George Zimmerman Now Free, Trayvon Martin Still Dead
The jury likely got it right. That doesn't mean George Zimmerman didn't kill Trayvon Martin or that Martin deserved to die.
While I followed the events following George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin quite closely, I paid scant attention to the trial itself. Partly, I was traveling quite a bit and wrapped up with work and family matters. Partly, because I hate the creepy, voyeuristic way these things are covered. But I had gathered that the prosecution handled a weak case poorly and that an acquittal should surprise no one; thus, I was not surprised.
Stopping in at The Atlantic this morning to find an article that I stumbled on yesterday and meant to blog about, I came across a characteristically thoughtful post from Ta-Nahesi Coates (“On The Killing Of Trayvon Martin By George Zimmerman“):
2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him he “you’re going to die tonight” strikes me as very implausible. It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and Zimmerman then shot him. But I didn’t see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I’m not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.4.) I think Andrew Cohen is right–trials don’t work as strict “moral surrogates.” Everything that is immoral is not illegal–nor should it be. I want to live in a society that presumes innocence. I want to live in that society even when I feel that a person should be punished.
The piece I had been looking for was Philip Bump‘s Friday essay “The Zimmerman Jury Can Judge His Fate Much Better Than You.”
Your assessment is not less important than that of the jurors, but it is less informed. No matter how much of the trial you watched on CNN, those jurors almost certainly saw more of the evidence than you did. They held documents in their hands. They saw what the witnesses—and Zimmerman—were doing while not on camera. They were excluded from hearing evidence that the judge deemed inappropriate or inadmissible. They have been instructed on the specific components of the law. And, most important, they are the only ones who know what arguments are being used to persuade each other to reach a unanimous decision.
[…]
Jurors must evaluate the evidence. While both sides present opening and closing arguments, the central component of a criminal trial is the evidence. And in our system, that evidence is introduced through witnesses. If the prosecution has computer analysis that shows important information, it must call a computer analyst to the stand to explain how it was developed. Every physical thing is linked to a human representative.
What this means is that the person and the evidence are inextricably linked. Jurors are asked to evaluate the witness as placeholders for the evidence. Not only in the case of eyewitness testimony—is the witness squirming in his seat? Does he seem believable?—but in expert testimony, too. Credentials are considered, but so is the presentation. Did that doctor seem uncertain in answering his question? Did she qualify her analysis? When the camera in the courtroom shows the lawyer asking the question and not the witness answering it, you’re missing part of the evidence.
Physical evidence also offer details not conveyed over the television. Tiny details—textures, discolorations, notes—can all be elements that play into the decision-making process jurors use. Those details may not be conveyed, even in high-definition.
Then, of course, there is the response of the man on trial. What is George Zimmerman doing while the evidence is being presented? How is he reacting? Zimmerman is frequently shown during CNN’s boradcast, but not always. His demeanor is something the jurors must consider.
[…]
Jurors only see evidence that’s admissible. Criminal trials are not about guilt. They are about whether or not someone broke a law. This is a very important distinction.
[…]
Courtroom observers—and non-sequestered people following press coverage—know things that a judge might consider unduly prejudicial if presented to a juror. As a person watching from the outside, you are more than welcome to judge the defendant based on that evidence. But if the judge excludes it from consideration by the jury, there’s a reason, based in the law.
Now, of course, juries sometimes get it wrong. Many innocent men have been found guilty and many people who plainly did what they were accused of doing are acquitted. In this particular case, there’s no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, a teenage boy who did not deserve to have his life ended. But that wasn’t what the jurors were being asked to decide. Rather, they were charged with deciding whether Zimmerman committed second degree murder as defined by Florida statute. And, as contemptible as George Zimmerman is and as outrageous as Trayvon Martin’s death is, it strikes me as pretty obvious that he did not, regardless of what one believes about what happened after the events we hear on tape end.
Regardless, I also agree with the thrust of Bump‘s post-trial analysis, “A Verdict but No Answer to Why Trayvon Martin Is Dead.”
The loss of Trayvon Martin’s life, everyone should and must agree, was horrible. But nearly as big a loss would be to consider the issues of racism and access to firearms and use of force now closed, resolved. They aren’t. They remain painful gashes in America’s complex and history-laden system of jurisprudence that the Trayvon Martin killing only broadened.
And they deserve immediate attention and contemplation and study. Perhaps with the verdict in, and, in a few hours or days, some cooling off of the frustration and elation felt by those hoping for one verdict or the other, perhaps then we can return to these issues. It’s probable that the Martin killing forced these issues into the public conversation with an energy that prevented our considering them rationally and even-handedly. Once that furious energy dissipates, it is even a better time to figure out why Trayvon Martin is dead.
It is important for America to figure out if Trayvon Martin is dead because he was black and because he was young. It is important for America to figure out if we should outsource our safety to armed civilians. We should pour resources into resolving those questions once the spotlight has passed — examine the rates of homicide in communities of color and in Florida and the efficacy of “stand your ground.” We should, of course, go further, looking at how and when and why America makes tacit and explicit distinctions between one group and another, or why some feel as though carrying a gun is important and vital and other find it frightening.
I don’t know for sure what happened when George Zimmerman ultimately confronted Trayvon Martin face-to-face. I do know that the outcome was tragic and that the confrontation should never have happened. That doesn’t make Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder; indeed, I’m pretty sure he isn’t. But I’m quite certain that untrained wannabe cops ought not be patrolling their neighborhoods late at night armed with guns and looking for trouble.
Well, now I can just link to this post rather than try to write my own summary. Very well said!
Zimmerman clearly went out of his way to have this confrontation. How he didn’t get manslaughter is beyond me. i’ll be waiting to hear the jurys explaination on this….
I think they didn’t convict of manslaughter because that wasn’t the case the process union was seeking to prove. I think 2nd degree murder was always an over charge and the over reach by the prosecution made manslaughter an after thought (and in the trial it was-it wasn’t a case the prosecution provided evidence for and was an option added during the jury instructions-and during deliberations the jury asked for clarification on).
Also, the fact that Zimmerman was injured (broken nose and injury to the back of the head) made self defense pretty easy to put in the head of the jurors. Our system demands proof beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution failed to do that here.
@Hello World!: I guess you did not follow this trial at all .because there was another witness and that eye witness told the jury that they saw the thug martin on top of Zimmerman pounding him martial arts style and if that is not a good enough reason to shoot the thug ,I don’t know what is . and where did you get that martin was not violent. that is proven , suspendened from school for fighting and several other witnesses to martin fighting other people. who ever wrote this , waste of time article . was wating their time. the thug martin is dead because he attacked an armed person. and this only went to trial because of political motivation. they knew they had no chance of a guilty but want to show all americans that GUNS BE BAD, and even if you are right to use yours they will make trouble for you.
So, when will we see a court action against the willful violation of Zimmerman’s civil rights, I wonder?
@Eric Florack: Right after the OJ-style civil suit in which Zimmerman loses everything
@Hello World!: Zimmerman clearly went out of his way to have this confrontation.
Martin made it home, then went back to confront Zimmerman.
Well, look, lets remember that Civil rights are a constitutional issue… and the constitution is a limit not on individuals, but on the government.
@Tony W:
And what was the duty of Zimmerman had to martin and how was that duty breeched. OJ was acquitted on the claim that the police (the state) had made errors in the investigation and were racist toward Simpson’s rights. However, in the
Simpson civil trial, the jury could not use the errors of the police against the estates of Nicole Simposon and Ron Goldman.
In the Zimmerman prosecution, the acquittal was based on not proving their case. No one is claiming that the police made severe errors. When it comes to the civil case, the only argument is that the preponderance of the evidence shows that zimmerman cause the death of martin due to negligence or breech of duty. How is that going to work out. Zimmerman’s attorney will get the text messages in and will get much more of Martin’s background in.
It is not a slam dunk that Zimmerman will lose unless the jury is majority black.
This is in Russia everyone has a video camera going all the time…to protect them from just such a travesty.
This is also why I left FLA twenty years ago.
The world is less safe today.
Always refreshing to hear from OTB resident bigot.
Spot on, James.
Or maybe you mean a citizen concerned about his neighbors who while driving to the store sees someone acting suspiciously after the neighborhood had suffered a spate of burglaries, calls the non-emergency police number. Gets out of his truck to see where the person ran to, slows or stops when the operator discourages him following and is then assaulted by the individual. But even as he’s being beaten, tries screaming for help for 40 seconds (an eternity in an imminent danger situation) before resorting to using his firearm.
So you are against people being involved in the community? One shouldn’t look for “trouble” when neighbors have been forced to hide in fear in their own home due to home invaders?
What about the Cambridge neighbor who called the cops in the Gates affair? Had they minded their own business, the police would not have been called, Gates would not have been upset and Obama would not have acted stupidly.
Your overarching premise seems to be that free citizens should not have a sense of community, should not band together for their common defense and should depend solely upon the State for their security, assuming they are in good standing with the State. Oh, and pension obligations haven’t forced the reduction of the number of State employees available to arrive minutes or hours after the fact.
A dose of reality….
The NAACP is already going after Zimmerman for civil rights violations, they say.
The Daily caller has noted the NAACP sprang into action along those lines…
Now, there is no secret about the idea that the NAACP and Holder have been in bed together forever. And the NAACP claims credit for the thing getting to trial in the first place. Martin was Obama’s son, after all. That said, though, remember that Civil Rights issues are at the root, CONSTITUTIONAL issues, and the Constitution is a limit on the government, not the people. Granted, this is a point leftists tend to ignore, or at least try to dance around. But bringing such a case against Zimmerman would get laughed out of even a Holder-ordered show trial. That would, if noting else, further damage the credibility of the left, and so if any common sense ruled their actions such a case will never be brought.
But the desperation is palpable. Consider… since when is the NAACP, much less the left in general, a bunch of Right-to-Lifers? I mean, remember, this is the group that has for decades, now, supported genocide by abortion. Hardly a sign of a respect for life.
