May 19 2012
Latest Evidence Indicates Again Zimmerman The Aggressor, And Therefore Cannot Claim Self Defense
Since everyone has made up their mind and is closed to new evidence and logic, this post is about useful as tits on a boar hog (one of my Dad’s favorite sayings). But in good conscience I need to point out why the evidence continues to point to a likely guilty verdict in any trial (jury or judge).
Remember that Zimmerman made his statements to police without realizing there was a witness on the phone with Trayvon, so he has put out statements now demonstrably false (assuming all testimony is of equal weight – which it is at this point). He wove a tale of self defense on the spot. The more holes in Zimmerman’s statements, the more credibility he loses while other witnesses gain or stay the same.
So let’s go to the first problem in Zimmerman’s statements – the lost house number:
Zimmerman claims he got out of his vehicle to find a house number to let police know where he saw the allegedly suspicious person, and while returning to his car was knocked down by a punch in the nose and attacked by Martin.
If this is an accurate portrayal of what Zimmerman said, he really is in deep trouble. In the map below we see where people think Zimmerman’s truck was parked (C) when he got out to chase Martin. There are tons of house numbers in view of his truck across the street, and then straight ahead before you go behind and in between the buildings. If Zimmerman did go to point E and then F, he was not looking for house numbers.
The most damning part of the evidence now released is how Zimmerman not only profiled and judged Martin in a split second (and here I do not mean racial profiling, but simply looked at the kid and determined he was a criminal from his clothes and the fact he was in Zimmerman’s neighborhood), but stalked him. An armed man stalking a kid based on fantasies concocted in his head.
Here is what Trayvon’s friend on the phone has stated happened:
An unnamed girl, the one identified by the Martin family attorney as Trayvon’s girlfriend, may be one of the case’s most important witnesses. She told prosecutors that she and Trayvon talked by cellphone on and off as he went to the store that evening.
She said Trayvon told her a white man in a vehicle was watching him. Trayvon started walking, and the call cut off, she said. When she called back, “he said this man is still following him.”
The girl said Trayvon started running, “and then he said he lost him [Zimmerman],” she said, adding that the teen’s “voice kind of changed … I could tell he was scared. And in a couple minutes, he said a man’s following him again.”
She said Trayvon asked, “Why are you following me for?” and a man’s voice said, “What are you doing around here?” Then she heard a noise, and the call cut off.
This does not fit Zimmerman’s statements whatsoever. Martin is scared and running from a man stalking him. He even loses him. But Zimmerman’s hunt for house numbers apparently took him far afield. Also note how Zimmerman is not ambushed. Martin tells his friend on the phone how the guy keeps coming TOWARDS him.
And this is where Zimmerman loses the right to self defense and becomes a reckless fool with a gun. The Florida ‘stand your ground law’ has some very interesting exceptions:
While the law also states that the defense “is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself,” there are 2 exceptions. First, if:
“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.”
The law does not allow someone to instigate an altercation, start to lose the altercation and then claim self defense. But moreover, it clearly states anyone wishing to withdraw has to be allowed to do so. The section I emphasized applies to Martin and Zimmerman equally. When Martin ran from Zimmerman and tried to lose him, it is clear he doing all he can to withdraw.
People naively think Zimmerman has all the rights to self defense here.
Martin has every right to be where he was:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
This is where Zimmerman crossed the line (many times over). He thought he could confront Martin with the threat or use of force. He cannot. He was reckless and got into a fight because he was reckless. Without Zimmerman there is not death.
Apparently there are witnesses the bolster the idea Zimmerman went gunning for Trayvon:
According to ABC News, the woman, only identified as witness 5, told investigators “I do honestly feel that he (Zimmerman) intended for this kid (Martin) to die… If you’re in self defense, shoot him in the leg. He’s a 17 year old, scrawny little kid. You get into a physical fight with him… I think the kid was running for help.”
…
He said Zimmerman was, “…more like, talking like he was having a hard time, looked like he just got his butt whipped… not like he was in shock, not like, ‘I can’t believe I just shot someone,’ but like, ‘Just ell my wife I just shot someone,’ like it was nothing.”
I too have had a real problem with where the shot was aimed. A shot to the leg or arm would be enough.
Finally, the small scrapes on Travyon’s knuckle (or knuckles depending on the story) cannot be from Zimmerman’s nose. More than likely Trayvon missed once or twice (I assume Zimmerman dodged his head) and hit the pavement behind him. Or he could have slipped if he was pushing Zimmerman’s head on the pavement. But the only way to rip knuckles is on teeth, and Zimmerman did not have any fat lip, etc.
And to the THC – forget about it. It makes people mellow. All the crap written about that aspect of this is just that – crap. It is no more a factor than a beer drank the day before.
