"Stalking a minor"
As with clo, you use a form of words that implies something which doesn't really seem to reflect the evidence.
Zimmerman had been keeping an eye on (rather than stalking) a person wearing a hoodie. He thought this person was behaving suspiciously.
So (i) How could Z have an idea of his age? Martin was wearing a hoodie. Hoodies conceal features. From witness statements, I believe it was dark. I doubt Z would recognise M in a line-up, let alone know his age. Z did not know M. It doesn't sound like they had a conversation in which M revealed his age. Z was not "stalking a minor". He was observing a person he thought was acting suspiciously.
(ii) Z did know that several crimes had occurred in the neighbourhood. As a member of neighbourhood watch, it was within his remit to observe folks he thought were acting suspiciously. He observed M as neighbourhood watchers do.
(iii) The US is also said to be a free country. It is not illegal to follow a person he regarded as suspicious, although in this case both the defence and the prosecution say the encounter was a surprise. M said as much to the girl on the phone. Z has made the same claim.
(iv) The fact the encounter was a surprise to both parties tends to negate the notion of stalking. All the same, having encountered one another, Z was permitted to talk to M. Why should he not do so? It is a simple matter to explain that you are staying nearby.
(v) If Martin had not assaulted him and Z had not had a means to defend himself, would anyone claim Z had acted improperly? Of course not.
So there is nothing wrong thus far. There would be no issue if they had not met. There would be no issue if there had been no fight.
The timeline that matters is what happened once they had met and the fight began.
Neither you nor clo provide much of an argument about the fight. The fight that M was winning.
To you, Z is guilty because he encountered M. But the thing that I think counts is what happened when they met. And the evidence clearly suggests that M was beating the hell out of Z.
There is no evidence that Z intended to shoot M
prior to the fight. Indeed, he clearly shot M once the fight was in progress and he was losing.
Nor is there any hint of racism in Z's behaviour. That claim was invented by the television networks.
So no one can say that Z intended to shoot M. At worst, he was engaging the young man in conversation.
He didn't hit M. The autopsy found no bruises or signs of injury on M. The only laceration was under a ring on M's finger. This is consistent with M punching Z. That Z was punched is non-controversial. There are plenty of photos showing his wounds immediately after the incident.
So there was a fight. Z did not hit M. M hit Z repeatedly.
M appears to have chosen to punch Z during the course of the encounter. He also smashed Z's head on the ground.
It therefore appears that Z was acting in self-defence.
He had a weapon on him. He was entitled to do so. The law also entitles him to use it to defend himself against assault.
So M was committing an assault. Maybe he was used to having fights. His phone texts seem to indicate he was involved in them.
But this was an assault on a man with a gun. The man he was beating up had a gun and was permitted by law to defend himself with it.
And he did so.
Seems to me the tall, strong, teen aggressor in the fisticuffs got shot by the scared, short, fat Latino who was underneath and taking a pummelling.
Z shot the person he thought was trying to kill him. There is no reason to suppose he intended to use his weapon. There is no indication of mens rea at all. There is no reason to suppose he was anything except perfectly polite to M.
But M chose to beat him up. He didn't just punch and run. He punched, leapt on top of the prone Z and then smashed his head on the concrete path.
At which point, Z shot him. In his body. Which is where a person shoots when he is underneath the other person.
The press has chosen to mischaracterise the whole thing.
| 