home

George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario

As I've written previously, the changes in statements of W-6 (John), W-12 (wife of w-13) and W-2 (the sister without her contacts who saw, and then didn't see, two figures chasing each other) are not a big deal.

Now that I've listened to all of the witness recordings, and most of them several times, I think the most important witnesses are W-11 and W-20, W-13, and W-6. They heard or saw the most, and were in the best position to discern what was happening. None has the whole story, but each of their accounts mesh and each fills in gaps in the accounts of the others, combining to make a coherent and consistent chronology. [More]

[Here is my latest map with the house numbers removed from witness locations as the parties are arguing that information should not be made public]

Listen to all John's interviews: He's positive that Trayvon, the darker complected man with the dark shirt, was on top during the physical struggle, and Zimmerman, the lighter complected man with the red and white shirt, was on the bottom, and that during the struggle, George Zimmerman was trying to get up.

Almost every neighbor verifies hearing John say, "Hey what's going on" and/or "I'm going to call 911." This includes W-3 who lives next door to him on one side, and W-11 and 20, who live next door to him on the other side, W-1, one of the two sisters across the way, and W-19, also across the way, who was getting ready to let her dog out.

Look at the daytime photos in the discovery taken the day after the shooting, by Crime Scene Tech Diana Smith. She chose what to photograph, most likely based on what she understood to be the key locations that would either corroborate or refute GZ's version, as related to the officers who interviewed him the night before and the witness statements obtained the night before.

Her photos include the place GZ said his car was parked, the walk along the top of the T to Retreat View Circle and back, the front and back of 2861 Retreat View Circle, the back, side and front of 1211 Twin Trees Lane, the place the body was located behind 1221 Twin Trees Lane, and the view down "the T" towards the house Trayvon was staying.

The witnesses whose homes had shared backyards on the T between Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees Lane, and who lived at the top of the T, all first heard unidentifiable noises, then fighting type sounds, then yells for help, and then the shot. They all say the noises grew louder and fighting more apparent as they came down the T where they ended up behind 1221 Twin Trees Lane in John's backyard.

No one saw the beginning of the confrontation or struggle. But witnesses heard the onset. W-11 and W-20, who live in the house at the corner of the T and Twin Trees Lane had windows on both the T side and the backyard side, as did W-13 and W-12. W-11 and 20 heard what sounded a scuffle coming from the Northwest, which would be right on the sidewalk leading back to GZ's car, just west of the T. They then heard the sounds come around to the back, as if they turned a corner onto the T, behind their closed-in porch. The sounds grew louder and W-20 heard "help" -- maybe 20 times. They called 911 and stayed upstairs. They heard their neighbor, W-6, call out ask what's going on and saying he was calling 911.

Officer Serino says on page 5 of his 13 page report dated March 13, that he listened to W-11's 911 call and heard "help" 14 times in 38 seconds before the shot.

The shot is loudest in their call because they are right there. The are describing an encounter that began at or a few feet west of the T and the pet waste can. That's just where GZ was walking back to his car, returning from the place where the sidewalk he was walking on ended at Retreat View Circle.

GZ did not have TM in sight when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow TM. He responded OK. He didn't follow him after that. He didn't know where Trayvon was. He continued walking towards the front of the Retreat View Circle, where the first house is 2861, home to W-13 and W-12. He then turned around to walk back to his car. He just passed the T and the pet waste can when Travyon came up on his left. After a few brief vocal exchanges, which even according to Dee Dee were initiated by Trayvon, GZ got punched and fell down. This may have been at the T or in the grass right off the T, in the backyard of W-11 and W-20. After getting his nose broken is most likely when the sounds turned into cries and wails for help -- by George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman was walking back to his truck along this path, right about the T, when Trayvon popped out from somewhere and asked why he was following him. Within a minute, the encounter turned physical. The first sounds heard were scuffles and "arghs." Not screams or cries for help. GZ was then on the ground with a broken nose. They were off the T, on the grass at the top of the path between the shared backyards. They continued grappling as they moved down the path to the back of John's house, where they rolled onto the concrete, and GZ started crying out for help even louder, since now it was not just his nose, but the back of his head getting smacked. Trayvon was still on top of him.

As W-6, "John" was dialing 911 because they didn't stop tussling after he yelled "Cut it out" and told them he was going to call 911, the shot rang out.

After that, W-13 comes out. GZ is standing and he asks if he should call 911. GZ says he already did. GZ says he has a gun and shot him in self-defense. (W-6 says he overheard this.)

W-13 takes photos of his injuries, the cops arrive, and GZ, in handcuffs, asks W-13 to call his wife and tell her he shot someone.

The other witnesses were too far down to hear the the struggle before the cries for help. After the shot, when they realized a young boy was killed, they came to the conclusion the voice they heard was that of a young boy.

Another witness whose house backed up to the top of the T, and was not along the sidewalk of shared backyards (described by most as the overly distraught Teacher), first heard noises similar to the others whose homes had windows along the T. She calls 911 after the shot, before she sees Zimmerman or Trayvon. She says she didn't have her windows open and didn't look when she first heard the noise, assuming someone was out walking their dog. She heard the voices get louder and what sounded like an argument. She looked out and saw two people wrestling, and tells the 911 operator it was too dark to see anything distinguishable.

She tells him she then heard help and the shot and decided to call 911. As she finishes this part of the story, she sees the flashlights and Zimmerman surrendering and a young boy on the ground. She then changes her story as to what she said moments earlier, and now says she saw the larger man on top during the struggle. In later versions, she could see he was Hispanic and she knows it was the young boy crying out for help. She knew none of this before the police arrived.

The only thing credible about the Teacher's account is what she said first: She heard voices outside her home, which would be on the T, not down the T on the row of shared houses. Her reference to 10 feet outside her window is either the T, where GZ was walking back to his car, or she's grossly misstated the distance. The voices grew louder and there was a wrestling but it was too dark for her to make out the individuals. They were probably still at the T or just off it, right where W-11 and W-20 heard the same thing. Both describe the first part of the struggle which was on grass. Neither saw what happened next when the struggle reached the back of John's house -- that it had moved from the grass to the concrete. Neither can refute what John saw, that Trayvon continued to be on top once it moved from the grass to the concrete.

W-13's wife, W-12 describes the same thing: voices that didn't sound like a fight, more like dog growls, growing louder, and then becoming "help" and then a shot. She too says it was so dark she only saw shadows. She couldn't tell the size of the persons or who was on top. Even after the shot when she looked out, she couldn't identify anyone's characteristics. Then her husband went out and talked to one of the guys and people had flashlights. In an interview a month after the shooting, she says based on media pictures, she thinks the guy on top was bigger, and from what she's seen in the media photos, that would have to be Zimmerman.

They try the sisters and get nowhere -- one even confirms John's account that he came out and asked what's going on, and said he was going to call 911. Same with W-19, who was letting her dog out and got home just in time to hear the cries for help. All she saw was her neighbor across the way (John, W-6) come out and ask if all was okay and say he was going to call 911. Then she heard the shot and ran upstairs to call 911.

The investigation by FDLE and the state's attorney's office was more cursory than that of the Sanford Police. On March 19, they tell Zimmerman's father haven’t made any conclusions and "It’s a mess." They start looking for anything to refute Zimmerman. They try W-3 who still thinks the person on top had a white t-shirt, even though she says she knows she's confused because neither had a white t-shirt on. She's no help to them.

They obviously (and for good reason) discount the roommates who saw and heard no struggle, just a cry for help and a shot and went from "Selma, is it a black guy who got shot?" and "There's a black guy standing over him" on the 911 call to making press conferences with Team Crump and going on TV repeatedly insisting they both saw everything from the moment of the shot, it was the boy crying out for help and this wasn't self defense.

Knowing there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman, the state investigators and prosecutors began concentrating on motive. Prosecutor de la Rionda interviews W-13, only interested in hearing him say Zimmerman acted like it was no big deal when he asked W-13 to call his wife and tell her he shot someone.

De la Rionda's only question for W-6, John, is whether he heard a loud punching sound when he observed Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. Is he going to argue there's no evidence Trayvon was still beating Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him, and therefore his fear of serious bodily injury should have subsided and was no longer reasonable?

What is the state left with? Its motion for protective order is being misinterpreted by the media,. The state does not say that George Zimmerman's statements prove he's guilty.

Read it carefully. It says there are some inconsistencies and contradictions in Zimmerman's various statements. It doesn't say those make him guilty. It says Zimmerman's statements "in conjunction with" physical evidence and witness statements, establish his guilt. Which is another way of saying that GZ's statements, by themselves, don't make their case.

The state isn't dumb enough to rely on phone friend Dee Dee other than in a minor, supporting role. The roommates and the Teacher would be demolished on cross-examination by what they said on their 911 calls. If these witnesses are not credible, and don't fill in the blanks as to what immediately preceded the shooting, it won't matter much that they contradict Zimmerman in other particulars. It needs more, and it doesn't seem to have it.

Why Zimmerman reported Trayvon to the non-emergency number is a red herring. It doesn't matter if he profiled him or unfairly suspected him of criminal activity. It doesn't matter that he was a crime warrior. He didn't break the law. His neighborhood watch program, set up with the assistance of the police, instructed residents to report suspicious activity. That's what he did. He wasn't on watch that night, he had a concealed weapons permit, and it wasn't a crime to get out of his car to see where Trayvon had run off to, so he could tell the police when they got there.

All that matters legally is whether Trayvon Martin's physical attack on him caused him to reasonably believe he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Zimmerman's testimony, which is supported by proof of his injuries and witnesses observing the struggle, is that Martin broke his nose and banged his head against cement. He tried to get up and couldn't. Using an objective standard, a reasonable person in that situation would fear imminent serious bodily injury if he didn't react with force.

The state is unlikely to prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him. Zimmerman's profiling of Martin and call to the non-emergency number were not contemporaneous with Martin's attack. Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin's use of force against him. Demanding someone account for their presence does not provoke the use of force. Even if it could be construed to be provocation for using force, all it means is Zimmerman had to attempt reasonable means to extricate himself before using deadly force in response. W-6's steadfast insistence that Zimmerman was struggling to get up and out from under Trayvon, right before the shot went off, fulfills that requirement. Zimmerman will say the same. And no witnesses saw anything different.

Zimmerman should prevail on classic self-defense at trial regardless of stand your ground. Raising stand your ground before trial gives him the possibility of a quicker win, and the opportunity to preview the state's strategy before it gets to a jury.

The problem for Zimmerman is the notoriety of this case -- any judge is going to want to avoid making that call and find a reason to let the case go to the jury.

How would the Judge do this? The judge might say the physical evidence is a wash, and doesn't amount to a preponderance of the evidence in Zimmerman's favor. He might say since the witnesses didn't see the onset of the struggle, or have a clear view of what each party was doing at the time of the shot or in the seconds leading up to it, there is only Zimmerman's testimony, which witnesses don't support on other details, and therefore he hasn't proved stand your ground by a preponderance. Judges have a lot of tricks at their disposal when they want to avoid ruling in a certain way. This one is called, kick the can down the road.

If Zimmerman Attorney Mark O'Mara believes the Judge will find some way to wriggle out of ruling in Zimmerman's favor at a Stand your Ground hearing, the question becomes, should he even try for it? It would give the state a free preview of his defense case at trial, giving the state additional time to find specific arguments and witnesses to refute it. On the other hand, it gives the defense a free test-drive on cross-examination of the state's witnesses.

The state might make a fatal mistake in trying to put on character evidence for Trayvon. A good team of private investigators for the defense will dig to the end of the earth and find witnesses to refute the character testimony, either canceling it out, at best, or leaving the jury with a jaundiced view of Trayvon. For his parents, that would be like a second murderous act.

< Parole Possible for Schapelle Corby After Sentence Cut | Zimmerman: The Discovery and the Witnesses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you Jeralyn for putting it all together (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:27:29 AM EST
    I don't see how the state has proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact it may have served to defuse the situation  had they laid it out like this in a press conference to show why they were NOT charging.

    However I will go to my grave arguing against GZ's judgement of suspicious behavior.

    yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:20:40 AM EST
    Zimmerman's judgment of suspicious behavior doesn't matter.  It has nothing to do with what ultimately happened.  You weren't there, neither was I.  There has recently been break ins and GZ was irritated that no one was ever caught.  If J is right GZ being suspicious is not nearly close to being enough to set off TM.

    Parent
    "Allegedly" (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    "set off TM."

    There, I fixed it for you.

    Parent

    most people (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:36:22 PM EST
    here are not reading comprehension disabled and don't need the word allegedly to know that we were speaking of things that happened allegedly.  If you needed to fix it for yourself that is fine. I don't mind.

    Parent
    Yes, I realize it has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    the legal case against him. But if he expects to be thought highly of by the public after acquittal, he better think again.

    Parent
    not the public (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:58:01 PM EST
    it is not the public that will condemn him.  It is a small segment who decided he was guilty.  Who decided he was the guilty evil racist white man who murdered a black kid for no reason but pure bigotry.  Yesterday or the day before, we had a debate here that was basically about GZ being guilty because he carried a gun and what kind of freak carries a gun?  If he'd just been unarmed he might have had brain damage or worse, but at least he would not have shot anyone.  
    It's kind of like saying TM is dead because he went out that night.  Or some woman got raped because she went to the wrong bar.  Come on already.

    Parent
    Maybe when I hear him tell it I will (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:22:33 PM EST
    get over the fact that he called the cops on a kid that was merely walking in his neighborhood. Maybe he can explain what made Martin look so suspicious. I know such poor judgement does not make GZ a criminal, but his surrogates in the press also are trying to convince me he is a great guy too, and I'm not buying it.

    Parent
    Again look at the evidence (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by labrat on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:34:26 PM EST
    TM bought his watermelon juice and skittles at 6:25pm. If he was just walking straight home, he would have been home long before GZ's 7:09pm call to police. That makes the story that he looked suspicious more credible to me. Why was it taking the kid so long to walk home? What was he doing besides just walking?

    Parent
    What obligation did he have to walk straight home? (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:05:08 PM EST
    Maybe other people don't think calling the police to report someone is as big a deal as I do. I am coming to that conclusion reading the various threads. My threshold for doing that seems to be a lot  higher.

    Parent
    I am with you (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    I can't relate to a lot of the sentiment on these threads. But then, I probably would not be able to be an impartial juror in a case like this.

    Parent
    He had no obligation to walk home, but (none / 0) (#116)
    by itscookin on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    while I pay very little attention to teenagers who walk past our house obviously on their way somewhere, a teenager wandering around the neighborhood on a dark rainy night might attract my attention. I am a "reasonable person" so he also might reasonably arouse the suspicion of someone who works a neighborhood watch.

