Zimmerman/Martin shooting

[aeriedad]

Somebody told Zimmerman what he should've done, and Zimmerman chose not to do that. Probably now to his eternal regret.

That's possibly true. It's also possibly false. From the evidence so far publicly available, I don't see how we can be reasonably certain whether Zimmerman did or did not continue following Martin after being advised not to.

It is unfortunate that the dispatcher was not more direct in their statement to Zimmerman, : "We don't need you to do that" (meaning follow anybody). Still, it was the proper advice.

I agree. The dispatcher was absolutely correct to advise Zimmerman not to follow anybody, and it's unfortunate that he did not deliver an explicit instruction instead. Still, we don't know from the tape alone whether Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher's warning or ignored it, or who approached whom and initiated the conflict. If there is some credible evidence that would settle this matter, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[rajb123]

Alan Derschowitz said that even if Zimmerman provoked the argument, in which case SYG does not apply, Zimmerman still has the right in Florida to use deadly force to defend himself if he was punched, was on the ground and Treyvon was forcing his head into the sidewalk.

 

[CoRoMo]

Here's what rajb123 is referring to:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/
Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"
“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

 

[aeriedad]

Alan Derschowitz said that even if Zimmerman provoked the argument, in which case SYG does not apply, Zimmerman still has the right in Florida to use deadly force to defend himself if he was punched, was on the ground and Treyvon was forcing his head into the sidewalk.

I think most reasonable people would agree with that assessment, and Zimmerman's legal team can certainly make that argument, but the judge and jury will determine the facts of the case and how they apply to the law. Their decisions will either justify or condemn Zimmerman's actions.

It's possible they will decide Martin initiated the conflict and that Zimmerman should therefore be acquitted, but that still doesn't mean Zimmerman acted correctly to (at least initially, perhaps defiantly) follow Martin. I would bet Zimmerman now wishes he had never left his vehicle, even though he was entirely within his right to do so.

 

[Loosedhorse]

even if Zimmerman provoked the argument, in which case SYG does not apply, Zimmerman still has the right in Florida to use deadly force to defend himself if he was punched, was on the ground and Treyvon was forcing his head into the sidewalk.

Actually if Dershowitz said that, it is nonsensical: FL statute 776.041 specifically says that SYG protections are not available to "an aggressor," defined as:

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 [emphasis added]:

(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.

So, though it specifically also says that SYG protections do no apply to an "aggressor," it also says that if you fall into exceptions 2a or 2b, you are not an aggressor. And Zimmerman would seem to qualify for 2a.

It will remain for the judge or jury to determine if Zimmerman was an aggressor, but that's how I read it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rajb123: Alan Derschowitz said that even if Zimmerman provoked the argument, in which case SYG does not apply, Zimmerman still has the right in Florida to use deadly force to defend himself if he was punched, was on the ground and Treyvon was forcing his head into the sidewalk.

On the other side of the coin, however, if a person (who has not provoked a confrontation and who is not committing a crime of certain kinds) has a basis for a reasonable belief that a man with a gun presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, that person has the right, in Florida or anywhere else in this country, to defend himself, using deadly force if necessary.

Drawing upon that without speculation on this case, had the man with the gun been killed, it may well have turned out with the other fellow now being the one claiming self defense.

Should the facts in a hypothetical case support that contention, the question would likely become one of whether excessive force had been used. That might well hinge upon who had possession of the firearm.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I would bet Zimmerman now wishes he had never left his vehicle, even though he was entirely within his right to do so.

Zimmerman's argument? "I was merely trying to be a good witness for police."

 

[Loosedhorse]

Zimmerman's argument? "I was merely trying to be a good witness for police."

I'm not sure in what realm that is a good response. Legally, a better response might be "I committed no crime by leaving my vehicle; I had a legal right to do so."

In the tactical realm (where we are here), he had no excuse for leaving the car, IMHO.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

In the tactical realm (where we are here), he had no excuse for leaving the car, IMHO.

Zimmerman may not have been in a "tactical" mindset.

Or he assessed Martin, and the situation, as a low threat.

 

[rajb123]

earlier post:
It's possible they will decide Martin initiated the conflict and that Zimmerman should, therefore be acquitted, but that still doesn't mean Zimmerman acted correctly to (at least initially, perhaps defiantly) follow Martin. I would bet Zimmerman now wishes he had never left his vehicle, even though he was entirely within his right to do so.