And would they be quite so concerned about the protection of that right, were Martin to have killed Zimmerman, which he nearly did?
I don’t think so, either.
Now, keep in mind, this was an important case to Obama, and despite bending the rules to nail Zimmerman on something, they failed miserably. Mark Steyn points out:
Reality rears its head eventually. At least, to most of us.
The question now, is what becomes of Zimmerman? We see in the case of the Texas Abortion law how the left acts when legal things don’t go their way. And yes, we have seen riots already in reaction to this jury’s ruling. Having been found guilty by the leftist hacks running the news media, and by the NAACP, and the rest of the leftists operating outside the real world, the prospect for a normal life for Zimmerman seems dim at best regardless of legal actions. We are already seeing death threats against Zimmerman.
And who will pay the consequences for that?
I anticipate silence from the left on that one.Particularly those in here.
@JKB: I believe policing ought to be left to professionals, not amateur wannabes. I don’t have any problem with a traditional neighborhood watch program, where concerned citizens keep an eye out for trouble and phone in the authorities for help. But trigger happy fraidy-cats going around with guns looking for trouble is a recipe for people getting killed.
Fixed that for you.
Excellent write-up. Unfortunately, I agree with the analyses.
This case, along with the 20-year sentence given to the Florida woman for firing warning shots form a depressing tableau. I have a hunch that Shelby County will provide more disillusionment.
James… since Martin, by the trials testimony, camelooking for Zimmerman, how does your comment apply, here?
THere seems a disconnect somewhere.
@Eric Florack:
Yes, Mr Florack, truly, Zimmerman is the victim here.
Sadly, you represent the modern Republican Party in intellect and empathy.
Funny how many pro-lifers are happy Zimmerman got away with killing an un-armed kid.
The hypocrisy is awe-inspiring.
@Woody: Tell us, how many times did Martin have to pound Zimmermans head into the pavement before he would have been morally able to react in your view? Remember, now, he went home and then came back to confront Zimmerman.
I await your answer.
@C. Clavin:
You may want to turn on your television and listen to all of the black commentators on MSNBC. Everyone of them is quite open that any black juror would have found Zimmerman guilty. Of course, one of the things working in Zimmerman’s favor is how few blacks show up for jury duty when called.
@Just Me: Agree with that. Most experts said from the start that a 2nd. degree charge was way over the line and no jury would go for it. The facts and evidence did not support it. At most was a possible charge of impersonating a police officer, but even that would have been shaky.
@James Joyner:
But how do you reconcile the idea that making multiple calls to 911 is also racist. For too many on the left, anything short of “No Snitchin” is defacto racist. Why push the idea that one should not care about your neighbor, your neighborhood, or your community. Why accept that the idea that starting a fight is a better idea than calling 911.
@Eric Florack: Just as Republicans disregard any history that happened before 1/20/09, you also disregard the original person who went looking for someone. Zimmerman got out of his car and by his own admission on the 911 tape, followed Martin. If you want to talk about someone “come looking” for someone else, try starting right at the beginning, not just where it suits your narrative.
Superduper…
If you actually believe that you are not a bigot…then you are more delusional than I thought.
I wonder if Zimmerman would act the same way without his unregulated gun? My guess is that without that penile replacement he would have stood down when instructed to do do. Guns turn friary cats into big men. Only they still aren’t big men. They’re friary cats with a lethal weapon.
Most definitely. The only people who should have guns are the cops who are constantly in the news for kicking in innocent people’s front doors with no-knock raids and killing people’s poodles and dachsunds because they’re not “fraidy cats”.
A community organized to protect itself from violent home invasions. It’s one thing to say don’t go walking down a dark alley if you feel that you have to arm yourself. It’s another thing if your neighborhood has become that dark alley.
The prejudice against Zimmerman from both the media and the lynch mob has been something to behold. Guilty until proven racistly guilty was the prescription from the onset and no amount of facts ever swayed that irrational hatred of man who they first convicted of being white.
As is often the case, two flawed people with flawed behaviors met up on a dark night and had an unfortunate outcome of which they were both partially responsible for making worse. It’s most of you and the media who turned this “local crime story”, unlike the Kermit Gosnell one, a national 24-hour a day tragedy where more innocent people are likely to get killed as a result of misinformation and intentional fanning of racial flames.
The jury made the right call. We live in a country that presumes innocence. There were no eyewitnesses to tell us what really transpired that night and we will likely never know.
That doesn’t make George Zimmerman a hero. He was wrong to pursue Martin and provoke a confrontation (assuming his own version of the story is correct) that resulted in him having to shoot Martin, even if his life really was in danger. For me, this whole case just illustrates the problems with a gun culture that glorifies “self-defense”, putting the power of life and death in flawed, untrained, possibly racially biased men like Zimmerman and determining guilt for shootings based on some subjective assessment of “danger”.
If Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, he most likely never would have gotten out of the car, and this whole event may never have happened.
What is this about Martin going home first?
@Hello World!: “How he didn’t get manslaughter is beyond me.”
The jury instructions informed the jury that self-defense was a lesser included offense to second degree murder. The jury instructions also directed the jury to consider the second degree murder charge first (though the defense tried to argue that the jury could shorten matters by focusing on self-defense alone).
The jury would not have been following the law if it found Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder by reason of self-defense, and found him guilty of manslaughter. That’s not to say that juries always understand the law or ignore it when compelled by an emotional appeal.
@C. Clavin:
What is amazing is that progressives can stand in front of the Supreme Court and argue for separae and unequal treatment of Americans and believe they are not racist. Progressives can go on television and excuse every dysfunction in the black community and believe they are not racist. Progressives can to on televison to insult and generate blue collar whites and believe they are not racist.
What is being shown in the Zimmerman trial is that most progressives take their political positions because it believes it gives them status. What is worrisom is what happens in the future when the U.S. is a one party state and those in change are just interest in politically correct status seeking.
Yes superpooper…. White bigots like you are the real victims.
@Just Me:
This trial was not about race; GZ was railroaded by the prosecution that knuckled under the race baiters and of course the MSM went outraging after a big “racist” headline like paparazzi on crack..
Well where is the outrages for this almost unbelievable stats: In the 513 days of the GZ trial 11,106 blacks have been killed by blacks?
Wanna-be- terrorist-Arafat. Al Sharpton, and his NAACP and SPLC deep-pockets-ambulance chasing lawyers seen the dollars signs of racist law suits. Martin’s mommy has already started a law suit against the Homeowners Association for 75,000 and is applying for money from the victims advocate funds.
You too James. When was that photo taken of TM when he graduated from grade school? Why don’t you show his real photos, his mug shot and hand/finger jestures that are so popular today/
http://origin.tampabays10.com/TrayvonMartin/article/318064/0/Defense-releases-photos-texts-of-Trayvon-Martin?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge
@Andy: There is evidence that Martin headed home, and then headed back to the T intersection where Zimmerman was. Here are some maps that illustrate. Primarily this is the testimony of the girl on the phone with Martin prior to his death, also from neighbors testifying about somebody moving that direction before the fight sounds.
At least one theory is that Martin thought Zimmerman was a pervert and when he lost sight of Zimmerman (as he allegedly said on the phone), he was concerned about leading the pervert back to the house where a younger brother waited. Martin then moved northward to confront the pervert.
Thanks PD
Progressives have been pushing a meme for some time that conservatives intentionaly lie. Yet, while watching the media coverage and liberal blogs on the Zimmerman verdict, it is amazing how many of progressive commentators keep getting easily verifiable things wrong.
1. It has been claimed that Zimmerman was not arrest the day of the incident yet, MSNBC has a video of Zimmerman being lead into the police station in handcuffs. If being put in the back of a police car in handcuffs in not arrested then what is. Or are they mixing up being arrested and being charged? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/46887730#46887730
This also shows that black activist like Joy-Ann Reid on MSNBC claiming that Zimmerman was not in hand-cuffed is also wrong. What is odd is that they video still shows that MSNBC was wrong when they claim that there was no blood on the back of Zimmerman’s head.
The Balloon-Juice blog keeps repeating that the jury is all white when even the prosecutors desribed the jury as 5 whites and 1 Hispanic. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-seated-after-judge-rejects-state-serial-striking-of-white-women/
I also watched Toure get his pants whanked down in public when he claimed that Zimmerman could afford expensive lawyers due to his legal defense fund and then was quickly corrected in that Mark O’Mara was working pro bono.
If the media has such a casual attitude toward fact checking, why would we believe anything they say. It seems like that for too many progressive commentators, they are not about to let the facts get in the way of their opinions.
Civil suit incoming, in 5 … 4 … 3 …
@guy: “the thug”. You convicted him before you knew the evidence. If you followed the trial so closely than you should know all the flaws in your post. I was suspended from school once for fighting, which has nothing to do with any unrelated event in my life.
@AnnS:
Large Black Guy = Thug, guilty of any given crime.
@Jenos Idanian: He did not “go home”, he was steps away from making it to his fathers home, but I guess your narrative makes you feel better
Maybe someone should do a post about all of the calls to put more blacks on juries that have been coming from every left of center commentator on the news channels. Of course, to serve on a jury one has to have a government issued picture ID and we have been told for over a year that blacks cannot possibly comply with the requirements to get a picture ID.
@Eric Florack: “… the constitution is a limit not on individuals, but on the government.”
In your dreams.
@Donald Sensing:
Ok, I did link here as I said, but added a few comments.
Also, the Miami Herald’s roundup seems very well done: “State never proved its case, legal analysts say.”
Blacks were jumping for joy when OJ Simpson got off free, now we are looking shocked to know Zimmerman is off free. We should all understand that every dog has his day. With both cases, we dont know what truly went down. The only people are the ones who got away, the ones who are dead, and God. It’s best that African American’s do not act violently towards what has happened. We are already looked at as a race who are failures, violent, and ignorant. Lets not stroke the fire of a war on racism because truth is, that is what they really want, whoever they are. Now is a time for prayer for protection of our young children and ourselves
I have moved past my frustration with the result. I think the result was baked in the cake by the Florida laws. Andrew Cohen nails it:
@DahliaTye: Why are people bringing up OJ? There is not a single similarity I can think of, other than race. OJ got off because of LAPD, which is sad but this case is not related in a single way.
