Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[Jamie B]

I have to agree with AmbulanceDriver.  I just don't see the act of following as threatening.  I haven't seen any facts that state how close to Martin he ever got, so I can't assume it was real close.  I do see what Chris is saying though.  It all depends on how to Jury sees this.

Some of these facts that we are talking about are also facts that come from Zimmerman.  If he doesn't take the stand as a witness for himself, what other source of facts does the jury have to go on?

This exactly mirrors my thoughts as well.
Z had better take the stand, as everything else is opinion and conjecture.
How the jury weighs his testimony, hopefully without prejudice, seems to be the key issue.

[HankB]

If Zimmerman tells his story and it matches what evidence can be verified - for example, where the eyewitness saw him getting pummelled - and can convincingly show he actually was on the way back to his car, having stopped following Martin, he ought to be acquitted. (I sort of picture an overhead map view with a timeline, with the locations of the path he drove his car along, where he walked after getting out, where he parked his car, where the eyewitness saw him, etc. all marked, referencing the investigator's notes, with a narrative to match his statement from the night of the incident.)

On the other hand, if the verifiable evidence doesn't match his story, he has a big problem.

[De Selby]

Chris is making the point I've tried to about this - there is a vital lesson for all gun owners here, which is that it's important not to give chase when you have no reason to do so. 

It's also possible, folks, for BOTH parties to be guilty of a crime in a scenario like this one.  Even proving Trayvon Martin committed a crime doesn't necessarily make out the defence.

The audio tapes of Zimmerman chasing a person while fully acknowledging that the person is running away are indeed evidence, too.  It's not like there's no hint of Zimmerman doing anything wrong here.  He belongs before a jury.

[AmbulanceDriver]

De Selby, again.  What evidence is there that he was CHASING Martin? Not supposition, guessing, or divination from chicken entrails,  but actual PROOF?  Yes, on the tapes he's asked if he was following Martin.  He answered yes, at which point the 911 operator tells him they don't need him to do that.  To which Zimmerman replies, "OK. " What evidence do you have that he continued following Martin,  or that he was ever chasing Martin.  Because there's a difference between following and chasing. 

And if Martin was so scared of Zimmerman, why didn't he call 911 himself as opposed to assaulting Zimmerman?

[De Selby]

De Selby, again.  What evidence is there that he was CHASING Martin? Not supposition, guessing, or divination from chicken entrails,  but actual PROOF?  Yes, on the tapes he's asked if he was following Martin.  He answered yes, at which point the 911 operator tells him they don't need him to do that.  To which Zimmerman replies, "OK. " What evidence do you have that he continued following Martin,  or that he was ever chasing Martin.  Because there's a difference between following and chasing. 

And if Martin was so scared of Zimmerman, why didn't he call 911 himself as opposed to assaulting Zimmerman?

This is bizarre - he said on tape he was following Martin.  You think he stopped.  That's great, but Id say the tape where he says he's following him is at least strong evidence that he did.  Then there's that witness listening to Martin.

[Ron]

This is bizarre - he said on tape he was following Martin.  You think he stopped.  That's great, but Id say the tape where he says he's following him is at least strong evidence that he did.  Then there's that witness listening to Martin.

Hopefully between the dispatch tape, eyewitnesses and interview(s) with Z immediately after the fact, they have a timeline of events pretty well established.

If it is established Z was heading back to his car taking the dispatch admonition not to follow and was jumped it will look better for him than if he was following Martin and then was jumped as he rounded a corner.

[MechAg94]

This is bizarre - he said on tape he was following Martin.  You think he stopped.  That's great, but Id say the tape where he says he's following him is at least strong evidence that he did.  Then there's that witness listening to Martin.

So it appears you now agree he was not CHASING Martin.  Thanks for acknowledging that.  

Following someone is not a crime, nor is it threatening unless you can show he was doing it very very close.  There is no evidence to suggest he was following Martin at any distance closer than that necessary to keep him in sight.  You don't know if he was any closer than that yet you assume he was.  Why?  I believe you are assuming it because that is the only way you can blame Zimmerman for the incident.  

Now that said, Zimmerman might actually be guilty and have done everything wrong and Martin was the victim.  However, I haven't heard of any evidence that points to that.  

[De Selby]

So it appears you now agree he was not CHASING Martin.  Thanks for acknowledging that.  

Following someone is not a crime, nor is it threatening unless you can show he was doing it very very close.  There is no evidence to suggest he was following Martin at any distance closer than that necessary to keep him in sight.  You don't know if he was any closer than that yet you assume he was.  Why?  I believe you are assuming it because that is the only way you can blame Zimmerman for the incident.  

Now that said, Zimmerman might actually be guilty and have done everything wrong and Martin was the victim.  However, I haven't heard of any evidence that points to that.  

This is the other bizarre part - zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him.  I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him.   Continuing to give chase when someone is trying to get away from you may very well be exactly the sort of thing that deprives you of a self defence claim.

