But Who STARTED The Altercation Between Martin and Zimmerman?

[Caroline-Vivienne]

Isn't that the important question in a Self-Defense Justification?

Yes, it sounds like Martin was winning the fight based on the closest witness account.

But that provides absolutely no insight into who threw the first punch. Who began the altercation.

And I haven't heard/seen any evidence that suggests that question has been answered. (Although, I'm not able to keep such a close eye on this case)

Zimmerman could've swung first and then proceeded to get his ass whipped by a scared kid who didn't let up (even when he started to cry for help).....because some weird guy was following him on car, by foot, then verbally confronted him and then (possibly) physically confronted him.

If some guy did that to me (at night, nonetheless)....and I had the physical upper hand; no way I'm gonna back down because I'm scared to death of this psycho how has been tracking me...

So....if it remains undetermined who actually started the fight.....how does that affect the chances of a conviction?

[rrneck]

1. Zimmerman, when he got out of his car. Possibly when he was stalking Martin from his car. nt

[Caroline-Vivienne]

3. I Agree, but.....

The legal folks (TV experts) are saying from a legal stand point, what counts is who threw the first punch.

I agree that Zimmerman has most if not all of the blame for setting up the dangerous scenario: deciding to follow Martin (on car, by foot)
Ignoring neighborhood watch training
confronting Martin
not identifying himself as a neighbor

But apparently according to Florida law, that doesn't matter.....

[rrneck]

7. I really haven't followed it all that closely

but as I recall the Zimmerman defense has declined to use the stand your ground statute in their defense. I suspect it's because the statute refers to "where you're supposed to be", and for Zimmerman that would be in his car. The defense was probably trying to keep his prior actions out of the record.

I don't we will ever know who threw the first punch. If that is what it takes to get a conviction, he'll walk.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

10. But Since it's an Affirmative Defense for Self Defense and not Stand Your Ground...

Zimmerman HAS TO PROVE it was self defense....doesn't he need to prove that he didn't start the altercation?

Can you claim self-defense if you picked the fight? I didn't think you could...

Can you claim self-defense if you can't prove you didn't pick the fight???

Or do his screams of Help nullify that?

[B2G]

14. "Zimmerman HAS TO PROVE it was self defense"

No he doesn't. He has to prove reasonable doubt that it wasn't 2nd degree murder.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

15. Then I'm misunderstanding the burden of proof here...

So he doesn't need to prove the legal definition of self defense to the eyes of the judge and jury?

He needs to disprove the legal definition of second degree murder?

Then what is the goal of the Prosecution?

[B2G]

20. To prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt

Which is what makes it a tough road for the prosecution in this case.

[TorchTheWitch]

49. no, the defense has to prove self-defense

by a preponderance of the evidence which is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt and the threshold of proof in civil trials.

The murder was already admitted to. Therefore, the defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was justified.

This has been brought up many times here and the Florida law pertaining to it.

[B2G]

58. I would love to see a link that supports that.

Because I think you have that backwards.

[TorchTheWitch]

75. there's plenty of them in threads right here

You could also search for the information yourself rather than say something you don't know is true. In any self-defense case the burden is on the defendant to prove their actions were justified as self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. They've already agreed that they killed the person, therefore, the prosecution doesn't have to prove that.

[Kennah]

79. There is subtle nuance at play here

Under the law, prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in practical terms, it is unlikely that a defendant claiming self defense would be able to sit by and simply try to raise reasonable doubt without actually putting forward information to prove the claim of self defense. How much proof does the defendant need to raise? That's up to the jury.

[Jenoch]

82. I'm fairly certain the term

'preponderance of the evidence' is a term reserved for civil trials, not criminal trials. The law in criminal trials is 'beyond a reasonqble doubt'.

[dkf]

108. This post was helpful to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3131218

From FL case: "When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self- defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation of such evidence does not change elements of offense at issue; rather, it merely requires state to present evidence that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense); Murray, 937 So. 2d at 279 (explaining that defendant in trial for aggravated battery was not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force).

[Threedifferentones]

88. Is there a reasonable doubt about who killed Martin? Is there a reasonable doubt that he would

still be alive today if Zimmerman had taken the advice of the 911 operator and not pursued an innocent kid?