There are a few actions that everybody regrets with hindsight.... at this point, Zimmerman's probable wish that he should not have left the vehicle that night are not disputed but this wishful thinking is not helpful either...

If the 2nd degree murder charge is thrown out by the judge, I suppose Florida will bring a manslaughter charge next. Perhaps this is a strategy to let the puplic outrage die down over time. Frankly, I would have let the grand jury decide to charge or not.

 

[Flintknapper]

In the tactical realm (where we are here), he had no excuse for leaving the car, IMHO.

Can we really say we are in the "tactical" realm here?

Or the "practical" realm?

Depends entirely on Zimmerman's "intent". IF he (Zimmerman), intended to confront/make contact with Martin then...yes, tactical applies (in common use/ combative).

On the other hand, IF Zimmerman's only interest was to follow (vs. persue/engage) in order to see where Martin was (thus be able to give police an accurate location) then it is perfectly "practical" to maintain a distance and observe.

Which of these actually happened is what is open to debate. At some point...there was contact, no doubt about that, but who approached who?

Also, as you aptly pointed out in another post, Zimmerman might have approached Martin but then broke off the contact. IF Martin followed a retreating Zimmerman and attacked him...then things take a different turn.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

 

[aeriedad]

There are a few actions that everybody regrets with hindsight.... at this point, Zimmerman's probable wish that he should not have left the vehicle that night are not disputed but this wishful thinking is not helpful either...

"Wishful thinking" isn't the point; this is not the Legal forum, but ST&T. It is helpful to consider what Zimmerman should or should not have done as a matter of ST&T.

ETA: The point here is not to solve Zimmerman's problem after the fact, but rather to consider how his actions rate in terms of ST&T.

If the 2nd degree murder charge is thrown out by the judge, I suppose Florida will bring a manslaughter charge next. Perhaps this is a strategy to let the puplic outrage die down over time. Frankly, I would have let the grand jury decide to charge or not.

I'm not sure they can charge him with manslaughter if the judge throws out the case. IANAL, but I thought the only way a prosecutor could re-try someone was after a hung jury.

 

[heeler]

One thing about this case that I have not seen any info on was how far was the fight and the shooting away from Zimmerman's vehicle?
Fifty yards or ten feet??
Anyone know?

On the issue of Zimmerman leaving his truck I suppose another way of looking at the situation was one where he was not pursuing Martin but trying to see just where he was going to possibly inform the soon to be arriving police of Martin's where abouts or direction of flight.

 

[rajb123]

Would anyone care to comment specifically on the Florida DA afidavid?

My observation would be that there is nothing in there that we did not know earlier. Since the 2nd degree murder charge is a diffucult one to prove beyond as reasonable doubt, I would assume that there is little else in evidence to support the DA's charge.

In other words, if she had more evidence she would have used it; right?

The Florida afidavid is posted in the "Legal" section above under the title, "Is the Zimmerman indictment in the public domain."

 

[Loosedhorse]

Depends entirely on Zimmerman's "intent".

What, exactly, depends on his intent? If it's germane to the question of his legal or moral guilt, fine--but I'm not discussing that.

If I leave cover, intending to be safe, but am shot anyway...it was still a bad decision tactically, no matter my intentions. And Z leaving his car was similarly a bad tactical decision, IMHO.

As for "practical": the title of this forum doesn't contain that word. Further, as it turns out, as a "practical" matter Z has incurred for himself all sorts of trouble he didn't want. You may feel he was being "practical," and that's fine; I feel that he showed a clear lack of caution and foresight.

Finally, yes, I believe that any of us who are armed in public should think tactically first, "practically" second. YMMV.

 

[Shoobee]

Jeff22 -- OBSERVE AND REPORT. Don't follow anybody. Don't confront anybody UNLESS you are acting directly to protect somebody's personal safety. Get on your cell phone and call the ON DUTY UNIFORMED cops to come and investigate whatever situation you are observing. BE A GOOD WITNESS.

That's what ANYONE should do in a similar situation. Believe me, the on-duty police don't WANT the assistance of some clown who gets in the way and complicates the situation. OBSERVE and REPORT and let the cops do their job.

As a private citizen it is NOT your job to "take care of it myself" or "handle it my own way".