Wow. You are correct that the post is about as “useful as tits on a boar” as you continue to misrepresent what we know.
“Remember that Zimmerman made his statements to police without realizing there was a witness on the phone with Trayvon, ….”
The girl is not a witness. Her testimony is all hearsay. There is no hearsay exception that allows her testimony in. For example, if she were to say Trayvon told her it was not raining that night, she has no direct knowledge of whether it was or was not raining.
“And this is where Zimmerman loses the right to self defense and becomes a reckless fool with a gun. The Florida ‘stand your ground law’ has some very interesting exceptions:….”
Once again, you show an amazing lack of understanding of the law. The law you cite is part of the “stand your ground” sections in the Florida Statues. That is not the same law as the law of self defense. Once Martin was on top of ZImmerman, Zimmerman had the same right to self defense as is found in all fifty states and the District. You are factually wrong on this one.
The exception you cite only means that the individual loses the ability to claim the Stand Your Ground Defense. It does not mean he loses the right of self defense.
“Apparently there are witnesses the bolster the idea Zimmerman went gunning for Trayvon:…..”
So you believe that a woman who makes a conclusion will ever see the light of day in a court? Good luck with that. What she believes and what she saw are not the same thing. Cops and psychologists will tell you that a person’s reaction to a traumatic incident are as varied as fingerprints. Assigning what the woman believes someone should feel or act is not worth the oxygen it takes to say it.
“I too have had a real problem with where the shot was aimed. A shot to the leg or arm would be enough…….”
And I have a problem with Martin banging Zimmerman’s head into the concrete. Maybe Martin should have moved so he was only banging his head on the wet grass. Seriously, this is one of the most absurd things you have tried to hang your hat on. If – and that is a big if – the shot was aimed, shooters are taught to aim “center mass.” There is no duty to “wing” or “wound” in the law.
“Finally, the small scrapes on Travyon’s knuckle (or knuckles depending on the story) cannot be from Zimmerman’s nose. More than likely Trayvon missed once or twice (I assume Zimmerman dodged his head) and hit the pavement behind him. Or he could have slipped if he was pushing Zimmerman’s head on the pavement. But the only way to rip knuckles is on teeth, and Zimmerman did not have any fat lip, etc.”
Clearly you have no experience in fights or medicine at all. You can have damage to knuckles from a variety of reasons not just “teeth” as you assert.
“And to the THC – forget about it. It makes people mellow. All the crap written about that aspect of this is just that – crap. It is no more a factor than a beer drank the day before.”
Wrong again. The THC present in the blood is part of the character of Martin. People such as yourself have tried to paint Martin as an innocent, good kid walking down the street who was gunned down by Zimmerman. If that characterization of Martin is brought up in court, the drug use counters that assertion. Also, THC makes people paranoid. According to a study published in Lancelot, people who smoke marijuana consistently are 20 times more likely to exhibit paranoid tendencies. This means Martin could have been “reacting” to a threat that was not present.
Once again, you have managed to make a post that is biased and ridiculously lacking in facts and comprehension of the issues. The proper and correct thing is to just admit your errors and walk away, but you are so wedded to the narrative you came up with when this story first broke, you are sticking to it no matter what.
Well done, Louctiel.
AJ, I’m not sure you ought to be hanging your hat on the testimony of Dee Dee.
She could tell Zimmerman was an old man. She could hear the sound of grass. And she could tell that a 17 year old football player that ran 90 feet was tired and scared.
Alan Derschowitz is of a vastly different opinion: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/18/new-evidence-is-consistent-with-george-zimmerman%E2%80%99s-self-defense-claim/
“The law does not allow someone to instigate an altercation, start to lose the altercation and then claim self defense.”
Yes, it does.
Once again… (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;
If Zimmerman is proven to be the aggressor, then he has a duty to retreat. (Can’t use the SYG law) If retreat isn’t possible, and he fears serious bodily injury or death from the victim’s attack, he can use deadly force.
The law is very clear on this.
AJ, if you shove a guy who hits on your wife, and he pulls out a knife and comes at you, you’d be justified in shooting him, if you had no means of escape.
You started the physical altercation, but he took it to a whole other level.
“But moreover, it clearly states anyone wishing to withdraw has to be allowed to do so. The section I emphasized applies to Martin and Zimmerman equally. When Martin ran from Zimmerman and tried to lose him, it is clear he doing all he can to withdraw.”
This is ridiculous. The fight hadn’t even begun. How could either of them w/draw from something that hadn’t taken place yet???
Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground, swinging away at him, bashing his head into the concrete, all while Zimmerman was screaming like a girl for help.