The prosecution has nothing to prove except that it was not self defense. That seems pretty easy, because Zimmerman picked the fight. How can you claim defense when you are acting aggressively?

Zimmerman approached Martin in a way that was obviously going to result in a confrontation. Martin "stood his ground," as he had every right to do. Then, when Zimmerman realized he was not going to be able to defeat the "punk" he had accosted in a dark area at night, he ended the fight with the gun he had brought explicitly for the purpose of shooting any "punks" he could not control with his MMA moves.

I understand that the defense lawyers will use all these days of evidence to try and muddy this simple and obviously correct narrative. The fact that there seem to be no reliable witnesses will certainly make the defense's task easier. But ultimately Zimmerman accosted an innocent person at night and that is not self defense no matter how you look at it.

[naaman fletcher]

89. Well,

And I am not defending Zimmerman, but:

The Zimmerman story from day 1 is that he did in fact stop pursuing Trayvon when told to, and that he was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him.

[Solomon]

92. lol. this is the kind of stupid shit white folks are willing

to believe when a black kid is involved in something.

[naaman fletcher]

93. What do you mean?

All I did was state what Zimmerman's position was. Is that not correct?

[Threedifferentones]

95. So Zimmerman's story is:

He walked up to this kid at night, after referring to him as one of "these punks," but then once he actually caught up to the kid he turned around and quietly went back to his car, which is when the kid decided to assault him without provocation. Riiiiiiiiight.

[naaman fletcher]

98. Nope

People ought to at least be aware of Zims story if they are following the case.

He never said he caught up to him. In fact he said he lost track of him.

Knowing the basic issues of the case would save a lot of useless banter.

[Voice for Peace]

103. in Rachel's testimony from her phone call,

Trayvon said he had lost the guy; then apparently
Zimmerman appeared again, behind him.

[Jenoch]

109. I thought he used

the "punk" reference when talking to the cop, not the night of the shooting?

[pokerfan]

104. I agree that's what he says he was doing

but the timeline doesn't support this:

7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know where Martin is.
7:13:41 — Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends.
<~three minute gap>
7:16:00 - 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.
7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.
7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.

Whatever Zimmerman was doing during those three minutes it wasn't walking back to his truck, as he said, because that would take about fifteen seconds. Was he still hunting for Martin? Can the state prove this? I don't know.

Jeantel's testimony is that Martin told her that at one point that he thought he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.

[joeglow3]

33. If are judicial system was built on guilty until proved innocent.

As it is, all he has to do is create a doubt.

[Jenoch]

83. It is the prosecution

that must prove guilt 'beyond a reasoable doubt'.

[Deep13]

105. Not true. Once the state proves or he conceiveds he killed someone...

...the defense must prove more likely than not it was justified.

[dkf]

107. This post helped me...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3131218

[Voice for Peace]

26. even if Trayvon threw the first punch, there is little evidence to justify the use of the gun.

Z has to have had a reasonable expectation that it was the
only way to save his own life.

He might have had better luck with a temporary insanity
defense.

This big guy believed that skinny kid was about to kill
him? That there was no other way to save himself?

Of course not. The claim that Trayvon reached for his
gun, but George got it away just in the nick of time
and had to shoot Trayvon... seriously sketchy.

[naaman fletcher]

90. I think you are totally wrong on that.

If (and I know this is a matter of contention) Trayvon was on top of him hitting him and beating his head into the ground then yes he had the right to pull the gun. Almost any jury will find that.

This isn't the movies. One punch can kill in real life.

[Voice for Peace]

100. By the extent of his injuries, and the testimony of people who saw Zimmerman on top

not the other way around, his age size and training
as opposed to Martin's age and weight, I can't
believe a jury will believe he had no other choice.

[arcane1]

56. Does it have to be a punch? What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep him from walking away?

Would Martin be justified in throwing a punch to stop Zimmerman from unlawfully detaining him?

[Caroline-Vivienne]

62. I think so....any physical contact....My God, why didn't that idiot just identify himself!

[Maraya1969]

73. I think because he was hunting a black man. That's the opinion I get of Zimmerman.

[HooptieWagon]

46. Agreed. Zimmerman began following Martin, armed, in a threatening manner...

which is the definition of stalking. From that point on, Martin was legally allowed to defend himself...even if he threw the first punch when Zimmerman attempted to detain him.

