Anyone who argues "well, hey, it wasnt a clear directive" is just grasping at straws and parsing words. It's obvious as hell what the intent was and why. If you listen to the call, the tone of the dispatcher clearly became more intense when he strongly advised Zimmerman to stop following him. Jurors aren't going to be as interested in "gotcha" logic than common sense logic. Zimmerman sought out a police officer to come to a neighborhood meeting and discuss the neighborhood watch program. This Sanford police officer explicitly told residents NOT to be armed and NOT to approach suspicious persons. This is all in the evidence file released by the prosecutor. Zimmerman ignored the police officers advice. Yet, some folks in this thread are mouthing off about how blacks have no respect for authority? Well, my friends, how would you assess Zimmerman's respect for authority when he clearly, unequivocally violates advice and directives of police officers and decides he's better equipped to make those decisions than are they? Actions have to have accountability when they result in the taking of a human life that was clearly avoidable. Period. Those are the laws of society and you aren't above them just because you really, really wish you were a cop and you are really really tired of "those assholes getting away".
- What do you know that the police officers do not? They have made statements in the evidence file and in sworn testimony that Trayvon was engaged in no illegal activity, whatsoever, on the night of the incident? - If Trayvon having traces of THC makes him a "drug user", what does it make Zimmerman when it's already been documented he was using strong, mind-altering drugs such as Adderall and Temazepam?- You do realize that the corrleation between agitation, mood swings and aggressive behavior is stronger with Adderall and Temazepam than it is with mar1juana right? -The hypocrisy of your posts is truly, truly off the charts. Why do you not apply the same standards to the guy who actually shot and killed someone than the guy who was minding his own business and going home to watch a a game as he had every legal right to do?
Don't forget that at the end of the 911 call Zimmerman clearly asks the 911 dispatcher to have police officers call him when they are in the area so he can tell them where he's at. He does this immediately after beginning to give the dispatcher directions for where he was located, which clearly suggests he wasn't planning on remaining in the same location. Does that sound like the statement a man would make if he were planning on staying in his vehicle or continuing to pursue a suspicious guy who he was clearly and audibly unhappy (as evidenced by cursing on the phone)was "getting away"? Add that in with the girlfriend's witness statement in which she said Trayvon told her Zimmerman had "begun to follow him again" and Zimmerman's admission that he was following TM initially and there's quite a bit of evidence that suggests Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after he initially lost sight of him. It's much easier to believe that than it is to believe that TM ran away, but then ran back. Normally when you are scared enough of something to run away from it, you don't double back and seek out the very thing you were afraid of in the first place. Very illogical.
Sorry to play devil's advocate, but dispatchers are not usually police officers, their instructions are not mandatory. Not to mention, he did not ORDER Zimmerman to stop following him. Which btw did Zimmerman change his story? Was the early reporting wrong when they said Zimmerman claimed he didn't continue to follow Martin? I swear I originally read he said he didn't, but now he's saying he did? That's good news for the prosecution if true. The dispatcher, which is usually not an officer, told Zimmerman we don't NEED you to follow him. He didn't say stop following him. You may think this is all semantics, he meant stop following him, but the defense will argue he didn't disobey any orders, which is technically true. Can you give me a link to the prosecution's evidence of the officer informing them not to carry or approach people? I am not saying this isn't true, I just want to read it for the full details. Also, I don't believe he was technically on duty at the time. I believe he said he was out on his way to the store, which means he didn't defy the orders not to carry when on watch. He did however ignore the officer's instructions not to approach a suspect, if this it true. However, even if he did approach, nothing he did was ILLEGAL, or at least not until the point in which Martin and Zimmerman met. From that point on we don't seem to have any direct evidence to prove either one of them did anything illegal. Everything seems to be circumstantial, no direct links, however people have been found guilty on less evidence so I could be wrong. At this point, I would put my money on the defense. They are going to put so much doubt into the juries mind they will have no choice but to acquit him. If they don't the judge will surely throw out the verdict. Has Corey released ALL the evidence yet? Or are we still waiting for those things she held back from the affidavit?
