Zimmerman/Martin shooting

[Fred Fuller]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/1...ed-by-florida-special-prosecutor-report-says/
Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder by Florida special prosecutor, in custody
Published April 11, 2012
FoxNews.com

snip/
Special prosecutor Angela Corey says that the 28-year-old Zimmerman is in custody, but wouldn't say where for his safety. She said that he will be in court within 24 hours.
/snip
=======================================================

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...rey-civil-rights-leaders-second-degree-murder
George Zimmerman arrives at Seminole County Jail, faces second-degree murder charge
10:36 p.m. EST, April 11, 2012|
By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
=======================================================

(Video)
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...e-Zimmerman-charged-with-second-degree-murder
Video: George Zimmerman charged with second-degree murder
Special Prosecutor Angela Corey just announced that Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman has been charged in the death of Trayvon Martin. (Video courtesy of WOFL)

In which she refers to "our victim Trayvon Martin." Hmmm...

 

[Fred Fuller]

Now that the special prosecutor has announced charges and Zimmerman is in custody, we're going to re-open this topic for discussion on a limited basis.

What we WILL discuss:
- what we KNOW - the facts of the case as generally accepted;
- lessons learned so far;
- risks of post incident interpretation/misinterpretation regarding justification;
- the ST&T "school solution" of ADEE;
- legal and social consequences of any shooting, justified or not;
- pitfalls of the sheepdog syndrome.

What we WILL NOT discuss:
- SPECULATION about what we DON'T/CAN'T KNOW;
- guilt or innocence, until a verdict is in;
- political/social pressures;
- media bias or misrepresentation, accidental or deliberate.

If, in spite of these limitations, members cannot or will not stay on topic and restrain posts to discussing the issues as outlined above, then we'll regretfully close discussion again until a verdict is in on the shooting. We usually suggest thinking twice and posting once in ST&T - that applies double here.

 

[stumpers]

Firstly, I sincerely hope that the evidence is sufficient for whatever verdict is eventually returned - mainly that there is real evidence.

Past that, I have mixed feeling on the entire thing due to the fact that I was not a first-hand party to the confrontation. I don't know if I would have shot in a similar situation or fought back unarmed in the situation as Zimmerman described it.

I just want to pose a question at this time and see what people think: How great is the value of unarmed self-defense skills and training for situations similar to this where no weapon is used by the attacker?

 

[CoRoMo]

- what we KNOW - the facts of the case as generally accepted;

I would greatly appreciate a bullet point list of 'generally accepted facts' in a time-line fashion. I will write what I've gathered, but admittedly, I have not followed it too closely until now. Now that the charges have come, I'll be on this one as much as I can.

Feel free to correct any of these because I certainly am only using what recollections I have of the ongoing reports. As loosely as I've followed the case, here are the list of 'facts' that I continue to hear repeated in the coverage of the case:

*I'll edit this while I can*

• --- February 26th, 2012.
• Zimmerman called a non-emergency line to report suspicious activity, specifically an unfamiliar individual walking around in the rain and doing nothing in particular.
• Dispatch questioned Zimmerman about the description of the individual while Zimmerman followed Trayvon and relayed the answers back to dispatch.
• Dispatch asked if he was in fact following the individual and Zimmerman confirmed, was told that this wasn't needed, and he said OK.
• Martin is on his cell phone with his girlfriend and tells her that someone was following him.
• Martin is not in school at the moment because he was serving a suspension from school for misbehavior.
• I have not heard what happened from this point.. ..up to the point of the confrontation.
• Zimmerman's account is that Martin employed a blow to Zimmerman's face breaking his nose and causing him to fall to the ground.
• Two witnesses have corroborated the account that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman and had quite the upper-hand throughout. One specific is that Martin was atop Zimmerman and was 'hammering' Zimmerman's head against the concrete.
• Zimmerman's account states that, at one point his handgun was exposed and Martin made a comment that indicated to Zimmerman that Martin not only identified the firearm, but might then use it against Zimmerman.
• At some point Zimmerman draws his pistol and fires upon Martin.
• I have not heard anything that may have happened between this moment and the police arriving.
• Police reports indicate that Zimmerman had injuries to his nose and back of his head.
• Zimmerman was taken to a law enforcement facility and questioned about the encounter for approximately 5 hours.
• Video footage from that facility shows lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head.

This is what I'm referring to; straight forward and itemized facts in chronological order.