[hedgehog]

2. Kick!

[Caroline-Vivienne]

4. I don't know what that means.

[Recursion]

6. A reply bumps a thread up to the top of the page again. That's called a "Kick".

It means "I don't have anything to say right now, but I want this discussion to stay visible".

Welcome to DU!

[Caroline-Vivienne]

8. Oh, ok!!! Well tyvm!!!!

[Recursion]

5. Nobody saw. That's a problem for the prosecution.

We don't know. Anyone who says they know is letting their feelings about one or the other decide for them.

[Bjorn Against]

38. It is actually a much bigger problem for the defense

Because this is an affirmative defense the burden is on Zimmerman to show that lethal force was justified. Zimmerman has to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows deadly force was necessary. The fact that there are no witnesses to back the key points Zimmerman is claiming make it far more difficult to show evidence that justifies lethal force.

[Recursion]

39. And a preponderance of the evidence just means "it's more likely I'm telling the truth than lying"

Which, barring a witness that disputes it, the defense can probably meet.

[Bjorn Against]

42. When he was the one who initiated the conflict

I think the only people who think it is more likely he is telling the truth than lying are racist morons.

[Recursion]

43. We don't know who initiated the conflict

We don't know who hit or grabbed whom first. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

[Bjorn Against]

44. We KNOW Zimmerman initiated the conflict

He said on the police call that he was following Trayvon because in his words "they always get away". We may not know who touched who first, but we do know who initiated the conflict.

[Recursion]

45. "Who touched who" is who initiated the conflict. Z had a right to do what he did up until the moment

he touched Martin, if that's what he did. Martin had a right to do what he did, up until the moment he touched Zimmerman.

[HooptieWagon]

47. No. He had no legal right to follow Martin.

Neighborhood Watch is watching, not pursuing and apprehending. Martin committed no crime, and had the right to walk through the neighborhood on his way home, without being followed or stopped by an armed self-appointed vigilantee.

[Recursion]

48. Yes, he did. He had every right to be on that sidewalk too, even though he's a douchebag

Douchebags also can be on public sidewalks.

[HooptieWagon]

51. Yes, but he cannot stalk...

...which is following someone in a threatening manner. We already know Martin felt threatened, because he called his gf and expressed his fears, and tried to flee. At that point, he is entitled to defend himself from an unidentified armed stalker, so whether he threw first punch or not is irrelevent.

[Recursion]

52. Interesting legal theory

I'm not aware of that being how the law works, but ok.

[Hoyt]

102. My conclusion as well. And there are lots of them, and just about everyone is a gun lover.

[TorchTheWitch]

59. doubtful

Preponderance of the evidence is the threshold for civil trials, and defense hardly finds that threshold easy to meet. The legal definition of preponderance of the evidence means that one side or the other has more evidence of the total in their favor. It has nothing to do whether one witness is believed to by mostly not lying. ALL the evidence is taken into account with one side or the other having more evidence that is favorable. All of the evidence includes much more information than witness statements.

Witness statements will probably not have all that much to do with this trial but the statements and contradictory statements by the defendant and physical evidence.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

61. Thanks.....I really have no idea which way that will go so far....

I think the autopsy report will help (sadly).

[etherealtruth]

9. From my point of view the altercation began long before the first punch

Stalking "STARTED The Altercation Between Martin and Zimmerman"

[Caroline-Vivienne]

11. I agree. But that doesn't seem to be the legal view. It seems to be the fist fight.

[joeglow3]

34. How does that work?

I thought someone was following me the other night. Turns out they weren't. Would I have been justified in kicking the shit out of him?

[Bjorn Against]

40. But that is not what happened in this case

Zimmerman WAS following Trayvon so your point about the person who was not really following is irrelevant.

[etherealtruth]

53. Of course it would need to be proven (or admitted) that the person was STALKING him

Oh wait ... that part is NOT in dispute.

It seems 911 "suggested " that they did NOT want Zimmerman to continue STALKING him!


So .... what is the relevance of your "point"?