    Parent
    Maybe at 2 or 3 in the morning but 6-7 pm? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:17:39 PM EST
    What about people who don't have cars? and they get caught in the rain?

    Even at 2 or 3 in the morning -- you really don't know what their story is.  Might be a college student who inadvertently stayed at school too late working on a project and is trying to get home or someone who stayed to work an extra shift and is just going home.  There's a whole host of reasons for anyone to be out at anytime for any reason and it doesn't necessarily mean they're up to no good and/ or about to commit a crime.

    Parent

    profiling (2.33 / 3) (#146)
    by markus64s on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    Remember the context. That neighborhood was frequently burglarized and often it was by young black men. That's why the police had been called so many times over the previous few years. Also recall that Martin was, in fact, a thief.  Zimmerman tutored black youths, he isn't a racist and he isn't a dummy. He'd actually apprehended criminals before. I'm willing to entertain the notion that there was something actually odd about Martin's behavior. Why aren't you?  Is it because Zimmerman accurately profiled a violent, tattooed, gold toothed thug in a hoodie? Does that make you uncomfortable? Was Martin high at the time? He had THC in his blood and Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was acting strange, "like he's on drugs or something." Why is it so much easier for some to believe that Zimmerman was a racist rather than believe that Martin was a thug?

    Parent
    More ridiculous garbage (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Yman on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    Also recall that Martin was, in fact, a thief...  Is it because Zimmerman accurately profiled a violent, tattooed, gold toothed thug in a hoodie?

    "In fact"?

    No - in a fantasy being promoted by winger websites and rumor mongers, usually (at the very least) with racial undertones.

    Parent

    How in the world would Zimmerman know any of (3.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Angel on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    this simply by observation from a considerable distance???   Simple answer - he couldn't.

    The people commenting on this thread are not pushing the mem that Zimmerman is a racist.  Nor should you try to push the mem that Martin is a thug.  

    Parent

    I think there was plenty of reason (4.25 / 4) (#167)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    to suspect Trayvon, but not to be sure that he was casing houses in the neighborhood -- but GZ never said he was sure.  It was raining but nonetheless Trayvon was taking his time getting to where he was staying, wandering around, looking at the houses according to GZ.  Plus GZ said he looked like he was on drugs.  Plus he looked to be a black male late teen dressed in a hoodie (which yeah is popular with lots of black teens but seems to sorta be the uniform of many teen thugs/criminals). GZ didn't recognize him as living in the neighborhood and in fact he didn't he was simply visiting his dad during his ten day school suspension.  

    The was nothing legally or morally wrong with GZ:

    1. calling Trayvon in as suspicious and asking police to send a car to question him;

    2. get out of his truck to follow him to the extent of trying to keep Trayvon in sight so he could tell police when they arrived where he was;

    3. for GZ to ask Trayvon what he was doing around here, if he did as DeeDee claims

    4. there was also nothing wrong with Trayvon asking GZ "what are following me for?"

    What was wrong both legally and morally whoever threw the first punch which I believe was most likely Trayvon, since we have no evidence of GZ having ever hit any of the other people he's called into police as suspicious before.  There are several other reasons why I think it was more likey  than not that Trayvon started the fight because he felt "dissed" and mad for being racially profiled, suspected and followed.  

    What really was wrong though and amounted to aggravated felonious assault was for Trayvon to keep hitting Zimmerman and bashing his head against concrete after he'd pinned GZ to the ground on his back, and clearly won the fight and neutralized any non weapon threat from GZ.  

    Parent

    Pattern of behavior (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    -- since we have no evidence of GZ having ever hit any of the other people he's called into police as suspicious before. --

    Not only that, all the evidence of Zimmerman's past "watch" activity has him avoiding coming in physical contact with the person he's called in.  It seems he endeavored to maintain distance, in all the previous calls.

    Serino suggests that the prosecutor might find a manslaughter case here, by characterizing getting out of the truck as a sort of provocation.  I don't believe a grand jury would have billed, based on the evidence; in combination with Serino saying that none of the evidence contradicts Zimmerman's account.

    Corey introduced additional evidence, and the murder charge (which essentially asserts there was no justification self defense) follows DeeDee's narrative, in combination with Sybrina saying we hear Martin's voice yelling for help, for half a minute.  IOW, the state's version isn't even close to Zimmerman's.  The state has Zimmerman at physical advantage, not disadvantage, and for half a minute or more.

    Parent

    Doug, what I objected to in the post was an (3.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Angel on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    assertion by the commenter that GZ was able to make these supposed judgements from a distance...specifically that TM was a "gold toothed, tattooed thief and a thug",  plus the insinuation that people on this board have implied GZ is a racist when that is not the case.  But you apparently didn't comprehend my message.  

    Parent
    You keep suggesting that ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    ... Martin attacked Zimmerman because he felt "dissed".  Leaving aside the amazing ability to project yourself backward in time into the mind of a boy you've never met, that's an unusual word .... why is it that you keep using it?

    Parent
    profiling (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by markus64s on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    Remember the context. That neighborhood was frequently burglarized and often it was by young black men. That's why the police had been called so many times over the previous few years. Also recall that Martin was, in fact, a thief.  Zimmerman tutored black youths, he isn't a racist and he isn't a dummy. He'd actually apprehended criminals before. I'm willing to entertain the notion that there was something actually odd about Martin's behavior. Why aren't you?  Is it because Zimmerman accurately profiled a violent, tattooed, gold toothed thug in a hoodie? Does that make you uncomfortable? Was Martin high at the time? He had THC in his blood and Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was acting strange, "like he's on drugs or something." Why is it so much easier for some to believe that Zimmerman was a racist rather than believe that Martin was a thug?

    Parent
    This is scurrilous bunk (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by bmaz on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    you have dropped here twice.

    Parent
    The rain appears to be a factor to some extent (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:46:38 PM EST
     

    Parent
    ever gone for a walk (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:03:11 PM EST
    in the early evening? Think doing that is suspicious enough for someone else to call the cops and start following you?

    I can't believe some of the stuff I read in these threads.

    Parent

    Me neither. Like 6:25 pm is the dead of night. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    I've been followed before. (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by redwolf on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:15:02 PM EST
    I walked through a neighborhood in the evening for exercise and someone started following me in a car.  It could have been the neighborhood watch for all I know.  It wasn't my neighborhood so I didn't have a problem with them watching me.  People have a right to watch out for their neighbors and keep an eye on outsiders.

    Parent
    I read all the threads on this post and.. (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Cashmere on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    It seems that emotions are getting the best of a lot of posters:

    Zimmerman did not break a law by reporting what he perceived as suspicious behavior (Martin's), even if many may not have interpreted Martin's behavior the same way.

    Those thinking that Zimmerman acted inappropriately by reporting Martin to the police need the understand the law and if they disagree, take the necessary actions to vote out the suckers that put such laws into effect and try to affect change with your own political power (the right to vote).  If you do not live in Florida, then try to enact change on a federal level.

    But understand that just because you believe Zimmerman should not have behaved as he did that night does not make Zimmerman guilty of a crime.


    Parent

    I do understand he is not guilty of a crime (4.00 / 3) (#139)
    by ruffian on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    by calling the police. But keeping a wary eye on someone to see if he is up to no good is, IMO, a world apart from calling the police in to hassle the guy on no more evidence of wrongdoing than GZ had.  I don't have to think he is a good guy.

    Parent
    J's other post notes heat a small (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:12:49 AM EST
    % of discovery has been made public.  Seems best, to me, to reserve judgment.  

    Parent
    "(H)eat".should be (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:34:58 AM EST
    "what!  Which is what I typed.  

    Parent
    The notoriety is indeed Zimmerman's (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    biggest problem, based on what we know so far.

     

    The problem for Zimmerman is the notoriety of this case -- any judge is going to want to avoid making that call and find a reason to let the case go to the jury.

    Yeah. But if any judge would be man enough to do it, I think it would be Lester, judging by his record and how he conducted the bail bond hearing.

    I think you've left of two important bits of evidence in this, both from DeeDee's interview. The first is that DeeDee said twice that Trayvon had gotten right by his dad's place when Zimmerman was out of sight. That makes the Team Crump story that Zimmerman was running after Trayvon and scaring him right up to when the fight started seem very implausible to me and I'd think the judge and jury both.

    Plus she then says two minutes went by before Zimmerman comes back into Trayvon's sight and is suddenly very close. Since Zimmerman was out of sight of Trayvon much of that time why didn't he go inside, lock the door and call 911 if he was scarred?  It seems much more likely to me that Trayvon was in hiding somewhere, probably after doubling back towards the T, in order to surprise and confront Zimmerman.

    Parent

    Duty and Cover (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cylinder on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    IANAL, but using my superior knowledge of human nature (that's sarcasm if wsan't apparent) any argument for immunity under Dennis must acomplish three goals.

    First, it must meet the perponderance of the evidence test establishing Zimmerman's justification claim. Straightforward, but unfortunately not enough in this case.

    Second, it must gently remind the court that it is not responsible to - nor can it consider - the larger social issues. This is the tough sell. IMO, O'Mara must frame the argument in very passionate terms without triggering ire or ill will. The hype surrounding this case is not the fault of Zimmerman and cannot be a factor in determining immunity. This has to be isolated to one narrow case with one narrow set of facts. Though I'm betting it's a mundane lawyering tactic, IMO O'Mara showed mastery of the gentle reminder at the bond hearing when he asserted the he had prepared case law arguing for bail, but was certain the court knew more than he about it and did not want to bore the court with another recitation.

    Finally, the motion must provide cover for Judge Lester personally. Zimmerman has already been excoriated - he has no goats left to scape. Likewise, SPD has little left to give in that regard and has been removed from the equation. What's left is a SAO that has wildly overcharged and arguably failed even to make a cognizant prima facie narrative for the accusation. As Prof. Dershowitz pointed out, it was the state that made the big promises here and likewise the state that is responsible for the final outcome.

    I guess Zimmerman's greatest hope lays in Lester's (hopeful) lack of larger polictical ambition.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#47)
    by bmaz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    ...that is what I alluded to further down the comment chain here.  You may not get total dismissal (or you might, but that will be hard for Lester), BUT you can take a hell of a run at getting him to help back the state off of the overcharged 2nd degree murder.  

    Lester was very easily and comfortably dismissive of the state's trumped up BS on "Zimmerman's violent history". He really, in both word's and visual clues, could not have been more clear.  I think you could very much engender some kind of analogous scene out of him regarding the overcharging. Even if not, you get a heck of a lot of sworn evidence locked in.

    Parent

    In the end though (none / 0) (#60)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    I think Jeralyn's probably right, the judge will kick this can to the jury -- but wouldn't except for the notoriety of this case, and the death threats he's already gotten for letting Trayvon out on bail.

    I'd guess it's 60/40 on that.  

    Parent

    I guess I don't get that (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    If I were that Judge, I would talk about those death threats in public so that people could be sure I was not going to be bullied.  Then I would be LESS likely to kick the can down the road. Justice really is only for the rich and the connected, I suppose.

    Parent
    You can't possibly believe (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    that in a world famous, controversial case such as this one that death threats are unusual?

    Black groups, Aryan Nation groups, individual nuts....must be hundreds, if not thousands of death threats all around.

    Wonder how many Judge Ito got in the OJ case?

    Parent

    I have read about no death (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    threats having been made against Crump or either of Trayvon's parents.  

    We have heard a lot of death threats made against Zimmerman, his father, his brother, and even O'Mara and the judge.  

    Parent

    Seems best, to me, to make... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:06:42 AM EST
    ...some good judgements, lest the field be left only to the bad ones. My judgement is that Corey is a disgrace, to a 99+% cerftainty.

    Parent
    Definitely - my opinion evolves all the (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    time as I learn more information!

    Parent
    Suspicious Behavior (none / 0) (#204)
    by DawnDoe on Mon May 28, 2012 at 09:11:34 PM EST
    Ruffian,

    I think GZ felt TM's behavior was suspicious because he witnessed TM come into the gated neighborhood through some bushes near the gate, was walking about looking at the houses out in the rain. He was on the the phone with DeeDee and had his earbuds on and he could have looked odd if he was gesturing or talking to seemingly no one. Put all that together with the hoodie and you get someone who appears supsicious. He would appear suspiciuos to me, if it were my neighborhood. GZ also told investigators that TM circled his vehicle three times.

    I believe we can tell when this happens on the call GZ makes to the non-emergency number when GZ tells the dispatcher that TM is approaching his vehicle. TM gets close enough for GZ to see a button on his hoodie and it's at about the 1:02 mark on the tape linked below. Paraphrasing---->GZ says he's coming toward me, he's checking me out, he's got something in his hand, somethings wrong with him. Then you hear a little rise in GZ's voice (maybe a little bit of fear?) and he quickly tells the dispatcher "just get the police over here."

    I would think something was wrong with someone, too, if they circled my truck three times and stared at me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M0NiHt12KM

    Parent

    Thanks for your take (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    Your time and expertise are much appreciated.

    Have to disagree, tho, I just don't think it is reasonable to suggest the fragments that these witnesses hear add up to any coherent picture of what really started this incident.  

    And you haven't convinced me that what preceded the confrontation doesn't matter.  Because, frankly, I haven't seen an ounce of proof that TM was actually doing anything suspicious. Here is my genuine, logical question:  if Z's "profiling" or paranoia or whatever actions don't pre-confrontation don't matter, then how on earth can previous break-ins matter as reason to suspect an innocent kid?  Or is TM assumed guilty while Z isn't?  You see the stumbling block I have here?  If you are going to raise previous break-ins as probably cause to suspect, then Z's actions of "profiling" or whatever else HAVE to be fair game.

    Seems to me, either you use those break-ins to justify Z's state of mind in suspecting TM, in which case what happens before matters, or you don't.  I don't see how you pick and choose. But IANAL, I only have my own prejudices and paradigms, as we ALL do.

    Also, how Z had his gun holstered and whether it was visible to TM, and when the gun was first seen, are elephants on the table I haven't heard much about.

    Thanks again and peace.

    I also do not see that (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Towanda on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    the statement can be made that witnesses heard the onset of the confrontation.  All that can be said is that witnesses heard a confrontation before they saw a confrontation.

    What they heard may not have been the onset, without visual confirmation of when the confrontation started.

    And I also think that what preceded the confrontation, as well as what then started it, will matter to a jury.

    Parent

    7-11 Video Analysis (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Raoul on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:00:44 PM EST
    I'm pretty new around here.  So I am a little hesitant to post this link.  Please delete if it is not appropriate. But it appears Trayvon might have been in possession of contraband that night.