@Hello World!:
Sure that there is. Both were large Black Men! That´s why people keeping saying that people should see the “real” photos of Trayvon Martin or some s* like that.
@stonetools:
I’m not sure Cohen has a legitimate gripe there. Florida law does provide for sweeping criminal and civil immunity, but the defendant has to positively assert that immunity to the satisfaction of a judge in order to receive it, and the burden of proving the sufficiency of the assertion falls on the defense.
Zimmerman, for reasons passing understanding, chose not to assert immunity, and as as such his case proceeded to trial, where he raised a common-law defense of self-defense. While successful, the two scenarios (Florida statutory self-defense and common-law self-defense) are worlds apart from one another. Florida’s sweeping gun statutes aren’t rightfully implicated IN THIS CASE because Zimmerman chose not to avail himself of them.
It was honestly a massively stupid move on his part, because had he done so and succeeded, he’d have been immune from civil action. Since he didn’t, he isn’t immune from civil action, and I suspect that lawsuit will be showing up quite soon.
And it will be a doozie …
It’s worth quoting more from Ta-Nehisi Coates:
Jordan Davis was shot by a white man angry at the victim for playing loud music. Guess that will be next right wing hero.
@Hello World!:
The similarity will come later. OJ was found not guilty on a criminal basis. but was found responsible on a civil basis.
Zimmerman’s situation is highly likely to follow that same sequence of events.
I fully agree with James’ analysis.
As for the recurring arguments that Martin came back from his house, beat Zimmerman up, etc.: Who cares? It’s totally irrelevant. Zimmerman stalked somebody and killed that somebody when he took exception to the stalking. I agree with the verdict but Zimmerman was still in the wrong. Martin didn’t necessarily make great choices either.
@stonetools:
While I tend not to like making generalizations, I’ll venture into one here. From what I’ve seen anyway, the Zimmerman proponents largely tend to fall into two groups:
1) racists (of varying degree), and;
2) gun nuts who are more emotionally invested in protecting Florida’s SYG laws than they are remotely concerned with Zimmerman himself.
Neither group interests me much.
@HarvardLaw92:
I’ve taken a look at Florida homicide laws. They really do seem to tilt things in favor of self-defense in subtle but telling ways-for example, requiring that the state disprove self defense beyond reasonable doubt when the defense asserts self defense. In other states, Zimmerman would have had to prove self defense.
I think Zimmerman didn’t assert SYG because the evidence is pretty clear that he followed Martin, contrary to the assertions made by commenters here. You aren’t “standing in ground” if you are following someone.
Good post and summary.
Not guilty does not mean innocent or morally correct. The state could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman started a series of events that resulted in the death of a teenager walking home with candy. He probably regrets his actions; if only for being subjected to trial and derision. He does not deserve a good conduct medal. Mr. Martin may not have been an angel but did not deserve to die for walking to a store to get a couple items. We probably will never know what happened exactly. It often is best to walk away from confrontations.
@stonetools:
So Zimmerman is not suppose to care about crime in his neighborhood, there are not suppose to be neighborhood watches, people are not suppose to call 911 and non-blacks are suppose to do what the police tell them.
What is amazing is the No-snitchin, “F the Police” crowd want very tough laws on others. But given the current separate and unequal culure of the U.S., I guess it makes sense.
@Eric Florack:
Oh please, Zimmerman lied about the severity of the cuts that he received. The medical evidence presented showed the Zimmerman greatly exaggerated Basically, Martin was defending himself from a guy carrying a gun who was stalking him – Martin was defending himself.
@Hello World!:
The OJ trial is relevant because it shows not hypocritical blacks are being today. After cheering the acquittal of an obviously guilty OJ, blacks are mad that a jury applied a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to a non-black man.
If blacks want to be taken seriously when it comes to criminal justice, they have to move beyond the no-snitchin, F the Police, never convict a black man ieals that they are pushing today.
An innocent child is dead because Americans like to swagger around carrying guns.
Had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun there would have been no killing. Had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun there would likely not have been a confrontation at all. Had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun the state of Florida would have been spared the cost of this trial.
This all happened — all of it — because George Zimmerman was carrying a gun.
As HarvardLaw says above, there are two groups fist-pumping and high-fiving over this: hardcore racists like some of our commenters above, and mentally unhinged gun nuts.
But if you subtract the gun, none of this happens. It’s the guns, stupid. It’s the guns.
@stonetools:
No. The burden falls on the defendant in a Florida SYG assertion, not the state. The defendant is asserting that he/she qualifies for the immunity defined by a section of state law, and it is up to him/her to demonstrate that he/she satisfies the conditions laid out in the statute to qualify for that immunity.
It also isn’t a matter of reasonable doubt. SYG assertions kick off an evidentiary hearing, in which the judge makes a ruling (yea or nay) based on the preponderance of the evidence before him/her. If he/she says yay, the criminal process stops dead in its tracks, with prejudice, and the defendant goes home. If he/she says nay, or if the defendant fails to assert immunity under SYG, then the trial proceeds as normal.
It was still a massively stupid move. The worst possible outcome of an SYG motion is that the defendant is subjected to the same trial that he/she would have been subjected to anyway. When you have the choice between possible immunity from criminal AND civil action, and rolling the dice at trial with a common-law self defense claim, only an idiot (or an attorney seeking self-publicity, IMO) would choose the second option.
@TheoNott:
This. This is really kind of a perfect storm. Florida’s liberal CCW laws allows pretty much anyone with a pulse and no criminal record to legally carry a gun, and its SYG laws at least indirectly encourage them to go looking for trouble, confident that the law will back them up if things get out of hand and they shoot somebody. As indeed it did in this case.
Expect more Zimmermans, in Florida and elsewhere.
And before the usual horse sh!t responses about the 2d Amendment and the faux-tough “You’ll pry my gun from my cold dead limp dick,” assertions start up, let me make this clear:
I don’t want to take your guns. I don’t want to pass a law against your guns. I want you to grow up, man up, and realize that owning a gun is an inherently anti-social act. I don’t want to take your guns, I want you to voluntarily walk away from your guns.
@stonetools:
Michael Dunn, the white male accused of killing Jordan Davis are drunk, did not have a conceal-carry permit, did not call 911, and fled the scene. I also suspect that Mr. Dunn did not have any wounds on his body. To equate Mr. Dunn to Mr. Zimmerman is ridiculous but makes sense it the point is to push an agenda.
@stonetools:
With this I will agree. We’ve seen several cases where drug dealers have successfully used SYG to avoid prosecution for killing other drug dealers. The statute as written is a disaster, and the product of the fantasies of the “masturbates to photos of guns” looney tunes.
Zimmerman was lucky he had an “OJ Jury.”
@michael reynolds: The only gun that I have is an old WWI
bolt action army rifle that my father found on a trip to one of his old army bases out side of Washington, in some storage building and they let him have the old thing, that being years ago.
It does not have a pin. It is either out in the garage or in a closet, I am not sure. So, when I go somewhere I walk away from my gun.
Someday I hope to get an authentic flintlock. These type of guns require no permit and are for collecting only. They pose no danger unless the barrell should happen to be stopped up or you drop it on your foot.
@ James
Good post, sums things up well.
The character of the Zimmemann fanboys in the room says a lot.
Just letting those supposed “critical thinking” skill atrophy I see. Or is it willful ignorance.
Just how have you arrived at this “trigger happy fraidy-cats” determination? Or the “going around with guns looking for trouble”?
The facts in evidence are that Zimmerman was going to the store when he noticed a suspicious person in his neighborhood and call the police non-emergency number to report it as the police had requested residents do after a spate of robberies. While speaking with the police operator, Zimmerman left his vehicle to see where the suspicious person when when they left the area visible from the road. After the police operator advised they didn’t need him to do that, he slowed or stopped as evidenced by the reduction in his breathing and started discussing where and when to meet the police when they arrived to check out this non-emergency report. Now, based on Zimmerman’s account and it isn’t refuted by any physical evidence, the suspicious person appeared suddenly, verbally challenged him, then physically assaulted him.
Now, so far, Zimmerman has done nothing “trigger happy” or “fraidy-cat” but has acted as a reasonable person might although perhaps imprudently since entering a dark area where a suspicious person was last scene does create an opportunity for said person to surprise and possibly attack.
So, Zimmerman being beaten by said suspicious person who is astride him preventing any means of escape and, imprudently bashing his head into concrete, comes to the reasonable belief that if said bashing isn’t stopped he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Having screamed for help for nearly a minute, he then uses his lawfully carried firearm to force the suspicious 6′ person to stop his attack. Unfortunately, Martin’s wound proves fatal and the suspicious person turned out to be 17-yr old with the physical attributes of healthy capable adult. There is the claim that Martin went for the holstered weapon, an act would support a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury but the trial facts neither confirmed or disproved this claim.
So where is the “trigger happy fraidy-cat” in all that? Where is the looking for trouble?
This was a tragic chain of events. If one really needs to assign blame, then the decision that sent everything wrong was Martin’s decision to physically attack Zimmerman. But that was probably driven more by the media and entertainment industries promotion of violence than any ill or criminal intent.
@anjin-san: The fact that there are Zimmerman fanboys says even more. What an awful person to revere.
@Hello World!:
Because the prosecution never made that argument. Their theory of the case was that he got out of the car with the intent to kill Martin from the get go. You should be blaming the prosecutor for overcharging and then trying to save face at the end of the trial by asking for a manslaughter charge that they’d never laid the groundwork.
A bit weak on your understanding of the law there, aren’t you. SYG never came into this matter other than in the colloquial name of pre-trial hearing. Zimmerman could not invoke SYG because when he was under imminent threat, he was being physically prevented from leaving the area, safely or not.
