includes civil immunity protections from someone acting in self-defense. On the criminal side, it “doesn’t create the presumption that the force was reasonable,” Fischer said.”

“In other words, the Florida law creates a presumption that the person was innocent, while the New Hampshire measure expands the scenarios from previous state law under which protecting oneself is a valid legal defense in a criminal trial”

[Some</a> Police Call N.H. ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law a Bad Idea - News - LawOfficer.com](<a href=“http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/some-police-call-nh-stand-your]Some”>http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/some-police-call-nh-stand-your)

I generally do not follow this stuff closely as anything related to this is pretty rare up here.

eastcoascrazy · May 19, 2012, 10:35pm

Could we just rename this thread “BCEagle91 Stands His Ground”?

hayden · May 19, 2012, 10:41pm

See post 69. My feelings are a little hurt you didn’t read it. ;)

Unless you’re referring to a different witness. If post 69 doesn’t give you enough, you can look at the Orlando Sentinel. CNN and MSNBC news sites also had the story on their front pages for several hours. Won’t be tough to find.

It just seems to me, BCE, that you’re focusing on Z’s injuries to the exclusion of other considerations. What if Z pulled his gun just as he came in arm’s length of Martin? What if Z pushed Martin? We don’t have evidence any of that happened, any more than we have evidence Martin started the fight. I appreciate your appeal to facts and reason, but facts just aren’t in evidence on the question of who started the fight.

BCEagle91 · May 19, 2012, 11:01pm

I saw your post but no link. I did look around for articles on a witness recanting but I only found other forum posts.

From the article:

The witness did not, however, change his account that Trayvon was the one on top as he and Zimmerman fought. He identified both combatants by skin color and by the color of their clothes, although he described Zimmerman’s orange jacket as red, and Trayvon’s dark gray hoodie as black.

“The black guy was on top,” he told FDLE Investigator John Batchelor. “The guy that was on the ground, under him at that point, wrestling, was definitely a lighter color.”

It was dark outside, he said, and at first, he thought he was witnessing a dog fight. When he stepped to the door, he realized it was two people on the ground wrestling.

The person on top was either hitting or pinning the other to the ground, he said. The person on the bottom was struggling to get up.

[Trayvon</a> Martin shooting: Key witness in Trayvon Martin: Now I’m no longer sure Zimmerman was calling for help - Orlando Sentinel](<a href=“http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-18/news/os-trayvon-martin-evidence-witness6-20120518_1_key-witness-ground-dog-fight]Trayvon”>http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-18/news/os-trayvon-martin-evidence-witness6-20120518_1_key-witness-ground-dog-fight)

If he pulled his gun beforehand, and T landed a blow that put him on the ground,
how would he still have control of the gun?

The witness did not indicate seeing a gun - just heard the pop of it going off.

If he had his gun out, why would he push him? If you hit someone hard enough to
take them down and saw a gun, would you go after the gun first or keep hitting the
person while they have the gun?

Could you agree that Martin was on top hitting Z when he was shot?

hayden · May 19, 2012, 11:38pm

“The witness did not indicate seeing a gun - just heard the pop of it going off.”

It was dark. He got the colors wrong. And at first, he thought it was two dogs fighting. And you believe that his not seeing a (dark) gun is somehow evidence of something? That’s a total non-event.

Could I agree that Martin was on top hitting Z when he was shot? I agree that it appears that Martin was on top at some point during the struggle. As to when he was shot exactly, I don’t know. It’s certainly quite possible that Z shot him from the ground. You say we’ve got a lot of forensic evidence, so the evidence must show the trajectory from which Martin was shot, which would indicate something about where Z was.

BCEagle91 · May 19, 2012, 11:44pm

Yes, red vs orange and dark gray for black. Wouldn’t you agree that that’s pretty minor?

Yes, the text implies that he was inside. Then he went to the door for a better look. At some point, he either opened the door or went outside or else his verbal comments to the two of them wouldn’t make any sense.

And you believe that his not seeing a (dark) gun is somehow evidence of something? That’s a total non-event.

toblin · May 19, 2012, 11:46pm

Yes. Even if you switch genders!

I second the motion.

hayden · May 20, 2012, 12:00am

BCE, with no witnesses, it was always going to be a tough case for the prosecutors given the SYG burden of proof. In Florida, it appears I could shoot anyone at all, claim I was assaulted and scared, and so long as there are no eye witnesses to the murder, the state has to prove I wasn’t scared. SYG is like 007 - a license to kill. So we may get a verdict of innocent, but that will never answer the questions about this law, and about this particular case.

By the way, I just looked through the crime scene pictures. Most of them were taken the next morning, but a couple were taken that night. The body was about 10 feet from the sidewalk. How could Z have shot Martin while M was pounding his head on the sidewalk, if they weren’t near the sidewalk when Martin was shot? Did Z pull Martin’s body off the sidewalk?

And maybe my distances were off, but it sure looks like they were way more than 35 feet away from Z’s car. The street looks much further away than that.

BCEagle91 · May 20, 2012, 12:13am

I would assume that there would have to be some evidence that you were assaulted.

In general, you can’t prove a negative.

The only finding of actual innocence that I can recall is in the Duke Lacrosse Case. Juries generally return a verdict of not guilty or guilty.

As Dershowitz stated, this should just be a self-defense case. I suppose the defense could use SYG and then the prosecution would have to show that it doesn’t apply. If they use self-defense, they have enough forensic evidence to provide reasonable doubt on second-degree murder.

There were injuries to the back of his head, his forehead, eyes and nose. I think that the hit in the nose brought him down. The witness indicated some amount of wrestling so that could account for some movement.