    Interesting Development - Trayvon Martin Quid Pro Quo at the 7-11? Update - Confirmed

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/26/interesting-development-trayvon-martin-quid-pro-quo-a t-the-7-11/


    Parent

    That video doesn't prove anything (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by rjarnold on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    It suggests that Trayvon stayed at the 7/11 for a few minutes, and maybe one of them should be questioned. However right now it is completely irrelevant to the case. The problem with that site is that they have had a lot of weak speculation on the case.

    Parent
    That video (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    falls short of proving its premise because it doesn't show Trayvon meeting with any of the guys who were in the 711 after they left the store. It's an inference one could draw.  The article accompanying the video says "apparently" they met. All they show is Trayvon walking back and forth a few times outside the store before going home, and Trayvon asking the clerk for something and the clerk shakes his head indicating he doesn't have it.

    If the defense could show Trayvon smoked marijuana while walking home from 7-11, it might be support for GZ's statement to the operator that he appeared to be on drugs, which would diminish its profiling argument. I don't think this video gets them there. More importantly, so what if he was high? That doesn't support an inference he was about to commit a serious crime and warranted being reported as suspicious.

    If Trayvon had received a cigar blunt from the guys at the 7-11 store, and he replaced  the tobacco in it with marijuana and smoked it on the way home, he would have had to have marijuana on his person to replace the tobacco in it. (There's zero indication he bought marijuana as well as the blunt from the guys.) There's no indication that  marijuana or an empty baggie or receptacle to hold it was found in his pockets or among his belongings. There was no  remnant of the blunt found on him.

    This video requires too many assumptions to be proof of anything: That he met with the guys who were in the 7-11; that he had marijuana in his pocket in an amount equal to or less than the amount necessary to refill the blunt (otherwise the remainder would have been found on his body or in his possessions); that he smoked the whole blunt (tossing it rather than saving the rest for later.)

    Even if Trayvon smoked marijuana on the way home, it doesn't impact the shooting or self-defense claim -- marijuana doesn't make one become violent and punch someone. Nor does it make one more likely to be a home invader or criminal.

    This seems to be just an attempt to attack Trayvon Martin's character. Attacks on either party's character are not welcome here. I'd like to keep the discussion to matters relevant to proving the criminal charges.

    The site you got this from does have some valuable factual  information about the case, but finding it requires wading through continual character attacks on Trayvon, and I don't want to encourage people to do that.

    What was interesting once I clicked to You Tube to watch the video there, was finding the creator's other videos, some of which detail the problems with opening the 711 footage from the state's media website. I have had the same problem.  He demonstrates how he finally was able to open the video files, and shows that they are not only all time-stamped, but come with a calendar so you can click on the day and time to watch the frames for that moment. So I will now try again to watch all of rhem. Up to now I've only seen the piecemeal clips reproduced on media sites, which don't show much of anything.


    Parent

    My thoughts are (none / 0) (#48)
    by bmaz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    even if there was some possible storyline there, is that unless it is locked down and bulletproof (and it is NOT), you stay the heck away from a attacking, or even suggesting anything negative, about Trayvon Martin's character other than that he got incensed and aggressed against Zimmerman.  Heck, I would probably even admit that was semi-understandable even if wrong and contributory.  You make no headway by going too hard against Martin.

    Parent
    Agreed. From a defense posture, (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    it is neither productive nor necessary to demean the character of Trayvon Martin.  The facts and circumstances, such as they are now known, appear to be sufficient to a strong case against the second degree murder charge.  The 7-ll encounter tells no more about Trayvon Martin than that he may have expressed greetings and salutations  to  that customer trio and is meaningless as it stands.

    However, I do continue to believe that the fact that traces of THC were found in the blood and metabolites in the urine should not be dismissed from the mosaic of a defense.  Marijuana does not cause violence, but a "high" is not necessarily required for judgment to be affected, a consideration to be given to a teenager under the circumstances.

    As with alcoholic beverages, one need not be inebriated  to have some drug effect-- as old salts call bad judgment for getting into fights,  "Rum muscles."  

    Parent

    Except, unless something has changed (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    what expert will testify to as to tox screen of Mr. Martin, the expert will not be able to testify as to when Martin ingested MJ or in what quantity, and also will not be able to testify as to the effect of presence of MJ in Martin's body at or near the time of the incident.  

    Parent
    The expert for the defense need (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    only speak to the medical examiner's toxicology screening results.  What are trace amounts?   What do trace amounts mean in blood and urine, with respect to residual effects;  how long do such trace amounts remain in the urine and blood, and the differences possible for chronic and acute use.  

    And, in the opinion of the expert, is it possible that a psychoactive effect at some level could still exist  that may have played a role in events.  Drug doses and effects are often subjective and  absolutes are difficult. In my opinion, there  will be different views on some aspects of the toxicology screen that may support the defense position.

    Parent

    The court shouldn't allow purely (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    speculative expert opinion.  

    Parent
    If purely speculative (none / 0) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    the judge would likely find the expert testimony to be wanting and would say so.  However, if the expert witness had qualifications to offer opinion testimony on the subject so as to help the trier of facts or to understand the evidence in keeping with reliable principles and methods, it would not be purely speculative, albeit subject to challenge by the prosecution.

    Parent
    Of course. But, I think (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:25:37 PM EST
    the person testifying as an expert on the effects of MJ injestion on the human body won't be able establish such effects on Mr. Martin based on the presence of MJ in his body with no facts as to when injested, amount, strength, etc.  

    Parent
    Uh, no (none / 0) (#78)
    by bmaz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    It would be nuts to go there because the answers will not be what you want. If you are O'Mara, you either stay away from it or simply elicit that there was some presence and then leave that for the jury to conjecture over.

    Parent
    I am not a lawyer obviously (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    or a judge.  There is one topic I know more about that I ever wanted to and that is drugs.  Marijuana does, in some cases, cause anxiety and paranoia and that could conceivably lead to violence.

    Parent
    Gotta love the suggestion ... (3.67 / 3) (#105)
    by Yman on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:04:54 PM EST
    ... that it was the unarmed teenager - being followed by a stranger at night - that was being "paranoid".

    Parent
    Perhaps yes. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    Paranoid enough, or incensed enough to clock Zimmerman.

    Parent
    "Perhaps" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:47:23 PM EST
    Funny how you can write pretty much anything after those kinds of qualifiers ...

    Parent
    Including what actually happened. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    Fact: Martin clocked Zimmerman.

    Parent
    You forgot the part ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    ... about being "paranoid" or "incensed".

    Fact:  That's pure fairy tale.

    Parent

    Just like you (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by lousy1 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    implied that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed?

    that it was the unarmed teenager - being followed by a stranger at night - that was being "paranoid".

    BTW it find it just as likely that TM's 'paranoia' disappeared as soon as he ditched any materials he had that went along with his lighter.


    Parent

    Is that really a question? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Yman on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    Because I implied no such thing.

    BTW - I find it just as likely that talk of "ditching any materials that went along with his lighter" is more baseless speculation.

    Easy, ... but about as convincing as tales of the Easter Bunny.

    Parent

    facts or opinion? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lawstudent on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    GZ did not have TM in sight when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow TM. He responded OK. He didn't follow him after that. He didn't know where he was. He continued walking towards the front of the Retreat View Circle, where the first house is 2861, home to W-13 and W-12. He then turned around to walk back to his car. He just passed the T and the pet waste can when Travyon came up on his left. After a few brief vocal exchanges, which even according to DeeDee were initiated by Trayvon, GZ got punched and fell down.

    George Zimmerman was walking back to his truck along this path, right about the T, when Trayvon popped out from somewhere and asked why he was following him.

    This post is an excellent analysis of the witness statements thus far, and I absolutely appreciate it, but considering you scold commenters for stating opinion as fact, I don't understand how you can make the bolded statements above without any qualification that it is your opinion (particularly when there are thousands of additional pages of evidence yet to be seen).

    The state won't prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him.

    I also have a hard time with the above statement, not because I disagree that the state will have a hard time proving Zimmerman was the initial aggressor (although you state it as an absolute - they "won't prevail"), but because there is only one person who can actually testify to this fact: George Zimmerman.  Did he take the first swing at Trayvon and miss?  Did he try to tackle him and get overpowered and then repeatedly punched?  We'll never know, because the only person who could tell you is Trayvon and Zimmerman.  One has been shot dead, and the other will never admit it if true.  That's not to say Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, but I think it is  a question that can only be decided by a jury, and the only way they will be able to do it is by assessing Zimmerman's credibility.


    Dude, did you see the title of the post? (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by bmaz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    The title is "Most Likely Scenario".  It is, by definition, her best take at hypothesizing how the defense will piece together the disparate facts we have so far and frame the theory of their case.

    Building out such a comprehensive narrative and explanation that both covers the critical facts and exculpates your client is precisely what good defense attorneys do.  If you can successfully do that, you are most likely going to sow reasonable doubt, at a minimum.  But, quite frankly, it is not even very hard here - there is no stretching and contorting need be applied, the facts just naturally fall this way.

    The problem is, it is not a comfortable result for many people, including Corey and Rionda, and they appear to be stretching, contorting, bending, ignoring, and every other prosecutorial trick in the book to disingenuously maintain a charge of 2nd degree murder when the facts simply in no way, shape nor form support that charge.

    Parent

    the entire post (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    as what I view the most likely scenario to based on the disclosed evidence in discovery. But in case that wasn't clear, I have changed a few words so it now reads:

    GZ did not have TM in sight when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow TM. He responded OK. He didn't follow him after that. He didn't know where Trayvon was. He continued walking towards the front of the Retreat View Circle, where the first house is 2861, home to W-13 and W-12. He then turned around to walk back to his car. He just passed the T and the pet waste can when Travyon came up on his left. After a few brief vocal exchanges, which even according to Dee Dee were initiated by Trayvon, GZ got punched and fell down. This may have been at the T or in the grass right off the T, in the backyard of W-11 and W-20. After getting his nose broken is most likely when the sounds turned into cries and wails for help -- by George Zimmerman.

    I also changed "won't prevail" to "is unlikely to prevail."

    This is the scenario that fits with what Zimmerman and the operator said on Zimmerman's call to non-emergency, the statements of the witnesses, particularly W-11 and W-20 W-6 and W-13, the proof of his injuries, the police reports  and the locations selected to be photographed by the crime scene technician.

    Parent

    I'm aware this post is speculation per the title (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lawstudent on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:55:12 PM EST
    But in fairness, the post is filled with a lot of hard facts taken from witness statements and other evidence, and considering all of the misinformation out there, I think it is important to draw a clear line between fact and speculation as we commenters are frequently reminded to do.  Otherwise, you are just contributing to the misinformation...not every reader is intimately familiar with the discovery file.

    Reading an unqualified statement that says "Trayvon came up on his left" when there's not a single piece of evidence I'm aware of to establish this fact other than perhaps Zimmerman's own statements, suggests that this is just as much a fact as statements that witness x observed y.  

    Parent

    Jeralyn's post is entitled: (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    "George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Story."   Hence, it seems reasonable that this post is be considered as an opinion piece weaved together from an analysis of available reports and the evaluation of possible circumstances leavened with years of defense experience.   This blog provides for responses that allow for a testing and/or further development of this  opinion within broadly stated guidelines.  

    Parent
    The title of the post is (none / 0) (#37)
    by rjarnold on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    "The Most Likely Scenario", so it's not stating it as fact. It's just her view of what most likely happened based on all the evidence.

    Parent
    Actually, as J states, her opinion (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:58:49 PM EST
    is based on the evidence made public--not "all" the evidence.  

    Parent
    running for his life (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Clara Bow Again on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:24:18 PM EST
    How is it so easy for people to believe that Trayvon Martin decided to start a fight w/ George Zimmerman, considering his initial response was to run? We are left to believe G. Zimmerman, who had informed the dispatcher, the suspect was running away. However, according to G. Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin changes his mind & decides to turn around, confront Zimmerman & jump him?

    There is no evidence to support that, but there is evidence to support the fact that Trayvon Martin tried to run away from G. Zimmerman.

    Too bad, Trayvon Martin is dead and cannot tell his side of the story. Although, that makes it much easier to blame the victim.

    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by rjarnold on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:54:04 PM EST
    I find it highly implausible that Trayvon starts running when he did, and is only able to get to the location of the fight where George Zimmerman catches up to him. In the 9/11 call he runs for several seconds, Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows him and then loses sight of Trayvon. Zimmerman is likely already at the T at this point (according to where his father and neighbor said where he ran). I think it's probable that Trayvon knew Zimmerman had lost sight of him at some point in the last minute of the phone call. According to DeeDee, Trayvon said he had "lost" whoever was following him, which would support this.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that after the 9/11 call was over that George Zimmerman spots Trayvon, then follows/ chases him, and they end up in a fight right about where Zimmerman likely  was when he ended the 9/11 phone call. The scenario laid out in the post seems much more likely to me.

    Parent

    we don't know what (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    Zimmerman said since police haven't released his statements. The Orlando Sentinel reported what he told police. The Sanford Police Department issued a press release and said "The information in the article
    is consistent with the information provided to the State Attorney's office by the police
    department."

    I'm not aware of GZ ever saying Trayvon "changes his mind & decides to turn around". Please don't make things up.

    In every case involving a killing, the victim is dead. Forensic evidence and reliable witness testimony will speak for the victim.

    You aren't interested in discuss the available factual evidence. Future comments with misstatements and unsubstantiated allegations will be deleted.


    Parent

    i disagree (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by lawstudent on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    I'm not aware of GZ ever saying Trayvon "changes his mind & decides to turn around". Please don't make things up.

    I think you're taking the original commenter's statement too literally.  The point made, and I think it's a good one, is that one undisputed fact we have is that Trayvon initially ran from Zimmerman.  But what remains a disputed fact is whether Trayvon initiated the subsequent attack on Zimmerman or vice-versa.  

    The commenter is merely stating that if we are to believe that Trayvon provoked Zimmerman, or even pursued and then attacked Zimmerman, we must then accept the premise that after initially running from Zimmerman, Trayvon decided on a different course of action and doubled back.  And since provoking/attacking is inconsistent with the initial act of running, the commenter believes this is not a logical inference.  

    I imagine you disagree, but it is a reasonable and interesting point.

    Parent

    If TM didn't double back... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    ...why were Z's keys and phone at the "T"?

    Parent
    Precision (none / 0) (#177)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    Martin's phone was near the body. Zimmerman didn't lose his phone.

    Sgt. Santiago said the keys were 'near the T portion of the walkway' (p. 16). Photos show they were a few feet to the south of the T.

    Parent

    look at the map!!!! (none / 0) (#101)
    by labrat on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    How anyone can still claim that TM was running for his life and GZ chased him down after synching the conversation with the dispatcher with the map is beyond me. It would be physically impossible for GZ to catch up with TM if he just ran home, went in and locked the door. It's clear from the available evidence that for some unknown reason, TM did not run straight home.