[Bluenorthwest]

66. There is a specific defintion of stalking and it is not as you think it is. It is also not

as I think it should be.
The legal definition of stalking varies from State to State, it is better in most than it was years ago, but it is still nothing like what most people think it is. Words have meanings, in law especially. Following and stalking are not synonyms.
http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm

That link has the stalking definitions in each of the 50 States as they exist today.

[etherealtruth]

69. Of course it as a specific legal meaning

Legal definitions do not always = moral definitions.

I am speaking of what is morally right ... hopefully what is morally right will coincide with what is legally right in this case

[joeglow3]

70. Then the law does apply

Unless u think people in power should be able disregard law if they want a different answer that is moral, in their view.

[etherealtruth]

71. What in the world are you babbling about?

Clearly you want to defend the killing of an unarmed teenager by a neighborhood watch person ... a person that "targeted" him based solely on his youth and the color of his skin (you may argue that Zimmerman would have had the same reaction to a 50 year old white woman walking home from a convenience store ... you may argue that, but even the most unintelligent would see that as disingenuous)

Defend away... babble on.

There are quite a few blogs and message boards that will cheer your efforts. I won't

[joeglow3]

97. Nice change of tactic.

I am a fan of the law. When ur lack of support for law is pointed out, you resort to attacks. Nice defense mechanism there.

In short, you DO favor ignoring law if it gets u the outcome you want.

[etherealtruth]

106. This is a change of tactic

There is a thread in GD dedicated to "you" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023126347

[joeglow3]

110. Double down, huh?

I am not discussing my opinion. Rather, I am discussing the law. Apparently, you cannot separate the two. This results in you having your view (the law should be ignored to get the outcome you want) and your inability to see my differentiation of the two.

Next, you will tell me I support Westboro because I support their right to spew their hate.

[etherealtruth]

111. No, not at all

Simply hoping you would read through that thread with an open mind.


Edit to add: It is very unfortunate that you chose not to read through the thread with an open mind. after reading your posts on this subject I did not expect you to read and consider.

Please respond to this so you can have the last word and have a great afternoon!

[joeglow3]

112. I read through much of it

Not all 300+ replies. What I saw was a lot people sharing their personal views. What I did not see was a lot of people discussing the law as it is. Specifically, we are a nation built on innocent until proved guilty. I am merely pointing out the onus is on the prosecutor and not the defense. I am not ready to throw this out the window just to get one decision I want.

[HooptieWagon]

50. I agree.

Martin had the right to walk through the neighborhood on his way home without being followed or confronted by an armed wanna-be cop. The confrontation began when Zimmerman picked up his gun, got out of his car, and began stalking Martin. At that point, Martin is entitled to defend himself.

[Adsos Letter]

12. I get the impression that the defense is aiming for "reasonable doubt"

I don't think they have to prove that Treyvon started it, or that Zimmerman was only defending himself. I think they only have to demonstrate reasonable doubt about what the facts of the case show.

I could be wrong. I'm not versed in the law, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

17. So they are just trying to muddy the water....or show that the water is unfailingly muddied.

[Adsos Letter]

24. That's how I see it. I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions

I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions were correct and lawful under Florida law, only that there is reasonable doubt as to what the facts show about what took place before Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Nobody contests that Z shot TM.

The burden is on the prosecution to show that Z acted illegally when he shot TM, and I think that is dependent, according to Florida law, on what occurred between the time Z became aware of TM's presence in the housing development, and the instant the shot was actually fired.

I think all the defense has to do is to demonstrate that the known facts do not allow a reasonable person to reach a conclusion about that that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could be wrong, and this post may prove it so. You can be sure that if I am wrong someone will be along to set me straight on the matter.

EDIT: ...my ongoing struggle with execrable grammar and sentence structure continues apace...

[adric mutelovic]

67. The defense doesn't have to try to muddy the waters.

If no witness saw who punched who first, then the waters are muddied, period, without the defense having to muddy them.

[magellan]

13. Z claims TM caught him by surprise and clocked him first

...breaking his nose. It's a shame we'll never know for sure as we only have Z's word for it. He's done nothing but lie about everything so I don't find him reliable. But the jury only needs to have a reasonable doubt and he gets off.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

19. I don't think a defendant's word alone can be accepted as proof without additional evidence/backup.

Zimmerman saying Martin started it.....isn't enough to prove it....legally. (I believe)

[magellan]

21. I agree

And I'm quite sure he's lying about how things happened. The trouble is the reasonable doubt thing. His defense doesn't have to prove TM started it. It only has to give the jury reason to believe that it's possible Z was in fear for his life once the physical altercation started.

