Random thoughts about Zimmerman tapes

[cthulu2016]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/last-minutes-trayvon-martin-911-calls/index.html

The link has the Zimmerman 9/11 call, the 9/11 call with the shot and five calls reporting the shot after the fact. Going through all of them, some "best guess" observations...

First, it is stipulated that Zimmerman did many things wrong here. It is almost impossible to defend the entirety of his actions. But in law the accumulation of all of those misdeeds cannot be boot-strapped up to murder. It is not a moral defense of Zimmerman to talk about weak points or strong points of evidence, or what the law requires. It's just legal analysis.

It seems likely that, for some reason we may never know, when Martin started running (which he was entitled to do) he did not continue running (which he was also entitled to do... he had every right to run, walk, stand or anything else.). Given the timing in Zimmerman's 911 call it seems very unlikely that Zimmerman could have caught up with Martin on foot without Martin stopping. Zimmerman should have been at least to the spot of the eventual shooting before that 911 call even ended, and it ended in noral fashion, not abruptly.

Anyway, one way or another Zimmerman and Martin end up at close quarters. Perhaps Martin stopped to ask why the fuck Zimmerman was chasing him.

I would guess (and merely guess) that it went down something like this. Zimmerman grabs Martin to detain him. (Improperly.) Martin pops Zimmerman in the nose. (Now there is some evidence so no longer entirely guessing...) They wrestle. At some point Zimmerman is on his back, and most likely does get his head banged on something hard along the way. But he eventually ends up on top, pinning Martin.

Then there is a prolonged period (30-60 seconds?) with Zimmerman on top (in his mind, probably holding Martin for the awaited police), Martin struggling (for very obvious reasons) and a lot of yelling. Oddly enough, I don't find the question of who was yelling to be definitive either way. I suspect that both voices are on the tapes at some point. It is plausible that Zimmerman was yelling for help from the nearby houses for somebody to come out and held detain Martin. It is plausible that Martin was yelling for help to rescue him from this guy who was pinning him to the ground. It is plausible that one or both were yelling things at each other.

As chilling as tapes of Martin yelling in fear are or would be, they actually don't advance the case much. A person in terrible fear of Zimmerman could still later pose a mortal threat to Zimmerman.

It appears that Martin got himself out from under and Zimmerman then shot him "at intermediate range."

Why? One possibility is that he just wanted to shoot somebody. Another is that he feared Martin would attack him, with threat of serious injury. Another possibility is that he feared Martin would escape.

When people get emotionally invested in a chase (however valid or invalid the chase) they sometimes think they can use deadly force to prevent someone from "getting away." Zimmerman had no right or authority to shoot anyone to prevent them from escaping him, so that would be a criminal shooting of some sort.

If the last word before the shot was, indeed, "stop" then it is very possible that Zimmerman yelled that particular word. I would guess that at that point Zimmerman had produced his gun and was hoping to detain Martin at gunpoint. Maybe Martin froze, maybe he advanced on Zimmerman, maybe he moved away from Zimmerman (He had every right to freedom of movement.) Zimmerman yelled Stop or something or Martin yelled stop or something and Zimmerman shot Martin, almost right on top of each other.

So, what would that all add up to?

Zimmerman had no right or authority to chase Martin. He had no right to lay hands on Martin. He had no authority to detain Martin by force. All very true.

But even given all of that, and given that Zimmerman instigated whatever it was that happened, and probably improperly, if a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have feared for his life or severe bodily injury he can shoot in self defense provided he has exhausted all other means of avoiding death/injury. This is all covered in the last section of the Florida SIG law. If you start some shit then you are essentially back under the Pre-SYG law where you have an obligation to avoid deadly force if at all possible.

And that is the significance of the prosecution saying that Zimmerman had the ability to avoid the fatal outcome. When you start some shit then subsequent lethal force can only be justified as a last resort.

There are legitimate self-defense scenarios within the known facts, and I imagine Zimmerman's lawyers will argue them. But given all the facts the prosecution probably need only prove that there were alternatives in order to negate a self-defense argument.