    Parent
    Maybe he didn't run in the direction (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    GZ said he did? It seems that would be one possibility maybe??

    I'm curious to see what else the state has.

    Parent

    Didn't mean to suggest the prosecutors would (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    have anything on TM going in another direction.

    Two separate statements.

    Parent

    Z said TM was running... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    ...towards the back gate. What other direction do you have in mind?

    Parent
    Zimmerman/Martin (4.25 / 4) (#4)
    by Khylessia on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:56:41 AM EST
    I would like to point out that you seem to take Zimmermans statement at face value.  Where is the evidence that he was walking back to his car?  Is it possible that in his frustration he was determined to make sure that this "punk" didn't get away?  Could he have confronted Martin?  Might he have grabed this young man, say by the arm, perhaps insisted he wait for the police?  Dee Dee said Martin initiated the exchange with Zimmerman but how does that prove Martin went after him?  If Zimmerman was not just following him but actually approched him, Martin might very well asked "Are you following me",or "why are you following me", seems a reasonable responce to me. I believe that if Zimmerman was the aggressor it will eventually come out.  The good think about telling the truth is the memories are real, alot harder to remember lies and keep them consistant. In any case, there is no doubt Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in his car.  

    read again (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:25:19 AM EST
    She does lay it all out for you.  As to your last sentence, why do you even bother?  Getting out of your car is not illegal. It is not provocation.  What the heck is the point of people continuing to parrot that particular talking point?  Truly, it is not even original...good lord.

    Parent
    Ditto that, Teresa (4.17 / 6) (#7)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:48:25 AM EST
    I do not get the insistence on repeating that all be right in the world if George had just stayed in his vehicle. There are infinite alternate realities that would have Trayvon still walking among the living.

    In Jeralyn's scenario, if Trayvon hadn't clocked George in the nose, Trayvon would still be alive. That is the story that must be told over and over and over again.

    Another alternate reality: if Trayvon had been properly grounded, had his phone taken, and no $40 in his pocket, he would still be alive.

    Parent

    I am sorry... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:04:18 AM EST
    but I take exception to your last sentence.  IMO, it puts the parenting skills of TMs parents to the test and I don't think that is appropriate of you to do so.

    I will argue that no one should take a shot at the parents of either of these young men.  As far as I can see both the Zimmermans and the Fulton/Martin's love their sons.

    Parent

    RickRoberts was just using it as another.. (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Cashmere on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    hypothetical, as in, how far can one take this?  From my perspective, many media sources and bloggers have stressed over and over that this would not have occurred if only Zimmerman had remained in his car.  Rick is also stating that this would not have occurred had Trayvon Martin been grounded by his parents.  Both points are moot as they are irrelevant to the charges, as Jeralyn has stated above (e.g.  it's about self-defense and whether at the time Martin was shot, Zimmerman feared for his life (my words)).

    But the realities of the case do not stop the media hyping the what ifs of the case and casting a shadow of guilt over Zimmerman that may not be able to be proven in a court of law.

    Parent

    oy (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:14:28 PM EST
    I go along, read the comments and wonder at what gets the fives and what gets ignored.  Have a five on me for excellence in rational thought, understanding and the ability to express your point.

    = )

    Parent

    n (3.00 / 2) (#152)
    by lousy1 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    if Trayvon had been properly grounded, had his phone taken, and no $40 in his pocket, he would still be alive

    and his cigarette lighter- why does he need a cigarette lighter?

    A logical answer is to smoke dope; by itself no big deal.

    Usually smoking required both drugs and vessel (pipe / papers , blunts etc). You don't need a lighter without the other required constituents.

    However no report of drugs or paraphernalia have surfaced as of yet.

    If Trayvon was worried about being questioned by the police or security- would that explain his initial dash from Zimmerman - as a evidence divestiture exercise?

    Particularly since he appears to have dramatically lost his coyness during the subsequent sighting.

    Was a small stash of illegal recreational material ever found in the general vicinity?

    Did anybody look?


    Parent

    yada, yada, yada (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    The keys and phone at the "T" are evidence Z was walking back to his car.

    Martin "asking" asn't what got him killed.

    No, often the truth will never be known for sure. Probably usually.

    Z isn't showing much strain remembering who punched who first.

    There's no doubt Martin would be alive today of he'd just gone home.

    Parent

    Analogue (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:10:12 AM EST
    There's no doubt Martin would be alive today of he'd just gone home.

    There's also no doubt Martin would be alive today if Z hadn't been following M with a gun.

    Parent

    And Zimmerman might be dead. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by redwolf on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    Why Trayvon Martin didn't disengage when John saw him attacking Zimmeran is rather a mystery to me.  Trayvon's unwillingness to stop attacking Zimmerman is an indication that he may not have stopped until Zimmerman head was broken open on the pavement.

    Parent
    Um, no. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    How could he have been dead if he didn't follow him in the first place?

    Parent
    Pertaining to this case, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cashmere on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    it does not matter if Zimmerman followed initially.  If I understand correctly, this is a self-defense case, and all that matters is that the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman shot Martin without feeling a threat to his own life.

    Any arguments about what if Zimmerman had not initially followed Martin, had not gotten out of his car, etc., are simply irrelevant.

    Furthermore, without anyone witnessing the actual events at the beginning of the confrontation, and not knowing the path that Martin took preceding the altercation, it cannot be determined who confronted whom, or who followed whom, prior to the fight.  This is, of course, to be taken from the discovery information that has already been released.  As there is much more evidence we, the public, have not seen, perhaps this will change and eventually more questions about the actual events will be answered.

    Parent

    I think I understand what (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    you mean in saying that this is a "self-defense case," but it is a second degree murder case.   The charge and the defense are different.  

    Parent
    Thanks for the clarification. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cashmere on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:39:45 PM EST
    I guess I meant that the defense has already indicated they will fight the charges based upon self-defense, and that it will be difficult, with the evidence currently available to the public, for the prosecution to get a murder 2 conviction, if they cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman feared for his life or life-threatening injuries (I may not have the correct terminology).

    I do have a question about the "depraved mind" and murder 2 charge.  If the prosecution is "unable to prove", beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martin was "not killed in self-defense" by Zimmerman, is there anything else that the prosecution can use to still get a murder 2 conviction based on earlier events... the depraved mind angle?  Not a lawyer, but from what I have read, I believe the answer is no.  Any insight is appreciated.

    Parent

    I've heard the question asked, but (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:17:10 PM EST
    I don't recall the answer. If GZ was suspicious of Martin why wouldn't he just go up to him, announce himself as a member (or leader) of a Neighborhood Watch group, and in light of the spate of recent burglaries ask a reasonable question of Martin? Procedure & protocol are vitally important. The first thing a police Captain asks his men after an altercation is, "Did you identify yourselves?"

    I pretty much answered my own question and it's too bad. Obviously, he's going to have to answer for that at the hearing or trial. It does go to his mind set and/or motive.  


    Parent

    Spit it out. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    What relevant mindset or motive are you suggesting?

    Parent
    I agree. (4.25 / 4) (#57)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    What really got Trayvon killed I've become convinced (though I'm always open to changing my mind in the face of new evidence), is that he kept severely beating Zimmerman up after he'd clearly won.

    I personally don't believe that Trayvon was ever frightened of Zimmerman as Team Crump and I think coached by him DeeDee has claimed but if he ever was, I don't think he was at the time the verbal confrontation which even DeeDee says was initiated by Trayvon.

    I think it's absolutely clear that he had no reason to be afraid once he'd bloodied and probably (Trayvon should have thought) broken GZ's nose and pinned him to the ground, with no injury to himself.

    If Trayvon had stopped then after he'd won the fight, he'd be alive and guilty of no more than assault and battery, or if not, Zimmerman would indeed be found guilt of 2nd degree murder.  

    But he didn't stop then.  Which is why he's dead, I believe the evidence shows.

    Parent

    your conclusion (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    relies too much on DeeDee who wasn't there and interpretation of state of mind rather than reported facts. That you add "I believe the evidence shows" doesn't change that. Please try to avoid making accusations of motive here.

    Parent
    I don't understand your point here (none / 0) (#65)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    Jeralyn.  

    It seems to me that assessments of the likely state of mind of both Trayvon and Zimmerman prior to the fight beginning based on the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, past actions and so on is important for assessing who most likely started the fight, by a 50.1% standard, which goes to whether Zimmerman deserves to get immunity at an immunity hearing.  

    As for relying on DeeDee, I mostly rely on her when she makes statements against the interests of her side.  Yes I do very much believe that she's on the Team Crump side, rather than being a neutral ear witness.  She was after all a friend of Trayvon's since kindergarten she says, went to the same school at least much of that time, and lives in the same geographic and cultural/racial community.  I think it highly unlikely that she's lied or mislead to favor Zimmerman's interests.  

    Parent

    I've reread what I wrote above (none / 0) (#66)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    four times now and I really and truly don't understand why you've objected to it.

    State of mind matters lots much of the time in criminal cases.

    btw I'm a lawyer as well, though left the law for high finance not many years after starting at a NYC BigLaw firm.  Never practiced criminal law.  Only took criminal procedure.  And well the usual cram for the bar "course" in substantive NY criminal law.  But I do follow legal controversies sometimes and am interested in them.

    Parent

    state of mind is (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    subjective and we don't know it will be admissible or a factor in the case. There is no direct evidence of state of mind. I'm creating a likely scenario based on direct evidence -- what people saw and heard and physical evidence. There will be plenty of opportunities here and elsewhere to debate what was going through their minds.

    The test of reasonable fear  for self-defense and stand your ground in Florida is an objective one -- not a subjective one -- it's whether a reasonable person in that situation would reasonably fear imminent serious bodily injury or death.

    State of mind would also be important to the second degree murder charge since it requires a depraved mental state and evidence of ill-will, hatred, spite, etc.

    But I'm not discussing the law here, just using the avaialable facts to create what I think is the most likely scenario as to what happened.

    You didn't do anything wrong, I just want to this thread to focus on the factual evidence and DeeDee wasn't there so her interpretations of Trayon's state of mind are a distraction from the facts as seen and heard by witnesses who were there.

    Hope this is clearer.

    Parent

    I'm more than well aware of (none / 0) (#96)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    the reasonable person quasi objective test, and it's difference from one particular criminal suspect's personal state of mind, and how that applies to whether Zimmerman's fear, if he had it, or great bodily harm was reasonable.

    Still I think that inferences from the largely circumstantial evidence as to who was most likely to have attacked whom are important in this case, esp. at the immunity hearing.

    Parent

    Paths. (4.33 / 3) (#31)
    by Addison on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    Well, a reason why some people view Zimmerman's "mistake" one way and Martin's "mistake" another is that, the slight injuries to Z nothwithstanding, the consequences for Z's "mistake" was Martin's death. The consequences for M's "mistake" was his own death. So Martin literally can't pay any more for his "mistake", and so it seems very strange to bring up his "mistake" to try to mitigate or cancel out Zimmerman's "mistake".

    This isn't meant to be anything other than an explanation of why people view the two converging paths of choices differently. I've put "mistake" in quotes because different people disagree about whether each respective choice was actually a mistake and I don't feel like arguing that.

    Parent

    We talking mistakes or crimes? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by redwolf on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    Because it appears the only crime committed here was Martin's assault and possible attempted murder on Zimmerman.

    Parent
    What word did I use? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    Considering that this is a legal case... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by redwolf on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    why would mistakes concern you more than crimes?  I don't go around judging other people for their mistakes as that's not any of my business, rather I judge them for their crimes.

    Parent
    When did I say they concerned me more? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Addison on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    Of course you didn't, but (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    when you're dealing with someone who, on a Law blog, uses "Crime" and "Alleged Crime" synonymously, my unsolicited advice would be to "let it go."

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    Okay, hold on a second here.  If we accept the premise of this post, then TM attacked GZ and GZ defended his own life.  I don't get your response at all.

    Parent
    Get it. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Addison on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:32:52 AM EST
    No disrespect, but what's not to get? In the two previous comments the two statements were made:

    In any case, there is no doubt Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in his car.  

    There's no doubt Martin would be alive today of he'd just gone home.

    These were the dueling "mistakes" that were being discussed at the time of my response. One mistake-maker is dead. The other is not. Yes, there were things that happened after these "mistakes", but as you know (as a participant in this subthread) the conversation was for whatever reason focusing on precursors to the violence as potential "mistakes" that could have been avoided.
     

    Parent

    I think it is called.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cashmere on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    testosterone.  I am female, but have witnessed a few fights in my time between males when I was in high school, and being told to cut it out does not necessarily result in the fight stopping.  Typically someone else would have to position themselves between the fight and use force to stop it.

    Parent
    replies to this comment (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    changing the topic to race have been deleted

    Parent
    Correcting Facts (none / 0) (#130)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:38:48 PM EST
    The phone was close to Martin's body.

    The keys were south of the T.

    At least one police report implies that the keys were right at the T, but the photos show they were a few feet to the south.

    Parent

    Which phone? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    Martin's (none / 0) (#181)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    Zimmerman's phone wasn't lost.

    Seven items were found on the ground. They are listed on pages 5 to 7 of the evidence documents.

    If an item was found on the ground it was assigned an object marker number, shown at the bottom of the entry.

    Parent

    I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    I thought there was a second object dropped near the "T", and that it was Z's phone, but I stand corrected.

    Parent
    Zimmerman's statement (none / 0) (#61)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    that he was is evidence unless the prosecutor can refute him.

    His car keys being out of his pocket and found in the grass is evidence.

    The time line is lots of evidence.  The distances involved are pretty small.  There was plenty of time for Zimmerman to get all the way to where Trayvon was staying at the bottom of then southward running path from the T, and DeeDee tells us Trayvon didn't go inside his dad's place.  Yet Trayvon's body wasn't found near there but rather near the T, which was close to where his car was parked.  

    Parent

    Coulda, woulda, shoulda (none / 0) (#64)
    by Payaso on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    There are many things that "might" have happened.  But we can only go by the evidence.  If there is more than one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence and one or more of those conclusions point toward innocence, a jury must acquit.

    In order to convict George Zimmerman the jury must decide that his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is not enough for them to conclude that he might be guilty.

    As Jeralyn has shown, unless the prosecution has some other strong evidence that hasn't been released, the state cannot meet its burden of proof.

    Parent

    The entire (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    Storykine Jeralyn put together is speculative and includes all sorts of unsupported leaps of faith.  There are places repeatedly where I could ask "well how do you know that?" and there would be no answer.

    Bottom line: there are as many holes in the fact pattern J sets forth as there are in the narratives that frustrated her when the case began.