I wish it weren't so. I watched most of the trial yesterday and it depressed me no end to realize this.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

30. What?

So he can commit a crime...(punch Martin)

Get overwhelmed during the resulting fight (as Martin fights back and begins to win)

Shoot Martin....and successfully claim self-defense???

[joeglow3]

35. What other way would u have it?

The bar for burden of proof you are advocating would lead to thousands being wrongfully convicted. Everyone knows that our system will occasionally let guilty persons go, but it is better than a system that puts innocents in jail (which already happens WAY too much).

[magellan]

36. If the jury is swayed to believe he was possibly in fear for his life, yes

Why do you think the defense is harping on his wounds? They're trying to make the jury believe he was beaten bad enough that he felt he had no choice but to shoot.

It sickens me for the exact reason you laid out. And not that it matters, but I believe Z's nose injury was more likely a result of his gun's recoil.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

57. Was Z's blood on the gun?

[magellan]

76. I think it was. n/t

[WinkyDink]

25. Z hasn't claimed anything yet under oath.

[Voice for Peace]

27. I don't think the jury will buy a self-defense defense. It just isn't clean enough.

Tho they may not find guilty for 2nd degree.

Rachel's testimony as to the stalking -- despite all the
criticism of her presentation -- was powerful. She may
have come across in many ways, but not as a liar.
Her very simplicity was her strength as a witness.

At the least he may be convicted of manslaughter,
recklessly causing the death of a child because of
his very poor judgement. Unless the jury is really
dumb & heartless, biased.

[Jenoch]

84. "She may have come across in many ways, but not as a liar."

I thought it has been proven she lied about many things, starting with her age. She also lied about being in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral, shezsaid that under oath, which is perjury.

[YarnAddict]

87. I think that's going to be a problem

She lied about things she wouldn't have needed to lie about (why she didn't go to the funeral,) and she lied about things that were easily proved to be lies (like her age or that she was in the hospital.) The jurors may be thinking that if she would lie about stuff like that, she would probably lie about other things as well.

[Voice for Peace]

99. did you think she was lying about her conversation with Trayvon?

[Jenoch]

101. I didn't see that testimony.

[grasswire]

16. Zimmerman, when he got out of his car and ignored dispatcher.

Told not to follow Trayvon. Continued to do so, with a loaded weapon and bullet in the chamber.

[HiddenAgenda63]

31. This is not what Zimmerman maintains.

He says that he was attempting to return to his vehicle and make a cell phone call when he was jumped by Martin and suckered.

Right or wrong, it seems pretty obvious to me that the defense will simply use the 911 tape (where he answers "OK,&quot to attempt to attest to his compliance with the dispatcher's suggestion that "...we don't need you to do that..."

[csziggy]

68. 18 seconds after he got out of the car he agreed with the operator

On his non emergency call to Sanford PD to not follow Martin. Last year I created a timeline of Zimmerman's call. I haven't updated with additional information, but it is still useful:

The underlined times are from the police call log, the other times are accumulated time from my notes on the recorded call - and come at the end of the comment/event logged. If you add those times to the beginning time logged as the connection to the Sanford PD non emergency system, you get the actual time.

19:09:34 CALL CONNECTED

<SNIP>

02:06:65 Shit he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
02:09:47 (seat belt alarm)
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the
neighborhood. (car door slam)
02:14:18
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking (unintelligible)
02:22:36
19:11:59 SUBJ NOW RUNNING TOWARDS BACK ENTRANCE OF COMPLEX
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah (wind noises)
02:25:20
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

<SNIP>

02:38:14
(Wind noises stop some time in here)

<SNIP>

04:11:00 (recording of call ends)
19:13:41 COMPL NEW REQ LEO 1045 BEFORE 1056
19:16:00 Time approximate - call with girlfriend ends after she hears
interchange with Trayvon and unknown follower (cell company on logs calls by the minute - this call could have ended any time from 19:15:01 to 19:16:00)
19:17:00 Officer Ricardo Ayalla dispatched/arrived
19:17:11 Officer Timothy Smith arrived. As he arrived notified by dispatch
of shots fired.

