Judge's comments to Zimmerman--any lawyers care to comment?

[moda0306]

Here's an interesting video on the matter...

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/dr-drew


This is from April so maybe the trial clarified a few points...

- the scuffle appeared to have taken place on grass, not concrete.

- the guy couldn't see clearly but there was a struggle, not just one guy pummeling another

- there was in fact an arrest. Just no booking. My bad.  However there still seems to have been little timelining of this event.

[MediumTex]

MT,

Your assertion that trayvon "sucker punched" Zimmerman is hogwash.  According to zimmermans initial telling of the story, this is how it happened, but it's obvious that at the very least there was a verbal altercation before it got physical. This means there was no punch from behind.

I would say that Zimmerman had exceptionally poor reflexes then.  If I attempt to punch you anywhere near your eyes and you see it coming your reflexive response will make it very hard for me to connect solidly with your face.

Also, as Ad pointed out, the standard with self defense is that you have to have the preponderance of evidence on your side regarding self defense.

Not in Florida.

"Stand your ground" laws change this because people who had killed others justifiably were getting arrested.

Stand your ground has nothing to do with simple self defense.  This was never a stand your ground case because there is no evidence that it was possible for Zimmerman to retreat at the time the deadly force was used.

There obviously should be exceptions to murder convictions for self-defense, but making it an automatic before a killing is even thoroughly investigated (with cross referencing accounts of what happened and timelines for inconsistencies) is too much.

It seems to me that there was nothing automatic about Zimmerman finally being found not guilty in this matter.

I'm still not understanding why you think this case was not thoroughly investigated.

Zimmerman wasn't just taking a stroll... He was looking for and/or following Martin as he said he would in the 911 call.  He then lied (or forgot :/) the facts of the event, stating he Martin jumped out of the bushes at him, before later changing his story.

How did he change his story from Martin attacking him by surprise?  I never heard his story change in this regard.  Whatever words were exchanged, every account has Zimmerman walking back to his vehicle when Martin's attack started.

This is not as simple as you're making it out to be.

From my perspective, though, it is simple.  It's also tragic, but it's still simple.

Are some in the liberal media completely skewing this?  As always, yes.  I'm much more interested in what happened, what the legal response should be and what the discrepancies are than if liberals are doing what they always do.

Once Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating his head on the sidewalk, Zimmerman had two choices: he could passively submit to the attack as he had apparently done up to that point based upon the lack of any bruises, cuts, scratches or any kind of injury to Martin, or he could attempt to defend himself.  If he chose to defend himself, then it's not unreasonable to assume that he would try to defend himself using the firearm he carried for self-defense.  I'm at a loss to understand what option Zimmerman had if he didn't want to be beaten to death.  He hadn't started the fight, he hadn't resisted the attack, he had yelled for help, and finally he used deadly force to defend himself when nothing else worked.  What should he have done?

Whatever may have happened prior to Martin beating Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, here is what we know:

(1) Martin had no marks of any kind on his body--i.e., Zimmerman had not hit him at all.

(2) Martin could have just as easily run home as he could have run and hidden prior to attacking Zimmerman.

(3) Martin could have stopped the attack at any time with no obvious risk to himself (if Zimmerman hadn't fought back yet, what reason would Martin have had to think that he would start fighting back if he stopped his attack?).

If you had been in charge of the investigation and the decision about whether to bring charges was yours, what would you have done differently?

[MediumTex]

Here's an interesting video on the matter...

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/dr-drew


This is from April so maybe the trial clarified a few points...

- the scuffle appeared to have taken place on grass, not concrete.

Yes.  The grass next to a sidewalk.

- the guy couldn't see clearly but there was a struggle, not just one guy pummeling another

Pinning someone down who weighs more than you is probably not easy to do.  I would imagine there was a struggle as Zimmerman tried to get free.

- there was in fact an arrest. Just no booking. My bad.  However there still seems to have been little timelining of this event.