    I point this out only to say that Jeralyn is, as an skilled defense lawyer should be, skilled at presenting a story as if it is the only possible scenario.  I would caution everyone that we don't have all of the evidence or even know the way the the witnesses fit together when all of the evidence is out together as a whole.  

    When someone above commented as if Jeralyn had set forth the end all, be all of timelines for the events, I cringed.    Let's just see what comes forth before we start talking about how weak the prosecution's case is.

    ABG, a little clarification, my friend (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:20:42 PM EST
    I've noticed that you haven't been present here as much when the topic is GZ/TM as you usually are when the topic is, let's say, Obama's re-election campaign. You're smarter than I thought. Lol

    However, probably due to your scarcity on these threads, you've probably missed the numerous times Jeralyn has stated her generic position: "Everything" she says here, other than proven facts brought out by the investigations and involved parties, are her learned positions as if she were GZ's attorney. She is painting a narrative countering the evidence the prosecution has been presenting daily. Insofar as a defense attorney doesn't have to "prove" anything, as the prosecutor shows more of her hand jeralyn tries to present how GZ could defend, or counter that.

    Since that happens so very many times, for her to make a disclaimer every time would take more time and bandwidth than any of us want.

    So, again, everything she says should be accepted with the stated position above. Kapeesh?


    Parent

    Excellent analysis (none / 0) (#1)
    by CuriousInAz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:19:23 AM EST
    thanks!

    Excellent Job (none / 0) (#2)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:48:55 AM EST
    I appreciate the hard work that went into this.

    But, critics must criticize.

    [Cutcher and Lamilla] going on TV repeatedly insisting they both saw everything . . .

    They never claimed to have seen anything before the gunshot.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:02:21 AM EST
    .

    Perhaps MSNBC and Reverend Al that did so much to create a national story will now offer a similar analysis now that more facts are known.

    .

    Or Not (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    Off topic: Kind of... (none / 0) (#15)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    Is Howard Kurtz related to the funeral director, RIchard Kurtz?

    Parent
    I apologize if you've already gone over this (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    and I missed it...

    Is there any evidence that speaks to whether Martin may have observed Z's gun before the altercation (and therefore himself felt in danger and was potentially acting in self-defense)? IOW, do we know exactly when the gun was pulled?

    (Again sorry if I missed this, there's been so much information and disinformation...)


    Short Answer: No (none / 0) (#18)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    Dee Dee is the only witness who claims to have heard Martin's words as the conflict began. She said nothing about the gun in her interview with de la Rionda.

    I understand Dee Dee's statement to Crump has been released, but it doesn't seem to be available on the web yet. Crump and others who heard the statement have not claimed she said anything about the gun.

    Parent

    OK, thanks. (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    So we don't know when the gun was pulled - before or after the altercation.

    This seems like a pretty important point...

    Parent

    We can be reasonably sure (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    That the gun wasn't pulled on Trayvon when he first saw Zimmerman, in other words Zimmerman didn't approach Martin with his gun drawn. This is because it really strains belief to think that the conversation that DeeDee heard would not have went much differently if so. Thus, most likely Martin wasn't aware of the gun until the conflict started. Remember, GZ had it strapped to his waist and (iirc) under some clothing.

    Parent
    Not one witness (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    who observed part of the struggle saw a gun.

    Parent
    OK, thanks. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:01:15 PM EST
    Jury (none / 0) (#17)
    by whitecap333 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:31:44 AM EST
    Bearing in mind that a jury will ultimately determine the "most likely scenario," I'm wondering if juror selection strategy falls within the permitted parameters of discussion.

    Jury (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mark Martinson on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    Should O'Mara bypass a stand your ground hearing?  If not, should he have Zimmerman testify?

    Parent
    As to Zimmerman's testifying (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    That decision is normally made much later in a trial based on whether the Defense attorney believes the State has "proven" it's case.

    Generally speaking, the default position is for the defendant to not testify.


    Parent

    I think it's highly unlikely (none / 0) (#159)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:42:38 PM EST
    that O'Mara puts Zimmerman on the stand at the immunity hearing.  

    He'll get Zimmerman's story in by transcripts and or tapes of what Zimmerman told police.  

    Parent

    Not so sure... (none / 0) (#164)
    by bmaz on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:13:53 PM EST
    ...about that. That is certainly conventional wisdom, but there is a least a fair chance it does not apply here. Zimmerman is fairly bright and presents very well.  It will not be open season, it will be limited to the issues pertinent to SYG/Dennis parameters. I think he could be coached up sufficiently. Based on the state of evidence we have seen so far, I might give it serious consideration.

    Problem is, you would have to know exactly what is in Zimmerman's interview transcripts, and we simply have no real idea.  If, and this is a BIG if, the totality of Zimmerman's transcripts is consistent and able to be homologated with a case theory (like Jeralyn's "Most Likely Scenario, for instance) then, yes, you might see Zimmerman on the stand at an SYG hearing. Lot of ifs there, but it is not outside the realm of possibilities.

    Parent

    If I am O'Mara.... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bmaz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    ...there is simply no way I pass up the opportunity of an SYG hearing. None, I absolutely do it.  Witnesses and what the prosecutors have done are, and is, all over the road already.  If I am O'Mara, I very much want another shot at all these people, including the key investigators, on the stand, in the chair and under oath.  I am salivating at that.

    Yes, I know chances are the court will take the cheap way out and kick the can to a jury, but locking all these gadabouts down so I know where the heck they are before trial is absolutely critical and I am availing myself of that opportunity.

    Also, with the bogus 2nd degree murder count still being the sole charge, I think the Dennis hearing process would also be a decent opportunity to start chipping away at that pre-trial and see if, even if the case does not get dismissed, the state can be backed down off of 2nd degree and down to manslaughter. Judge Lester looks like he is nobody's fool, I think there is all kinds of headway that could be made, even if the case survives to be sent to a jury.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    And, if the SYG ruling is unfavorable to the defense, O'Mara can appeal it to the DCA, giving additional time, perhaps several months, before a possible trial.  Additional time would be beneficial to the defense, in my view.  (Note: the appeal may  also give the judge some shielding in his SYG decision).

    Parent
    I think Lester does the obvious (none / 0) (#67)
    by cboldt on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    First, nice to see you, and thanks for your earlier greeting, what, three weeks ago.  I'm not anti-social, but it would be hard to tell that from my online behavior!

    I think it would be difficult for Lester to not find justified self defense, on the evidence.  He has to find Zimmerman an outright liar on the events of the fight, as well as discount John and other eyewitnesses so their credibility falls below that of DeeDee and Sybrina (although Sybrina's assertion that Martin is calling for help is "balanced" by Zimmerman's family saying the opposite).

    Lester has to operate in a preponderance of the evidence regime.  He's not to use conjecture or possibilities, he is obliged to weigh the evidence before him.

    Parent

    And to you (none / 0) (#79)
    by bmaz on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    Nice to see you again.

    Parent
    Need a better map (none / 0) (#41)
    by Luke Lea on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    You did a lot of work but without actual lines tracing the routes followed by the actors (as in battlefield illustrations)  it's really not possible for the casual reader to follow what you are trying to say.  Sorry.

    the map is only (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:05:48 PM EST
    to show the locations of the witnesses in relation to the body and approximate place of GZ's truck.

    It's helpful to know the witness' location when listening to their 911 calls, reading their statements and listening to their interviews. It shows who was closest to relevant events.

    No one knows the route Trayvon took.  There's several possibilities. But that's not the subject or purpose of this post, which is to explain what the witnesses saw and how it supports or doesn't support what police say Zimmerman told them, that he was walking back to his car.

    I might add links to discovery photos taken by Crime Scene Tech Diana Smith the next day that I refer to above, but I'm not inclined to speculate on Trayvon's route. At some point he ended up at or near the top of the T with Zimmerman.

    Parent

    Thanks JM... (none / 0) (#63)
    by desertswine on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:08:14 PM EST


    Thanks for the very useful summary, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#84)
    by HighlyAdequate on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    Based on your account, which seems persuasive, one of the most disturbing aspects of the investigation of this case to me is how readily people seemed to have changed their testimony based on some agenda they labored under.

    It really does make put the credibility of witnesses who have any kind of interest, be it even ideological, political, or social, in a very unflattering light.

    I just don't know how these witnesses can live with themselves and their inconsistent testimony.

    The only inference I can draw is that Truth seems to have no important sway over a lot of people.

    Question on aggression (none / 0) (#92)
    by Lora on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:57:31 PM EST
    I'm still confused about the legal ramifications of something.

    If Zimmerman touched Trayvon first (a shove, for example), would he still be entitled to shoot in self-defense (assuming fear for his life or severe injury)?

    I'm not saying Zimmerman did shove him, but it could have been a possibility.  (Or Trayvon could have shoved him.)

    Aggressor must withdraw (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cylinder on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:10:40 PM EST
    In your hypothetical the aggressor must first withdraw or have no avenue of retreat.

    Florida 776.041:

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.



    Parent
    Verbal means (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:03:06 PM EST
    ...is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger ...

    Would "every reasonable means" include a requirement of verbal attempts on the part of GZ?  For one example, explaining he was the neighborhood watch captain? Calling to neighbors to help him get TM off him, as opposed to merely "help"?, for another.

    There is nothing I've come across that even hints that GZ attempting to answer TM's question re "Why are you following me?" Assuming that question was asked and as far as I'm concerned, TM would've been legal / within his rights to ask that question AND get a truthful answer from GZ under these circumstances.

    It just seems to me that a person would've availed themselves of such an avenue and not rule it out.

    I'd also like to know that since GZ has put himself 'out there' as and expert of sorts in his community as "neighborhood watch captain", that he might now -- because of this -- be held to a higher standard?  Not that verbal communication is a "higher standard".  In my mind, it should have come first: rightful question asked.  It should have been answered.

    Parent

    Inaccurate response (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    to this deleted. This is a site about criminal law. Comments I see mis-stating the law will be deleted.

    And Mary, we've posted the law over and over.

    Self-defense is an affirmative defense to someone else's act against them. Trayvon's motivation is not an issue. Nor is whether Zimmerman might have said or done something to avoid Trayvon hitting him.

    It's fully explained here, here and the pertinent statutes are here. Florida's jury instruction on self-defense is here.

    There are two issues:

    1. Was Zimmerman reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury as a result of Trayvon hitting him?
    and

    2. In the unlikely event he is found to be the aggressor, whether after being hit by Trayvon, he could have extricated himself and avoided using deadly force.

    If Trayvon struck Zimmerman, the issue is whether the attack was severe enough to reasonably cause a person, in this case Zimmerman, to fear serious bodily injury or death.

    Even in the unlikely event the Court were to agree with the state that Zimmerman was the aggressor merely for following Trayvon for no good reason, or not explaining himself to Trayvon, he'd still be entitled to claim self-defense after Trayvon attacked him, unless he had the opportunity at that point to get away.

    A witness who saw the struggle says  Zimmerman was struggling to get up and out from under Trayon. How could he retreat, if he was on the ground locked in a struggle that began with him being punched and sustaining a broken nose?

    And if, as I believe the facts establish, Zimmerman did not contemporaneously provoke Martin's use of force against him, he's entitled to respond with deadly force so long as his fear of serious bodily injury was reasonable, without any duty to try and get away or use lesser force.

    Asking Trayvon to explain his presence is not provocation for a punch in the nose.

    It's not the punch in the nose that he had a duty to try and avoid, it's the shooting, and then only if he provoked the punch.

    Self-defense is about the defendant's response to a victim's act of force against them. Any so called duty to retreat that applies to an agressor means duty with respect to the force the accused uses in response.

    Parent

    the last sentence isn't clear (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:38:06 PM EST
    Self-defense is about the defendant's response to a victim's act of force against them. Any so called duty to retreat that applies to an aggressor means duty with respect to the lethal force the accused uses in response to the victim's attack.


    Parent
    Reasonably fear of serious bodily injury (none / 0) (#136)
    by WentAway on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:23:48 AM EST
    Would the state ever attempt to discredit  "reasonable fear" by stating Zimmerman knew the police were on their way, his injuries were slight, etc. = not reasonable fear?            

    Parent
    it might (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    try and say his injuries weren't severe enough to cause reasonable fear of continued imminent serious bodily injury. But I doubt it would use the rationale that police were expected to arrive shortly.  No one has to continue to endure a beating because of an expectation that help would be arriving. Even if he heard sirens approaching, I don't think he would have had to lie there and take one more hit before taking action to stop it.

    The test is an objective one, what an average, ordinary person  would reasonably fear in that situation.

    I can't imagine anyone who would not reasonably  fear imminent serious bodily injury after someone had just punched and broken their nose, causing them to fall down, and then once on the ground, banged  his head against the ground or cement. Zimmerman's testimony alone is sufficient to establish this happened. It's backed up by medical records, photographs, and testimony of a witness who saw him struggling to try and get up while Trayvon was on top of him.

    The fear of brain damage, in addition to more broken bones, and even the fear of teeth being knocked out or losing an eye from another punch seems entirely reasonable to me.

    Parent

    Duty to avoid shooting (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    It's not the punch in the nose that he had a duty to try and avoid, it's the shooting, and then only if he provoked the punch.

    My apology for not being clearer in my previous post but the question I asked in my first paragraph was meant in terms of avoiding the shooting in keeping with the excerpt I quoted from the post just above mine.  The post I quoted from, in turn, was based on a hypothetical of GZ being the initial aggressor.  As such, I was continuing on with the same hypothetical scenario in order to ask my question.

    My second paragraph was merely pointing out TM had asked GZ a legitimate question he (GZ) didn't answer, and the third paragraph, referring back to the first paragraph stating imo a person might've availed him/herself of such an avenue given the circumstances and not rule it out.

    -----

    Clarification:

    GZ could have answered TM's question -- why are you following me? -- at any point, including in the moments right before pulling the trigger, which indeed is the point in time I'm referring to with this.

    He wasn't precluded from answering the question later just because he failed to or chose not to do so initially.

    What I was attempting to get at with my question was not the nose punch defense and it's also not the same thing as requiring GZ to automatically identify himself to TM; nor does the initial argument (loud voices) make what I'm suggesting just below, unworkable no matter what their (GZ/ TM) argument was over.

    Instead, it is putting forth a suggestion GZ might've used in order to make an attempt in avoiding firing his gun: by giving TM information TM had already made known he wanted: Why are you following me? i.e., explain to me who you are and what this is about. GZ didn't even have to give TM his name, in effect, "Hold on! I'm not a stalker I'm with neighborhood watch trying to protect my neighbors".  TM wasn't asking for GZ's wallet, he was asking for information.

    It seems many (on any of the boards/ articles that allow for comments) readily grasp and identify with GZ not wanting to give out his address and phone number at a certain point -- he doesn't "know where this kid is at".  There are ways it can be done so no one else hears yet everyone understands GZ's reluctance.  