At 19:11:48 Zimmerman slams his car door. The dispatcher hears that and wind noises, asks if Zimmerman is following. At 19:12:12 Zimmerman says OK when told he doesn't need to follow. A minute and forty three second later, Zimmerman's call ends at 19:13:45.

During his video taped walk through the day after the shooting, Zimmerman claims he stayed on the phone while walking across the block to look for a street number (and claims that is because the dispatcher asked him for one which was a lie) and while he was walking back Martin jumped him. The timing does NOT work.

This distance from Zimmerman's truck, across that block then back to where he claims Martin jumped him is 330, average walking speed would cover that in 75 seconds. Zimmerman would have been jumped before he got off the phone with Sanford PD and minutes before the 911 calls began and the shot was heard.

Here's what works for me for the timing:

Martin's path was the shortest route to get back to where he was staying. If he took a shortcut between townhouses to get off the main road, then walked to the mail boxes next to the club house he would have passed Zimmerman just as Zimmerman told the operator "He's coming to check me out." at 19:10:50. Martin told his friend that he was taking shelter - probably under the mailbox structure - then talked to her about the "creepy ass cracker" watching him. He told her he was going to run and their call dropped before 19:12. Zimmerman said "He's running" at 19:11:40.

The distance from the mailboxes to the sidewalk T is a little over 400 feet, the distance from the T to where Martin was staying is about the same. It would take about 90 seconds to cover each distance at a walk. Martin could have been home by 19:15 if all he had done was walk - but after their last call connected at 19:12 he told his friend he'd lost the guy and he was almost home, then said the guy was following again. There is no timeline for the friend's narrative - she did not hold a stop watch as they were talking and did not realize how deadly serious the situation was.

I think Zimmerman either walked or drove to the end of the block and Martin saw him and turned back up the path to get away from his stalker. Zimmerman then doubled back to intercept Martin at the other end of the block. If the extra distance and time (400 feet and 90 seconds) is added to when Zimmerman said Martin ran from the mailboxes, that puts the two of them back at the T at just after 19:16 - the same time Martin's last call was disconnected, right when the first 911 call about the yelling begins and the right timing for the shot to be fired and Officer Smith to be notified of a shot fired at 19:17:11.

One of the constant refrains has been "Why didn't Martin just go home?" This scenario explains it - he was trying to just go straight home, but Zimmerman was stalking him and Martin doubled back to try to avoid the "creepy ass cracker".

[MNBrewer]

18. THat's my problem with this

Zimmerman was at the very least STALKING Martin. If one person threatens another and that person fights back, how can "self-defense" even be considered?

[nyquil_man]

23. That's a blind spot in the case.

Ultimately, the jury will have to make an assumption based on the evidence surrounding that blind spot.

That's why Rachel Jeantel's testimony is so important, for diametrically opposed reasons, to both the prosecution and the defense. We have Zimmerman's side of the story; all we have of Martin's side of the story is what Jeantel can tell us.

[Voice for Peace]

28. and what the medical examiner will tell us

[nyquil_man]

54. Indeed. nt

[HiddenAgenda63]

29. How important is knowing the initiator in terms of reasonable doubt?

Doesn't Zimmerman's claim hinge just as much on his imminent fear of having his brains scattered over the sidewalk and the alleged struggle for the weapon?

Does being the initiator of the confrontation mean that one cannot use lethal force, if it later becomes warranted?

I thought that this was why the prosecution was all over the attending physician's testimony...to attempt to show that lethal force could not have been warranted by such superficial injury.

[Caroline-Vivienne]

32. I thought being the initiator eliminated self defense.

Such as....you can't attack and abuse a woman....then she pulls out a knife and stabs you....then you shoot her and later claim self-defense....(extreme example, I know)

If you pick the fight...your grounds for self defense are gone (I thought).

[HiddenAgenda63]

41. Your analogy sounds strange to me.

Then again, the whole affair seems pretty strange.

The way you have put it would seem to infer that, no matter the degree of escalation or who escalates the conflict, the initiator of the confrontation cannot claim self-defense.

