Looking at the undisputed facts in the Zimmerman case and applying Zimmerman's original story [View all]

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Last edited Mon May 21, 2012, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

So much has been made about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case and there's been a lot of speculation, and a lot of "We really don't know what happened." But despite all those questions, there are some key facts that are not in dispute:

1. The night of the shooting, Trayvon Martin was unarmed, was walking home from a convenience store, and was an authorized guest at his father's fiancee's house at the Twin Lakes townhouse complex.
2. George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin walking, called police dispatch and told them that Trayvon "looked like he was up to no good".
3. Zimmerman was told that police were on the way.
4. When Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he was armed.
5. George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, resulting in his death.
6. The shooting occurred roughly 300 feet from Trayvon's father's fiancee's house.

Those are not facts that can be twisted either way; those are clear, undisputed facts, take them or leave them.

Now let's weigh those undisputed facts with accounts of what Zimmerman's original statement to police were. While original statements are not always accurate as to details (such as matters of identification), you have to keep in mind that the original statements still offer the best glance as to what Zimmerman's story would be (whether true or false). There would be little or no time to make up certain things to conform to known facts because in all likelihood, Zimmerman didn't know all the facts himself when he told his original story. So this is the one that the jury should really pay attention to when the matter comes to trial. And according to what I've read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martin-started-confrontation-zimmerman-lawyer-says/2012/03/26/gIQAIlr0cS_story.html), Zimmerman's original story can be summarized:

1. He exited his vehicle.
2. Trayvon saw him and took off running.
3. Zimmerman followed him in pursuit but lost track of him.
4. After losing Trayvon, Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.
5. Trayvon then surprised him from behind, asked him, "You have a problem with me?" and then punched him.
6. In the resulting scuffle, Zimmerman feared for his life and shot Trayvon dead.

Now, let's look at this story in the vein of the known facts. We know that Trayvon was doing nothing wrong that night; he was walking home from the store to the house where he was staying. He had every right to be walking through the Twin Lakes complex that night.

Then looking at what Zimmerman said, let's assume that Zimmerman indeed exited his vehicle and started chasing Trayvon. From Trayvon's perspective, you are a kid who hasn't done anything wrong and a strange man is chasing you. You run. It makes perfect sense. So far so good...but....

But here's where Zimmerman's story breaks apart. Zimmerman apparently loses sight of Trayvon. He then retreats back to his car (mind you, knowing that police have already been summoned even before he left his vehicle). He then claims that Trayvon, for all intents and purposes, ambushes him. He surprises him from behind, there is a two line exchange and then Trayvon begins to wail on him.

Now, look at the map I provided and put yourself in Trayvon's shoes for a minute. You've done nothing wrong, just minding your business, but you've found yourself being chased by a stranger for reasons unknown to you. You've managed to lose your pursuer. You are 300 feet from home. Do you:

a) Continue running back home, get home in about 30 seconds, and then tell your dad something to the effect of, "Holy shit, some stranger started chasing me out there when I was coming home!" (And if I'm his dad, I call the police because there could be a predator on the prowl for all we know).

Or, do you:

b) Notwithstanding the fact you've been chased for unknown reasons by a strange man who may or may not be armed, you decide to hide out, sneak up on the strange man who had just been chasing you, surprise him, ask him if he has a problem and then start to wail away on him, again not knowing how strong this man is or whether or not he is armed (which tragically, he was....)

Option B makes absolutely no sense to me. Zero. None. It defies all logic and human nature. Someone so close to safety is not going to want to pick a fight. I don't care if you are 17 or 50, there are some things that make sense and some things that don't. And Option B makes no sense.

Yet that is what Zimmerman wanted the police to believe and will want a jury to believe.

I dont' know if it was murder or manslaughter that night. I don't know who threw the first punch. But I do know that nothing about Zimmerman's story makes sense. People do not go ambushing and attacking strangers in normal circumstances, especially if the stranger is someone who was chasing them for no apparent reason. At that stage in the game, flight beats fight easily. And if the prosecution here is worth its salt, they better raise these same issues.

(On edit, it appears there may be some dispute as to when exactly Zimmerman exited his car and when he was told by dispatch not to follow Trayvon, so I removed those facts from "undisputed"....but I don't think that changes the situation overall in the least.)