When exactly did Martin jump off of him and w/ draw????
AJ,with all due respect intended, I am starting to think there is an emotional issue behind this for you, because, in my humble opinion, judgements are being made without all the evidence being known. And I mean ALL the evidence…which is so UNLIKE you. It seems like you had your mind made up from somewhere near the beginning…
absolutely no disrespect intended, just speaking from my observations.
And really, after the Duke Lacrosse team debacle, I am VERY skeptical of any commentary until after ALL the evidence is presented and I am surprised you do not think the same.
AJ, I am really disappointed. You never were one to jump to conclusions without facts. So far with everything I have seen is a pretty clear case of someone being beaten rather severely, calling for help, and only after taking quite a beating having shot their attacker.
Had Zimmerman brandished the weapon, maybe the attack wouldn’t have happened. Zimmerman apparently took a beating for some period of time. I see nothing here that says Zimmerman set out to do harm to Martin and a lot of evidence that Martin set out to do as much harm as possible to Zimmerman.
There is nothing presented so far that would lead me to believe that Martin would not be alive today if he had not decided to physically assault Zimmerman. He would have been checked out and allowed to go home if he had waited a couple of minutes and maybe engaged in a verbal confrontation.
At some point people need to be held responsible for their own actions. Zimmerman by all accounts I have read so far took more of a beating under the circumstances than I probably would have endured. You don’t get to beat people just because you are of a particular race. You aren’t exempt from basic rules of behavior just because of your race. What I see here is supreme racism. We are to excuse Martin’s actions because he is black and not expected to be able to behave in a responsible manner and we are supposed to vilify Zimmerman because he is a “white hispanic” and is therefore supposed to take a beating without resisting?
If someone who is 6ft 2in is sitting on your chest bouncing your head off the sidewalk, exactly how much of that are you supposed to take? How do you know the next bounce won’t kill you or cause a severe brain injury?
Wishcasting is not a good road to travel in this case.
Not much to comment on. Of course DeeDee’s statement will not include any testimony because she can only testify that she was talking to him. she can’t testify to any material fact, she didn’t see any. So forget about DeeDee.
There just is nothing to prove that zimmerman did anything except what a good neighborhood watch man should do. Report suspicious persons that appear to be on drugs casing houses in his neighborhood. No matter what he did or said to police, it did not justify attempted murder on the part of Martin (beating someone’s head on concrete).
Open and shut. No case…No trial….
RT,
Your comments about DeeDee testifying illustrate again you are clueless in law…..
Of course she can testify since she was virtually there (like a camera….).
Dude, you a so desperate to cling to your position
Powerline presented an argument in defense of Zimmerman’s self defense.
Dee Dee can testify and the prosecution team will use her. Dee Dee can only attest to what she heard but she did not see anything. She can surmise but she cannot prove anything.
I think the defense team will be able to establish doubt of her testimony.
I don’t believe that this is a close shut case.
Unfortunately, isn’t this the same county that Casey was tried and acquitted?
“Your comments about DeeDee testifying illustrate again you are clueless in law…..”
Really?
Let’s put that statement to a test.
Under Florida law (90.801), ”hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
By statute (90.802), hearsay evidence is not allowed. There are, however, some exceptions within the law.
There are two possible exceptions that may apply to this case. The first is the “excited utterance” exception (90.803(2)) which reads:
(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.–A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
The problem here is that the father has stated that Treyvon was used to being “profiled and followed.” Therefore his statement, while under duress, does not meet the threshold of an “excited utterance.” DeeDee’s own statement says Martin was scared, but not “excited” or “distraught.” The “excited utterance” exception does not apply.
The second exception that would apply in this case is if the declarant is unavailable due to their death.
That exception would be found in 90.804 (2)(b) which reads:
“(b) Statement under belief of impending death.–In a civil or criminal trial, a statement made by a declarant while reasonably believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the physical cause or instrumentalities of what the declarant believed to be impending death or the circumstances surrounding impending death. ”
Typically this exception is used for so called “death bed” statements. That is not what happened here. There is nothing in DeeDee’s statement that Martin believed his death was “imminent.”
That means nothing – absolutely nothing – Martin told DeeDee can be used in the trial as her statements are within the definition of hearsay, and no exception applies to her proposed testimony.
“Dude, you a so desperate to cling to your position….”
Were you talking to a mirror?
lurker,
“Unfortunately, isn’t this the same county that Casey was tried and acquitted?”
No. Jurors in the Casey Anthony trial took place in were selected from the jury pool in Pinellas County, FL. The jurors were then transported to Orlando, which is in Orange County, FL.