Given that Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drug using burglar, and said so on tape, I'd say it will be mighty tough for him to explain how Martin would have had no reasonable cause to think Zimmerman was out to intercept him.   Indeed, stopping trayvon Martin based on the mistaken belief that he was on drugs and a burglar is essentially what Zimmerman said he wanted to do on tape. 

[Monkeyleg]

This is the other bizarre part - zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him.  I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him.   Continuing to give chase when someone is trying to get away from you may very well be exactly the sort of thing that deprives you of a self defence claim.

Given that Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drug using burglar, and said so on tape, I'd say it will be mighty tough for him to explain how Martin would have had no reasonable cause to think Zimmerman was out to intercept him.   Indeed, stopping trayvon Martin based on the mistaken belief that he was on drugs and a burglar is essentially what Zimmerman said he wanted to do on tape.

It's my understanding that Zimmerman was following, and stopped following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Also, "following" is a bit different than "chasing". As for self defense, if Zimmerman's story is true, then he didn't defend himself when he was following Martin, but when Martin blindsided Zimmerman after he had returned to his truck. If his story isn't true, this is all going to be a mess to sort out: the broken nose, hair on the back of his head, broken skin on Martin's knuckles, etc.

Since the Zimmerman/Martin episode, there have been thousands of young black males shot and killed in the US. Strange that we don't read about their stories.

[MicroBalrog]

It's my understanding that Zimmerman was following, and stopped following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Also, "following" is a bit different than "chasing". As for self defense, if Zimmerman's story is true, then he didn't defend himself when he was following Martin, but when Martin blindsided Zimmerman after he had returned to his truck. If his story isn't true, this is all going to be a mess to sort out: the broken nose, hair on the back of his head, broken skin on Martin's knuckles, etc.

Since the Zimmerman/Martin episode, there have been thousands of young black males shot and killed in the US. Strange that we don't read about their stories.

Thousands?

[Monkeyleg]

No, not thousands. Hundreds. Thousands of shootings, though, but they don't get this kind of attention.

[De Selby]

It's my understanding that Zimmerman was following, and stopped following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Also, "following" is a bit different than "chasing". As for self defense, if Zimmerman's story is true, then he didn't defend himself when he was following Martin, but when Martin blindsided Zimmerman after he had returned to his truck. If his story isn't true, this is all going to be a mess to sort out: the broken nose, hair on the back of his head, broken skin on Martin's knuckles, etc.

Since the Zimmerman/Martin episode, there have been thousands of young black males shot and killed in the US. Strange that we don't read about their stories.

Well, he definitely did not return to his truck - the location of the body is plotted out on numerous photos of the scene.   It wasn't on a street.  But yeah, chasing someone into a walking path away from the street (Zimmerman said on tape trayvon was running into a cut) could well sustain the charge. 

The lesson, as our resident Magistrate and former prosecutor said, is not to go chasing people while armed.

[makattak]

Well, he definitely did not return to his truck - the location of the body is plotted out on numerous photos of the scene.   It wasn't on a street.  But yeah, chasing someone into a walking path away from the street (Zimmerman said on tape trayvon was running into a cut) could well sustain the charge. 

The lesson, as our resident Magistrate and former prosecutor said, is not to go chasing people while armed.

As always, I'm impressed by your lawyering.

No one said he "had returned" to his truck. He claimed he was "returning" to his truck. That's the present participle (the -ing is a BIG tip off there) indicating continuing action that had not been completed, not the past perfect (which usually ends in -ed) which indicates a completed action.

Or, put more simply, "returning" doesn't mean he was there yet, but was on the way there.

Second, I note you are still assuming facts not in evidence by conflating "chasing" with "following".

[T.O.M.]

Does anyone know of any evidence (not Z's statement, please) that indicates when in the chain of events Z drew his handgun?  The reason I ask is that I'm still trying to make sense of the whole thing in my mind, and a question raised here several times is bugging me...why would T jump Z if T was scared, like the recorded phone call could indicate?  If T saw the gun in hand, maybe he decided to take a chance and jump Z thinking he may be shot otherwise. 

Please note this is all pure speculation on my part.  This is a part of the process I would go through when I was involved in investigating violent crimes, trying to visualize how it occurred and make sense of the story as shaped by the evidence. 

[makattak]

Does anyone know of any evidence (not Z's statement, please) that indicates when in the chain of events Z drew his handgun?  The reason I ask is that I'm still trying to make sense of the whole thing in my mind, and a question raised here several times is bugging me...why would T jump Z if T was scared, like the recorded phone call could indicate?  If T saw the gun in hand, maybe he decided to take a chance and jump Z thinking he may be shot otherwise. 

Please note this is all pure speculation on my part.  This is a part of the process I would go through when I was involved in investigating violent crimes, trying to visualize how it occurred and make sense of the story as shaped by the evidence. 

Eyewitness testimony (reported) that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman while Zimmerman was screaming help. No mention of a gun visible, either being struggled over or held by Zimmerman, simply a pummelling by Martin.

This indicates the gun was brought out after the assault.

[T.O.M.]

