Skip to comments.Family: Man didn't kill black teen in self-defense
Posted on 03/17/2012 9:53:56 AM PDT by redreno
click here to read article
Testimony is documentary; calls are just calls.
Say what you will about the race card, but don’t try to trump it with a Chaz Bono lookalike card! Oy...
What's next, are you going to call me a slut/prostitute or, God forbid, a Rino?
LOL - the truth might be somewhere between our two positions - thanks for the comment...
The shooter was previously arrested and then the charges were dropped. He was never found guilty of anything and is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as you or I.
In fact, I doubt the "trouble" would be admissible in court.
OTOH, reports state that the watchman himself had been in trouble with the police.
Mr. Zimmerman's claim (which is consistent with the physical evidence) is that he was assaulted by the "kid". What part of assault is not a crime in your world?
Again, the "watchman" had been arrested, but the charges had been dropped. When the charges were dropped any claims that he has "been in trouble" became false.
Now that video cameras on cell phones are becoming common, we are seeing a lot of cases where police arrests and charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest are shown to be merely police covers for their own misconduct.
There is always a reason that a prosecutor does not believe he has a case he can win, and a combination of factual innocence and police misconduct is something that can lead him to drop charges.
I don't assume every person arrested is innocent, but I am realistic enough to know that false arrests are much more common than the police would like us to believe.
No question that there is much more poilice misconduct that previously acknowledged. My own city is struggling with a few high profile cases with right now, and nobody is very happy about any of it. As far as Mr Zimmermann is concerned, I ran accross this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-fullstory/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy
“As for any past legal blemishes, he was once arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer when he interfered in a friends arrest. The charge was reduced to simple battery, and he entered a plea that allowed him to have a clean record and qualify for a concealed weapons permit.”
This is a bit different than the story we’ve been hearing...
Calls ARE Documentary when they are recorded. Testimony MIGHT be evidence but is absolutely the weakest.
How do they document *who is actually* making the call?
The 911 system records the phone # of land lines AND cell phones. They already know who you are when you call. Questions are asked to make sure it isn’t pranked. In this case, the cell phones are compared to the people at the scene. Zimmerman was told to back off, he chose not to thus he is the one who caused the shooting.
What evidence is there that Mr. Zimmerman was assaulted? Oh, yes, that’s right - Mr. Zimmerman said so.
It seems there are many excuses being made for this Mr. Zimmerman. He is given the benefit of the doubt, no matter what. Meanwhile, the victim - the one who was killed - is being presumed guilty.
We know from Zimmerman’s own 911 call that he was pursuing Martin because he thought the teen looked suspicious. We know the teen was running away - Zimmerman says so himself to 911. We also know the teen had only candy and iced tea with him. Now the teen is dead, and Zimmerman claims he acted in self-defense. Who’s to say the teen himself wasn’t acting in self-defense?
Did you also know the ‘kid with the candy’ was 6’3” tall?
Sure you did.
He also had injuries (bloody nose, scratches & bruises on skin), and damage to his clothes (grass stains, mud) consistent with the story he told.
No matter what you might think, he has a right to get out of his car and speak to the teen. At least that is they way I see it. The relevant Supreme Court decisions are those which allow panhandlers to come up to me on the street and ask for money -- 1st amendment stuff. Do I have the right to beat up a beggar? No, and neither does Martin have the right to start beating up Zimmerman for asking him who he is and what he is doing there.
Whos to say the teen himself wasnt acting in self-defense?
Think about the situation a little. Zimmerman has already called the police. He knows they are going to be at the scene in a few minutes. If he was planning to shoot Martin, or even thinking about it, this is just about the most stupid thing he could do -- summon the police to the scene of a murder he is about to commit.
The logical way this went down is that Zimmerman got out of the car and confronted Martin, believing that the police would be there promptly. Essentially he has back-up on the way, and if Martin does have burglary on his mind, he doesn't want Martin to escape into a back yard where he can just disappear from the scene.
Martin doesn't like this, words rare exchanged, and it escalates into a scuffle. Martin is younger and stronger and is soon getting the better of the fight. Zimmerman's shirt comes up and his weapon is exposed. They contend for the weapon and Martin is shot.
We know that Zimmerman has injuries consistent with his story. What we don't know at this point is does Martin have injuries consistent with this story, and is there damage to Martin's clothes consistent with the story?
