April 20, 2012

"In an unusual move during the more than 2-hour bail hearing, Mr. Zimmerman... briefly took the stand and offered an apology to the victim’s parents..."

"... who were in the courtroom."
“I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son,” Mr. Zimmerman, 28, said, speaking publicly for the first time about the Feb. 26 shooting. “I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not.”...

According to their lawyer, Benjamin Crump, Mr. Martin’s family was “completely devastated” by the judge’s decision that Mr. Zimmerman could be freed on such a low bail [$150,000]. He also described Mr. Zimmerman’s apology from the stand as “self-serving” and said he considered it a ploy to help win his release from jail.

233 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 233 of 233
Penny said...

;)

leslyn said...

Lem, this question will come to you by psychic osmosis: How come among the perfect humans only.the woman is sexy? Very disappointing.

I can tell you why she left. He dances badly. He eats with his mouth open. And he says the same things over, and over...

Either one of those last two would do it for me.

Carnifex said...

@leslyn

Actually, if someone broke into your house, or better yet, just walked in while you were home, they could just unplug you tv, stereo, laptop, whatever, even take your .357, if they didn't threaten you in any way, especially if your state doesn't have a "castle law". Lots of liberal judges don't like people defending property with deadly force. So the Ted Bundy hypothetical, if Bundy was unarmed, and you were, and you shoot him, you are the criminal.

Obviously, this is beyond a silly point. While personally I disagree with corporal punishment, done in self defense is totally legitimate. And to debate whether Bundy is a threat to you is also a no brainer(to me at least).

What is also obvious, is that an eye witness claimed Martin was atop Zimmerman, Zimmerman has wounds consistent with his story, the evidence of his clothes matches his story, and Martin was over 6' in hgt. while Zimmerman is under 6'(5"-7" diff, IIRC). Martin also has a criminal record.(you lawyer types don't like past behavior unless it aids your case, us mortals use it a lot more often)

The whole case though boils down to 1 fact. Who started the fight. Not the confrontation, you can confront someone and walk away. So far, no one has claimed to have eye witnessed the start of the fight. And unless someone does, it's a he said/she said situation with only one side giving a narrative. Without further mitigating evidence, or an eye witness, there is enough reasonable doubt to allow Zimmerman to go free.

Whether we get an Anti-OJ verdict remains to be seen.

Unknown said...

Thanks for writing in such an encouraging post. I had a glimpse of it and couldn’t stop reading till I finished. I have already bookmarked you.
Get Facebook Fans
Get YouTube Likes
How To Get Twitter Followers
Youtube Views
YouTube Views
Buy Youtube Views

Roger J. said...

lots of folks commenting on here about questions of Florida law--I would be curious to know how many are actual lawyers who have practiced in Florida

Brian Brown said...

leslyn said...


Of course it is. It's an admission that Z shot M (using deadly force) against a person that he had no reason to give us that M was armed with deadly force


You are incoherent here.

"Deadly force" has nothing to do with self defense under the law or any of the FL statutes in question.

Carry on.

Big Mike said...

Martin decided he had been "dissed." Zimmerman made the mistake of turning his back to return to his car. Martin jumped him and tried to kill him, but Zimmerman was armed and defended himself.

The police were right in the first place. Self defense.

Hagar said...

This happened almost two months ago. Now ABC finds that picture of the bloody back of Zimmerman's head?
WTF???
Ehere has this picture been all this time?

Hagar said...

Where?

leslyn said...

@Carnifex:

In reverse order--you're right, we don't have any real evidence yet; no forensic, no cross-examination; we have a lot of speculation.

I could still kill Ted Bundy because, in the hypothetical, I know who he is and what he does, and he's in the bedroom, being all charming, which is his MO. He's not stealing the TV. Also, knowing that it's Bundy, I know he's not a shooter. I don't have to see a gun. If I have the opportunity I will tell him to stop (also in the hypothetical).