Thanks.  I'm seriously concerned about the quality of witness statements at this point, just because the nut jobs are starting to come out and claim to have seen things, looking for fame and fortune. 

Yeah, I think that the press has already destroyed any chance of the real truth coming out in this case.  And, reality speaking, Z's going to be convicted of something.  I fear that the aftermath of the Rodney King/L.A. Riots is that the Feds will prosecute for some civil rights violation if nothing else so that Z is convicted, and they can try to keep the peace.  It doesn't help when you've got the Reverend Al and others stating that civil unrest is being planned in the event that justice is not done.

Maybe I should go buy some more buckshot...

[Tallpine]

zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him.  I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him.

Guilty conscience ...? 

[makattak]

This is the other bizarre part - zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him.  I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him.

Tallpine just pointed this bit out too. Afraid of =/= afraid for life or well-being.

Afraid of can also mean "afraid of being caught". When teenage vandals run from police, they are "afraid of" the police, too. Does that fear of the police justify assaulting them should the police catch up to them?

[Perd Hapley]

As always, I'm impressed by your lawyering.

No one said he "had returned" to his truck.

He was responding to Monkeyleg, who did say that.

[makattak]

He was responding to Monkeyleg, who did say that.

Ah, I should have noted that Zimmerman never claimed he "had returned" to his truck.

[Balog]

Tallpine just pointed this bit out too. Afraid of =/= afraid for life or well-being.

Afraid of can also mean "afraid of being caught". When teenage vandals run from police, they are "afraid of" the police, too. Does that fear of the police justify assaulting them should the police catch up to them?

Oh come on now, a person walking through a neighborhood and being chased/followed by a random stranger is no different than a criminal fleeing the scene of their crime at the approach of police? That's as disingenuous as some of the things De Selby says.


And for those who contend that being followed by someone is not threatening, let's think this through.

Your teenage daughter is out walking home at night. A man she doesn't know starts slowly following her in a car. When she feels uncomfortable with that, she cuts between houses. The man jumps out of his car and follows her on foot. Being really alarmed now, she starts to run. The man runs after her.

That scenario is what happened, according to both sides of the argument. Are you really saying that the girl in the above scenario would be absolutely crazy and unjustified in feeling threatened? If she turned and confronted the man following/chasing (is there an actual legal definition of that, or is it just a semantic free for all depending on your bias?) would she then be the aggressor intiating the incident? Assuming there isn't one legal code for men and another for women, how do you square that with the position?

Now, I think Z is both an idiot, and probably justified in claiming self defense. But the contortions both sides are taking to make their position is just absurd.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

That scenario is what happened, according to both sides of the argument.


nope   but a good try

[makattak]

Oh come on now, a person walking through a neighborhood and being chased/followed by a random stranger is no different than a criminal fleeing the scene of their crime at the approach of police? That's as disingenuous as some of the things De Selby says.


And for those who contend that being followed by someone is not threatening, let's think this through.

Your teenage daughter is out walking home at night. A man she doesn't know starts slowly following her in a car. When she feels uncomfortable with that, she cuts between houses. The man jumps out of his car and follows her on foot. Being really alarmed now, she starts to run. The man runs after her.

That scenario is what happened, according to both sides of the argument. Are you really saying that the girl in the above scenario would be absolutely crazy and unjustified in feeling threatened? If she turned and confronted the man following/chasing (is there an actual legal definition of that, or is it just a semantic free for all depending on your bias?) would she then be the aggressor intiating the incident? Assuming there isn't one legal code for men and another for women, how do you square that with the position?

Now, I think Z is both an idiot, and probably justified in claiming self defense. But the contortions both sides are taking to make their position is just absurd.

I did not say he was the same, I said the fear of being caught is another reason for running. Running does not prove that he was in fear for his safety.

The scenario you just posted is not what happened according to "both sides". According to the recorded phone call, Mr. Martin was acting strangely and cutting between houses BEFORE anyone started "chasing" him.

And if my daughter were actually afraid of her pursuer, I would hope she would use the significant head start she had to run the short distance to where she was staying AND the telephone in her hand to call me if not the police. I will not be teaching here that the correct course of action when you fear for your own safety is to confront the threat without backup.

Just like even if a [supposed] police officer is trying to pull her over on a dark night, I will be teaching her to drive to a well lighted area and confirm with police that it is actually an officer behind her. I will also suggest the she not just pull over to find out who it is that is following her.

[gunsmith]

let's think this through.

Your teenage daughter is out walking home at night. A man she doesn't know starts slowly following her in a car. When she feels uncomfortable with that

Teen girls are always uncomfortable when I follow them....

[gunsmith]

once I had picked up a really pretty drunk teen age girl in my taxi, when we got close to her house I noticed we were being followed, I asked her if she knew who it was and she said "no" so I picked up my cell and said "I'm gonna keep on going, and I'm calling the police, we'll drive to the police station, you'll be fine"
then she admitted that she had texted her friend to follow us when we got to her neighborhood.

I had a .357 mag revolver on my left and my glock on the right, & I still never considered confronting the car/person following me.