It's a scary world. I'm sure that there must be a "grey area" somewhere, but I have no idea where the line could be drawn, so you may be correct.

[X_Digger]

72. Yes and no.

If you start a fight, then back out, your opponent can't keep wailing on you.

The same also applies if the force is disproportionate- if you flicked someone on the ear, they couldn't beat you into paste.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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; or
(b)?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.

[DirkGently]

37. Not the way the laws are written. Which is the problem.

Some self-defense laws may have "instigator" provisions in them, but not Florida.

Which is precisely the problem with combining generous concealed weapons permitting and "stand your ground" notions of self-defense. Or even standard self-defense, which only requires someone to reasonably feel they are in danger of great bodily harm.

As I understand it, in FL, and in many places, even if everything that occurred up until the shooting was Zimmerman's fault, including a physical confrontation, if he THEN felt his life was in danger -- and with no one left to competently testify given his opponent is dead we may never know -- he still had the "right" to use deadly force if he reasonably felt in danger.

There ought to be an "instigator" clause that limits the right to self-defense -- and especially to "stand your ground" -- where the person using deadly force caused the confrontation in the first place.

As things stand, there is little to prevent junior G-men idiots like Zimmerman from wandering the streets, armed, looking for confrontation, relying on their guns and their "right" to kill if the confrontation doesn't go their way.

So, no, it may not matter who started the fight, so long as the law ignores it.

Edit: We do have an "aggressor" provision in Florida. It may or may not apply, though.

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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; or
(b)?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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So, even if a person "initially provokes the use of force..." if the force then used against him 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" then we're back at legal self-defense.

So Zimmerman would only need to show that, even if he was the aggressor, he was THEN put in a position where he reasonably thought he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Still not ideal, from any kind of ethical perspective.

[HiddenAgenda63]

55. Thanks for the clarification.

Given the superficial nature of Zimmerman's injuries...shouldn't this make it a high enough burden of proof to disqualify him from the "self-defense" defense?

Conundrum. It's going to be up to an individual juror's interpretation of what reasonable fear of great bodily harm is...

[Caroline-Vivienne]

60. If you walk away from a fight...without stitches...or a trip to the hospital.....come on.....

How much danger were you in?

[HiddenAgenda63]

63. I understand.

Perhaps the jury will, too.

[naaman fletcher]

91. The idead behind defending yourself

Is to prevent injuries. There is no state in the country where you have to actually sustain life threatening injuries before you are allowed to defend yourself. The whole point is to avoid life threatening injuries.

I'm not defending Zim, I think he is morally liable for this whole thing, I am just not sure it is as open and shut of a legal case as most here assume it to be. In fact, I think it is likely he will be acquitted but I hope I am wrong.

[hobbit709]

64. Which one of them was the one that was looking for trouble?

That's who I'd bet on.

[on point]

65. Easy. Zimmerman when he left the car and approached Martin.

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. It is impossible to know. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply engaging in conjecture.

No one who wasn't there knows anything more than what's in the trial transcript so far.

I find all the claims people are making to be comical at best.

[Starry Messenger]

78. Zimmerman by playing amateur cop.

[backscatter712]

80. It's obvious. Zimmerman.

He instigated the altercation, stalked Martin in his car, got out of his car to physically confront Martin after the 911 dispatcher told him not to, got in a fight with Martin, then shot him.

Blood is on his hands, plain and simple. Any violence done by Martin was purely in self-defense.

[flvegan]

81. No. FS 776 doesn't raise that.

[ZombieHorde]

86. The chances of conviction are based on the jury.

Awesome lawyers persuade a jury one way or another, but I don't know if either side has an awesome lawyer. Our legal system has very little to do with justice.

[heaven05]

94. keep

up the good work. Zim will get off and you'll feel better about that unarmed black guy scaring the zimpig so bad he had to shoot him. for double, triple, quadruple emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tarheelsunc]

96. I'll admit I'm not following this as closely as some....

but didn't this all start when Zimmerman felt the need to get out of his car and blatantly ignore what the police told him to do? He saw a black kid walking, he instantly became suspicious, he took it upon himself to play cop and Trayvon ended up dead. If there's any "self-defense" here, it's Trayvon defending himself after being confronted by a wannabe cop with a plastic badge.