    When it comes to TM however trying to enter a much larger 'can't miss it' house with lights on and banging doors, it's more like "Well, that should've been a simple matter!" (to enter that house without GZ seeing him) despite having no idea where GZ was, imo.  My understanding is TM would be heading back to Miami in a few days (at the time) but -- what about Chad and Brandy?  Will they be safe? According to some of the scenarios,TM tries to lose GZ but then GZ keeps showing up again.  Is this going to keep happening, does he already know where 'we' [meaning TM, et. al.] live? He might've felt he couldn't go back in that house until he knew what was going on.  IOW, this was an important question for him, information he wanted.  GZ might've been able to use it as leverage in order to avoid using his gun (and of course, prevent great bodily harm).

    In any case, when the two did meet up again (however it happened), it was the question TM asked: Why are you following me? If it wasn't a concern, why ask it? why double-back for the answer? (if that's what he did & I'm not saying he did double-back)

    All I was saying was, in effect, it might've occurred to GZ as he began to think about using his gun and began to reach for it, it might've occurred to him -- as a last ditch effort -- to now answer that question in an attempt to avoid using his gun.

    On the one hand, it might not have worked in which case he would've fired anyway (as he did for real, that night).  

    On the other hand, however, it might well have worked, especially since TM asked the question himself, i.e., it must have been important to him especially as some scenarios suggest, IF he doubled-back to get that answer before entering Brandy's home.  It was at least worth a try.  GZ would've had nothing to lose by asking it and, as things turned out, everything to gain, so to speak, by asking it.  TM would still be alive & he (GZ)surely wouldn't be going through what he's going through now and perhaps for some time yet to come: it was worth a try, imo.

    ----
    Question:

    So, given all of the above, my question was (expanded slightly here): Would: "... and that he or  she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger..." include a verbal attempt requirement in such cases as this one where there might well have been such an instance?  In other words, does the law expand to include special circumstances where the judge (or whomever) feels it is warranted?  

    Of course this is all speculation based on the hypothetical scenario mentioned above where GZ is cast as the initial aggressor.

    Parent

    Not a lawyer.. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Cashmere on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:06:17 PM EST
    But if Zimmerman was the one yelling for help and was being beaten just prior to the shooting,putting the burden on Zimmerman to try to verbally reason with Martin during this beating seems a bit much to me, but perhaps this will be the case is the prosecution can prove Zimmerman was the aggressor (which, at this time, appears very unlikely).

    I also see no way that Zimmerman not answering Martin's initial question (according to DeeDee), instead asking another question, what are you doing around here, would prove Zimmerman to be the aggressor.  

    At this time, no one knows who the aggressor was, and if the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, then Zimmerman only needs to prove he acted in self-defense, fearing death or great bodily harm.  That is my understanding of what I have learned from Jeralyn.

    Parent

    No, I don't think the... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    ...requirement that Z "exhaust every reasonable means to escape" should be interpreted as requiring that, before he shoot Martin, he offer a verbal argument to Martin as to why Martin should stop hitting him. Far more persuasive, btw, than, "Stop hitting me, I'm the Watch Captain" would have been "Stop hitting me, or I'll shoot you", but taking the time for either in a fight he was losing might have cost him both his gun and his life. In any case I'm convinced that the contemplated "reasonable means to escape" are physical actions.

    Parent
    Perhaps GZ could have offered (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lousy1 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 09:38:24 PM EST
    TM a free I-Phone to stop?

    Note that, during that evening GZ was simply a concerned citizen - not on watch duty.

    Had some other resident  (not  part of the Neighborhood Watch) been in a similar circumstance    would you suggest that he was at fault because he didn't lie and pretend to be part of the NW while being assaulted?

    We have seen no evidence of GZ provoking the attack.
    To the contrary,  his statement - through his father is that Zimmerman , after losing site of Martin was followed and then jumped.

    We at least know that Trayvon had to go a distance to provoke the confrontation with a stranger.

    If I was,attacked for no apparent reason,  defeated, defenseless and  being pummeled despite 45 seconds of pleading for help I wouldn't think of informing the attacker I was part of some police auxiliary.
    That could have severe negative consequences.

    Parent

    A correction would have been appreciated (none / 0) (#171)
    by Lora on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    Jeralyn,

    I'm trying to understand the law.  My questions and confusion have not been cleared up.

    What makes someone an "aggressor?"

    Would an initial shove, one that did not hurt or cause bodily harm, make that person an aggressor?

    Thanks.

    Parent

    An aggressor is (none / 0) (#180)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    -- What makes someone an "aggressor?" --

    Initiation of force (unwelcome contact) or a threat to use force.

    -- Would an initial shove, one that did not hurt or cause bodily harm, make that person an aggressor? --

    Yes.  Causing harm is not the test.

    Parent

    not necessarily (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    a shove or a push might be provocation for a push or a shove, it might or might not be provocation for a punch.If the shove isn't provocation for a punch, the person who shoved would not be the aggressor. See my long comment below.

    Parent
    In the general sense (none / 0) (#191)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:53:11 PM EST
    My remark about what makes one "the aggressor," or "an aggressor" was in the general sense.  What you describe, a punch in the nose in response to (an aggressor's) shove is a non-proportional response, an escalation, and the punch is not justified.

    The point that I think many people do not quite grasp is that "provocation" and "aggressor" are terms that imply either a credible threat to use force, or the actual use of force.  "Force" is any unwelcome contact, not just contact that results in pain or injury.  At any rate, being rude, calling names, harsh words, not answering questions, etc. - none of those is "provocation" in the context of self defense law.

    -- If the shove isn't provocation for a punch, the person who shoved would not be the aggressor. --

    I think the person doing the shoving would be the aggressor (again in the general sense), and the point of all that follows the "unless" in the statute is to not strip this aggressor person of the right to use deadly force to save their own life, if his opponent escalates.

    I know of no evidence that has Zimmerman as the aggressor.  There is quite a bit of evidence that Martin was the aggressor.  While we will never "know" which way it started, I find it easy to decide which is more likely than the other.

    Parent

    The aggressor (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    Under the statute, an aggressor is a person who provokes someone to commit a violent act against him, and who then, in response to the violent act committed against him, responds to that violent act with force.

    If the state alleges GZ was the aggressor, it would have to prove he did something that immediately [provoked]caused Trayvon to punch him. To be an act of provocation, Zimmerman's act of  provocation must be contemporaneous with the force Trayvon used in response.

    There is no evidence released to date that indicates Zimmerman shoved Trayvon and Trayvon responded to the shove with a punch. DeeDee, who wasn't there and saw nothing, said she assumed Trayvon was shoved and then the phone went dead. Not only is that an assumption, but she has no idea how Trayvon responded to the shove she assumed happened. He could have punched Zimmerman right away, or were further words exchanged after the shove and then Trayvon punched Zimmerman.

    If the evidence were to show that Zimmerman shoved Trayvon, and Trayvon respondedimmediately  with a punch, your question seems to be whether that shove could be considered provocation for a punch in response to the shove. That's a fact question for the jury or judge and it could depend on several factors, including how hard the shove was. In some cases, a shove or a push could be met with either a shove or a push, and depending on the circumstances, maybe with a punch.

    But there's another problem with your question. There wasn't just a punch here. Zimmerman's head was injured, and he says Trayvon banged it against the ground or cement. A shove would not justify both a punch, which knocks someone down, and then head-banging.

    So first, there is no evidence that Zimmerman pushed Trayvon. DeeDee didn't see a shove, she assumed one. And she has no idea how, or how long after the shove she assumes happpened,  Trayvon responded to it. Even if her statements about what she heard are ruled admissible, her assumption that there was a shove would not admissible under any rule I can think of. And were it to come in, it would be countered by Zimmerman's testimony. And wouldn't resolve the issue of whether it was provocation or made Zimmerman the aggressor because she doesn't know how or when Trayyon responded.

    The more relevant point is that even if the factfinder, be it the judge or jury, determines that Zimmerman shoved Trayvon and that his shove was provocation for Trayvon's punch, what that would mean is that Zimmerman could only respond to the punch  with deadly force if the punch put him in fear of serious bodily injury or death and he had exhausted every reasonable means of escape at that moment in time, or had no reasonable means to escape the danger posed by Trayvon, other than by using force likely to cause Trayvon's death or serious bodily harm to him.

    There's an even bigger problem with your question in that it assumes a factually incomplete scenario.  Physical evidence (photos and medical records) shows Zimmerman's injuries to the nose and to the back of the head, consistent with  both a punch to the nose and the banging of his head against the ground or cement. If Trayvon had stopped with the punch that caused Zimmerman to fall, Zimmerman would not also have multiple injuries to the back of his head. It wasn't one cut, it was several, on different parts of the back of his head.

    An eyewitness (John, W-6) says they rolled from the grass onto the cement behind his house. Another person saw a struggle on the sidewalk. Another saw a struggle on the grass. It was dark. If the headbanging happened after Zimmerman was felled by the punch, any shove by Zimmerman which might have been provocation for the punch and made him the aggressor, would not also be provocation for the headbanging.

    Thus, even if there was a shove by Zimmerman, which provoked Trayvon into punching him, while Zimmerman might be the aggressor after the punch, he would no longer be the aggressor if Trayvon continued to hit him after punching him and causing him to fall down.

    If that happened, any shove, if it could be shown to have occurred, would not be provocation or make Zimmerman the aggressor. While it might have been provocation for a punch (and that's a factual not legal question), it would not also be provocation for head-banging that occurred after the punch. Especially if the punch felled Zimmerman.  In that event, Zimmerman could respond with deadly force so long as he reasonably feared serious bodily injury without any requirement that he use less force if possible.

    If there was no head-banging but only a shove met by a punch, and the judge or jury determined the shove provoked Trayvon's punch, making Zimmerman the aggressor, he could still respond with deadly force if he had no other available means to stop the danger he believed Zimmerman presented. The witness John says Trayvon was on top of him and he was struggling to get up, and right after that, the shot was heard. It's doubtful Zimmerman would be found to have a lesser means at his disposal to stop Trayvon's attack. If he couldn't get out from under Trayvon, he would be entitled to use deadly force, even if he were the aggressor.

    If this doesn't answer your question, then I can't be of help. I think you and others are not  understanding the concepts of "aggressor", provocation and contemporaneous as they apply to self-defense. I have posted many cases, as well as the jury instructions (which make it understandable to non-lawyers) and the statutes. That's the best I can do.

     

    Parent

    Multiple injury sites (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    Physical evidence (photos and medical records) shows Zimmerman's injuries to the nose and to the back of the head, consistent with  both a punch to the nose and the banging of his head against the ground or cement. If Trayvon had stopped with the punch that caused Zimmerman to fall, Zimmerman would not also have multiple injuries to the back of his head. It wasn't one cut, it was several, on different parts of the back of his head.

    I think this maybe hasn't been stressed enough - photos of Zimmerman after the encounter and shooting show multiple injury sites. Different places on the back, front and top of the head as well as a broken nose.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#200)
    by Lora on Mon May 28, 2012 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    Thanks for the time you put into this post.  It is very clear and covers the ground I was confused about.  I appreciate it.

    I can see I am still not clear in my writing.  Therefore I offer the following in the interest of better communication, as an FYI:

    1. I understand there is no evidence as to any shove.  I was speculating, in the spirit of this thread as to what was the most likely scenario.  I offered it as a possibility.

    2. I didn't mean for my scenario to end with the punch.  I assumed the head-banging happened, and I really have no doubt about it.  I was just speculating that a shove could have "provoked" a punch (with head-banging occurring later on).

    3. You are right: I was not understanding the meaning of "aggressor."  I think I get it better now.  I wasn't paying much attention to "contemporaneous" and I will do so in the future.

    If I finally have it right (I HOPE): because the head-banging was removed in time from any possible shove Zimmerman may or may not have given to Martin, a shove would probably not be considered to have provoked the head-banging that likely put Zimmerman in fear of serious injury or harm.

    Thanks again for your patience and thoughtful reply.

    Parent

    The first of your... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    ..."two issues"
    1. Was Zimmerman reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury as a result of Trayvon hitting him?

    ...is incomplete. At what point and for what reasons is Z entitled to a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm not because "of Trayvon hitting him" but because he fears Trayvon will succeed in getting his gun from him and may use it on him?

    Parent
    Totality of the circumstance (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    At what point and for what reasons is Z entitled to a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm not because "of Trayvon hitting him" but because he fears Trayvon will succeed in getting his gun from him and may use it on him?

    Reasonable fear is based on the totality of the circumstance - what a reasonably cautious or prudent person would feel knowing all the factors that the actor had. You cannot tease out a single factor, isolate it from the greater narrative and then use it as a meaningful test.

    I doubt very seriously that Zimmerman will base his claim primarily on fear of loss of the weapon for the simple reason that it's practically impossible to prove. If the jury tends to find Zimmerman credible, then it works but if they do not, then everything comes crashing down.

    The head wounds, on the other hand, IMO can be readily shown to prompt reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury through physical evidence, witness testimony and expert medical testimony. Then, IMO, Zimmerman will be able to add on ancillary factors that support reasonable fear, such as fear of loss of the weapon, continued assault even after no (effective, at least) resistance was mounted and no prompt outside assistance.

    Of course, this is entrirely speculative from my layperson perspective, based on the facts of this case.

    Parent

    Gift Of Gab (none / 0) (#133)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:02:29 AM EST
    One can imagine all sorts of things a person under attack could say that might, or might not, appease an attacker.

    I'd like to see some case law to show that such attempts at verbal appeasement have ever been considered a 'means to escape' in the context of justifiable use of deadly force.

    Parent

    This isn't really imagining one, it is one TM gave (none / 0) (#155)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    GZ, appeared to anyway.  

    I've used it myself 2x (one of which was a burglary where I was home alone at my sister's and burglars broke in; different floor from me; years and years ago before home invasions) and it worked very well.  

    That doesn't mean it would've worked here with GZ/ TM and sometimes, there are situations where it's probably best not to say anything at all, until you're sure it's safe.  But, seeing as TM potentially gave GZ a way out, so to speak, it was sort of an elephant in the room type thing for me.

    I don't know about any case law on this -- where it works, there is no case -- so I don't know how that works out.  IANAL obviously!

    Parent

    Btw, I wasn't armed (never have been) so I don't (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    know how it would affect things in any case, or if it would.  I was just trying to keep myself safe & not get hurt or worse.

    Parent
    I would imagine it could backfire too (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    Immunity Hearings (none / 0) (#102)
    by RickyJ on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:51:10 PM EST
    Jeralyn.  It would be helpful to understand more about immunity hearings.  Is there a Florida statute that spells out exactly how they are to be run?  My guess is that Self Defense is comprised of several elements and it is the judge's job to determine if each is supported by a preponderance of evidence.  If he find's one that isn't then immunity is not granted and there will be a jury criminal trial and perhaps later civil cases.  Am I right?