Why is anyone wasting time trying to show Martin was innocent? I think/hope we all agree with that. If Martin DID start the fight, and Zimmerman didn't shoot, do you think Martin was guilty or innocent? I think he was still innocent because he would have felt just as threatened by Zimmerman as he was of Martin. So we're both on the same page, Martin is innocent, does that mean Zimmerman HAS to be guilty? It's not at all possible that Zimmerman ALSO felt threatened and his gun was bigger than Martin's (hands)?
Just to expand on what you were saying. The dispatcher requested that Zimmerman meet the police at the mailboxes. Zimmerman refused to meet the police at the suggested meeting place (the and instead requested that they call him when they arrived on site. That makes it clear that he was still pursuing Martin after that call. I don't believe he doubled back at all. If you look at where he died, he was on a straight trajectory to his home.
Gah I butchered that last post, meant to say (he instead requested that they call him when they arrived on site). Murder 2 - IDK. I can understand both sides of the argument - it just depends on the jury. He'll be convicted of manslaughter at the very least. Either way Zimmerman will go to jail and hopefully the Martin family will be able to move on somewhat.
Dumb question but can the jury convict of a lesser charge if the defendants have not been charged with that?
You lose your immunity from self-defense when you seek out trouble. This isn't a case where Martin was breaking into Zimmerman's house or vehicle. He had every opportunity to avoid the confrontation, which is where at the least it's a manslaughter situation, for which negligence is a central element. If all it took to have the legal right to use deadly force against someone was "feeling threatened" every single fight or shoving match that ever took place in America could end with the person who was getting his butt kicked shooting someone dead and not so much as doing a day of jail time. What Zimmerman did was elevate a fist fight into a homicide. The use of force has to be proportional with the threat. If Trayvon went after Zimmerman with a knife or pulled a gun, certainly he'd have reason to fear for his life and pre-emptively shooting him would be justifiable self-defense. However, taking a few shots to the face (no less from someone who was minding their own business that you followed while packing heat) does not meet that threshhold. This is precisely why Zimmerman and his brother's statements sound more like something out of the movies than real life with alleged statements from Trayvon such as "you are going to die tonight" or statements from Zimmerman that "Trayvon was circling my car" despite him never saying that to the dispatcher and then getting out of the safety of his car to follow him. It makes no sense and smells. But he knows that he has to make the situation sound not like a street fight but like a situation where Trayvon was out to end his life in order for self-defense to be applicable.
Zimmerman, and his supporters, have made some conflicting statements. One of those statements said that he was heading back to his car and was attacked by Martin, another statement says that he (Zimmerman) was lost and looking for an address when he was attacked, and another statement says that he was attacked at his car. The latter statement doesn't fit the evidence at all since where the altercation took place was far away from his car. It's possible he could've been heading back to his car at the time but there is no way to independently verify that. As for him being lost and looking for an address that is also possible but questionable since it is his neighborhood and he is watch captain. The dispatcher wasn't issuing an order but was telling Zimmerman that his actions were unhelpful to the situation with the implication that they could lead to trouble. This establishes that Zimmerman was made aware that his actions were unnecessary and shows that he was negligent / reckless in continuing to do so. Zimmerman continuing to pursue Martin isn't a matter of legality but just showing that he was aware that what he was doing was unneeded and unhelpful to the situation. Corey hasn't released all of the evidence. From what I heard on the news there are still some witness statements that haven't been. It is very possible that Zimmerman will be acquitted. At this point I think it is a coin toss between acquittal and manslaughter. At the minimum though George Zimmerman was very irresponsible and this was a situation that could've been avoided if he followed the dispatcher's advice.
According to Nook who is a lawyer who has worked both for defense and prosecution that yes the jury can convict on a lesser charge.