I don't care when Zimmerman was arrested.  The fact is the police concluded that no crime had occurred using normal police investigative procedures.  When the politicians came in and decided they wanted a different outcome, it became a standard witch hunt.  I think that's why the detectives' testimony was so damaging to the prosecution, even though they were prosecution witnesses.

[moda0306]

MT,

We don't know that trayvon attacked Zimmerman first. Just that he was likely the better fighter. All we have is no markings on trayvon other than the gunshot that killed him.

Your and PS's detailed version of events follows zimmerman's testimony, which would have a natural bias to it if what went down was different. But he still could have just been hiding, and when Zimmerman walked back to his truck (after attempting to find/follow Martin) thought he'd been found. 

But this idea that Zimmerman was "sucker punched" is hogwash. He didn't sneak up and punch him from behind.  There was a verbal altercation first.

[Pointedstick]

One thing, MT. I think your timeline may be a bit off. Martin confronted Zimmerman after he had hung up. And if I recall correctly, he had started walking back to his truck during the latter parts of that 911 phone call. So if I'm right, Martin confronted him when he was walking back, and if Martin punched him, it had to have been from standing in front of him after the two had exchanged words, which we can hear from Martin's cell phone recording.

[Pointedstick]

moda, you have repeatedly speculated about who started it, but can you actually locate any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation? If there isn't any, then perhaps that is tragic, but the law says that Zimmerman is innocent unless proven guilty.

What I think I'm starting to realize though, is that when you say, "the investigation wasn't thorough enough," what you're really meaning is, "the investigation didn't turn up the evidence that Zimmerman started it that I think is there." Is that fair?

[moda0306]

Here's an interesting video on the matter...

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/dr-drew


This is from April so maybe the trial clarified a few points...

- the scuffle appeared to have taken place on grass, not concrete.

Yes.  The grass next to a sidewalk.

- the guy couldn't see clearly but there was a struggle, not just one guy pummeling another

Pinning someone down who weighs more than you is probably not easy to do.  I would imagine there was a struggle as Zimmerman tried to get free.

- there was in fact an arrest. Just no booking. My bad.  However there still seems to have been little timelining of this event.

I don't care when Zimmerman was arrested.  The fact is the police concluded that no crime had occurred using normal police investigative procedures.  When the politicians came in and decided they wanted a different outcome, it became a standard witch hunt.  I think that's why the detectives' testimony was so damaging to the prosecution, even though they were prosecution witnesses.

Standard witch hunt?  Someone's kid died and they went through very little detail to prove it was self defense.  How would you feel if your kid was shot, and the guy was let go that night because, after following your son in his SUV and then looking for him on foot, got in a tussle (that it appears like your son had started) and he ended up shot dead.

People cared.  People thought it hadn't been properly investigated.  That storylines hadn't been cross referenced and the facts of the night were mostly being formed by the sole survivor of an incident where he killed an unarmed kid who had just been walking home.  Martin may have been more nervous than Zimmerman was before things got physical.

[Pointedstick]

Standard witch hunt?  Someone's kid died and they went through very little detail to prove it was self defense.  How would you feel if your kid was shot, and the guy was let go that night because, after following your son in his SUV and then looking for him on foot, got in a tussle (that it appears like your son had started) and he ended up shot dead.

People cared.  People thought it hadn't been properly investigated.  That storylines hadn't been cross referenced and the facts of the night were mostly being formed by the sole survivor of an incident where he killed an unarmed kid who had just been walking home.  Martin may have been more nervous than Zimmerman was before things got physical.

If it were my son, I would be devastated and I would demand the truth. But if the evidence  mounted that my son probably starting it, and regardless, that the man was not really fighting back and he was attacking the man in a vicious and potentially lethal manner, I would be absolutely heartbroken. Heartbroken that I had failed as a parent so badly that my son could have done such a terrible thing, and heartbroken that I couldn't have been there to stop him  and knock some sense into him.

Just imagining, of course. It's pretty hard to imagine how badly I'm going to have to mess up as a parent for my beautiful grinning one-year-old to murder a stranger out of fear.