    Some resources on immunity hearings (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cylinder on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:18:31 PM EST
    INAL, but I have researched some resources on immunity hearings

    Peterson v. Florida

    The trial court conducted a hearing at which the parties did not present live evidence but, instead, presented the deposition of an eyewitness-petitioner's and the victim's sister-as well as the deposition of the alleged victim.   After consideration of the evidence and the arguments, the trial court entered an order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.   The trial court correctly observed that no rule or procedure had yet been enacted to guide trial courts in deciding a claim of immunity brought under section 776.032(1).   The court nevertheless proceeded to recognize its role as finder of fact at this stage of the proceedings, "much in the same way that it does when deciding whether the state has proved a confession is voluntary."   The court then determined that the testimony of the alleged victim was clear and reasonable, and "prosecution for attempted murder [would not be] precluded as a matter of law because the facts do not establish a self-defense immunity."   The trial court further found that immunity had not been established as a matter of fact or law, and denied the motion to dismiss.

    Motion to Dismiss and for Statutory Immunity From Prosecution

    Dennis v Florida

    Parent

    Depositions at immunity hearings (none / 0) (#122)
    by MJW on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:24:31 PM EST
    Allowing depositions instead of testimony seems contrary to another Florida district court decision, McDaniel v. State, Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2009.  In that case, admissibility of hearsay at an immunity hearing was one of the issues.  The court said:
    While the rules of evidence are inapplicable or relaxed in certain proceedings, we have been unable to find -- and the parties have not cited -- any authority holding that hearsay evidence is admissible at a pretrial evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss based on immunity. Cf. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ehrhardt's Florida Evidence § 103.1, at 5-7 (2009) (listing certain proceedings in which strict evidentiary rules are inapplicable). We note, however, that many of the objected-to statements were admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness's testimony with prior inconsistent statements. See § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (2007); Varas v. State, 815 So. 2d 637, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("It is well-settled [sic] that a witness may be impeached by a prior inconsistent statement, including an omission in a previous out-of-court statement about which the witness testifies at trial, if it is of a material, significant fact rather than mere details and would naturally have been mentioned."). Otherwise, given that the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish his entitlement to immunity, hearsay is not admissible to prove a material fact for the court's consideration, unlike at a motion to suppress hearing where the admissibility of certain evidence sought to be introduced at trial is in issue. Cf. Lara v. State, 464 So. 2d 1173, 1177 (Fla. 1985) (holding that hearsay evidence is admissible to establish consent to search at a hearing on a motion to suppress physical evidence based on the rationale that an affidavit for a search warrant may be based on hearsay).


    Parent
    Witness Evidence other than Live Testimony (none / 0) (#138)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    The Wyche opinion Jeralyn links below has a number of facts in evidence (eyewitness statements), other than by live testimony at the Dennis hearing, being used to reach a conclusion that there was not a preponderance in favor of finding self defense.

    Parent
    Did anyone object to the hearsay? (none / 0) (#197)
    by MJW on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    All kinds of evidence can come in if there's no objection.  The trial judge may have thought -- incorrectly according to McDaniel -- that the requirements for admissibility are lower in immunity hearings.

    I don't know the answer for sure, but the ruling in McDaniel seems pretty clearly against the admissibility of hearsay unless it meets one of the established exceptions.


    Parent

    Ricky (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:23:29 AM EST
    fully explained here with links to the statutes, and court opinions interpreting them. The recent Wyche opinion is a good one.

    Self defense is an affirmative defense to the crime of homicide. It has the effect of legally excusing the defendant from an act that would otherwise be a crime.

    Stand your ground is not a defense, but an immunity statute, providing immunity from criminal prosecution. It is a bar to prosecution (and yes, arrest.)

    A defendant charged with a crime who wants to raise Stand your Ground files a motion to dismiss claiming stand your ground immunizes him from prosecution. Here is a typical motion, filed in another case in December, 2011. Here's another filed in January, 2012.

    A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.

    The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.

    If the judge finds the defendant hasn't met his burden, the case goes to trial to be decided by the jury. At trial, the defendant can still argue both self-defense and stand your ground immunity -- he only has to establish some evidence of his theory, which can be just his own testimony, that he acted in self-defense.

    The prosecution must prove his guilt at the jury trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, if the defendant raises self-defense or stand your ground at trial and gets the jury instruction, the state, which has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, must disprove self-defense. If the jury has a doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.

    Parent

    Some Specific Questions (none / 0) (#154)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I've tried to understand the material you link but there are still some specific points that baffle me.  Before I get to them, can you please upload the complete texts of Florida 776: 12,13,31,32, which according to Judge Hirsch, comprise the Florida SYG law.  Thanks.

    1. What does the statement that SYG forbids the arrest of someone who correctly asserts it mean?  Was that provision specifically put in to allow a defendant, who successfully wins SYG immunity, to recover all his legal expenses and back pay from the state?  I think all the people who have had SYG hearings were arrested first.

    2. Is there a legal definition of "aggressor"?  With respect to Martin/Zimmerman, does it make any difference who the initial aggressor was?

    3. If the answer to the second part of 2 is that it makes no difference, then are the only issues before the judge at the immunity hearing,
    a. Did Zimmerman try to withdraw from the struggle with Martin?
    b. Did he fire his gun in the reasonable belief that otherwise he would be killed or seriously injured?

    Parent
    Partial Answer (none / 0) (#162)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    I posted on the Witnesses thread what might be a partial answer to the above.  776.013 is confusingly worded since it allows the non aggressor (apparently meaning the person who didn't provoke the confrontation) to not retreat but use lethal force if that is necessary to prevent serious injury.  I pointed out that if it is possible to retreat, then lethal force is not necessary.  However it seems clear that the intent of the law was to give the non-aggressor the choice of actions, retreat or kill.  

    It may be impossible to determine who the aggressor was in this case.  I think the judge then can give Zimmerman immunity by postulating he was the aggressor and then deciding that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the answer to both a and b above is yes.

    Parent

    Necessary is about the amount of force (none / 0) (#165)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    -- I pointed out that if it is possible to retreat, then lethal force is not necessary. --

    In that section of law, the word "necessary" is about the amount of force allowed to be used, not about the situation as a whole including the possibility of walking away.  The entire phrase is

    ... no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    There is no duty to retreat. Period.  Full stop.

    While there is a right to meet force with force (meaning an exchange of equivalents - you get slapped, you can slap back), the right to use deadly force is conditional on necessity to prevent death, great bodily harm, or any of several forcible felonies listed in F.S. 776.08.  If the harm being prevented isn't one of those listed items, then there is no justification for deadly force.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#166)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    In case anybody jumps to an incorrect conclusion - an exchange of slaps could be two people committing battery.  Both guilty.  But, you are allowed to use force to prevent or mitigate injury to yourself.  When the other person stops, you better stop too.  So, if you get slapped, and the other person 'stops" right there, think twice before committing a battery of your own.

    Parent
    A Suggestion for Clarification (none / 0) (#196)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    I think I and others here would understand SYG better if somebody analyzed the hypothetical situation that in the last 15 seconds of their fight, Martin got complete control and either bashed Zimmerman's brains out or was able to turn the gun so it was fired into Zimmerman's chest.  Could Martin still mount a similar SYG defense?  Assume all the other evidence, as we know it, remains the same.

    Parent
    No justification for using deadly force (none / 0) (#198)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    In the scenario you describe, Martin is either bashing Zimmerman's head in, or is using Zimmerman's gun to shoot Zimmerman.  All of this while Martin is in a position of superior force.

    I don't see any justification for Martin's use of force at all, in that scenario, let alone the use of deadly force.  He's committing aggravated battery, not defending himself.

    When both actors survive the encounter, it can be that both are guilty of battery, and that while some amount of force is justified in response to a threat, the right to meet force with force is limited to the use of a similar amount of force.

    Parent

    Martin Could Justify Using Deadly Force (none / 0) (#202)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 28, 2012 at 07:57:38 PM EST
    In the scenario I mentioned, Martin could claim that during a strictly verbal confrontation, Zimmerman pulled a gun on him and said he was going to kill him and Martin responded by trying to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman and was the one yelling for help.  He could say that Zimmerman got his injuries while he was trying desperately to get the gun away from him.  I don't know if that would fly or not.  I am just asking would the SYG law apply to that situation in the same manner as the current one.

    Parent
    Infinite possibily (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 28, 2012 at 09:18:20 PM EST
    I am just asking would the SYG law apply to that situation in the same manner as the current one.

    Yes. The claim would be evaluated in the exact same manner.

    The statute only answers one question - if the very narrow set of facts immediate to the use of force can be justified under a very narrow set circumstances that it articulates.

    You cannot weigh one claim against another. It is easy to contemplate a circumstance where both parties to an altercation would have a valid claim of justification - or neither.

    You cannot weigh a claim against any sense of fairness to the victim. It is easy to contemplate a circumstance where a actor in a morally outrageous position would have the valid claim.

    Parent

    And Going Over the Evidence (none / 0) (#206)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 28, 2012 at 09:31:39 PM EST
    in my mind, I can't see why the case against Zimmerman is weaker than the hypothetical case against Martin. I would hazard a guess that this kind of situation of a self defense claim in a homicide without witnesses has been commented on for centuries without anyone suggesting an essential improvement in the law.  

    Parent
    I would read that as (none / 0) (#184)
    by pngai on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    it allows the non aggressor to not retreat but use lethal force if that is necessary to prevent serious injury [without retreating].

    Parent
    Florida Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force (none / 0) (#163)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    Florida Chapter 776

    It's pretty long, so linking instead of blockquoting the texts you asked for.  From 776.032, "immune from [arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant]" aims to get the police and prosecutor to refrain from arrest, etc. unless they believe there is an absence of justification for the use of force.  There is no cause of action to defendant, if the state does arrest and prosecute and a judge finds immunity.

    An aggressor is one who provokes the use of force, and this is, the way I view it anyway, at minimum tantamount to committing an assault, "an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."  Quote from F.S. 784.011.  There are alternative acts of provoking the use of force, like hitting somebody without being provoked (see Knock Out King).

    The analysis of justified use of force changes depending on who was the aggressor, but being the first aggressor does not necessarily remove the right to use of force in self defense.  "The [self defense] justification is not available to a person who Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless ..." is how F.S. 776.041 reads.  The part following "unless" gives an aggressor the right to self defense.  So, he'd be guilty of assault, battery, or something (for being the first aggressor), but excused from e.g., manslaughter on self defense grounds.

    The literal part of "stand your ground" is that a person has no duty to retreat, in order to be justified in use of force.  We all have a duty to refrain from use of force, but use of force can be justified, and in FL, there is no legal duty to retreat, although prudence indicates retreat is often the least risky action. The question of whether or not Zimmerman tried to withdraw from a physical struggle is not important for the point of having him discharge some sort of duty to attempt to retreat, it is important to the point of having him reasonably in fear.

    Parent

    Out of my depth (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cylinder on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:00:32 PM EST
    I'm a bit out of my depth, but I would guess the decision tree would be based on the hypothetical motion.

    I would guess that the motion would first present a narrative as a non-agressor. Then it would be a simple question of reasonable fear (e.g. broken nose, head wounds) and neccessity (e.g. tried to fight back, tried to summon help.)

    Way out of my depth here, but I would guess that it would further argue that even if it was found that the defendant was the aggressor, that by virtue of the severity of the beating and no help in a timely manner, that the defendant was still entitled to self defense.

    If the is too far into speculation, my apologies.

    Talk about depths... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    I am so out of my league that I shiver before I hit the post button!

    8-)

    Seriously, I have learned more from this site than any place I have visited.  Everyday is a new experience.  

    I just wanted to say how much I appreciate Jeralyn for the great site and all of you knowledgeable commenters that take the time to help bring a clearer understanding to the events of that night.

    Parent

    One question/speculation about gunshot analysis (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kyreth on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:06:25 PM EST
    Hoping it's on topic enough for this thread...the thread that seemed more on topic hadn't been commented on for a few days.

    But I'd noticed in one thread several days ago Jeralyn mentioned that  the medical examiner determinted intermediate range due to powder burns on the skin, and the firearms expert determined a contact shot due to powder burns on the hoodie.  (I'm happy to be corrected if I'm inaccurate, seeing as I'm saying that from memory hehe).

    Anyways, it occurred to me that a possible scenario to lead to that combination of burn evidence, would be if someone was leaning forward enough for their clothes to be hanging down couple inches away from the skin.  (So that the barrel would be touching his clothes but not the skin).

    Would that corroborate Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him when he fired or would that be pretty meaningless?

    here is a (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:00:50 AM EST
    a tutorial from the Mercer University School of Medicine, hosted by he University of Utah Eccles Health Sciences Library.

    It explains gunshot residue and contact and intermediate distance.

    Don't forget that the reports inexplicably reverse the police evidence numbers for the shirt and hoodie. One uses ME-8 for the hoodie and the other says the hoodie is  ME-12. One uses ME-12 for the shirt, and the other says the shirt is ME-8.

    Parent

    Please answer me this (none / 0) (#140)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    If Zimmerman gets cleared of charges at the immunity hearing, he will also be free from any liabilty issues that might arise from a potential lawsuit by the parents?  It is my understanding that he would have to take the stand at an immunity hearing as the burden of proof in on the defense.

    If he is accquitted in a trial using self-defense then he could be held responsible in a civil suit? And that he does not have to take the stand in a regular jury trial?  Reason being the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.

    It that right?

    TIA!

    Benefits of Immunity (none / 0) (#142)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    If Zimmerman gets 776.032 immunity, that immunity extends to immunity from civil suit.  Obviously, he can;t prevent a person from suing him; but 776.032 provides that he would be entitled to an award for the cost of defending the suit, which would be whatever it cost to bring the grant of immunity to the attention of the judge in the civil suit.

    IMO, defendant is not obliged to take the stand at an immunity hearing.  The burden is his, of course, to produce the evidence, but I don't see that this production must be live testimony.  Some of the Motions for 776.032 Immunity that I've seen have "sworn true" factual recitations by defendant.

    If he does not get immunity, then he can be sued in civil court.  IOW, if he goes through the criminal trial, he'll also be subjected to a civil trial.

    If he does not get immunity, and he wants to argue self defense in his criminal trial, he has to produce evidence for the proposition that his use of force was justified.  Eyewitness statements provide that evidence, and IMO taking the stand or not is a judgment call.

    Parent

    I believe the law gives him immunity from civil (none / 0) (#143)
    by Angel on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    suit if he prevails on the SYG defense.