I will not argue the Castle Doctrine here. But a disturbing thought accompanies it: the penalty for trespass or burglary is not summary execution.. Of the two cases I've read about, one was a burglar leaving through a window (he didn't die) and the other was a trespasser who was hiding in a porch because the police were raiding an underage drinking party nearby. It is undisputed that when the homeowner entered the porch, the trespasser came out from hiding with his open hands raised. He's dead.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce Haydon, I have tremendous respect for your comments here at Althouse, but you need to notice that sometimes the courthouse steps are being torn down to make room for the dusty trail.

Penny - I apologize for being a bit snarky last night. But, we need to live with the law as it is here, and not how some activists think it should be. Besides, as I think I indicated above, the law is the way it is because that is what a majority of the people want.

Proportional Response is nice in theory. And, it may work at the international level. But, it is impractical at the individual level in the heat of a fight, and the like. It just makes it too complicated, and, therefore not certain enough.

Oh, and, despite all the "progressive" press, Martin was not killed in "cold blood". If he had been, the shot would not have been from point blank range, and Zimmerman would not have had the broken nose and head lacerations. Both sides admit that a physical fight ensued, just not who started it, and whether and the extent Martin was beating Zimmerman before the later shot him, purportedly in self-defense. That is not "cold blooded", which requires pre-meditation, and would have been charged as 1st Degree, not 2nd Degree Murder. Indeed, that is one way of looking at the two - that 1st degree is cold blooded, and 2nd degree is hot blooded.

leslyn said...

@jay,

You seemed to understand what I said.

Whether or not M was using deadly force, or Z reasonably believed he was, is relevant because Z used deadly force and M is dead.

Bruce Hayden said...

lots of folks commenting on here about questions of Florida law--I would be curious to know how many are actual lawyers who have practiced in Florida

Not sure of your point there. If the issue is practicing Florida law without a license, then I suspect that a lot of the legal analysts on TV are more guilty of this than would anyone here be.

I will admit up front not being licensed to practice law in Florida. And, yes, I am one of the culprits here for citing and quoting the Florida statutes. And, maybe it would be better to discuss the case in a reality free manner, like I think some have done here - unconstrained by either law or fact.

Hagar said...

And Zimmerman did not "apologize to Martin's parents. He expressed sympathy for their loss, which is a very different thing.

The MSM is still spinning this whenever they can, and you need to watch their use of the language.

Hagar said...

"It is undisputed that when the homeowner entered the porch, the trespasser came out from hiding with his open hands raised."

Not so. The homeowners contention (and i think there was another witness?) is that he came out with one hand raised, and the homeowner thought the intruder was about to hit him (with something?"

As I said above, you need to watch the language and not let statements like this go undisputed.

leslyn said...

Bruce Hayden said,

"Both sides admit that a physical fight ensued, just not who started it."

Wait. What? How did that happen?

leslyn said...

@Hangar,

You're right, in the Morrison case,

According to the DA’s report Bo “raised a hand towards the homeowner and took a step towards the homeowner”. The gunman “already had his firearm straight out in front of him with his arm extended and aimed at the individual”. When Bo took a step, the gunman fired a single shot.

I apologize for relying on my memory and not consulting the facts. There was no witness to the shooting, and nowhere could I find that the homeowner thought Morrison was going to hit him with something. If I am wrong about that please direct me.

leslyn said...

@Hagar,

(Sorry for the autospeller misspelling your name before.)

If Z reasonably believes that he was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm when he shot M, then he doesn't need to say "I'm sorry I shot him." Why would he? The apology thing is a red herring.

Hagar said...

I quite agree Zimmerman should not have said he was sorry, since that word is also used in the other context. However, the context of Zimmerman's statement was/is that he is sorry for the parents that their son got killed and perhaps regret that he was the cause of it. It was an expression of regret and sympathy, not an apology.

You are twisting words again.

Hagar said...

As you just did above in using the term "gunman" for the homeowner.

Pedantically correct, since he indeed was the "man with the gun," but intentionally misleading on your part.

Kirk Parker said...