[MediumTex]

Standard witch hunt?  Someone's kid died and they went through very little detail to prove it was self defense.

You keep saying this, but you're not telling me anything specifically that wasn't done that should have been done.

How would you feel if your kid was shot, and the guy was let go that night because, after following your son in his SUV and then looking for him on foot, got in a tussle (that it appears like your son had started) and he ended up shot dead.

Any parent would be devastated if his child was killed.  Asking the parent for an objective analysis of the situation is not realistic.

People cared.  People thought it hadn't been properly investigated.  That storylines hadn't been cross referenced and the facts of the night were mostly being formed by the sole survivor of an incident where he killed an unarmed kid who had just been walking home.

But he wasn't just walking home when he was shot.  He was on top of Zimmerman beating his head on the sidewalk when he was shot. 

Martin may have been more nervous than Zimmerman was before things got physical.

May have been?  That's obviously just speculation.  We could all come up with an infinite number of scenarios that may have occurred, but I'm not ready to send a person to prison for life based upon whether someone may have been nervous before he attacked the person.

[moda0306]

moda, you have repeatedly speculated about who started it, but can you actually locate any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation? If there isn't any, then perhaps that is tragic, but the law says that Zimmerman is innocent unless proven guilty.

What I think I'm starting to realize though, is that when you say, "the investigation wasn't thorough enough," what you're really meaning is, "the investigation didn't turn up the evidence that Zimmerman started it that I think is there." Is that fair?

That's pretty fair.  I'm having trouble separating what my gut tells me is fair procedure for arrest, charging and convicting in a self-defense case and what is actual state law in how to handle these things, and what the actual facts on the ground were after the incident.

[MediumTex]

One thing, MT. I think your timeline may be a bit off. Martin confronted Zimmerman after he had hung up. And if I recall correctly, he had started walking back to his truck during the latter parts of that 911 phone call. So if I'm right, Martin confronted him when he was walking back, and if Martin punched him, it had to have been from standing in front of him after the two had exchanged words, which we can hear from Martin's cell phone recording.

Do we know that was when the first punch was thrown, or do we just know that is the earliest that the first punch could have been thrown?

[stone]

Are we not all supposed to be free to walk any streets we fancy without having people ask us what we are up to?

I would also find it creepy if someone followed me.

I do think the racism thing is relevant. I think it is perfectly understandable that Martin might feel pissed off that he was being followed and snooped on because he was a young black man.

[moda0306]

Do we know it was a sidewalk or is there still debate as to whether it was grass that his head was "being beaten into?"

The witness said there was a struggle.  Sure sounds like Zimmerman was attempting to fight.

[MediumTex]

moda, you have repeatedly speculated about who started it, but can you actually locate any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation? If there isn't any, then perhaps that is tragic, but the law says that Zimmerman is innocent unless proven guilty.

What I think I'm starting to realize though, is that when you say, "the investigation wasn't thorough enough," what you're really meaning is, "the investigation didn't turn up the evidence that Zimmerman started it that I think is there." Is that fair?

That's pretty fair.  I'm having trouble separating what my gut tells me is fair procedure for arrest, charging and convicting in a self-defense case and what is actual state law in how to handle these things, and what the actual facts on the ground were after the incident.

For me, I kept waiting for the case to get complicated and it just never did.

I wanted to see a lot more evidence that Zimmerman had behaved in an aggressive way toward Martin, but there just wasn't any evidence supporting this version of events other than Zimmerman walking in Martin's direction and the two of them exchanging a few words.

To me, though, Martin's use of "creepy ass cracker" to refer to Zimmerman, who at that point was just a guy driving or walking through his neighborhood, suggests to me that Martin was in the mood to rumble that night.  I'm just speculating here, but using a term like the one above rather than the more neutral "dude" or "guy" suggests that Martin had some feelings of ill will or hatred toward Zimmerman, or at least this was the prosecutions' argument for why Zimmerman's use of the term "fucking punks" was evidence of ill will or hatred toward Martin.  I'm just saying that the logic needs to be applied both ways.