But you seem to have that firm grasp of the law your fellow Harvard Law alum in the White House has, or at least, you choose not to show it even as you brag of your alumni status.
@superdestroyer:
Well, thanks to the work Law and Order types such as yourself have done gutting the fourth amendment, that probably wasn’t an arrest.
It was probably only a “detention”.
When I was a teenager (and a high school football player) I was almost exactly Martin’s height/weight. In other words, I was a skinny kid. There is no way that translates into “the physical attributes of healthy capable adult.” A few years later I was much bigger, tougher, and stronger – in other words, a grown man.
I get the feeling that the Zimmermann cheerleaders have little to no real world experience with confrontations, fights, and violence. They all come across the same way – scared men who are rather excited by what Zimmermann did.
There is no doubt in my mind that the prosecution screwed the pooch.
@Stormy Dragon:
For most people being detained or being arrested are the same. What the racial-grievance industry means is that Zimmerman was not charged until much later. Remember, the fist law enforcement people involved concluded (correctly) that there was not enough evidence to support pressing charges.
What is amazing is all of the people on the left who talk about how great Twelve Angry Men or To Kill A Mocking Bird are, are willing to want to convict Zimmerman because his innocence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the pictures showed that Zimmerman has been bloody but Martin had not (except for the gun shot wound), reasonable doubt had to be assumed.
What is amazing is all of the racial-grievance industry types who claim that Zimmerman was violating Martin’s civil rights due to profiling when there is not law prohibiting private citizens from profiling. However, I suspect that since the U.S. is headed to being a one party state that the Obama Administration will become vindictive and go after Zimmerman on Civil Rights criminal charges just to make a point. The left will feel the need to sustain the two minute hate against Zimmerman.
@superdestroyer</a Actually Zimmerman could also have a civil.rights violation complaint against the state. Plenty of proof that they threw this case together in response to people hollaring and sensationalism on the part of news media. Maybe he should get Mr. Holder and the Department of "Justice" to take his case up, since he is a minority person.
@James Joyner: Please repeat your idiotic racist posts from last year where you claim ‘you knew’ Zimmerman had his gun drawn. I know it’s a sad day for lefty lunatic haters because Zimmerman wasn’t railroaded.
@bandit:
Speaking of idiotic racism – Trayvon Martin is dead for the crime of being Black.
@beth:
The same people who claim Trayvon Martin would be alive if George Zimmerman did not follow him (not illegal) are the same who believed the Duke Lacrosse players deserved to be accused of rape because they hired strippers.
@beth: Actually, thats not true.
@al-Ameda:UNTRUE.
@beth: so the people who testified the man should have gone to the hospital, also lied? Comin… thats more than a small stretch.
@ Eric Florack
Out from under your rock, eh? Well, maybe you can top your famously stupid “wecome to hope and change” comment.
@Eric Florack: From the 911 call transcript:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
@JKB:
LOL, what??
You mean, as opposed to an armchair like yourself?
@Paul L.:
Actually, the same people who believe that Travon Marin would be alive if Zimmerman did not follow Martin are correct. They are also the same people who believe that Martin would bealive if Zimmerman had instead decided to go to a Duke LaCrosse match or a strip club.
@ AnnS
I looked at the photos you linked to. No doubt about it, Martin was black.
@Just Me: “Prediction: the Zimmerman verdict will lead to amendments to penal codes across the country to make it easier for prosecutors to win convictions, causing even more blacks to be incarcerated.”
… which will be called racist
For those of you who may be unfamiliar with Eric Florack, you can to to his blog and do a search for “ni**er” – it will give you some insight into the character of this charming person.
Doing a google search for “Eric Florack bits blog ni**er” does the trick as well.
@Eric Florack: @guy: Guy FTW.
@JKB: Now now, there’s no reason to let the facts get in the way of the MSNBC sanctioned narrative.
@al-Ameda: Keep lying – he’s dead because he assaulted and armed citizen, keep your racist hatology out of it.
Mr. Joyner, would you care to update this prior article of yours?
Then, when asked about the “with his gun drawn,” you responded:
One thing we can be certain of. Zimmermann’s gun-fueled false courage and the tragic chain of events that followed in it’s wake are an inspiration to scared little men everywhere.
I would like to take a poll of the parents in the room – how many of you would be comfortable with a George Zimmermann driving around your neighborhood with a gun, eyeballing your kids?
This classic movie scene came to mind last night after I heard the verdict.
@anjin-san: You could ask Zimmerman’s neighbor, Olivia Bertalan. She testified on his behalf, and she was pretty cool with having him around, looking out for her and other neighbors.
And just what fueled Martin’s decision in getting all the way home safe, then going back to confront the “creepy-ass cracker?”
@superdestroyer:
Yes, but if but then police would have to obey the fourth amendment all the time. So our courts have created all sorts of gradations of arrest that aren’t really arrest, so they have an excuse for violating your rights.
I came across a characteristically
thoughtful“this is my bubble and I’ll stay here, thank you,” post from Ta-Nahesi Coates.Fixed that for you.
Coates never in his whole essay answered the question of what principle in law he wants to discard or slight, to get to where he evidently wants to be; where everyone who defends themselves must be tried for a crime of some sort, evidence be damned. There never has been any evidence or testimony, except that from the Martin camp and that generated after the fact, which so much as hints at this being anything more complicated than that Martin attacked Zimmerman, a violent felony–and that Martin was shot dead in the commission of that felony. And the reason, I suspect, so many of the state’s witnesses sounded like defense witnesses, is that with the memory of Nifong in their heads, none of the prosecutors were willing to coach their witnesses into any untruths which might be discovered–especially since their withholding evidence illegally had already been whistleblown to the judge and media.
So lacking as they always had, any evidence whatsoever of Zimmerman’s guilt, of the verdict is not guilty.
And to the fools whining about how the verdict on Zimmerman implies guilt on Martin’s part, “yeah, how ’bout them apples?” [/New Joisy accent]
If Martin didn’t want to be thought of that way in history, he only had to keep on going home, which is the only conclusion the timeline of the phone calls supports.
@tom perkins:
How could there be? The only other witness to the events in question (Martin) is dead. The really odd part is that, under Florida law as written, Martin would equally have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself. In fact, MORE SO, given that Zimmerman was armed and Martin wasn’t. Zimmerman represented more of a threat to Martin than vice versa.
You guys seem to be scope locked on wanting to believe the version of events supplied by whichever participant in this sad event best dovetails with your own biases and prejudices. Hell, you’re actively pushing theories of the crime that support your own preconceived notions of how it all happened, despite there only being one witness (Zimmerman) who knows what happened.
And he has every incentive in the world to lie. You, however, want to believe him, so you suspend disbelief.
How lucky for him that Florida has this nifty “shoot first, then dream up a lie to cover your ass” statute …
@HarvardLaw92: Now I understand the old saw: “You can always tell a Harvard man; you just can’t tell him much.” There’s so much stupid in what you say, it can only come from an Ivy Leaguer. Your average fool simply can’t get that much wrong.
The really odd part is that, under Florida law as written, Martin would equally have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself. In fact, MORE SO, given that Zimmerman was armed and Martin wasn’t. Zimmerman represented more of a threat to Martin than vice versa.
That is only apparent through hindsight. Martin didn’t know Zimmerman was armed, and Zimmerman didn’t know if Martin was armed. Ages aside, one was an athlete and one was a pudgy, dumpy guy.
You guys seem to be scope locked on wanting to believe the version of events supplied by whichever participant in this sad event best dovetails with your own biases and prejudices. Hell, you’re actively pushing theories of the crime that support your own preconceived notions of how it all happened, despite there only being one witness (Zimmerman) who knows what happened.
Actually, I’m basing it on evidence. The prosecution’s star witness testified that Martin made it all the way to the back yard of the house where was staying, and was angry at the “creepy-ass cracker” who’d been following him from a distance. Then, Martin returned to confront the “creepy-ass cracker” about 100 yards back from the house.
Also, there were no indications that there was much of a fight, in the sense of both men getting violent. Apart from the gunshot, Martin suffered no injuries besides to his knuckles. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had bloody injuries to the front and back of his head — and none to his knuckles. No, not conclusive, but again highly indicative that Martin did all the punching, and Martin was doing all the bleeding.
But all that doesn’t matter to you, does it?
How lucky for him that Florida has this nifty “shoot first, then dream up a lie to cover your ass” statute …
Yeah, Zimmerman dreamed up a lie that was consistent with an eyewitness, Martin’s cell phone conversations, and all the physical evidence, and managed to keep it all straight through numerous interviews with police, without a lawyer present…
@HarvardLaw92:
“How could there be? The only other witness to the events in question (Martin) is dead. ”
There were in fact numerous eye and ear witnesses who could have supported the state, either by lying or by telling the truth. What they testified to, however, solely and exclusively supported George Zimmerman’s account–or said nothing at all of relevance against it. The timeline which supported the notion that all Martin had to do was to be safe was go home, where he had to lie in wait or double back to in any way encounter him, this is all that the 911 call and the time his girlfriend spent on the phone can support.
“The really odd part is that, under Florida law as written, Martin would equally have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself.”
Only if Zimmerman had attacked him first. There is no evidence of that here.
” In fact, MORE SO, given that Zimmerman was armed and Martin wasn’t. Zimmerman represented more of a threat to Martin than vice versa. ”
That’s only true in the minds of people with a pathological fear of armed persons. There is no evidence whatsoever Zimmerman intended to harm Martin in any way right up until the point he was responding to Martin’s attack.
“You guys seem…biases and prejudices.”
Also the only account which dovetails with every known fact, with not one thing controverting it. The unsupported, inexplicable, vile faith in this affair is that on the part of Team Martin.
“Hell, you’re actively …knows what happened.”