For those here who have not followed the case until now, this should be the best possible way to get them up to speed.

 

[mortablunt]

A. Not decided that the guy was obviously a thug.
B. Not pursued him as instructed.
C. Not forced a confrontation.
D. All of the above.

He has now been charged with murder.

 

[X-Rap]

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

 

[Loosedhorse]

CoRoMo, to point out a few things that you may already know:

I have not heard what happened from this point up to the point of the confrontation.

Z's father has given Z's side of those minutes. It has been available elsewhere as well, apparently from police leaks of Z's statement.

lacerations

No, the video show marks.

A "laceration" is a wound produced by tearing. Given that Zimmerman required no stitches, it is likely that the marks were abrasions, scratches.

At this point Zimmerman draws his pistol

We do not know when Z drew his pistol. He may have drawn it before he went down, or before Martin struck him. Witness acounts of M on top of Z do not to my knowledge state "I saw Z hands and they were empty," but I may be wrong.

All of Zimmerman's account, while it may be true, may also be false. Only the parts corroborated by witnesses should be considered "facts."

Unfortunately, without knowing the exact facts of the encounter that apparently started with "Why are you following me?" and ended with M being shot, I'm not sure there are many lessons we can be sure of.

If Z did allow his gun to be exposed (accidentally during the struggle, as he claims, or earlier on purpose to intimidate), this seems to have been a tactical error, emboldening M (by Z's account).

I wonder if things would have gone differently if, on the way back to his car, Z had maintained better awareness of his surroundings (so M didn't surprise him), had retreated (even though not legally required to do that), and had done the two-palms-up, "My mistake I'm leaving" gesture to disengage; instead of the "What are you doing here?" he says he chose.

Z would have been justified holding at the ready a less-lethal tool (like OC) long before he would have been justified in reaching for a gun. The fact that he, a Neighborhood Watch captain, apparently had no plan to use less-lethal force speaks to (IMHO) poor forethought and preparation--if you're going to "investigate" and "interrogate".

And then of course, there's always "don't get out of the car."

 

[rajb123]

Hustleman said:
Syg doesn't protect you when you initiate a problem THEN shoot someone!


Doesn't the law presume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the person who took the deadly force action did so justifiably? I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest Zimmerman started the brawl that resulted in his nose being broken... A volunteer watchman who follows a suspicious person while on duty does not prove he provoked the attack; right?

My hope is that the judge will toss the case before it goes to trial. Unfortunately, this would probably cause more unnecessary violence.

 

[CoRoMo]

Loosedhorse: thank you.

I recall the father's statements, but not well enough to lay it out here. I was using 'lacerations' incorrectly. I meant what you said.

Good point about the timing of drawing the weapon.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Zimmerman was performing neighborhood watch duties on February 26th, 2012.

Zimmerman was driving to the grocery store when he observed a suspicious person in the neighborhood (which had recently experienced a rash of burglaries).

Two witnesses have corroborated the account that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman and had quite the upper-hand throughout. One specific is that Martin was atop Zimmerman and was 'hammering' Zimmerman's head against the concrete.

In which case Martin used the sidewalk as an improvised weapon of opportunity in a manner that could reasonably be believed to cause death or serious bodily harm (concussion/brain/neck injury).

 

[CoRoMo]

My hope is that the judge will toss the case before it goes to trial.

I hope that every last fact is brought out into the magnified, public light. All of it. Whether that means a full blown trial or not.

Here's why:

If he's guilty, it needs to be proven -to everyone who already believes he is innocent- that he is undoubtedly guilty.

If he's innocent, it needs to be proven -to everyone who already believes he is guilty- that he is undoubtedly innocent.

Shawn, thank you.

I didn't really want to be the one making the bullet point time-line because I don't have some of the information I wish I had. But at least we're rolling now; I'm learning for sure.

 

[mortablunt]

Two witnesses have corroborated the account that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman and had quite the upper-hand throughout. One specific is that Martin was atop Zimmerman and was 'hammering' Zimmerman's head against the concrete.

But the shooting took place in somebody's backyard on the grass. My guess is that Trayvon saw that he was being followed so he tried to get away. George gave pursuit. At some point, George either showed his gun or had Trayvon cornered and in fear for his life. Therefore, Trayvon tried to defend himself by hitting George. George therefore shot Martin.


This version just seems a tad too fantastical

"Trayvon: "Do you have a problem?"
George: "No."
Trayvon: "You do now!' *WHACK*!"