The Zimmerman / Martin incident took place in Seminole County. Due to the publicity, it is fair to say the trial will move, but for right now, it is still in the county where Sanford is located.
Your comments about DeeDee testifying illustrate again you are clueless in law…..
Clueless? she won’t testify to anything but what she said and what he said. She can’t testify to anything that “happened” unless she saw it herself and she couldn’t see through that telephone wire.
“Of course she can testify since she was virtually there (like a camera….).”
She wasn’t ‘there’ virtually or any other way. She didn’t have a ‘camera’ showing her what was happening.
“Dude, you a so desperate to cling to your position” so you’ve now gone to humor? IIII’mmm desperate? hmmm. well, if you say so.
Just curious as to why you think they are going to allow her to testify to hearsay?
Remember her saying she ‘heard’ his earphones falling off (I guess during all that commotion is when he ‘put them in his pocket’.
Why did she wait 6 weeks to even talk to authorities?
NO way does this case go to trial. No way. Zimmerman will be turned lose with apologies from authorities for attempted railroading.
lurker:
“Unfortunately, isn’t this the same county that Casey was tried and acquitted?”
why would that be ‘unfortunate’? Are you saying they are used to getting it wrong and might convict him? He’ll never be tried. If he should happen to be, it would be entirely political.
“Without Zimmerman there is not death.”
without Martin there is not death.
“Zimmerman not only profiled ” (laughing sounds in the background)
Dictionary def: to produce or present a history, description, or analysis of:
Am I the only one that watched the 7-11 video?
Was any ‘profiling’ necessary? wasn’t the description clear?
Geez Redteam, I missed that “gem” from AJStrata.
“Zimmerman not only profiled….”
Once again, we need to revisit the affidavit the state used to charge Zimmerman. The affidavit states that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin as AJStrata claims.
However, in the hearing when asked how he came to the conclusion Zimmerman had profiled Martin, Detective Dale Gilbreath, who signed the affidavit could not come up with evidence to support the contention in the affidavit that Zimmerman had been “profiled.”
How bad was this mistake?
Huge.
It has given the defense another example of the charging affidavit to be at least fraudulent and at the most perjury.
What further complicates this matter is that Gilbreath admits he had not interviewed Zimmerman and could not attribute who had put the term “profiled” in the affidavit.
For the purposes of the law, “profiled” has a very specific meaning within the state of Florida. The fact the state made a legal conclusion without any supporting evidence and then basically disavowed the document shows the lack of clarity and the deception of the charging affidavit.
AJStrata does the same thing here. He relies on an unsubstantiated legal conclusion without any supporting evidence.
Despite this, he continues to maintain his analysis of the incident is “scientific” and complete.
In reality, it is not.
AJ Strata had a lot of credibility with me before he began this rant. That will never be entirely true again.
I’m only going to respond to AJ’s comment about marijuana making you “mellow.”
That is simply not true. There are so many hybrids of marijuana today, with a variety of strengths of THC, including some lacing that goes into some street varieties. These hybrids give different reactions as well. Just go to your local ‘herb’ dispensary and get educated.
THC, itself is stored in the fat cells of the body and can be detectable for some 30 days after smoking a joint. So, if a trace was found in Trayvon’s toxicology report, it doesn’t attest to how long ago Martin actually smoked weed. If he was on suspension from school, for having an empty plastic weed bag, and was being shuttled to his father’s girlfriend, there is a possibility he hadn’t smoked for a while. If this is true, then he would be going through withdrawals from the anti-anxiety effects of THC, which oftentimes produces extreme irritability in people, paranoia, giving them a short fuse to react to anything/anyone who annoys them.
I have a family member addicted to weed, and have periodically been the target of this irritability, which is not pleasant. I also have taken two years of addiction studies, and believe me marijuana is far from the mellow stuff smoked in the 60’s and 70’s. Currently, it is one of the drugs which most frequently causes trips to the ER, because kids are freaking out.
Basically, AJ, your knowledge of marijuana is mythical, and not reality based for today’s typical marijuana user.
AJ, I actually know the law. You are an arrogant blowhard who’s every post if more insanely idiotic than the last. I have avoided posting on this, but your posts are so insanely stupid that I cannot let it pass anymore. You pretend you know law – you know nothing about the law. You pretend you have an unbiased opinion – you are one of most biased and bigoted idiots I have ever had the misfortune to run across.
Give up this blog, give up writing. You are an embarrassment and a disgrace. Any good that you have ever done has been destroyed by your insanely bigoted, biased and absolutely injust posting on this matter. You are a disgrace You should apologize to everyone you have ever written to, and you should delete this insane abortion of a blog that you pretend to write.
here is all I can say about everything you have had to say is summed up in this quote:
AJ, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.