You’re pointlessly repeating yourself. Repetition isn’t evidence. Come up with a timeline with respect to the phone calls which makes more sense than the one given by George Zimmerman. The case for Martin’s guilt and Zimmerman’s innocence is airtight, and it is not based solely on Zimmerman’s testimony, but on the testimony of numerous persons and their recollections are reinforced in their accuracy by the digital recording of phone calls and the digitally recorded times they began and ended.
“And he has…you suspend disbelief. ”
With Martin having begun the whole thing by living the life he chose to lead, which by the evidence in the doubly password protected digital vault of his own phone, his school records, and the recreational pharmaceuticals in his blood was a life of flowering, violent criminality, who here is suspending disbelief? Where is any evidence George Zimmerman lied in any way? Name a single fact which controverts him! Just one. Ought to be easy for you.
“How lucky for him that Florida has this nifty “shoot first, then dream up a lie to cover your ass” statute … ”
No such thing exists. It should be true in fact, is true in Fla. law, and was sadly not true for George Zimmerman, that there should be some evidence of a crime before you are held in arrest much less charged with murder.
What the law says is, if there is no evidence against you, you should be let free. That’s the way it should be for everyone. This is a just protection to the manifestly, incontrovertibly innocent not to abused by police process.
@Jenos Idanian:
“Actually, I’m basing it on evidence. The prosecution’s star witness testified that Martin made it all the way to the back yard of the house where was staying, and was angry at the “creepy-ass cracker” who’d been following him from a distance. Then, Martin returned to confront the “creepy-ass cracker” about 100 yards back from the house.
Also, there were no indications that there was much of a fight, in the sense of both men getting violent. Apart from the gunshot, Martin suffered no injuries besides to his knuckles. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had bloody injuries to the front and back of his head — and none to his knuckles. No, not conclusive, but again highly indicative that Martin did all the punching, and Martin was doing all the bleeding.
But all that doesn’t matter to you, does it?”
I must amplify it doesn’t mean anything to them at all. Team Martin is animated by a baseless belief in Zimmerman’s guilt. No fact or testimony to the contrary means anything to them.
Let’s see, like most teenage boys, he had been in a fight or two. Apparently there was some interest in guns – according to the right, an interest in guns is more or less the patriotic duty of all Americans – not seeing problem there. Like countless millions of Americans, he had smoked some dope. Hmm, not seeing a big problem there either. Add it up and it equals “fairly average teenager”, one that was on a run to the store for candy, no less.
Until you add black to the equation. Then he becomes a thug, a menace, a criminal, and someone who probably deserved to die.
@Jenos Idanian:
LOL, you have been peeing your pants for weeks wanting to bloviate about this case, haven’t you?
Which is honestly irrelevant. Zimmerman initiated the course of events. He initiated pursuit of Martin, not the other way around. Had Zimmerman simply called the police and left it at that, all of this could have been avoided. Had Zimmerman simply left the gun at home, all of this could have been avoided. What prevented him from simply taking a cell phone picture of Martin and later giving that to the police? In fact, there are several points where Zimmerman could have defused the entire situation – by backing off – and he chose not to do so.
Again, meaningless. Zimmerman agitated Martin, who had every reason in the world to believe that Zimmerman potentially meant to do him harm. Hell, he basically followed the kid home.
Truthfully, no, it doesn’t. Zimmerman pursued Martin, and therefore directly caused the consequences of that decision to pursue. Frankly, if it’s dark, and late at night, and you’re following me, I’m going to be worried too, and I’m probably going to prepare to have to defend myself against you, especially if you follow me home. Zimmerman was the initiator in this sad sequence of events, which rightfully should have blown any self-defense claim out of the water. You can’t, or shouldn’t, be able to claim self-defense against actions which are the consequence of events which you precipitate. What’s to stop someone from starting an argument, blowing the other person away and then claiming self-defense?
And before you answer, it has already happened in Florida post the passage of SYG. More than once.
As I said above, the real fun from Zimmerman’s perspective is yet to come. He’ll almost certainly be facing a wrongful death suit, and he’s likely to lose that one. Freedom is meaningless if you’re destitute.
And regardless of any outcome, Zimmerman’s life as he knew it before is realistically over. His punishment, if we’re honest about it, will likely never end. There will never be a place or time where he won’t have this hanging around his neck.
And that’s just fine with me. Actions have consequences, and not all of them are legalities.
@tom perkins:
Oh no, sunshine, all you have to do to satisfy SYG in Florida is reasonably believe that you are in danger. There doesn’t have to be actual EVIDENCE that you are in danger.
Hence the problem with these statutes – they hinge on the subjective belief of somebody who has every incentive in the world to lie.
I mean, let’s face it, is anybody going to stand up in an evidentiary hearing under SYG and stipulate that they did NOT believe themselves to be in danger? The statute takes them at their word on that assertion.
I’d say that you are motivated by an emotional belief in the justification of Zimmerman’s actions. I just disagree. There is no place for vigilante justice in this country.
You are holding Zimmerman blameless with regard to a sequence of events that he set in motion. I just do not, and will not, buy into that.
I don’t believe that the case met the burden for 2nd degree murder, and should never have been prosecuted on that basis, but to assert that Zimmerman is completely without any culpability at all and deserved to walk free is, frankly, horseshit. Manslaughter would have been a appropriate charge.
Zimmermann may find, as Dan White did, that karma can be a real bitch. Of course in White’s day, we did not have people like Sean Hannity standing by to lionize killers. Time will tell.
@anjin-san:
Justice is sometimes only poetic, but it’s justice nonetheless. I know folks in SF who still throw a party every year on Oct. 21st.
I’m just waiting to hear all the caterwauling from the usual suspects on here when/if a wrongful death award comes in against Zimmerman (which is looking pretty good in my opinion).
@ HarvardLaw92
Mayor Moscone was a good man & an old bud of my dads. Harvey Milk – also a good man and a respected leader in the bay area and beyond.
If there is a hell, Dan White certainly has a place there.
@tom perkins:
In other words:
“Well, if she hadn’t acted like a slut, she wouldn’t have gotten raped.”
You can leave your counterfeited dispassionate observer card at the door on your way out.
@anjin-san:
Agreed.
@anjin-san:
“Let’s see, like most teenage boys, he had been in a fight or two.”
He’d bragged about KO’ing people, punching them without warning, and about beating a bus driver–clearly he’d attacked adults without provocation before.
“Apparently there was some interest in guns – according to the right, an interest in guns is more or less the patriotic duty of all Americans – not seeing problem there.”
He was trying himslef to acquire more of them, which he would have to have done illegally, given his age. That with his bragging about violence is not a small distinction.
“Like countless millions of Americans, he had smoked some dope.”
Which with his fighting and possession of stolen property, shows him to be quite the industrious little scofflaw.
“Hmm, not seeing a big problem there either. Add it up and it equals “fairly average teenager”, one that was on a run to the store for candy, no less.”
The average teenager doesn’t deck someone for asking them what they are doing. ‘Cause every teenager goes out looking for fights like Trayvon Martin had in the past.
“Until you add black to the equation. Then he becomes a thug, a menace, a criminal, and someone who probably deserved to die. ”
Not calling the police and continuing on home, but instead doubling back to attack Zimmerman–which is all that fits the known timeline and is consistent with the State’s own star witness testimony–his judgement then shows, and his known past reinforces, that he was a violent thug. Anyone who dies in the act of committing a violent felony can expect to be shot dead as a result of their crime. It is a just outcome of such criminality.
Did Martin have a right to be out there? Of course, not even George Zimmerman would or has said otherwise. He had no right to attack Zimmerman.
@Tom Perkins:
Give it up, Tom. You’ve made it pretty clear that you’d already convicted Martin of being a “thug” – which apparently in your universe renders him guilty and disposable on sight – long before last night.
You aren’t defending Zimmerman. You are defending your dislike of Martin.
You aren’t making a legal judgment. You are layering your values onto the situation in order to produce the outcome that your evident racism has determined to be the correct one.
$100 says you are from the South. Am I correct?
@ Tom Perkins
Black people scare you, and you happily believe every smear thrown Martin’s way. We get it.
@HarvardLaw92: And you’ve made it abundantly clear that you will not let yourself acknowledge any facts that might support Zimmerman’s self-defense argument.
And now you’re racially and ethnically profiling Mr. Perkins. Gotta keep those stereotypes up, huh? Otherwise you might have to actually think, and not just brag about your alma mater and expect everyone to genuflect at your association with it.
@anjin-san: When all else fails, scream “RAAAAACIST!!!!” and hope no one notices how you’re scrupulously avoiding any actual facts in the case.
Do you have any other plays in your playbook, or what?
@Jenos Idanian:
Absolutely correct. When you instigate a situation, and then act in ways that exacerbate the situation and lead to a confrontation, you don’t get to claim self-defense. What you are essentially saying is:
“I’m allowed to keep egging you on until you react, and then when I shoot you, it’s your fault that you got shot, not mine.”
People legitimately allowed to claim self-defense are those who are uninvolved actors. Those who REACT to the actions instigated by others, not those who ACT to cause conflict and then expect to be allowed to escape culpability for having done so. The bottom line is that Zimmerman precipitated this chain of events. He set the wheels in motion that led to Martin’s death, therefore he bears some degree of responsibility for having done so. He was a contributory actor, therefore he is NOT an innocent injured party.
By quoting his own statements against him? Spare me …
It’s sort of hard to avoid stereotypes when Tom (among others on here …) keep reinforcing them …
See above. I’ve made extensive arguments. You just don’t like them. Apparently you don’t like my username either, for reasons passing understanding. Perhaps you’re threatened by it or it makes you feel inferior?
Who can say, but those are your issues, not mine. Would you be happier if I changed it to “ThirdTierStateLawSchool92”? LOL
Oh, and just for kicks and giggles – Zimmerman can be, and would be, compelled to take the stand in any civil trial against him. There is no 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination in a civil action, and Zimmerman doesn’t get to make the call regarding whether or not he testifies. Martin’s parents’ lawyers will make it.