"the other was a trespasser who was hiding in a porch because the police were raiding an underage drinking party nearby. It is undisputed that when the homeowner entered the porch, the trespasser came out from hiding with his open hands raised. He's dead."

Careful, les, lest you get consigned to Garage territory for posting twisted accounts like this.

Phil 314 said...

While heated at times, this thread ended nicely.

leslyn said...

@Bruce Hayden:

Appreciated the explanation of cold blood v. hot blood and how that steps down from 1st degree murder.

leslyn said...

@Hagar:

?? I was agreeing with you about the apology.

As to the use of "gunman, it wasn't my word, it was quoted in the DA's report. I use the word "homeowner." I think that's a neutral choice.

And just in case you thought otherwise, I accept the DA's conclusion that in the Morrison case, it was self-defense. The DA knows far more about the details of the case than I do. The DA decides not to charge, so it's over. That's the facts.

It seems to me you are expecting me to say something else.

Hagar said...

The NYT in the article linked to, and even the Professor used that verbiage in the link, and MSNBC, etc. stlll go on about the "apology," and it is annoying, and, of course, unfair and damaging to Mr. Zimmerman.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Mr Hayden--I have always enjoyed your posts, both here and on Volokh, and I didnt mean to impugn you in any way. Clearly this is an opinion blog unconstrained by standards of legal proof as required by courts of law. That discussion is interesting in that it might give some insights into what a jury might think, prior to the time the judge instructs them on the law. It was interesting to read how people interpret what "facts" are present.

Whatever the case, I wanted to apologize if I gave offense--it was unintended, and specifically so in regards to your commentary.

DCS said...

Seven Machos: the 10% premium is paid to the bail bondsman and is not returned to the prisoner. If he jumps bail, the bailbondsman faces loss of the entire amount. See: "Dog the Bountyhunter" for details. An individual can put up collateral like a house (assuming he has equity) and not need the bail bondsman.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

How he got his injuries is still a question to be determined at law.

True. His story, however, has remained consistent the entire time while the Martin case's claims has fallen apart.

Regardless, Z was not beaten "rather badly." Not to the extent of using deadly force when he could offer nothing to say that M had deadly force.

Notice the bleeding in the back of his head? It was a rather bad beating. His job was to defend himself.

You would have to show that the owner of that fist was trained to be capable to use it as deadly force--like a professional boxer, or a highly trained martial artist, AND that the used it with sufficient force to cause death or serious bodily injury--the kind that puts a person in the hospital with a least serious, if not critical injuries. Neither condition was present here.

So, if a rapist doesn't have a gun or knife or in-depth martial arts knowledge --- a woman has to try and fight him off with her fists?

You REALLY want to argue that?

Apples and oranges. As someone above said, "it depends on how it is used." There's your fight. An iron, a clock, a dog leash, a belt (I'm just looking around the room) can all be used as a deadly weapon--so can a fist--but they are not inherently themselves deadly weapons (except the fist by the definition I gave). Nor is their use inherently deadly force.

So if a dude is threatening you with a baseball bat or a knife --- you can't do anything since it is not "inherently deadly force"?

Do you recognize how silly this is?

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Les: You would have to show that the owner of that fist was trained to be capable to use it as deadly force--like a professional boxer, or a highly trained martial artist, AND that the used it with sufficient force to cause death or serious bodily injury--the kind that puts a person in the hospital with a least serious, if not critical injuries. Neither condition was present here.

Sorry, I was out town or I could have stopped this nonsense back on page 1.

Florida law allows for use of deadly force in self-defense if you are in reasonable fear for your life OR grevious bodily harm.

Last week, I posted several examples of people with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) from having their head slammed into concrete. Of those cases I referenced, the victims that *survived* are unable to walk, read, speak, see, or wipe their own ass.

Les continues to ignore these examples with her utterly ridiculous statement that there was not sufficient force used that would result in serious bodily injury...

So I ask Les - does being placed in a permanent vegitative state count as "grevious bodily harm" to you? Or are you just an idiot?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 233 of 233   Newer› Newest»