In Big Texx world. . .. Stalking is acceptable .. . for white folx . oops . . . hispanic folx . . . if the person they stalking is black Rocket River
there's also a difference between a criminal doing crime and a teenager walking down a street with a hoodie.
That doesn't really make sense, though. Why would he first initiate the contact and then return to his car and get attacked? He was clearly intending to stop Martin. You can hear on the call how he says "they always get away". He seemed to see himself as responsible for preventing that. Why, then, would he return to his car?
the one benefit of doubt I give Zimmerman is that Martin was visiting the neighborhood as guest of the community. seems like a responsible Neighborhood Watch captain would introduce himself as such and ask a community member his reasoning for being in the neighborhood. we need more details on the initial confrontation. unfortunately we don't know this because Zimmerman shot Martin dead.
Here's an interesting website dedicated to the concept of self defense: http://www.useofforce.us/4details/ It does not directly cover Florida law (we'll need to let the courts interpret the exact application of their law) but it speaks in generalities. The last paragraph is exactly this scenario. Let me quote the relevant part for you: "Engaging in a fight, or consensual combat—in other words, a brawl where all parties willingly (even if implicitly) agree to be involved—strips all participants of any justification for the use of force." Since Zimmerman approached Martin, surely Martin didn't think he was inviting over to the house for a beer. So even if Martin threw the first punch (and we don't know that), it's irrelevant. Zimmerman willingly approached Martin in an aggressive manor. Therefore he was a willing participant in the confrontation.
We have no proof of that. In fact, we have testimony to the contrary. Nevertheless, a "fight" does not justify the use of deadly force when all participants willingly entered into the hostile situation ...which is what Zimmerman did. So it is a very very weak defense if Zimmerman was returning to his car since he instigated the whole scene.
It doesn't really matter exactly what Martin thought (esp since we can't know that). Here is another quote for that site: "If you carry a knife, gun, or another weapon, look into those laws, as well. Understand that if you use a weapon in a violent confrontation, even if it is technically legal to do so, prosecutors may be looking at you for mens rea, or “guilty mind.” If you are carrying a ten-inch fighting knife useful for nothing but combat, law enforcement will wonder if you wanted to stab someone. State of mind is a big deal; it may influence a decision to prosecute, and if you are charged, will certainly come out in your trial when the DA portrays you as someone who was ready and willing to fight." The 911 tapes establish "state of mind". Zimmerman was clearly upset by the presence of Martin prior to initiating the confrontation.
No, that has not been proven. Sure he may have been mad that previous burglars got away, but does not mean he stopped Martin. We simply do not know and you are making unproven assumptions.
Meaning we have disputed facts. Hostile situation? Your position makes no sense because it's not proven that Zimmerman went in knowing the situation was hostile. Once again, we do not know that Zimmerman instigated the "whole scene". He had just as much of a right to be in that public space as Martin. Even if he "initiated" the interaction by asking Martin what he was doing, there is no law against that. Bottom line - what still do not know all the particulars of how the interaction occurred and you and many others are simply assuming things that have not been proven.
it's a stretch arguing mens rea based on the limited information we have plus, how prevalent is this logic in prosecution? What's the burden of proof? I would think quite high.
It's called circumstatial evidence. Very very few cases have perfect evidence. If they did, we wouldn't really need a court to decide, right? Here's what we know: Point 1: We know Zimmerman's state of mind: He told the 911 operator that he was deeply concerned with the "suspect" and he was going to pursue. (his own words) Point 2: We also have another 911 call from somebody else describing a confrontation where screams are heard. Who's screams are not irrelevant. All that proves is that there was in fact a confrontation. Point 3: Zimmerman's own account to police that he shot Martin in self defense ...which confirms exactly who was involved. Given Point #1, we know Zimmerman's intent. Given Point #2, we know there was a confrontation. Given Point #3, we know the result. That is not self defense.
Actually, we only know 2 (but do not know all details of it) and 3. Number 1 is unproven, and even if proven, intent can change. It's possible that Zimmerman changed his mind (assuming your take on his intent is correct).