[moda0306]

Are we not all supposed to be free to walk any streets we fancy without having people ask us what we are up to?

I would also find it creepy if someone followed me.

I do think the racism thing is relevant. I think it is perfectly understandable that Martin might feel pissed off that he was being followed and snooped on because he was a young black man.

Exactly. Someone following me is much creepier than me wearing a hoodie and waking with a "swagger."

One should be aware of the heightened fear alone that you put into someone if you follow them and look around for them.  I wouldn't doubt that Martin was scared as shit.  Not just some thug harassing a guy walking to his car.

In terms of additional ivestigation, I would have had gone through all the physical evidence and corroborating stories up, down, left and right before deciding to not press some sort of charges. That couldn't have been done in the few hours that Zimmerman was answering questions.

[MediumTex]

Are we not all supposed to be free to walk any streets we fancy without having people ask us what we are up to?

If someone asks you what you are up to, you are certainly free to tell them to go screw themselves, but I wouldn't say you are free to attack them and attempt to kill them.  I assume you see the distinction there.

I would also find it creepy if someone followed me.

As he would probably find it creepy if you followed him, which is what Martin did after spotting Zimmerman behind him.

I do think the racism thing is relevant. I think it is perfectly understandable that Martin might feel pissed off that he was being followed and snooped on because he was a young black man.

If there was evidence of that it would be relevant, but there was no evidence of any racism, other than the racial slur Martin used to refer to Zimmerman before attacking him.

[moda0306]

moda, you have repeatedly speculated about who started it, but can you actually locate any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation? If there isn't any, then perhaps that is tragic, but the law says that Zimmerman is innocent unless proven guilty.

What I think I'm starting to realize though, is that when you say, "the investigation wasn't thorough enough," what you're really meaning is, "the investigation didn't turn up the evidence that Zimmerman started it that I think is there." Is that fair?

That's pretty fair.  I'm having trouble separating what my gut tells me is fair procedure for arrest, charging and convicting in a self-defense case and what is actual state law in how to handle these things, and what the actual facts on the ground were after the incident.

For me, I kept waiting for the case to get complicated and it just never did.

I wanted to see a lot more evidence that Zimmerman had behaved in an aggressive way toward Martin, but there just wasn't any evidence supporting this version of events other than Zimmerman walking in Martin's direction and the two of them exchanging a few words.

To me, though, Martin's use of "creepy ass cracker" to refer to Zimmerman, who at that point was just a guy driving or walking through his neighborhood, suggests to me that Martin was in the mood to rumble that night.  I'm just speculating here, but using a term like the one above rather than the more neutral "dude" or "guy" suggests that Martin had some feelings of ill will or hatred toward Zimmerman, or at least this was the prosecutions' argument for why Zimmerman's use of the term "fucking punks" was evidence of ill will or hatred toward Martin.  I'm just saying that the logic needs to be applied both ways.

The language of both of them implies a certain amount of fear and aggression.  However, we know that Zimmerman wasn't just walking or driving around. He was pursuing Martin.  It's obvious Martin could tell the same thing.

But we're in an agreement then that there was no "sucker punch" involved, and that it was a verbal altercation by two seemingly angry/scared men that turned physical, most likely when Martin threw the first punch?

And not to repeat but are we sure his head wasnt beaten on the grass?

[MediumTex]

Are we not all supposed to be free to walk any streets we fancy without having people ask us what we are up to?

I would also find it creepy if someone followed me.

I do think the racism thing is relevant. I think it is perfectly understandable that Martin might feel pissed off that he was being followed and snooped on because he was a young black man.

Exactly. Someone following me is much creepier than me wearing a hoodie and walking with a "swagger."

One should be aware of the heightened fear alone that you put into someone if you follow them and look around for them.  I wouldn't doubt that Martin was scared as shit.  Not just some thug harassing a guy walking to his car.

That's sort of like the U.S.'s rationale for attacking Iraq back in 2003.  (sorry to go off topic like that)

In terms of additional investigation, I would have had gone through all the physical evidence and corroborating stories up, down, left and right before deciding to not press some sort of charges. That couldn't have been done in the few hours that Zimmerman was answering questions.

