Zimmerman's Word
Three issues worth noting in that context:
Beyond that, the rest of Zimmerman's statement is constantly decaying, as well.
One of the big questions is whether or not the power of self-defense is transferable. As Charles M. Blow explained to Lawrence O'Donnell:
As Zimmerman's word becomes less and less reliable, Blow's point becomes more and more important.
It is clear from the 911 tapes that George Zimmerman chose to pursue Trayvon Martin with the intention of confrontation.
Zimmerman's claims about what happened next become less reliable with each emerging piece of evidence.
The key phrase, as Pandaemoni has noted, is, "If you take Zimmerman at his word".
And Zimmerman's word does not appear to be reliable. He won't be criminally convicted, but I do wonder what implications Florida's laws have for an otherwise seemingly legitimate wrongful death dispute.
____________________
Notes:
Blow, Charles M. Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 26, 2012. Television. MSNBC.MSN.com. March 29, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46869236/ns/msnbc_tv/
Madanthonywayne said:
Exactly. I don't understand why so many people are making an issue of the "stand your ground" law. According to Zimmerman, he was pinned to the ground being beaten. Retreat was pretty much impossible at that point.
Three issues worth noting in that context:
(1) There is a telephone witness who claims Martin exchanged words with Zimmerman, asking, "Why are you chasing me?" This undermines the idea that Zimmerman was blindsided.
(2) Lately released police station security footage appears to contradict the suggestion that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose.
(3) Not only does the security footage also appear to undermine claims of Zimmerman's head injury, another problem arises: If we combine witness statements that cries for help went on for a minute with Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him from behind, broke his nose, and then started bashing his head against a concrete sidewalk, that suggests Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head for an extended period. The back of Zimmerman's head shouldn't just be cut, it should be mush.
(2) Lately released police station security footage appears to contradict the suggestion that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose.
(3) Not only does the security footage also appear to undermine claims of Zimmerman's head injury, another problem arises: If we combine witness statements that cries for help went on for a minute with Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him from behind, broke his nose, and then started bashing his head against a concrete sidewalk, that suggests Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head for an extended period. The back of Zimmerman's head shouldn't just be cut, it should be mush.
Beyond that, the rest of Zimmerman's statement is constantly decaying, as well.
One of the big questions is whether or not the power of self-defense is transferable. As Charles M. Blow explained to Lawrence O'Donnell:
I think the crucial point here is the initiation of the encounter, right? So, all these other stuff really makes no difference whatsoever. The question is—you know, the central issue is if you start a fight and you are losing it, you don't have the right to claim self defense.
If the lawyer is saying that he has witnesses and the police department is saying that they have a witness who says, not that there was a fight—I fully believe there was a fight, but that Trayvon Martin initiated that fight, that's real information that we, as the public and Trayvon's family needs to know, because that changes the dynamic. However, if George Zimmerman initiates a fight, starts to lose that fight, and then starts to claim self defense. It's a different idea. And what we have—this is more of a legal, analytical point. Can the concept of self defense switch parties?
For instance, I start a fight with you. You are winning. I, in the middle of getting my behind whupped, I started to say, oh, Lawrence is hitting me so hard that I now feel like that my life is in danger. Can the concept of self defense switch parties from me to you? And the other thing is, could Trayvon also have been covered under the concept of the "Stand Your Ground" law. If a stranger follows you, who you can identify is armed and the police department has said that he's wearing his gun in a holster on his waist, a stranger with a gun follows me, gets within arm distance of me, do I then under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, have the right to meet force with force? And that's a crucial part of this, as well.
If the lawyer is saying that he has witnesses and the police department is saying that they have a witness who says, not that there was a fight—I fully believe there was a fight, but that Trayvon Martin initiated that fight, that's real information that we, as the public and Trayvon's family needs to know, because that changes the dynamic. However, if George Zimmerman initiates a fight, starts to lose that fight, and then starts to claim self defense. It's a different idea. And what we have—this is more of a legal, analytical point. Can the concept of self defense switch parties?
For instance, I start a fight with you. You are winning. I, in the middle of getting my behind whupped, I started to say, oh, Lawrence is hitting me so hard that I now feel like that my life is in danger. Can the concept of self defense switch parties from me to you? And the other thing is, could Trayvon also have been covered under the concept of the "Stand Your Ground" law. If a stranger follows you, who you can identify is armed and the police department has said that he's wearing his gun in a holster on his waist, a stranger with a gun follows me, gets within arm distance of me, do I then under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, have the right to meet force with force? And that's a crucial part of this, as well.
As Zimmerman's word becomes less and less reliable, Blow's point becomes more and more important.
It is clear from the 911 tapes that George Zimmerman chose to pursue Trayvon Martin with the intention of confrontation.
Zimmerman's claims about what happened next become less reliable with each emerging piece of evidence.
The key phrase, as Pandaemoni has noted, is, "If you take Zimmerman at his word".
And Zimmerman's word does not appear to be reliable. He won't be criminally convicted, but I do wonder what implications Florida's laws have for an otherwise seemingly legitimate wrongful death dispute.
____________________
Notes:
Blow, Charles M. Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 26, 2012. Television. MSNBC.MSN.com. March 29, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46869236/ns/msnbc_tv/