 

[Kleanbore]

George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder. Whether his use of deadly force was lawfully justified remains to be decided in the proper venue.

I think that Loosedhorse's comments bear repeating--at least once:

All of Zimmerman's account, while it may be true, may also be false. Only the parts corroborated by witnesses should be considered "facts."

Unfortunately, without knowing the exact facts of the encounter that apparently started with "Why are you following me?" and ended with M being shot, I'm not sure there are many lessons we can be sure of.

If Z did allow his gun to be exposed (accidentally during the struggle, as he claims, or earlier on purpose to intimidate), this seems to have been a tactical error, emboldening M (by Z's account).

I wonder if things would have gone differently if, on the way back to his car, Z had maintained better awareness of his surroundings (so M didn't surprise him), had retreated (even though not legally required to do that), and had done the two-palms-up, "My mistake I'm leaving" gesture to disengage; instead of the "What are doing here?" he says he chose.

Z would have been justified holding at the ready a less-lethal tool (like OC) long before he would have been justified in reaching for a gun. The fact that he, a Neighborhood Watch captain, apparently had no plan to use less-lethal force speaks to (IMHO) poor forethought and preparation--if you're going to "investigate" and "interrogate".

And then of course, there's always "don't get out of the car."

We have discussed here a case in another "stand your ground" state in which the actor's claim of a reasonable belief that deadly force had been necessary for self defense proved inadequate to prevent charges, imprisonment, and trial(s). Though the defendant ultimately went free, the cost and the impact on his life were significant indeed. Marty Hayes tells us that when the person or persons against whom deadly force are not armed, the defense, which must then necessarily depend upon the concept of a disparity of force, can be a very difficult one. We can only speculate on what will happen in this case, and we will not do that.

We also do not know George Zimmerman's reasons for getting out of the car in the first place, but we do know that he would now be much better off had he not done so.

His having done so led to a chain of events now under evaluation that landed him in jail.

It could just as easily have resulted in his having been ambushed, disarmed, and killed.

That's something to think about before any of us as private citizens decide to do something beyond using the cell phone when we see something suspicious.

 

[aeriedad]

...Feel free to correct any of these because I certainly am only using what recollections I have of the ongoing reports...

• 
  ...
• Dispatch asked if he was in fact following the individual and Zimmerman confirmed, was told to cease doing so, and he did.
• ...

I don't think we know this for sure. On the 911 tape, the dispatcher asks if Zimmerman is following, Zimmerman says "Yeah," and the dispatcher says, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman's reply is simply, "OK." Since all we have is the audio, we don't know if by "OK" Zimmerman was complying with the dispatcher, or if "OK" meant "OK, I hear what you're saying, but I'm doing what I want." It's just audio, so we can't SEE whether Zimmerman went back to his truck.

This is what makes this case really hard, and why the thread may be shut down again before long. There are just so many things we can't say for sure. I imagine it will be quite difficult for the court to determine the facts of the case with a great degree of certainty, so discussing them here must be something close to futile.

Anyway, my assessment is that even if all of the evidence supports Zimmerman's account of events, resulting in his eventual acquittal, he's still in a pretty bad situation that he very likely could have avoided by staying in his truck. And, of course, Zimmerman's account could be 100% true, and yet he could still be convicted. Whatever the outcome, it's important to remember that it's possible to be 100% legal, but still do the wrong thing.

 

[Loosedhorse]

In which case Martin used the sidewalk as an improvised weapon of opportunity in a manner that could reasonably be believed to cause death or serious bodily harm (concussion/brain/neck injury).

Agreed.

However, note that, if M knew Z was armed at some point and reasonably feared that this guy who was following him for "no reason" was about to attack him, he would have been justified in using an improvised lethal-force weapon on Z. M might have even been protected by SYG!

Oddly, perhaps, the fact that M may have been "legally" attacking Z does not mean Z is guilty. The question of Z's guilt turns on his state of mind, not M's.

IANAL, and I am not speculating on the outcome.

Whatever the outcome, it's important to remember that it's possible to be 100% legal, but still do the wrong thing.

Great point, if I may say so.

I have pointed out in the past (usually in response to "So, if we have a SYG law, when can I shoot"-type questions), that SYG should in no way change your actions: you should ALWAYS retreat if you can do so in safety. You should never use lethal force in SD unless you have no other safe choice. SYG is designed to make your legal aftermath less dangerous; it should not change your tactics.