    Parent
    Florida Statute - 776.032 (none / 0) (#144)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    F.S. 776.032

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force ...

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    So, it seems to me there is a theoretical possibility of two immunity hearings (one in criminal court, one in civil court); but I'd guess this is only theoretical as the civil judge would almost certainly defer to the finding of the criminal court.

    Another permutation is a no-bill by the state, but also no express finding of immunity.  In that mix of legal process, the civil trial court would be conducing an immunity hearing, on motion of defendant.  Should the civil court find immunity, plaintiff pays costs plus.

    Parent

    How is a No Bill (none / 0) (#145)
    by bmaz on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    ...possible at this point, he is already legally charged.

    Parent
    Not just this case ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by cboldt on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    I was referring to the universe of possibilities in all cases, not just to Zimmerman.  And that to escape civil trial and be awarded costs, it is "the court" that must find immunity.

    So, if the police don't arrest, and the prosecutor doesn't charge, the deterrent to a civil suit is the possibility that the court will find immunity.

    I figure that finding has to occur in the civil court in order to escape civil suit; but having a finding by a criminal court judge likely makes quick work of the issue in civil court.

    Parent

    Even if Zimmerman... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    ...gets immunity, there's no bar to Crump suing The Retreat, or any other deep pocket, I assume.

    Parent
    missing here is explanation of how 2 move so far (none / 0) (#150)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    Missing from this explanation is how the "grappling" on the ground manages to cover such a significant distance.  If you don't like my estimation of 39 feet from the keychain flashlight to the location, post-mortem of the shell casing I'd love to hear your own.  

    mine is here
    http://tinyurl.com/btrwasd

    I've not seen others, apart from "it has to be shorter" without substantiation.

    Also, Witness 2's first and best account of the two person foot chase can be challenged but nonetheless it exists.  She seems to have heard feet slapping on the sidewalk, which isn't what I would think an ambush would sound like, nor is it what GZ's father seems to describe.  

    And, while possibly minor, the part where GZ gets his photo taken, he is holding a cell phone up to his ear.  I'm still not sure what to make of that, but it seems to be what he is doing at the moment.  

    Most important at trial will be GZ's own statements as to how the fight did or did not progress from one location to another, and where he claims it was when it started as seen on video tape at the walk thru.  I think it's possible that his answer back at the station was "I can't remember" when asked how the fight moved.  GZ's father, who was present at the walk thru describes a fight that started and ended at point A.  

    Jeralyn is describing a fight that started at point A and moved to point B, with some slight moves from "B version 1.0" to "B v2.0" as it were as they are on and off or more parallel and then perhaps more perpendicular to the sidewalk, as I think John is trying to say.   That's the scuttling and grappling that I think happened and was credibly witnessed.  

    If the fight started nearer to John's backyard, what was GZ doing there in the first place?   Had he given up returning to(wards) his truck, and if so why, and if he was surprised or approached from behind and to his left how had he managed to pass TM unnoticed?  (This is not snark.  I wonder if TM could have moved to the bench on the patio of 2861 RVC before GZ returned west on the cut thru.  There are several photos of this spot in the daytime images that seem to place some import on the area, including a POV type shot from by the bench.)

    If it started by the T, and near the location of the lighted keychain flashlight, then how did the two cross such a significant distance, one that on a beeline passes through a tree, in fact, and end up so far away?  

    If you think the distance much shorter, say by half than around my own estimate of near 40 feet, then go out into the yard with your kid brother and simulate the "scuttling" or "grappling" on the ground you think was possible and report back how GZ's knees are not scuffed or muddy.  Also be sure to have a black flashlight and a cell phone in each of your hands and do not drop them until you have crossed the entire distance.  The person in the GZ role probably shouldn't get his shirt untucked, either.  

    I agree with Jeralyn that the argument and or fight likely moved from GZ's path to(wards) his truck to the area we can call John's yard. I just don't see how this wasn't a more deliberate act than at least one person on the ground already can accomplish, and I think there was a witness to a "quarterback scramble" that, while only a glance was real.  Witness 2's accounts are lengthy but worth a listen.  

    In my opinion a more likely scenario has the element of a rising in intensity purely vocal argument where a gap is narrowed by one or both parties, then a physical provocation of some kind, a punch, feint, shove or attempt to grab by one or the other, leading to a short chase down the sidewalk where there is some kind of a tackle that brings them both to the ground in John's back yard.  TM gains the upper hand here temporarily, likley battering GZ's head some and the sidewalk doing the rest, or having done the rest as GZ fell (possibly with his hands full of items of TM's clothing.)   Then GZ shoots TM as he admits.  

    A jury will have to decide if that is self defense or not.  

    So Martin punched Zimmerman and then ran away? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by redwolf on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:11:02 PM EST
    But was caught by an overweight guy who couldn't keep up with earlier?  That doesn't compute.  From the sound of Zimmerman's breathing he wasn't in condition to catch anyone trying to run away.

    Parent
    You misread what I wrote. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    I suggested Z sCuttled, then ran away (towards John), crying help, and M caught him, not the other way around.

    Parent
    Don't See the Problem (none / 0) (#157)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    I guess where you are coming from is trying to assert that Zimmerman's story is that he was punched at the T and immediately downed by Martin and since you find it hard to imagine how they could roll 30 feet or so, Zimmerman must be guilty.

    I would wait until I really know Zimmerman's story before worrying so much about this point.

    Parent

    Wrong Way (none / 0) (#161)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    Witness 2's first and best account of the two person foot chase can be challenged but nonetheless it exists.

    Her account has the chase going in the opposite direction. That's a pretty big fact for you to leave out.

    Parent
    Dunno about the flashlight... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    ... but why would either cellphone have been in a protagonist's hand? And if a struggle is going to untuck Z's shirt, then it must have done so, because there was a struggle, so if it came out he must have tucked it back in at some point hefore being cuffed (which wasn't immediately -- he was photographed with a phone to his ear, right?). So no need to hold a phone or keep your shirt tucked in if you attempt a reenactment.

    I did mention before John's testimony about the cries for help getting louder (closer) over a period of time. So Z may have suttled and ran before being caught.

    Parent

    To respond to Mary and others who are (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 28, 2012 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    talking about what Zimmerman could have said to Trayvon in the context of exhausting alternatives to lethal force.

    I think there is confusion in the comments here  as to both the terminology in the statutes and the relevant time frames, especially the time that exhaustion and alternative means of response become a consideration.

    Self-defense in a homicide case means the defendant is saying his act of killing was a justifiable response to something the victim did to him. The law spells out when a person can respond with deadly force to something that was done to him.

    If Zimmerman raises self-defense as a legal justification, excuse or bar to prosecution for killing Trayvon Martin, the question is whether Zimmerman's use of lethal force was an appropriate response to Trayon Martin's use of force against him.

    If Zimmerman is found to be the aggressor, the requirement that he exhaust (or not have available) a reasonable lesser means of response short of  lethal force applies to the time period between when he was attacked by his assailant, the now-dead victim Trayvon, and before he responded to that attack using lethal force. That's the applicable time window. It does not apply and has no relevance to the time before Trayvon used force against him.

    The danger referred to in the part of the statute quoted by many commenters, "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger" means the danger the defendant reasonably fears from the victim's attack -- which has already occurred.

    I'll put it one more way and then I'm leaving the topic.

    The laws and the test for determining whether the defendant's use of lethal force is justifiable or excusable or immune from prosecution are clear.

    First, after being attacked, unless one is the aggressor, one can respond to that attack using lethal force so long as he fears he is in danger of serious, imminent bodily injury as a result of that attack, and that fear is one a reasonable person would have in that situation. He does not have to exhaust or consider a lesser or alternative response short of lethal force before responding with lethal force to the danger he fears from the victim's attack on him.

    Second,  (and I'm purposely inserting and repeating who the statute is referring to to make it clearer )if (and only if) the person attacked, here the defendant, is the aggressor, which means

    (1)that he provoked the force the victim used against him,and
    (2) that whatever it was he did to provoke the force the victim used on him was done contemporaneously with the victim's use of force on him,

    then he (the defendant-aggressor) can only use deadly force in response to the victim's attack on him if he has exhausted or there are no available lesser means to escape the danger he fears from the victim's use of force against him.

    Zimmerman was punched in the nose. He responded by shooting Trayvon. It's not about whether Zimmerman could have done something or said something to prevent Trayvon from punching him.

    It's about whether, having been attacked by Trayvon, he reasonably believed he was in danger of serious bodily injury as a result of that attack.

    The aggressor statute states it applies to one who "initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself."  It's not just any provocation and it's not about provoking fear in the victim. It's about provoking the force the victim used against him. The act of provocation has to be contemporaneous with the victim's use of force against the aggressor.

    Even as an aggressor, one can respond with lethal force to the force the victim used against him if:

    Such force [meaning the force used by the victim against the defendant-aggressor] is so great that the defendant-aggressor reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger[ meaning the danger that the aggressor-defendant believes he faces from the victim's use of force against him] other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the [victim-assailant.]

    "Likely scenario" has problems. (none / 0) (#208)
    by bacchys on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    It doesn't seem likely.

    Zimmerman getting to the end of the sidewalk at RVC doesn't make sense with his 911 call where he says Martin is running for the back entrance.  Running for the back entrance is down the lower part of the T sidewalk towards the house he was staying at.

    If the scuffle starts at the crux of the T, that doesn't help him, either. It doesn't match his statement to have the fight start 100' or more from where he ends up shooting Martin.

    His injuries aren't consistent with his account of having his head slammed onto the ground.  The back of his head has two small lacerations.  No contusions or other blunt force injury were reported.

    I think the girlfriend is credible.  What she says doesn't tell us much, but it doesn't match with some of Zimmerman's story as it is.  I think she's credible because if she's out to lie to get Zimmerman imprisoned for shooting her boyfriend, she's made some oddly ambiguous statements to do so.  If she were going to lie with the goal of incriminating Zimmerman, some kind of Dirty Harry language from Zimmerman and a claim to have heard Martin's pleas to not kill him would make more sense. So the very confused, largely unhelpful nature of the statements argue for her credibility here.

    She heard what she thought was a shove.  What that sounds like, I don't know.  Perhaps on the stand she can make it make sense to the jury.  What she doesn't hear are threats or some other provocative statement (unless the tone, which we don't know) that would at least give a basis for one starting the fight over the other.

    Martin only has one reported injury from what I've read aside from the gunshot: a quarter-inch laceration on the knuckle of his left ring finger.  

    There's no direct evidence Zimmerman started the fight (and no direct evidence aside from Zimmerman that Martin did), but GZ's inconsistencies between what he says on the 911 call and what he says to the police he did after the shooting tilt me to thinking he was the aggressor in the altercation.  That the fight seems to have spanned 100' or so in the direction of where Martin was living- if your recreation of the struggle based on the witness statements is to be believed- also argues that Zimmerman was the aggressor during the struggle, broken nose or not.

    DeeDee courthouse authenticiy (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by lousy1 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    There is no attempt to impart dialect into this examination. However I don't think DeeDee would have an easy time under examination.

    Q. Ms DD you testified that you heard GZ shove TM?

    <30sec delay> - Yes

    Q. Are you sure it was not TM shoving GZ?

    <Looks to Crump> - Yes

    Q. Could you explain the audio difference that allows you to distinguish between those two sounds over a cell phone?

    <Confidently> Well one sound kinda like umpm and the other would haved sounded kinda like Mumph

    Q. You also testified that you could then distiguish the sound made by  TM's cell phone as it slid through the wet grass. What is that sound?

    Its the same sound that a Tiger Wood putt makes if you can block out all the "get in the hole" yelling.

    Q. The phone hung up then?

    Yep By its self

    Q. But you stated that it reestablished connection after that. Do you know how?


    <cautiously> Caddy?


    Parent

    Chicago Tribune Links to this thread (none / 0) (#211)
    by Raoul on Tue May 29, 2012 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    Okay, great. Thank you very much, Jeralyn -- (none / 0) (#212)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    I really appreciate your help with this and of course, for your site, too.  I always have you bookmarked!    

    Gandydancer (none / 0) (#213)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    GZ was already expending energy screaming for help, help that never arrived. At least not the help he said he wanted (help getting TM off him).

    Why not use that energy, put it towards something that might've been more productive/ beneficial, such as answering the question TM had asked him? or at least say, "Help me get this guy off me!"

    It's not like he didn't have the capability and/ or energy and time to communicate.  He did.

    Dee Dee's Testimony (none / 0) (#214)
    by Mark Martinson on Wed May 30, 2012 at 06:42:41 AM EST
    I agree that it is somewhat understated and you might expect something more dramatic if she's making things up.

    On the other hand, she isn't very bright. I think she expects to be prompted to give the answers that are beneficial to the prosecution.

    Remember: Dee Dee's got to give a reason for not calling the police that night or in the days following.  The more she heard the less plausible any explanation she gives.

    "contemporaneous"??? (none / 0) (#215)
    by OnTheLeft on Wed May 30, 2012 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    I'm not sure why you insist that the provocation had to be contemporaneous within the fight itself.

    A great number of self defense cases in FL cite Linsley v. State. as precedent.

    Where not only does the "defendant" have to not have created the situation and avert the necessity to take a human life, but also " he must have used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger" .

    Zimmerman hung around the area for 3 full minutes after the dispatcher warned him to not pursue Martin.  How that is at ALL consistent with "going back to his car" is a curious conclusion for you to have made.

    By the way, Linsley v. State also define "imminent".

    "Imminent means near at hand, mediate rather than immediate, close rather than touching."

    Zimmerman didn't have to raise his fist to Trayvon to make him feel that he was imminent danger.

    I think 8 minutes of glowering, chasing and stalking a young boy is enough to make ANY reasonable person to feel in imminent danger of bodily harm.  Not only to himself, but to his future step-brother if he were to have led Zimmerman back to where they were staying alone.

    Especially when, by Zimmerman's own account Trayvon spotted the gun at some point.

    escape vs avoid (none / 0) (#216)
    by OnTheLeft on Wed May 30, 2012 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    Seriously,

    I would like some explanation as to the difference between escaping danger and avoiding danger.

    Because case law precedent, IMO seems to make a distinction between the two.  And Zimmerman would've been expected to do BOTH, not either or.

    I'm not sure the requirement to AVOID danger necessitates that the danger be contemporaneous.

    Inconsistancies (none / 0) (#217)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:40:55 AM EST
    GZ did not have TM in sight when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow TM. He responded OK. He didn't follow him after that. He didn't know where Trayvon was.

    When Zimmerman parked he saw TM emerge from the backyard area and then walk towards him.
    Whwn TM ran back towards the sidewalk area GZ lost sight of him and did not know where TM was.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm