What Happened at the "T"?

[dragon ash]

Whether Zimmerman could have defused the situation is in my opinion a red herring advanced by Serino and the State. Florida law does not impose duty to avoid danger.  See McWhorter v State:

Interesting - does this apply to only when the 'danger situation' has started, or does it apply in the lead-up to the situation? It obviously seems a bit unrealistic to expect someone to try and have a polite conversation with the person that's busy trying to hit them over the head with a baseball bat or something. I don't think I'm explaining this very well, but what I'm asking is, does the law say that George (and possibly Martin?) had a responsibility to 'avoid' the danger by defusing the situation before it developed?

You can only speculate here when your theories and suggestions have some factual support in the discovery released by the parties.

When George reaches into his pocket (to pull out his phone to dial 911), Martin thinks "sh**, this guy that's been following me around the last few minutes in his car, then got out of his car to chase after me, is now reaching for his gun!". Decides he can't outrun a bullet but thinks he might disarm George before he draws. Rest unfolds as already discussed

Under this scenario George would (rightly) be found innocent, I think?

[RickyJim]

Whether Zimmerman could have defused the situation is in my opinion a red herring advanced by Serino and the State. Florida law does not impose duty to avoid danger.  See McWhorter v State:

Prior to 2006, there was such a duty. The old, now discarded instruction read:

If Zimmerman was punched by Martin without having provoked Martin's use of force against him, Stand Your Ground applies and he had no duty to defuse the situation. So discussing what he could have done to diffuse the situation goes nowhere unless he provoked Martin's used of force against him. And as endlessly discussed here in other threads,  to find he provoked Martin and was the aggressor, his actions would have had to contemporaneously provoke Martin's use of force. It's not enough to provoke fear unless the fear is of imminent bodily injury. Following someone and demanding they account for their presence, or asking what they are doing in a certain place, do not reasonably provoke the fear of  the imminent use of physical force. There's no evidence or suggestion that Zimmerman issued a verbal threat of force  and as I've said before, you can only speculate here when your theories and suggestions have some factual support in the discovery released by the parties.

The only evidence that Zimmerman issued a verbal threat of force is that loud arguing was heard by some witnesses and Zimmerman never mentioned it.  Of course that is rather weak evidence without somebody who heard exactly what was said.  If the prosecution is in such a hopeless situation, it is quite natural to speculate on why they keep trying so hard and risk a possible civil suit.  But knowing what is good for me, I won't.    

[unitron]

The only evidence that Zimmerman issued a verbal threat of force is that loud arguing was heard by some witnesses and Zimmerman never mentioned it.  Of course that is rather weak evidence without somebody who heard exactly what was said.  If the prosecution is in such a hopeless situation, it is quite natural to speculate on why they keep trying so hard and risk a possible civil suit.  But knowing what is good for me, I won't.   

Unless they've been sitting on some absolutely nuclear weapons grade bombshell evidence, I don't think there's any speculation involved in why, at this point,  they keep trying.

They've burned their bridges behind themselves.  After all the Zimmermans have been put through they can't just go "Ooops, our bad, never mind".

The speculation (again, barring a bombshell) would be about why they went down this road in the first place.

We can't go there, but can we give consideration to the question of what happens to whom politically if this all blows up in the face of the state?

[Lousy1]

Interesting - does this apply to only when the 'danger situation' has started, or does it apply in the lead-up to the situation? (...)
what I'm asking is, does the law say that George (and possibly Martin?) had a responsibility to 'avoid' the danger by defusing the situation before it developed?
When George reaches into his pocket (to pull out his phone to dial 911), Martin thinks "sh**, this guy that's been following me around the last few minutes in his car, then got out of his car to chase after me, is now reaching for his gun!". Decides he can't outrun a bullet but thinks he might disarm George before he draws. Rest unfolds as already discussed

Under this scenario George would (rightly) be found innocent, I think?

As I understand SYG, in your hypothetical situation, yes GZ merely has to be in fear of his life or of great bodily injury.

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she]
had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force
with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death
or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

Even if Zimmerman had a magic diffuse the the situation button he was not obligated to use it.
The perception of danger is loosely constrained

 

In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by
the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the
defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger
must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have
believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the
defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

and the hammer.(for Jurors) Its a bit tougher in a SYG hearing.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether
the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

So if your unsure of the previous two issue - maybe your not sure who started the fight, or perhaps Zimmerman should not perceive that he was in danger of  - you must acquit

[nomatter_nevermind]

W-11 to SPD, 3/2:

0:32-52:

It sounded just like - we had the TV kind of loud - but it sounded just like two or more men talking kind of loud. And so I muted the TV, to see what was going on. And at that point it kind of just sounded like scuffling around. So, that's when I kinda went to just get the phone . . .

1:07-23:

While I was calling, the scuffling kinda turned to like a, one man was yelling, kinda like a "heah, heah," not a "help" yell, but just yelling. And so, then those yells kinda turned to "help, help, help." And at that point I was already on the phone with nine one one.

7:04-16:

It sounded like it all started right on the sidewalk by our house there. And then, maybe like it bent the corner, and right there is where the scuffle started, and sort of scooted down.

During the SPD interview, Serino and Singleton seemed to be showing W-11 some kind of illustration (7:32-8:10). She indicated two possible locations for where the sounds started. It's not clear if they marked the locations.

W-11 to FDLE, 3/19:

1:36-2:05:

It was pitch black out though, but we could hear, or I could hear, kind of like someone, yelling or loud talking. Kind of sounded like two, three, maybe, a group of guys. But we couldn't really tell. So I muted the TV. And then, the talking stopped, and it was more like a scuffling, across the grass and pavement there.

2:09-21:

So, as I'm getting on the phone with 911, we kinda start hearing a yelling. But you, it's not words yet. It's more just like a 'heah, heah' kind of a yell.  And then, while I'm on the phone, it turns into 'help's.

W-11 is a very precise witness, like W-6.

She divided the time from the start of the sounds to the gunshot into four periods. First there was 'yelling or loud talking', by an uncertain number of men. Then there was 'scuffling', without vocalization. Then one man was yelling an unintelligible monosyllable that might have been 'help!' Then there were definite cries for help.

In the SPD interview, W-11 seemed to be saying the yelling started north of her home. The source of the sound moved, and 'bent the corner', before the yelling gave way to 'scuffling.'

In the FDLE interview, W-11 seemed to say the source of the sound began moving at the same time the yelling changed to scuffling.

The FDLE interview matches the reenactment, if we identify the conversation Zimmerman recalled with the 'yelling or loud talking'. Zimmerman didn't comment on the volume of the exchange, and wasn't asked about it.

The earlier SPD interview has two possible discrepancies, compared with the reenactment. It seems to put the beginning of the encounter significantly farther west, and it seems to have the encounter moving south and east before the yelling gave way to scuffling.

[willisnewton]

here is a quick summary of GZ's statements about how the fight started. 

BTW, as far as I know NOTHING happened at the T.  There's no evidence that GZ did anything but pass it once, headed east with a busted flashlight and a distracted attention from talking to the dispatcher.  On his return we don't know if he went that way or not, do we? 

first interview   26 FEB part one
 
"I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time"

"as soon as he punched me i fell backwards into the grass."

"and he punched me in the nose. At that point, I fell down…"



and thats when he slugged you

 he just hit me

WHAT DID HE SAY before that?

you got  problem homie

he said now you have a problem

Singleton: He struck you in the nose first?
GZ: Yes m'am
S: And thats what knocked you down?
GZ: Yes m'am



part two

S: where do you end up when you guys are on the ground and after all this has happened?

"he punched me in the face, and i fell backwards and i don't even know where i ended up"

you just know you are somewhere in this area?
yes m'am




Audio Recorded Interview with Investigator Serino of Sanford Police Department on February 27 (12:05 AM)
(this is where Serino tries to take him thru it all fast, seemingly intentionally so GZ can't think about the answers too much.)

GZ:and then he punched me in the face

CS: he punched, you fell?

GZ: yes sir


----------

stress test account

(partial transcript from my own notes, sorry)

and i went to go for my phone instinctively
and call 911
jacket pocket
and i reached and i was looking

and he just punched me in the nose,
and i fell backwards and to my side, and he ended up

-------
video reenactment
Zimmerman...When I got to ...I passed here, (he's looking down from the "T" I looked, I didn't see anything again and I was walking back to my truck and then when I got to right about here, (he's past the "T') he yelled from behind me to the side, he said, Yo, you got a problem, and I turned around and I said, no, I don't have a problem, man

Investigator...where was he at, about
Zimmerman...he was about there, but he was walking towards me
Investigator...So he was coming from this direction here (investigator is motioning with his arm back to front, back being the direction of Brandy's townhouse while standing a little way down on the sidewalk)
Zimmerman....Yes, sir. Like I said I was already past that so I didn't see exactly where he came from but he was about where...(tape cut out again a bit) And I said I don't have a problem and I went to go grab my cell phone but my.... I left it in a different pocket. I went...I looked down at my pant pocket and he said, you got a problem now and then he was here (motions that he was right there next to him) and he punched me in the face
Investigator...right here (investigator moves up to the sidewalk away from the "t")
Zimmerman...right up around here, to be honest I don't remember exactly
Investigator....that's fine
Zimmerman... I think... I stumbled, and I fell down he pushed me down, somehow he got on top of me
Investigator...on the grass or on the cement?
Zimmerman: It was more over towards here (Zimmerman walks down into the dog path) I was trying to push hime away from me and then he got on top of me somewhere around here (he looks around) and, ah, that's where I started screaming for help.
---------
first interview of three after re-enactment
not mentioned

second after reenactment
not mentioned specifically

third
not mentioned specifically

[JW]

here is a quick summary of GZ's statements about how the fight started. 

BTW, as far as I know NOTHING happened at the T.

Witness 11 claims to have heard the struggle begin near the "T" and move south behind her townhome.
That backs up GZ's account. Not only that but at one point witness 11 claims to have heard 3 exchanges before the scuffle. GZ claims TM spoke first, he answered him and TM spoke again before the struggle. Dee on the other hand claims to hear only two exchanges before the struggle began. TM:"Why you following me for?" GZ: "What are you doing around here?" Then the phone falls. So that is a contradiction in Dee's story.

[willisnewton]

Witness 11 claims to have heard the struggle begin near the "T" and move south behind her townhome.
That backs up GZ's account. Not only that but at one point witness 11 claims to have heard 3 exchanges before the scuffle. GZ claims TM spoke first, he answered him and TM spoke again before the struggle. Dee on the other hand claims to hear only two exchanges before the struggle began. TM:"Why you following me for?" GZ: "What are you doing around here?" Then the phone falls. So that is a contradiction in Dee's story.

That's what I mean...  NEAR the T.  The lighted keychain flashlight was found NEAR the T, south on the dogwalk path.  GZ claims TM cut across before the T and struck him on the sidewalk that is the cut thru. Then, in opposition to his many statements about falling  Nothing happened ON or AT the T. 

The difficulty is that no one saw it.  So we have GZ's version and we have the dropped objects in different places.  And GZ's accounts aren't always reliable. 

As for the exchanges, again we will never know, but the exact meaning of three exchanges is unclear to me.  Is an exchange a question and answer, or does that count as two of the three? 

GZ claims a short dialog, although he varies it a bit.  DeeDee has her recollection.  I always wonder if there isn't  a middle ground, and the dialog wasn't more like this:

TM:You got a problem?
GZ: No I don't have a problem.
TM: Why are you following me?
GZ: What are you doing here? 
TM: Why are you following me?
GZ: What are you doing here?

That, to me is "three exchanges." 

I'm curious who closed the gap.  Two persons got close enough to eventually be on the ground together, that much was witnessed.  Who closed the gap?  The objects lead in a trail towards TM's home.  GZ claims TM closed the gap.  We just don't know.  To me that leaves us with George's credibility as the best measure of what happened.  Either he tells the truth about how the fight started or he doesn't. 

Now, in a court of law the prosecution has the burden of proof to provide to a jury evidence that George is guilty.  They claim they can do it, and they claim to have witnesses to a foot chase.  We'll see.  Maybe as soon as Thursday, even. 

[Kyreth]

Except w11 describes what she meant by three exchanges, as one person saying something, then the other, then the first.  Just like George described.

[leftwig]

And just like Dee Dee described albeit with different words.

[RickyJim]

Except w11 describes what she meant by three exchanges, as one person saying something, then the other, then the first.  Just like George described.

Neither DeeDee nor Zimmerman describes the exchanges as loud or angry.  I get the impression that the witnesses heard things that happened after the original few words, after DeeDee lost the connection and Zimmerman has conveniently omitted from his accounts.

[Lousy1]

I don't recall anyone asking George  Z about any loud out crys ( except the cries for help)

[nomatter_nevermind]

Neither DeeDee nor Zimmerman describes the exchanges as loud or angry.

Dee Dee explicitly said the strange man sounded 'kinda angry.' (13:41-14:07)

[dragon ash]

Dee Dee explicitly said the strange man sounded 'kinda angry.' (13:41-14:07)

Unfortunately DeeDee's account is about as reliable as one of those wristwatches you buy from the guy at the corner of 8th Ave. and 42nd St., when the watch stops running long before the guy that sold it to you does. It's impossible to figure out how much of what she says is her and how much is the detective 'interviewing' here (and I say that as someone that is not generally on Zimmerman's side of things).

[nomatter_nevermind]

Not only that but at one point witness 11 claims to have heard 3 exchanges before the scuffle.

Serino's question was actually 'How many back and forths did you hear, as far as the yelling, could you approximate?' (2:13)

I would guess either 'three exchanges' or 'three back and forths' to more likely mean six utterances than three. But I'd rather not guess. W-11 made clear that she meant three utterances.