That performance should prove to be VERY informative (and very entertaining).
Give what up?
I was a dispassionate observer in this case for around 30 minutes. That lasted until I discovered what has been continually true from then on, that no evidence against Zimmerman exists.
Because no evidence exists, there should have been no trial.
And no, I’m from north of the Mason-Dixon line geographically, and have a long history of opposing neo-Confederates online; sorry to disappoint your implied prejudice
@tom perkins:
You mean besides it being undisputed that Zimmerman initiated the chain of events and, despite having had multiple opportunities to retreat, chose not to do so?
Nah, spare me. Your stream of “thug” this and “gansta” that makes it pretty clear which aspects of this case are important to you (and, more apropos, which ones aren’t). You’ve basically convicted Martin of being black.
@HarvardLaw92: You construct these very convincing arguments, but when one tries to actually relate them to the known facts of the case, it falls apart.
When you instigate a situation, and then act in ways that exacerbate the situation and lead to a confrontation, you don’t get to claim self-defense.
Which fits what we know about that night pretty well — when applied to Martin.
He was being followed, and didn’t like it. So he bolted (he didn’t “stand his ground”) to the house where he was staying. Then he called his girlfriend and discussed the situation. After which, he returned to confront Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, pinned him down, and kept beating on him.
In other words, he instigated the confrontation, then acted in ways to exacerbate the situation (by knocking Zimmerman down and pinning him to the ground, he denied Zimmerman the chance to flee).
You know, you really ought to reconsider your name. I’m feeling pretty good about how easily I’m dismantling the arguments of a Harvard Law grad. Either I’m a hell of a lot smarter than I thought, or Harvard’s got much lower standards than it pretends.
@anjin-san: “Zimmermann may find, as Dan White did, that karma can be a real bitch. Of course in White’s day, we did not have people like Sean Hannity standing by to lionize killers. ”
I don’t think that would have helped White. I suspect that it would have hastened his eventual suicide. If you are tormented by guilt at your crime and at evading punishment for it, having some assclown like Hannity tell you you’re a hero is probably not going to make you feel better…
@Jenos Idanian: “When all else fails, scream “RAAAAACIST!!!!” and hope no one notices how you’re scrupulously avoiding any actual facts in the case. ”
Here’s a hint, little boy — when everyone around you is calling you a racist, maybe it’s because you’re acting like a racist. And putting extra As in there doesn’t change that.
@Jenos Idanian:
Thank you for admitting that Martin was simply walking down a street, and Zimmerman initiated the interaction by choosing to follow him.
Even better. Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman, but Zimmerman kept pursuing him. Are you TRYING to make my argument for me, because you are doing a wonderful job of it.
Not only did Martin try to evade Zimmerman, he sought out the advice of an uninvolved third party about what he should do. Because angry people always do that, correct? No, FRIGHTENED people do that.
Which, again, is the same argument I attributed to you above: “I’m allowed to piss you off, and keep pushing you. When you finally do go postal after I’ve egged you on, it’s your fault that I shot you, not mine.”
Try selling that one to a civil jury, friend …
LOL, translated:
I, Jenos, am going to completely ignore 90% of the interaction and focus on the tiny little endpiece of it, Martin’s inevitable reaction to being continually provoked by Zimmerman, so I can present that as being evidence that Martin caused the harm.
Again, good luck selling that one to a civil jury. They won’t ignore that first 90%, and they’ll be hearing about it from Zimmerman as the parents’ lawyers destroy him on the stand. You’ll have already noted, hopefully, that he won’t have the luxury of deciding not to testify this time around.
I wouldn’t say dismantling so much as ignoring. You’re the rhetorical equivalent of the monkey with his fingers in his ears babbling “can’t hear you! can’t hear you!”
We won’t even get into the fact that both of you tend to fling poo as well …
LOL, well, friend, it sure as hell isn’t the first option …
@Jenos Idanian: “In other words, he instigated the confrontation”
Yes, absolutely true, if you start your timeline long after Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. Also, too, if you start your WW2 timeline around December 15 of 1941, America was the aggressor against Japan.
Oh, yeah, you’re really kicking that Harvard guy’s butt.
Final question for you, Jenos:
By your own admission, Martin bolted to his house, made a phone call, and then returned to confront Zimmerman.
How long did all of this take? Hint – a while. What was Zimmerman doing during this time? Fleeing back to his vehicle? Sitting in his vehicle? Standing outside Martin’s home?
He’s followed Martin, evidently scared the kid, and now he’s sitting outside his house late at night?
And you consider these to be the actions of a reasonable person who bears no responsibility for causing this situation at all? Would you like to buy a bridge?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you’d followed me home late at night and you were subsequently sitting outside my house, there is a pretty decent chance that I’d come after you too.
“You mean besides it being undisputed that Zimmerman initiated the chain of events.”
You keep saying that like that is a moral or legal issue. Zimmerman had a right to follow him and ask him what he was doing. Martin had a right to ignore him.
Martin didn’t do that.
The only course of action which agrees with the timeline which is an established fact, is that Martin went back and decked Zimmerman.
The act of a true thug, if not a Thug.
I’ll allow your education, in spite of your poor reasoning skills, probably extends to the distinction
@anjin-san: The states whole case is the same as your idiotic racist projection – fortunately the jurors saw the sanctimoniuos racist bullshit for what it was
@tom perkins:
Really? Because where I’m from, that is borderline harassment.
Which, judging from the facts, Martin did. Consult with your co-counsel Jenos. According to him, Martin bolted for his own home, made a phone call once there and only then, some time later, when Zimmerman was apparently still lurking outside Martin’s residence, did Martin choose to confront him.
As I said above, if you’d followed me home late at night and were then sitting outside my house, I’d probably confront you too.
And more importantly, if you have the slightest shred of honesty in you, you’d admit that you’d probably do that as well.
Except for all the rest of that timeline, where Zimmerman stalked a kid late at night in his own neighborhood, following him home and then sitting outside his residence. You, like Jenos, focus on the very end of that timeline, while ignoring the bulk of it, because that tiny little endpiece justifies the picture of Martin that you’ve already formulated in your mind.
I don’t have the slightest doubt in my mind that if Zimmerman had killed a white Eagle Scout on his way home from helping little old ladies, instead of Martin, you’d be apoplectic calling for his head on a platter and a needle in his arm.
As I said above, with you it isn’t about the crime. It’s about who you view as being the criminal.
Because of WHO he was, not WHAT he did …
No, from my chair they both sound like the rantings of a racist asshole. Luckily, the rest of your commentary bears out that observation. You and Jenos should have lunch.
@HarvardLaw92: Try not to be so fucking stupid – SYG was not part of the defense. The defense didn’t use SYG because it was a clear case of self defense.
Some good points. Ends with ignorance though. Trouble is what neighborhood watch folks are there to prevent. The way to prevent this type of tragedy in the future is to educate kids to respect others. Trayvon clearly had no respect for Zimmerman. And, ultimately that along with Trayvon’s thugish behavior is what got him killed.
@bandit:
LOL, no, they didn’t use SYG in the criminal trial for a couple of reasons:
1) Zimmerman would not have had the option not to take the stand in an evidentiary hearing, and his testimony in that proceeding would be admissible (and have been used against him by the defense) in the subsequent criminal trial.
2) SYG pretty clearly nullifies immunity with regard to interactions which you instigate. Zimmerman would have been asked about that, have been forced to admit that he instigated the chain of events, and that brings our attention back to #1
All of which brings our attention to the overwhelming likelihood of a future civil action. Zimmerman, if he wishes to pursue SYG immunity in that action, will have to do what he didn’t want to do in his criminal trial – #1 and #2 above. He will have to satisfy the judge in his civil case that he deserves immunity, and the outcome in his criminal trial has no bearing on that decision. It’s very much a case of him starting from scratch.
Since the civil case is pretty much a given, as well as Zimmerman at least being somewhat likely to try to use it this time around, it merited discussion.
So, he either goes for immunity in his civil case, which will likely be denied, or he proceeds on the same common law basis (with its incumbent duty to retreat) that he used in his criminal trial. With predictable results.
He had a common law duty to retreat. He chose not to do so, and in fact acted to exacerbate the situation. That he fired the shot(s) is undisputed, so he’s on really shaky ground here. I have no trouble believing that a multi-million dollar damage award against him is looming in his future.
And that, as that say, is the ballgame. Martin’s parents will pursue any such judgment until the end of time, and rightfully so. He’ll never be rid of it.
@Jeff Vojtko:
Heck, what 17 year kid doesn’t respect a guy with a gun who is following him?
@Jeff Vojtko:
And here we go with the “well, if she hadn’t been dressed like a slut, he wouldn’t have raped her” bullshit again …
You people are a piece of work.
@al-Ameda: @HarvardLaw92:
“Oh please, Zimmerman lied about the severity of the cuts that he received.”
Oh yeah? You can prove that. Funny, the prosecution never did, or even tried too, and they did every underhanded thing they could, including some illegal things.
Go ahead, make your case.
@al-Ameda:
“Heck, what 17 year kid doesn’t respect a guy with a gun who is following him?”
One who doesn’t know the guy they are about to attack has a gun, and who thinks his target will be easy pickings like the others were.
@Eric Florack: Only the testimony of Zimmerman said Martin started it. The defense wants it both ways– they want us to believe that Martin ambushed Zimmerman, but they want us to believe Zimmerman’s statement which says Martin walked up to him and asked a question. With a true ambush– which any thinking person would agree would have been Martin’s tactic had he really been the aggressor– would have taken advantage of both stealth and speed. After all he had been a football player, as the defense was so quick to point out. He would have been “trained” if you will, to get to his mark as quickly as possible.THEN, they want us to believe that Martin initiated an attack with his off (left) hand. That’s why their animation (which depicted Martin striking with his left hand because it relates to the ONLY injury on Martin’s hands) was so critical to them– they didn’t want the jury thinking, and asking why in the world anyone would initiate a a fight with their off hand. I’m just wondering why the prosecution didn’t exploit that.