("Always retreat" applies to private citizens who can safely retreat with all of their family; not to LE, and not to situations where retreat would mean leaving a loved one behind.)

And, as we may be seeing, perhaps SYG doesn't really protect anyone legally, anyway.

 

[Shoobee]

Murder-2 is a difficult charge to prove, and this case looks hard enough to prove for simple manslaughter, which is the charge many people were expecting instead. So the charge may be a trial strategy to get the defend-ANT to cop to the lesser of manslaughter.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Murder-2 is a difficult charge to prove

Unless the defendent says, "Yes, I shot him, and I intended to shoot him."

And that's what any person claiming SD does say. The only thing left is to prove that Z got angry enough at M to want to shoot him.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

We also do not know George Zimmerman's reasons for getting out of the car in the first place…

Zimmerman, in his truck, had been keeping an eye on Martin, waiting for police to arrive, when Martin ran off into a residential area. Zimmerman left his vehicle to obtain an address to report to police the location in which he lost sight of Martin. Note the crime scene is a concrete walkway, off the street, between buildings.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Loosedhorse: However, note that, if M knew Z was armed at some point and reasonably feared that this guy who was following him for "no reason" was about to attack him, he would have been justified in using an improvised lethal-force weapon on Z. M might have even been protected by SYG!

Well, one might quibble with the wording here a little, but that is essentially true.

Speculation--but worth discussing for purposes of helping people understand the general case.

What it tells us is that when there has been a homicide that is followed by a claim of self defense (which, incidentally, is a very common claim whenever the actor cannot plausibly deny having done the deed), it may not be immediately clear just who was ultimately defending himself or herself against whom.

That one party may have started out as the "good guy" may not prove determinative. There is a high court ruling in one of the original thirteen states in which the judges point out that a trespasser who ends up killing a landowner who has pointed a firearm at him may end up being judged as having been justified on the grounds of self defense.

All the more reason that we so strongly recommend ADEE as the school solution here

 

[aeriedad]

Not sure what Zimmerman was thinking when/if he continued to pursue the kid after the 9-1-1 operator clearly told him not to, or why he even got out of his car?

Again, something open to speculation. The operator told him, "OK, we don't need you to do that [ie. follow Martin]." Is that the same thing as clearly telling him to stop following? Seems more like a recommendation to me, albeit a very reasonable recommendation that should be given extra weight considering the circumstances. However, I think it falls a little short of an explicit command.

But I take your overall point. Given the outcome, Zimmerman's actions are now subject to considerable scrutiny.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

However, note that, if M knew Z was armed at some point and reasonably feared that this guy who was following him for "no reason" was about to attack him, he would have been justified in using an improvised lethal-force weapon on Z. M might have even been protected by SYG!

According to Zimmerman, Martin approached him from behind as he was walking back to his truck. Martin demanded, “Do you have a problem?!” Zimmerman replied “No.” Martin stated, “Well, you do now!”, and punched Zimmerman to the ground.

Florida Statute, Chapter 776, Justifiable Use of Force - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

 

[Kleanbore]

According to Zimmerman, Martin approached him from behind as he was walking back to his truck. Martin demanded, “Do you have a problem?!” Zimmerman replied “No.” Martin stated, “Well, you do now!”, and punched Zimmerman to the ground.

"According to Zimmerman". Sounds plausible, but cannot be verified.

Nor do we know whether that might support a successful disparity of force defense--but we will not opine on how that, which could be an essential pert of Zimmerman's defense, might be decided in Florida under these or any other circumstances.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Nor do we know whether that might support a successful disparity of force defense…

If Martin indeed beat Zimmerman’s head against the concrete then Martin was committing a “forcible felony”.

 

[aeriedad]

If Martin indeed beat Zimmerman’s head against the concrete then Martin was committing a “forcible felony”.

That would depend on who started it, which seems to be the crux of the whole conflict in the first place.

 

[rajb123]

From the Kleanbore thread above:
Quote:
According to Zimmerman, Martin approached him from behind as he was walking back to his truck. Martin demanded, “Do you have a problem?!” Zimmerman replied “No.” Martin stated, “Well, you do now!”, and punched Zimmerman to the ground.


I thought the Florida law addresses these situations and gives the person who used deadly force the benefit of the doubt. Don't we have to presume this statement is a fact, absent eveidence to the contrary, under the law? I thought this is one reason, the cops did not go further to arrest and detain Zimmerman the night of the incident.