This is the best summary I have read of what went wrong.

When I do neighborhood watch, I watch, think, analyze, stay out of sight, call-in if appropriate if I can report a crime in progress. That's the TACTICAL ISSUE. Protect yourself by staying undercover and unobserved.

Everything we hear Zimmerman doing on the 9-1-1 calls was all wrong. That's why it seems like a negligent homicide to me, and not murder-2.

However the special prosecutor is likely putting her strongest charge forward in hopes of getting the defendant to cop a plea for the lesser included offense of manslaughter of some kind. On the other hand, there was not much brotherly love by Zimmerman and maybe his mind really is so far gone that he is essentially a murderer hunting on the prowl. Food for a jury to decide. I cannot imagine any judge having to stand for re-election throwing the case out. Just let the jury decide it. Much safer, politically.

3 to 5 years in jail or prison will give Zimmerman time to cool off, rethink his thinking about punks, about assuming there is a crime in progress or going to be in progress when there really is not, and also then as an x-con he won't be trapsing around with a loaded gun anymore, ergo less of a hazard to society.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

And Z leaving his car was similarly a bad tactical decision, IMHO.

How long are we going to beat this dead horse? Is there anything new in regard to Zimmerman's "tactics" to discuss? If not then perhaps it's time to lock the thread?

 

[JRH6856]

One thing about this case that I have not seen any info on was how far was the fight and the shooting away from Zimmerman's vehicle?
Fifty yards or ten feet??
Anyone know?

Approximately 35 yards according to this.

 

[heeler]

Thank you Micro.

 

[hso]

I think SYG will be used to argue that even if you had no business following someone that you had no obligation not to if it resulted in a self defense shooting.

Of course, just because it may be legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

 

[aeriedad]

Everything we hear Zimmerman doing on the 9-1-1 calls was all wrong. That's why it seems like a negligent homicide to me, and not murder-2.

OK, I know we're getting a little off-topic now, but...

On the whole I agree with your assessment here, Shoobee. Except I don't see how it could be a negligent homicide. Well, unless he was just careless with the trigger and didn't know the gun was pointed at anybody, but I don't think anyone could make that argument.

I do agree that murder-2 is a stretch, but my guess for why the state attorney would do so is different from yours and takes us even more OT.

 

[basicblur]

Everything we hear Zimmerman doing on the 9-1-1 calls was all wrong.

I'm no Z fan (we still don't know who the aggressor is in this case), but I'd take exception to your quote.
The media has widely reported Z ignored the operators suggestion (not order) and followed Martin. Actually, what really happened is:
1. Z followed first.
2. The operator asked if he was following (I assume the operator picked up on his labored breathing).
3. The operator suggested that was not necessary.
4. Z acknowledges (Okay on the audio).
5. His breathing immediately starts to ramp back down to normal.

After step 5, I don't know if he went from running to walking (in the same direction), stopped in his tracks, or turned and started back to his vehicle.

I think the actual events are having a hard time catching up with the narrative put forth by the talking heads on the tube.

 

[Kleanbore]

In other words, if she had more evidence she would have used it [in the affidavit]; right?

No.

The Florida afidavid is posted in the "Legal" section above under the title, "Is the Zimmerman indictment in the public domain."

It is also linked in Post 52 of this thread.

 

[JRH6856]

Just a minor detail, but Zimmerman did not call 9-1-1. He called the Sanford PD on a non-emergency line. If you listen to the recordings of the calls, you can hear the 9-1-1 operators answer the phone saying "911, do you need police, fire or medical".

Zimmerman's call is answered, "Sanford Police Department..."

Those questioning whether or not Z should have obeyed an "$8 and hour operator" can rest easy. He wasn't talking to one.

 

[rajb123]

There have been so many press reports that have said, "[I]Zimmerman was ordered by the police not to follow..." And this is also included in the Florida afidavid which says, "...[when] the police dispatcher realized that Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z not to do that...."

The transcripts of the 911 call, however, indicate that the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that...." and many here could conclude that this statement is not an instruction (e.g., an order) to Z by the 911 dispatcher.

It has also been assumed that Z ignored the dispatcher advice which has yet to be proven. Frankly, we don't know what Z did AFTER this advice from the dispatcher was given... he may have been walking back to his car...