You don't think the police did that?

The questioning of Zimmerman happened over several days, if not weeks, and the total interview time was something like 20 hours.

[moda0306]

Are we not all supposed to be free to walk any streets we fancy without having people ask us what we are up to?

If someone asks you what you are up to, you are certainly free to tell them to go screw themselves, but I wouldn't say you are free to attack them and attempt to kill them.  I assume you see the distinction there.

I would also find it creepy if someone followed me.

As he would probably find it creepy if you followed him, which is what Martin did after spotting Zimmerman behind him.

I do think the racism thing is relevant. I think it is perfectly understandable that Martin might feel pissed off that he was being followed and snooped on because he was a young black man.

If there was evidence of that it would be relevant, but there was no evidence of any racism, other than the racial slur Martin used to refer to Zimmerman before attacking him.

You keep asserting that Martin followed Zimmerman.  This is based mostly on zimmermans story, and Just because he ended up behind him doesn't mean he followed him.  We KNOW Zimmerman was pursuing Martin but you make it sound like he was just walking around.  Martin MAY have followed Zimmerman for a bit (conveniently per zimmermans story) and you seem to know he sucker punched him or started to just beat the living shit out of him with no nuance at all after a verbal altercation.

There was evidence of racism.  He called Martin a fucking punk.  Part of that could very well have been his race. In fact I find it hard to believe that it didn't play a role.

[dualstow]

Found an interesting link here, not sure if it has been posted:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... lary-tool/

Anyway: an intelligent person on the radio suggested that we need to re-examine our racial problems & situation, but perhaps this trial is not the place to do so.

[MediumTex]

That's pretty fair.  I'm having trouble separating what my gut tells me is fair procedure for arrest, charging and convicting in a self-defense case and what is actual state law in how to handle these things, and what the actual facts on the ground were after the incident.

For me, I kept waiting for the case to get complicated and it just never did.

I wanted to see a lot more evidence that Zimmerman had behaved in an aggressive way toward Martin, but there just wasn't any evidence supporting this version of events other than Zimmerman walking in Martin's direction and the two of them exchanging a few words.

To me, though, Martin's use of "creepy ass cracker" to refer to Zimmerman, who at that point was just a guy driving or walking through his neighborhood, suggests to me that Martin was in the mood to rumble that night.  I'm just speculating here, but using a term like the one above rather than the more neutral "dude" or "guy" suggests that Martin had some feelings of ill will or hatred toward Zimmerman, or at least this was the prosecutions' argument for why Zimmerman's use of the term "fucking punks" was evidence of ill will or hatred toward Martin.  I'm just saying that the logic needs to be applied both ways.

The language of both of them implies a certain amount of fear and aggression.  However, we know that Zimmerman wasn't just walking or driving around. He was pursuing Martin.  It's obvious Martin could tell the same thing.

I wouldn't say that was obvious.  Martin may have felt like he was being challenged in some way, but we'll never know for sure.

But we're in an agreement then that there was no "sucker punch" involved, and that it was a verbal altercation by two seemingly angry/scared men that turned physical, most likely when Martin threw the first punch?

Are you saying that just because someone is standing in front of you they can't sucker punch you?  People are rarely expecting the first punch in most fights.  I would say a punch is a sucker punch if the other guy isn't expecting it and isn't defending himself against it.

And not to repeat but are we sure his head wasnt beaten on the grass?

How do we know that during the altercation a small tuft of grass hadn't been lifted off of the ground and flung up onto the sidewalk and Martin was attempting to beat Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, but it was actually just hitting the tuft of grass?  We can speculate endlessly about what exactly happened, but the most obvious explanation is that it was a sidewalk hitting Zimmerman's head, which is what the cuts suggest and what Zimmerman said happened.

[moda0306]

He said to his friend some "crazy cracker is following me" or something similar. He obviously knew he was being followed. And he was right.  This "crazy cracker" wanted to catch a "fucking punk" in the act.  I mean, "they always get away with it."

