Today George Zimmerman's defense put on a series of people who testified that it was the voice of their friend, George Zimmerman, who was screaming for help on the 9-11 tape. Even more specifically, police officers Singleton and Serino returned to testify how Tracy Martin (Trayvon's father) had listened to the 9-11 tape and stated that it was not Trayvon's voice on the tape.
As for the question of who was screaming for help, since it cannot be shown forensically or scientifically, it comes down to the conflicting words of the state and defense witnesses as well as other circumstantial evidence. What that means is that it cannot be proven with certainty-or beyond a reasonable doubt, if you wish- that it was Martin screaming. In fact, a preponderance of evidence now suggests it was Zimmerman.
That raises another troubling aspect about the prosecution; why is the state trying to prove something to the jury they cannot prove and which a preponderance of the evidence suggests is not true? Remember that the duty of the prosecution is not to win its case, per se, rather it is to pursue the truth.
The question now is whether they will call Tracy Martin in rebuttal to challenge the testimony of the two officers as to his statement that it was not his son's voice on the tape. (We now may assume the reason he did not testify in the state's case as to this point.) If Mr Martin is recalled, will the state try to discredit the officers' testimonies and insist that he meant something else when he said, "no"- as the prosecutor tried to imply during cross? Interesting that the state is now trying to challenge the testimony of its own police witnesses.
It will be telling if Mr Martin is not called during rebuttal. I'm not making any accusations here, but the state needs to be cautious of putting on perjured testimony. Mr Martin, with all due respect to his grief, needs to be cautious here as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I don't see why it matters who was screaming. If Martin was acting in self defense, then Zimmerman is responsible for the confrontation that resulted in death, even if at that moment he was afraid for his own safety.
If I induced Gary to join me in robbing Miggie's grocery store, and Miggie shot Gary, I'm guilty of felony murder, or similar terms for the same thing. Gary would not be dead if I hadn't gotten him to join my in committing the robbery.
In this case, nobody induced either party. But if I punch Gary in the nose, and he decks me, then swings his leg to put his foot on my chest, and I shoot him "in self defense," I'm guilty of some degree of homicide, because I started the fight -- even if I thought Gary was going to kill me.
I suspect that Martin over-reacted to the creepy guy following him, driving ahead, watching him again, following him again, driving ahead again, stopping, getting out of his truck. Martin had an honest but irrational fear of what this creepy guy was going to do with him, and felt he had to confront him first. That was overkill. But Zimmerman brought it on.
Even if at the moment he fired, it was legitimate self-defense, the fact that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation that didn't need to happen at all makes him legally liable for a death that could have been avoided. That's one reason people should think twice before pulling off Rambo vigilante tactics.
Of course the possibility remains that Martin screamed when he saw Zimmerman pull out a gun.
Post a Comment