There are a few timelines with maps out there which may have the actual distance information.

vonlost · May 20, 2012, 12:41am

“I would assume that there would have to be some evidence that you were assaulted.”

We’ve already established that SYG doesn’t apply in this case; Z confronted M. Self-defense would be the issue. What do applicable statutes say about self-defense evidence? Z confronted M; there would be no issue with no confrontation. M responded to the confrontation but was ultimately no match for the gun during the altercation. Who started it? Things happen fast during an altercation. Who is responsible for the altercation?

BCEagle91 · May 20, 2012, 12:46am

Hayden keeps bringing it up.

poetgrl · May 20, 2012, 7:46am

Is it true that the SYG advocates in FLA have backed away from Z and said SYG does not apply in this case since he was stalking Martin?

I can’t find a cite for it, so I could be wrong, but I thought I heard that.

eastcoascrazy · May 20, 2012, 8:52am

I would bet money that this is what happened:

Z left his car to keep an eye on M while waiting for the police to arrive. He did not do this with malicious intent.

M sensed that he was being followed. He felt afraid. He turned to confront Z.

The rest of this happened in less than a minute:

Brief words were spoken. Heatedly. Along the lines of “What the f@@@ are you doing?” Spoken by either or both men.

Both men had adrenaline surging, both were struggling internally with fight vs. flight instincts.

The gun was pulled probably with the intent to scare M only.

M threw a single, hard punch to Z’s face, breaking his nose and knocking him down on the sidewalk, where Z hit the back of his head.

Z got up, with the gun aimed, Z backed up onto the grass, one of them was screaming at that point. In the heat of the moment, Z shot M.

Both men were afraid and were frightened, and acting out of instinct, and it all happened in less than a minute.

dadx · May 20, 2012, 12:45pm

I think ECC is about right about this, with the exception that I don’t think the gun was pulled ahead of the fight. And I don’t think Zimmerman started the physical altercation. I think it took him utterly by surprise. Martin likely took a look at the little wannabe punk Zimmerman and correctly assessed that he could take this jerk, and didn’t have to put up with any verbal assault of questioning. He may have underestimated Zimmerman’s age as well, and treated this more like a “peer” confrontation.

The yelling for help was probably Zimmerman. He was the one who needed it during the brief fight, and he was the one who would have had some reasonable expectation of help since he probably knew most everyone in the neighborhood.

Zimmerman would have had to have been crazy to start a fight while he is wearing a gun. The last thing you want is a physical struggle when you have a gun. Conversely, if he had pulled the gun already, its very unlikely that Martin’s response would have been to attack him. 99.9% of people would freeze and back off.

But I agree with the last two paragraphs of the speculation being possibly accurate. Martin might have pummeled Z, who was simply attempting to incompetently cover up. Martin then gets off him, feeling that the point has been made, and stands up, and Z gets up and shoots him in a fearful anger and adrenaline rush. I’d like to know if there is any way to tell the orientation of the gun and a more precise distance evaluation, such as “greater than five feet”.

NYMomof2 · May 20, 2012, 12:50pm

It seems that, legally, the entire case hangs on what happened in the very brief period, only 1-2 minutes, I believe, between the time Trayvon’s phone call to his girlfriend ended and the time the gunshot was recorded on the 911 tapes. If the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not have reason to fear for his life, then he will not be convicted. If this is what happens, I will consider it a major miscarriage of justice.

Zimmerman chose to pursue someone whom he considered, for reasons that are unclear beyond the fact that Trayvon was a black male wearing a hoodie, a probable criminal. Surely he should have considered the person potentially dangerous. Yet he decided to go after this person despite the fact that the police were on the way, indeed they arrived within a minute or so after the gunshot. He also decided to carry a loaded gun into this situation, either with the idea that he could defend himself if the person he was stalking became violent or with the idea that he could use the gun to keep the person under control until the police arrived. I doubt that he was intending to shoot the person, but it’s hard to know what was in his mind and he does have a history of aggressive behavior. So he puts himself in the situation of following someone, after being instructed not to do so by the dispatcher, and then claims that Trayvon was threatening his life and he had to shoot him. He was taking on the role of a police officer without training or authority. I think that it is wrong that he might escape responsibility for the outcome.

I also wonder about the reports that Trayvon was viciously battering Zimmerman. Look at Trayvon’s parents. They are extremely calm and reserved. Trayvon has no history of fighting, no martial arts training. There is no reason to believe that he was anything other than a nonviolent person. Is it likely that, within one minute, he became extremely violent without extreme provocation?

NYMomof2 · May 20, 2012, 12:55pm

ECC, your scenario does not account for the witness reports that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him. I believe that more than one witness reported the two men on the ground, with one on top, although not all of them could say who was on top. But I agree that Zimmerman’s injuries seem more consistent with a single, hard punch to the nose that knocked him back than with a prolonged battering.

Dadx, the forensic reports indicate that that gun was fired at a distance somewhere between an inch and 18" from Trayvon’s chest.

dadx · May 20, 2012, 2:38pm

The actual reports apparently say only “intermediate range”, if I am not mistaken. Someone after the fact asked someone (not clear if it was the medical examiner or whom) and got a reply that intermediate meant up to 18 inches.

This is why I’m saying I’d like to hear more evidence on this. To me, intermediate range should mean, at least beyond a distance where you can reach out and touch. I’d call it 5-15 feet. I’m not buying the up to 18 inches. That’s what I’d call “close range”. And I’d like to hear how that was determined…because I doubt that they really know.

Based on the whipping Zimmerman was receiving, I doubt that he could have shot Martin while he was on top of him. Martin would have grabbed the gun.

Many new facts/twists to Martin-Zimmerman case

CONNECT WITH US