That isn't true. Zimmerman getting out of his truck and following Martin is a key part of this case.
When the jury is deciding if Zimmerman had alternatives to killing Martin they could reach back to his deciding to get out of his truck and confront Martin, if they decide that was his purpose based on his non-emergency call statements.
Legally Zimmerman had as much right to be there as Martin. Zimmerman was a legitimate member of the gated community and was breaking no laws.
The core issue is simple: Was Zimmerman's homicide of Martin self defense? No one is contesting Zimmerman shot Martin.
Further, the Prosecution (State) presented Zimmerman's position over and over: They played the the re-enactment, the Hannity interview, clearly had defense witnesses state Zimmerman cooperated and immediately claimed self defense, etc. As the State has presented this as Zimmerman's position, based on the legal talking heads familiar with Florida law, the State has put themselves in the position to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this was not an act of self defense.
Of course there is a big issue for the State: There are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight. So the motives and corroberating evidence need to be fairly blunt supporting the State's narrative.
But that may not even be enough. If Zimmerman started the conflict and was losing and sought retreat but could not find any he can still, as my understanding of Florida law, claim self defense.
Of course the case, based on the facts, falls apart--there is a reason there were initially no charges AND the State bypassed a Grand Jury + all the false news reporting (a kid hunted down; the edited audio making it appear racist; the selective release of very outdated pictures depicting a young child, etc).
The NEN audio doesn't present Zimmerman as a racist. It also doesn't show him being overtly hostile (just irritated "punks"). The State's presentation of Zimmerman "profiling" blew up in their face as they were not all black and it shows Zimmerman hs been in this situation before without incident. Further, it was surprising to hear the operator did not tell Zimmerman to stay, but she said she did not need him to follow. (Carrying a gun on N. Watch and getting out were dumb, but not illegal). The Defense has called witnesses that indicate Zimmerman was not a racist.
On the flip side the State's star witness testifies that Martin was casting racial slurs about the defendant. The Defense will get to deposit Martin had MJ in his system (even at the low concentration indicating little/no effect, it will support Zimmerman's NEN call that Martin appeared on drugs). The Defense won't get to deposit any of the other victim info (past violence or drug use) but the Judge allowed enough evidence to validate some of the NEN information.
And the evidence goes blank.
We don't know who started the fight.
Martin may have circled back. May not have. Zimmerman may have been looking for a sign. Or he may have followed. We. Do. Not. Know. Prosecution dropped the ball here.
The evidence picks back up with a tussle, possibly swapping of positions.
Martin had no signs of being assaulted. No witnesses explicitly state they saw Zimmerman attack Martin.
At some point the witnesses have Martin on top MMA style. Zimmerman had wound's consistant with being punched a number of times. Martin had at least some markings on his hands indicating he punched someone.
It has been generally agreed that Zimmerman was in a compromised position that made retreat difficult--the definition of self defense. It has also been clearly stated that the curb was a deadly weapon.
Importantly Zimmerman did NOT need to have life threatening injuries. He had only to have a valid FEAR of death or crippling injuries. The fact his head was against a curb and he was possibly concussed with a broken nose and had not injured Martin all point to a self defense narrative.
The State's position? They keep harping on the injuries were not life threatening and IGNORE / RETREAT from their own witnesses testimony that the curb could be such and there need not be life threatening injuries, just
fear of serious injury.
They keep moving the goal post.
Because they don't have evidence to support their position.
The rest of the evidence gets petty/circumstancial. Did Zimmerman know "Stand Your Ground"? First, this isn't a SYG case. Second is that is a media term, not the one used in text books.
Zimmerman's claim he was hit 20+ times? Anyone who has watched MMA or boxing knows slaps, feints, etc can inflict emotional reactions. Getting hit does NOT need to hav a 1-for-1 mark. The State has never presented evidence that every hit would leave an indepenant mark.
Zimmerman has obviously made some mistakes (the bail and passport thing show he can make stupid choices under duress. I was much harder on this until someone asked what I would do if the President was talking about the case, personalizing the victim as a surrogate son, but spoke not a word on communities trying to keep them safe).
Zimmerman may be guilty. He could have started the fight. He may have followed aggressively (quick feet tailing Martin). He could have brandished his gun. He may have verbally threatened. He may have grabbed Martin first.
But the State presented none of this.
Their case is it was dark, rainy, and Martin had a right to be there. Martin knew he was followed by someone "creepy". And the next thing we know Martin is in an MMA position, as forensics proves, in control. The State has never answered why if Martin was afraid why he didn't run. Why didn't he go home. Why didn't he after punching Zimmerman why didn't he run away. Why did he mount Zimmerman.
Again, Zimmerman could be as guilty as the sun rising in the East.
But: there is not beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.
If I was on the jury I would go as far as saying that there is reasonable doubt the State has failed to prove their own narrative (that Martin was acting in self defense due to Zimmerman's hostile actions). That MAY be the case but there is SIGNIFICANT DOUBT about that being the truth.
With the exception of Zimmerman's self-serving statements, there's zero evidence Martin was trying to "kill" Zimmerman. There's zero evidence that the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were caused by Martin bashing his head on the sidewalk.
Fence post moving, as usual. There never needed to be evidence Martin was trying to kill Zimmerna.
Only evidence Martin's actions provided a valid fear, from the target, that they could be potentially in a life or limb risking situation. The fact Martin was in controlin an MMA position, Martin was unharmed, and Zimmerman was bloodied and unable to retreat all support the position that Zimmerman could legitimately feel that, if he did NOT act or things did NOT change, he could be seriously injured.
The law does not require you to have been crippled, lost a limb, or dead BEFORE taking defensive actions with lethal force.
There's no evidence the first punch Martin landed was the first contact or attempted contact that took place between them.
Again, two points:
Florida law doesn't negate a person's right to self defense if they begin the conflict. If Zimmerman had spit on Martin and slapped him and Martin got him on the ground and began knifing Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have legal recourse to use lethal force to defend himself.
And there is no evidence that Zimmerman EVER hit Martin. So you can play the game, "There is no evidence Martin hit first." But the State themselves presented Zimmerman as claiming Self Defense.
The fact there is no proof Zimmerman hit Martin goes a long ways to lean the case toward Martin being the physical aggressor.
You have no proof Zimmerman started a physical altercation. None. Falling back on the, "The lack of evidence is no evidence" as *proof* Zimmerman is legally guilty of murder is twisted logic.
My point is the case still rests on the juries' decision if a reasonable person would have made the decision to shoot and didn't have any alternatives.
I don't know the answer to that.
No one knows what the jury will decide.
But the witnesses have already established the curb is a potentially lethal weapon. Zimmerman was being asailed by Martin with the curb, in some form, playing a role. And Zimmerman was pinned, with no reasonable beleif for retreat, and there was no evidence Zimmerman had hit Martin.
If this was a case where Zimmerman was not a neighborhood watch but walking his dog, with all the same evidence, this would be an open/close case. The fact Zimmerman called the police and THEN cooperated with them fully is what got Zimmerman where he is.
But he could be guilty. But the State has shown nothing more than circumstantial evidence to debunk his claim--but the State presented a ton supporting Zimmerman. A shocking amount actually.
Facebook
Twitter