I was using the "punch from behind" version of sucker punch.  I guess others define it as simply an unexpected punch.

But we don't know who intimated the physical part of the altercation. By all indications, emotions were high.  If Zimmerman tried to grab Martin, that changes a lot for a kid who might fear being raped or whatever is entering his mind.

[moda0306]

For me, I kept waiting for the case to get complicated and it just never did.

I wanted to see a lot more evidence that Zimmerman had behaved in an aggressive way toward Martin, but there just wasn't any evidence supporting this version of events other than Zimmerman walking in Martin's direction and the two of them exchanging a few words.

To me, though, Martin's use of "creepy ass cracker" to refer to Zimmerman, who at that point was just a guy driving or walking through his neighborhood, suggests to me that Martin was in the mood to rumble that night.  I'm just speculating here, but using a term like the one above rather than the more neutral "dude" or "guy" suggests that Martin had some feelings of ill will or hatred toward Zimmerman, or at least this was the prosecutions' argument for why Zimmerman's use of the term "fucking punks" was evidence of ill will or hatred toward Martin.  I'm just saying that the logic needs to be applied both ways.

The language of both of them implies a certain amount of fear and aggression.  However, we know that Zimmerman wasn't just walking or driving around. He was pursuing Martin.  It's obvious Martin could tell the same thing.

I wouldn't say that was obvious.  Martin may have felt like he was being challenged in some way, but we'll never know for sure.

But we're in an agreement then that there was no "sucker punch" involved, and that it was a verbal altercation by two seemingly angry/scared men that turned physical, most likely when Martin threw the first punch?

Are you saying that just because someone is standing in front of you they can't sucker punch you?  People are rarely expecting the first punch in most fights.  I would say a punch is a sucker punch if the other guy isn't expecting it and isn't defending himself against it.

And not to repeat but are we sure his head wasnt beaten on the grass?

How do we know that during the altercation a small tuft of grass hadn't been lifted off of the ground and flung up onto the sidewalk and Martin was attempting to beat Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, but it was actually just hitting the tuft of grass?  We can speculate endlessly about what exactly happened, but the most obvious explanation is that it was a sidewalk hitting Zimmerman's head, which is what the cuts suggest and what Zimmerman said happened.

Also, words like "grass" and "struggle" sound a lot different than "Martin repeatedly bashing zimmermans head into concrete after sucker punching him."

Leaving these possibilities out is a bit presumptuous.

[MediumTex]

Found an interesting link here, not sure if it has been posted:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... lary-tool/

Anyway: an intelligent person on the radio suggested that we need to re-examine our racial problems & situation, but perhaps this trial is not the place to do so.

Oh boy, so the house that was apparently burglarized was halfway in a more or less direct line between Martin's high school and the homes of both of Martin's parents, and the property that was stolen from the house matched the property that was found in Martin's backpack?

In other words, Martin's past history suggested that his modus operandi was to burglarize homes as he was walking from another location to his house?

And we are saying that Zimmerman's suspicions were based upon racism, rather than the honest belief that the person he saw looked suspicious for reasons unrelated to race, even though Zimmerman's suspicions appear to have been precisely validated by the history of the person of whom he was suspicious?

[dualstow]

I do think the racism thing is relevant. I think it is perfectly understandable that Martin might feel pissed off that he was being followed and snooped on because he was a young black man.

I do agree with this, and racial profiling is a serious problem. I think about what it would be like if I were stopped and frisked all the time, and how I would react. Sometimes, I *am* stopped at airports because I may look like an Arab to some. At the same time, this is not an excuse for violence. Quite the opposite.

There was evidence of racism.  He called Martin a fucking punk.  Part of that could very well have been his race. In fact I find it hard to believe that it didn't play a role.

I think Joe Oliver would disagree. Most of the racism seems to be coming from the anti-Zimmerman protestors. Some of them even insist that Zimmerman is half-Jewish, because he has a German last name. Is that fair? The answer is blowing in the wind.