@Jeff Vojtko: Maybe Zimmerman should ha@tom perkins: Only the testimony of Zimmerman said Martin started it. The defense wants it both ways– they want us to believe that Martin ambushed Zimmerman, but they want us to believe Zimmerman’s statement which says Martin walked up to him and asked a question. With a true ambush– which any thinking person would agree would have been Martin’s tactic had he really been the aggressor– would have taken advantage of both stealth and speed. After all he had been a football player, as the defense was so quick to point out. He would have been “trained” if you will, to get to his mark as quickly as possible. Does it make sense that he would do anything else? NO! THEN, they want us to believe that Martin initiated an attack with his off (left) hand. That’s why their animation (which depicted Martin striking with his left hand because it relates to the ONLY injury on Martin’s hands) was so critical to them– they didn’t want the jury thinking, and asking why in the world anyone would initiate a a fight with their off hand. I’m just wondering why the prosecution didn’t exploit that.
@HarvardLaw92:
“Really? Because where I’m from, that is borderline harassment.”
Where you’re from–Harvard–and it’s capture by the left is one of the manifold origins of many of this nation’s worst problems. Your judgement is worse than suspect, you’ve been indoctrinated to write stupidities like this, “No, from my chair they both sound like the rantings of a racist asshole.”, without a trace of irony. I am judging Martin by the evident content of his character. People have a right to participate in neighborhood watches, whether particularly formal or loose knit, chartered by the national organization or not. You have a right to ask people in public what they are doing, privacy is for private property. Of course, they have a right to ignore you and keep on walking. You even have a right to proselytize them or spread your political views. It’s called the first amendment.
“Which, judging from the facts, Martin did.”
Absolutely he didn’t, as you yourself admit, he turned to confront Zimmerman.
“Consult with your co-counsel Jenos.”
I don’t know him.
“According to him, Martin bolted for his own home, made a phone call once there and only then, some time later, when Zimmerman was apparently still lurking outside Martin’s residence, did Martin choose to confront him.”
That is in fact not in agreement with the plot of the subdivision and timeline I recall. In fact Martin walked or ran back some distance (or hid and waited for Zimmerman) and then attacked him.
“As I said… that as well.”
Only after I had first called 911 and had them on an open mic, and only if I had first ascertained if I felt you posed any current threat to my family. If I felt that, I would not leave my property, and I would be armed. I would of course not initiate an assault.
“Except for all the rest of that timeline, where Zimmerman stalked a kid late at night in his own neighborhood, following him home and then sitting outside his residence.”
It wasn’t Martin’s neighborhood, it was Zimmerman’s neighborhood. Martin was a temporary guest of his dad, to whose home he had been shunted because he was too wild a child for his mother. Zimmerman didn’t follow him home and didn’t sit outside his residence. If you make up whatever facts you need to support yourself, how do you support yourself?
” You, like Jenos, focus on the very end of that timeline, while ignoring the bulk of it, because that tiny little endpiece justifies the picture of Martin that you’ve already formulated in your mind.”
The bulk of it is Zimmerman doing what he has a perfect right to do, so what of it?
“I don’t have the slightest doubt in my mind that if Zimmerman had killed a white Eagle Scout on his way home from helping little old ladies, instead of Martin, you’d be apoplectic calling for his head on a platter and a needle in his arm. ”
If the white Eagle Scout had a history of doing drugs, possessing stolen property, and assaulting people, no, I’d be supporting Zimmerman. Except I’d have never heard of the case, because there’d be no angle for professional racists like Jackson or Sharpton to work.
“As I said above, with you it isn’t about the crime. It’s about who you view as being the criminal.
Because of WHO he was, not WHAT he did … ”
Wow are you ridiculous. What Martin did was lead a life which made it plausible he would assault someone, which life he recorded on his phone and on Facebook, and which records are in part public knowledge, and which have been testified to by the whistleblower who revealed the prosecution was concealing evidence from the phone potentially exculpatory to Zimmerman. This is only about what he did, which makes it perfectly believable he assaulted Zimmerman, surprised him, and put Zimmerman reasonably in fear of his life, so Zimmerman shot Martin dead with one shot fired.
An aspect of which should impress you but won’t, he fired one shot, purposely; the gun didn’t malfunction. He saw Martin stop assaulting him after he fired the shot, and did not fire again. He acted more as a peace officer than most cops do, who are evidently trained to empty the magazine.
“Only the testimony of Zimmerman said Martin started it.”
And since nothing contradicts that, there should have been no trial. The police were correct to release him that next morning, and he should have stayed released and unindicted.
No evidence of guilt, plus corroboratory evidence of innocence, should equal–no trial.
It was a miscarriage of justice and contrary to law for this trial to have even taken place.
How exactly is a surprise punch not an ambush? Martin is talking to him, Zimmerman is relaxing because Martin talking to him. Where is the inconsistency you imagine exists?
“I’m just wondering why the prosecution didn’t exploit that. ”
He started the confrontation with the phone in his better hand, I’m speculating, because he was planning on filming his beatdown of the “creepy ass-cracker”. It doesn’t sound very bright, but then if he’d been bright, he’d have just gone home.
@Tom Perkins:
Yeah right.
Zimmerman instigated the entire tragedy, he stalked Martin, refused to back down and wait for police and caused the death of Martin. Martin died for the crime of being Black.
@Tom Perkins:
Yes, people tend to stop defending themselves from guys who follow them with guns once they’re dead.
You can’t instigate anything doing what you have a right to do.
Not to go by the recorded 911 call.
He had nothing to back down from at that point, and was waiting for police.
And that’s the best thing he could have done at that point.
Nonsense, he died from being shot while in the act of assaulting someone.
If Martin had gone home innocently, as the timeline abjectly establishes he could have if he had chosen to and as the prosecution alleges he would have, if not for Zimmerman, would Martin have been fine that night? What do you pretend Zimmerman did which he had no right to do, or which justifies Martin assaulting Zimmerman?
@HarvardLaw92:
“And here we go with the “well, if she hadn’t been dressed like a slut, he wouldn’t have raped her” bullshit again …
You people are a piece of work. ”
Here you go again, pretending that’s an apt analogy. It is not possible for a woman to be justifiably raped, regardless of how she dresses. A person going from back door to back door in a neighborhood which has seen breakins–especially if they are not known to an observer–is going to be questioned. There is nothing analogous to a rape, in being asked questions.
@HarvardLaw92:
“He had a common law duty to retreat.”
There is no common law duty to retreat, the concept is the invention of the last few decades of law. Someone in their home, or wherever they have a right to be, could legally avail themselves of defense against unlawful attack–that was the law. The derogation of those common law rights in recent decades, is the reason the SYG and Castle Doctrine laws had to be passed–to buttress pre-existing rights once untrammeled against leftist, progressive inspired erosion.
@superdestroyer:
Joyner doesn’t have to show any logical reasoning or moral consistency, he has a Narrative to support that supersedes all that.
You gave it a good go Harvard Law but labor in vain. I know Tom Perkins and crew’s kind quite well. Even well enough to know he’s not one of our typical southern bigots. They are much more likeable. He strikes me as probably one of the mid-western species. They have a bit more eloquence but a lot more asshole in the way they go about communicating their point of view. At any rate, with these guys there are only two end-games…That black is wrong and white is right. He and others are fundamentally incapable of believing any possibility other than the one given by the defense because that story frames the black victim in the worse possible light which is the default point of view they are programmed to gravitate to about non-white. Whatever narrative that makes non-whites appear animalistic and whites appear civilized and victimized is what they will believe.
So when you present reasoning that challenges this programming, you are in fact challenging the very way the view the world. You might as well claim that Jesus was a Buddhist hermaphrodite. It ‘s going to get similar traction. It’s really a simple pecking order for these mental peasants… black<non-white<white. If there is ever a tie… then it's poor<middle class<rich. This makes thinking about the world and issues of right and wrong very simple. I look at their posts strictly for entertainment value and to marvel at real live peasantry. Sometimes I wonder if they have lawn jockeys they keep for sentimental value. Or ringtones that go "Yasza Bawse!"
@anjin-san:
They did the best they could–except for the illegal parts–with what they had. Nothing they had included evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt.
@Tom Perkins:
I said that you sound like a racist asshole because, frankly, you sound like a racist asshole. if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck …
As for the “the left is the cause of all of our problems” nonsense, blow me. Then take that garbage back over to Fox News where it (and you) belong. You are out of your depth here, pal.
@Pharoah Narim:
I honestly should have known better than to entertain anything uttered by an armchair concerning the law, especially someone this odorous. Personally, if I’m glad about anything with regard to this Zimmerman situation, it’s that:
1) Hopefully these people will crawl back into their gutters now and let us get back to rational discussion, and;
2) That Jenos will (hopefully) finally stop interrupting every thread he can find with his arm flailing “Zimmerman! Let’s talk about Zimmerman!” garbage.
As for the rest, he’ll likely get smacked onto the pavement in civil court, so in the end it’ll probably work out somewhat like it should. He isn’t guilty of murder, but his life as he knew it before is permanently over and he’ll likely have a multi-million dollar judgment hanging around his neck for the rest of his life. In an odd way, that’s a more satisfying outcome. A prison sentence would have ended eventually. The crap he’ll have to deal with now is pretty much forever, and that suits me just fine.
@HarvardLaw92:
“I said that you sound like a racist asshole because, frankly, you sound like a racist asshole.”
Name one thing I’ve said which is racist. But strain yourself trying.
“Hopefully these people will crawl back into their gutters now and let us get back to rational discussion”
You’re not able to have one. I believe it is an acquired deficiency, not a congenital one.
“That Jenos will…about Zimmerman!” garbage”
I don’t know the man, Strange and inexplicable though, that the defendant should be discussed RE a murder trial.