The police know the answers to these questions, and they are not total dummies. I think if Martin's injuries and clothes were not consistent with Zimmerman's claims he would have been arrested.
It seems there are many excuses being made for this Mr. Zimmerman. He is given the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.
I think the biggest problem you have with this theory is the injuries to Zimmerman and the damage to his clothes, and clearing the logical hurdle of Zimmerman summoning the police, knowing they are arriving soon, and shooting Martin without a strong element of self-defense. Are you seriously proposing the Zimmerman has a death wish?
Do they *voiceprint*, too? Just a number and a few questions doesn’t seem to be quite enough as “documentary evidence”, IMO.
The call is archived in case of, for example (which has happened I think in Florida) someone broke into a house in a separate neighborhood and called police about a robbery going down in a neighborhood three blocks from the callers house. Cops showed and were ambushed, killing one. One ambusher got killed which led them to the driver and second shooter. During the investigation another person called to ask about bail or something and the call was compared to the 911 call. The cops said the second shooter was ready to be released on his own recognizance. When the dude showed up he was arrested. Other than the dead guy,the shooter, driver and caller were adjudicated guilty of first degree murder. NBP’ers. Holder’s peeps.
“No matter what you might think, he has a right to get out of his car and speak to the teen. At least that is they way I see it.”
CCW classes teach the avoidance of potential conflcts because of the possiblity of escalation. This could have easily been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his car.
While I agree that it would have been wise to stay in his car just to avoid a confrontation, my point is that he has no legal obligation to stay in his car, and getting out of the car should have no legal bearing on the case. He has the right to speak to Martin, there is no legal reason he should not.
I will go even further and say that he may have had some reasons to get out of the car such as: perceived neighborhood safety, potential crime reduction, and preservation of his property values since he owned a home in the neighborhood.
While getting out of the car and confronting Martin may not have been prudent, it is not an unreasonable action.
Do you have a CCW? Ever taken a CCW class? A CCW is a privilege. Extra responsibility comes with this privilege. Your legal “strategy” would be analogous to seeing a pedestrian and running them down anyway because you had the right of way. It's not going to fly.
Listen, at my age, I see 17 as a “kid”. ;-) That’s the only reason I used the term “kid”. The age and height of the victim makes no difference in this case. Zimmerman is a young man, too, in my book.
You referred to the teen's actions as "assault", according to Mr. Zimmerman. What I'm saying is that the injuries could mean that the teen was fighting in self-defense. If it turns out that the teen had intent to attack Zimmerman - which is not logical because, according to Zimmerman himself, the teen was trying to get away from him - a trial might sort it all out. The lack of information is leading people to ask questions.
he has a right to get out of his car and speak to the teen.
Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me there.
Think about the situation a little. Zimmerman has already called the police. He knows they are going to be at the scene in a few minutes. If he was planning to shoot Martin, or even thinking about it,
I have thought about it, and let me be clear: I never said this was premeditated murder. I don't believe this was premeditated at all. It just seems there were a series of misunderstandings that led one man to believe he was chasing a criminal and a teen (although we'll never know what he was thinking) to probably believe he was being pursued by a criminal.
The logical way this went down is that Zimmerman got out of the car and confronted Martin, believing that the police would be there promptly. Essentially he has back-up on the way, and if Martin does have burglary on his mind, he doesn't want Martin to escape ... Martin doesn't like this, words rare exchanged, and it escalates into a scuffle. Martin is younger and stronger and is soon getting the better of the fight. Zimmerman's shirt comes up and his weapon is exposed. They contend for the weapon and Martin is shot.
Maybe. Or maybe Zimmerman thought he could hold Martin there by brandishing the gun. And Martin might've believed Zimmerman was a criminal, so he lunged for the gun. (Zimmerman is young himself - in his mid-20's.)
Or, let's give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt: Zimmerman's father indicated that Zimmerman was pulled from his vehicle. Let's assume that story is true. We know that Martin was running away. We know that Zimmerman was pursuing him. In Zimmerman's mind, he probably thought he was following a potential criminal. In Martin's mind, he might've been thinking he was running from a criminal.
What I don't understand is: If you're willing to believe that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, why not be willing to believe that Martin might have been?