Even after self-defense is negated that still doesn't mean second-degree murder is assured. Manslaughter is a likelier outcome. And I will not be shocked in Zimmerman is acquitted. I may suppose or guess that Martin was trying to escape, but I would have to know *beyond a reasonable doubt* that Martin was not advancing on Zimmerman in a manner to create a reasonable fear of serious attack.

And that is why the yelling issue isn't quite as vital as it might appear. No matter what anyone was yelling, the case boils down to the very moment of the shot. It appears that Zimmerman didn't shot Martin while sitting atop him, so the whole case becomes what happened after they broke contact with each other and before the shot was fired. Probably a few seconds of time.

How can we know what happened in the seconds before the shot? Because that is what the case will get down to... what a reasonable person would have thought Martin's intentions were at that moment in time, and whether there was an avenue (at the moment) where a reasonable person could have avoided using deadly force while preserving his own life.

The only evidence about that moment will be forensic. (and perhaps Zimmerman's account if he testifies.) Where were the two people when the shot was fired. How far apart? Both standing? One standing?

(If one was on the ground and one standing then the case would be fairly easy, one way or another.)

Perhaps an eye-witness to the shooting will come forward. It is odd that so many people heard cries for help and none of them peeped through their curtains to watch the whole incident. I can understand nobody running out to help, but it's weird that nobody seems to have even been looking when the shot was fired.

For instance, one neighbor saw two men wrestling in his back yard with "the one in the white t-shirt" on top. If I saw that in my back yard I would probably keep watching for the next 30-60 seconds. But he didn't. Maybe he was going for popcorn.

Long story short... there is a lot to reasonably guess probably happened, but that kind of probability is below the reasonable doubt threshold in a criminal case. (It would be sufficient in a civil case.)

I do not know how the prosecution will seek to prove what happened at the point of the shooting. They may have compelling forensic evidence of which we are unaware.

Anyway... it's a tough case. The crime I am surest Zimmerman committed was illegal detention. (At least there's a witness to Zimmerman detaining Martin by being on top of him.) But the criminal status of the shooting itself is maddeningly ill-defined given what we know so far.

(Again, what we think is likely is insufficient as evidence in a criminal trial. The standard is something more than likely. This could be the kind of case where some jurors strongly suspect Zimmerman is guilty of something, yet still vote to acquit because their inferences do not rise to proof beyond reasonable doubt.)

The moral case is strong. Zimmerman is a bad person who fancies himself a hero and likes riding around armed looking for people to confront. His horrible behavior led to a point where he shot someone.

The legal case is different. In terms of what can you prove it may well get down to having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Martin got out from under Zimmerman he had no thought of kicking Zimmerman's ass and was merely trying to flee, as was his right. And the evidence there may be hard to come by.

If Martin was shot in the back this would be a much easier case, legally. Most likely outcome, absent some forensic bombshell of which we are unaware, some compromise sort of manslaughter verdict. IMO. Essentially that Zimmerman may have feared for his life, but not reasonably. He had a gun, after all.

[tabatha]

1. Wait for the evidence.

[333maxwell]

2. 911 revisited

I’m an audio guy, and I have taken the 911 call in question, slowed it down to about half the speed, and brought it up to perfect musical pitch.. in other words, everything is slower so you can digest it easier, but not one musical note of the audio landscape has been altered.

After I did this I limited the really loud parts so they didn’t hurt your ear, and brought up the screams in between silence so you could hear at least that much better. It doesn’t prove anything, it doesn’t mean anything, but it is about as close as you will get to hearing what is going on without actually compromising the audio by doing any forensics work on it.. once you start eliminating frequencies it all becomes suspect.. this way all has been dons is to limit the volume so it is not too loud, and to bring up the quieter parts.. think of a guy with a volume knob making it a bit easier for you. And again, at a speed much easier to digest.

Here it is..

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=11548279

Make of it what you will.. you’ll hear things better and easier…. and that still isn’t all that great… but still much better.