It absolutely is semantics as to the difference between "We don't NEED you to do that" and "I hereby order you to stop following him". Dispatchers are going to give callers advice. They are not going to issue firm directives as if they are military captains overseeing a unit of soldiers. It's very clear that the intent and advice of the dispatcher was to stop following TM. If you listen to the 911 call, his tone was clearly disapproving when GZ admitted to following him. A point the prosecution will not have a problem successfully drive home to counter any defense attempts to make the technicalities appear to be important than the big picture. Corey has not released all of the evidence. None of Zimmerman's statements to the police that night have been released and several witness statements have been held back. Zimmerman has not changed his statement that he stopped following Martin. But TM's girlfriend's statement and other statements in this thread point to him continuing to follow. Quote: In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a neighborhood watch program. "Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse for that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." Zimmerman volunteered to be captain. "I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force," Dorival said. "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun." http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1221799.ece and this: "Wendy Dorival is Sanford's volunteer coordinator for the Police Department. She helped train Zimmerman. She stated that those involved in neighborhood-watch programs are supposed to be "the eyes and ears" for the police, "not a vigilante.” Specifically, she said, members "are not supposed to confront anyone. We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle." She added that carrying and using a gun on patrol violates protocols. " http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2012/4535 The notion that Zimmerman wasn't on patrol that night and was simply shopping is false. People who are simply shopping go to the store and then go home. The guy was parked in his car observing someone he profiled as being a likely criminal and on the phone with the 911 dispatcher to request the police come to the area. Those actions are wholly consistent with someone who's on neighborhood watch patrol and completely inconsistent with a neighborhood citizen who was simply out shopping. That may have been what he was doing earlier in the day but his actions leading up to the shooting clearly were in the capacity of a watchman. The Sanford Police department pointed out in a release just a few days after the shooting that Zimmerman was serving in the capacity of neighborhood watchman that night. Scroll down about a quarter way through the page below. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171324&page=15 The bottom line is that you can't use technicalities to avoid a manslaughter charge and has been pointed out the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they aren't buying M2. The central element of manslaughter is negligence. That doesn't require an illegal act to be conducted but goes to the reasonableness of your actions. I mean you can't get more clear as to what neighborhood watch protocols are than what Wendy Dorival trained George Zimmerman on just a few months prior to this shooting can you? It's a consistent theme with GZ. He's a vigilante who doesn't listen to the professionals.
I don't find it unreasonable at all to think that Zimmerman legitimately thought his life was in danger, despite those comments. If his head was being banged into the concrete, I would have been just as afraid. Does the forensics give any opinion on the amount of force necessary to cause the lacerations? That would help a lot. Also he did elevate a fist fight to a homicide, but that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder. Maybe in your eyes, but not in the eyes of Florida law. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman's side is a lie. Following someone is not illegal, you can not hold that against Zimmerman, no matter how much you think it matters, it doesn't. The defense will argue he didn't continue to follow after the dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary, and even if he had, you can not charge a guy for defying a suggestion. And no, every fight would not escalate into homicide. This is an individual case. The circumstances of which make it incredibly difficult to determine what exactly went on that evening. How can anyone prove he WASN'T in fear for his life? Zimmerman and Martin would likely both be better off had Zimmerman pulled the gun before the confrontation, but THAT would be illegal. What he did was not illegal. He pulled the gun when he felt his life was in danger. Had he just wanted to shoot a black kid he would have done so before he allowed him to "whip his ass" as one witness put it. I understand everything you have argued, but I am offering the other side, this is how the defense will argue, and based on that I can't see a judge allowing a guilty verdict. The prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not being attacked and was afraid for his life. I also agree with the negligence/manslaughter. But again, you can't PROVE Zimmerman was seeking trouble/confrontation. I think most people who have argued for Zimmerman, myself included, have asked for a lesser charge. I don't think you can convict on Murder 2 charges.
I don't either. Sorry for not making that clear. Based on what has been released so far, the Murder 2 elements don't seem there but manslaughter elements do seem to be there. I think that is the most likely outcome right now. Murder 2 will only be possible if the prosecution proves the 911 cries for help were from TM. I do agree that concrete bashing is at a different level than a run of the mill fistfight, but the only evidence pointing in this direction is Zimmerman's own statement and his credibility is low. The fact that no witness has come forward and said they saw TM bashing GZ's head but that witnesses have said they saw wrestling and punches make the headbashing claim dubious. As, of course, does the fact that TM's body was found not in the concrete but on the grass. If the argument behind self-defense is that your head is being bashed in and that caused you to fear for your life, how does that hold water if the shot you fired occurred when you and the victim were both in the grass?!?! Self-defense is an affirmative defense which requires a preponderance of evidence (50% plus is a rule of thumb). That threshhold hasn't been met based on what we know so far. Not even close.
In Florida either the prosecution or defense can ask the Judge to instruct the jury of lesser charges. It is at the discretion of the Judge, but it is usually a technicality.