“As for the rest, he’ll likely get smacked onto the pavement in civil court”
Possible but unlikely, he didn’t make one decision that night unreasonable in foresight, and the evening had an acceptable conclusion in hindsight. People (Martin) who assault people, should understand they face a likelihood of being killed when they adopt that course of action. Being killed while undertaking that felony IS a just and proper outcome.
“The crap he’ll have to deal with now is pretty much forever, and that suits me just fine. ”
There is in fact a quite increased likelihood he will not have to deal with it long, because of the lynch mob attitude you and others oh your ilk have adopted.
” Then take that garbage back over to Fox News where it (and you) belong.”
I don’t watch Fox News. Your mindless prejudices betray you again.
“You are out of your depth here, pal.”
No, you very sadly much are, morally and legally both.
I understand that on the basis of no direct evidence whatsoever, with all the circumstantial evidence supporting the defendant–including the testimony provided by the state’s witnesses and the evidence variably excluded by a judge and concealed by the prosecution from the defense or both–that you want a man to stand trial and face the possibility of conviction.
This with no evidence against him whatsoever. And all you can do is claim taking note of that makes me racist.
You show no awareness at all that even to have a trial was a grotesque perversion of justice and law, or that to try to buttress their already vacuous case, someone on the prosecution team has taken actions which will see them disbarred or even imprisoned for concealing evidence from the defense.
@Tom Perkins:
Your link is 404
@Tom Perkins:
John Fund of the National Review? Hahahahaha ….
@HarvardLaw92: OK, now I believe you’re a Harvard lawyer. It takes a highly-trained mind to pull what you just tried to pull.
We have two established data points for the night in question: Martin in the back yard of the home where he was staying, and 4-5 minutes later he’s about 100 yards back the way he came, having his confrontation with Zimmerman.
You started off by suggesting that Zimmerman followed Martin all the way to the house, then turned that into an assumption. And from that you built your argument.
I repeat: Zimmerman stopped following Martin at about the point where the confrontation took place. This is backed up by the 911 call — the operator notice Zimmerman was out of breath and asked if he was following Martin. Zimmerman said he was, and that’s when the “we don’t need you to do that” was said. At that point, Zimmerman’s breathing returned to normal, indicating he was no longer trying to keep up with the much fitter Martin.
Somehow, in those few minutes, Martin backtracked to where the fight took place. You are assuming what I like to call the “James Joyner” theory, where Zimmerman went down the pathway, gun drawn, and ordered Martin to walk back up away from the house. At the end of the walkway, Martin jumped Zimmerman in self-defense.
There’s not a damned shred of evidence to support that story, let alone enough to convict someone of murder for it.
Something motivated Martin to go back down the walkway, away from the safety of the house. I doubt it was fear, as he had his phone and it was working, but he didn’t call anyone for help or to alert them to his danger. Instead, he called his girlfriend and spoke angrily about the “creepy-ass cracker” who had been following him.
If you have anything to indicate that Zimmerman “followed him home” and “sat outside his house,” please cite it. And kindly refrain from the Joynerian “I can’t imagine it happening any other way” argument.
Perhaps the pasted URL will work.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353410/injudicious-criminal-justice-florida-john-fund
@Al-Ameda, you are laughing at the fact the whistleblower who made known the prosecution concealed potentially exculpatory evidence was fired for blowing that whistle? What if any facts he relates with respect to that, do you dispute, and on the basis of what?
@Tom Perkins:
Yes, tese are conservativesx with partisan agendas talking to each other.
John Fund has zero credibility. This is Fund taking the usual position for conservatives:
Translation: “Blah blah blah … Obama Administration, Saul Alinsky … blah blah blah”
Would this have happened if George Zimmerman listened to authorities and did not pursue Trayvon Martin? What if everybody disregarded what the authorities say? I don’t understand why Zimmerman gets a pass.
@George Zimmerman Trial: Try not to be so stupid. 911 dispatchers are not authorities and the dispatcher testified during the trial that they give standard instructions which are not orders or advice.
@George Zimmerman Trial:
.
You’re presuming that Zimmerman is sensible, and that is clearly not the case. If Zimmerman listens to the dispatcher and stays in his vehicle no one dies.
@Al-Ameda
Will you acknowledge reality now:
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-technology-director-who
Corey’s office withheld evidence illegally, they have fired the whistleblower.
@Tom Perkins:
Yes, there may have been a problem in the AG’s office.
But this has no bearing on Zimmerman’s culpability and responsibility in instigating the series of tragic events that led to his killing of Martin.
@al-Ameda:
And neighborhood watch may as well not exist as a concept, and the common average person should cower in their homes because they might encounter a criminal otherwise, and be forced first to defend themselves against the criminal, and then the state–the state will avenge the criminal without regard to evidence–per you–if the innocent average citizens survives their encounter with the criminal.
The only difference between you and a white Jim Crow jury convicting the “negro” stood in front of them by the state of being guilty of whatever the charge was, is with you it’s different what is politically incorrect. Then, drinking out of the wrong water fountain was a crime, now, with you, it’s defending yourself against assault while looking our for the safety or your neighbors.
“But this has no bearing on Zimmerman’s culpability and responsibility in instigating the series of tragic events that led to his killing of Martin. ”
Zimmerman has no culpability or responsibility, because you can’t name any statute for which there is any evidence that he is guilty of contravening.
This was solely an evidenceless (towards guilt) political show trial all and solely about what is politically correct for the left.
@Tom Perkins:
Me and a White Jim Crow Jury? Wow, the main difference between you and a sensible person is that you don’t know how to construct a valid analogy.
@al-Ameda:
You’re the one wanting to convict someone without a crime or evidence beside what is after the fact politically incorrect. It’s your pointy white hat, you made it, wear it with pride.
@Tom Perkins:
Stalking a person and shooting them is ‘politically correct”?
@al-Ameda: You really seem to think that if you keep repeating the “stalking” lie, people will eventually believe you.
I know I’m getting tired of pointing out the lie, as well as the lies about “Zimmerman disobeyed the 911 dispatcher’s instruction to not follow Martin.”
@al-Ameda:
“Stalking a person and shooting them is ‘politically correct”? ”
Stalking has a very specific definition in law, and Zimmerman didn’t do that either.
There is no way to criminalize what Zimmerman did without an ex post facto law or bill of attainder, and without ending every sort of neighborhood watch program in the country, criminalizing people looking out after their neighbors, and without criminalizing self defense as a concept in law.
Of course, I suspect you and HarvardLaw be fine with all that.
@Jenos Idanian:
Lies? Oh please. He profiled Martin as suspicious (for no good reason), he carried a gun, he stalked (followed, trailed, etc) Martin, he ignored the dispatch admonition (instruction, polite request, suggestion, whatever, etc) to be sensible and not follow (stalk, trail, whatever, etc) Martin, Martin turned the tables on him, he shot Martin, and he was acquitted despite setting in motion the series of events that resulted in a homicide.
@Tom Perkins:
Oh sure, just as I’m sure that you are fine with Zimmerman’s role in creating and exacerbating the situation that resulted in the senseless shooting of Martin.
Legally, Zimmerman got by – no eyewitnesses, just his account to police, that’s the way it goes. Sometimes the legally correct decision has nothing to do with a decision that is right from a moral or common sense standpoint, but that’s not the role or purpose of the judicial system.
“He profiled Martin as suspicious (for no good reason)
He was walking around back porches in the rain, in a neighborhood known to Zimmerman to have been burglarized repeatedly and recently. That’s an excellent reason.
“he carried a gun”
Nothing wrong with that.
“he stalked”
A specific crime he certainly did not commit.
“(followed, trailed, etc) Martin”
None of which is a crime or even unwise.
“He ignored the dispatch admonition (instruction, polite request, suggestion, whatever, etc)”
The 911 operator was 100% abjectly clear they could not by policy and the they did not make any suggestion, request, or instruction, or admonition. That makes them liable.
“to be sensible and not follow (stalk, trail, whatever, etc) Martin”
In fact there is no evidence in the 911 recording that after that, Zimmerman continued after Martin.
“Martin turned the tables on him”
By assaulting him, the first criminal act by any person in the chain of events.
“he shot Martin”
As well he should have, it is the right and proper way to stop an ongoing violent felony.
“and he was acquitted despite setting in motion the series of events that resulted in a homicide.”
The person committing the first criminal act in a chain of events is by right and law the person culpable for the consequences. No direct evidence exists to the effect that was Zimmerman, and all the strong circumstantial evidence points to that first criminal act being undertaken by Martin.
@Tom Perkins:
Sounds like the only reasonable solution is gun control.
Yes I am. I don’t think either watching out for your neighbors, Neighborhood Watch, asking people in public questions, being armed, or defending yourself should be criminalized or be subject to punishment by process. I think there should be actual evidence of a crime before a charge is made or a trial held. Such a radical I am!
“Legally, Zimmerman got by – no eyewitnesses,”
Oh there were eyewitnesses to Martin beating Zimmerman. It takes a powerful, deceitful lot of fatuousness to claim anything else.
“just his account to police”
And every bit of physical evidence being consistent with it, with not one thing to the contrary.
“that’s the way it goes. Sometimes the legally correct decision has nothing to do with a decision that is right from a moral or common sense standpoint”
It was certainly the correct legal decision, and was the correct moral decision unless you want to criminalize those things I mentioned above.
“but that’s not the role or purpose of the judicial system”
Oh but it is, in the end though the only part that worked well was the jury.
@David M:
Thank you for admitting you don’t value innocent human life, or believe in the concept of self defense.
Say, are you aware that Zimmerman fired a single shot, and when that seemed to halt the threat although he thought he missed, he did not fire more? By contrast, the boys in blue whom I don’t suppose you plan on disarming have the bad habit of emptying at least one magazine before even trying to judge their effect? Sometime multiple magazines from tens of officers.
Civilians firing in defense of themselves and others routinely do far better than the police in accuracy and in not hitting people who should be hit.
Just like this case.
@Tom Perkins:
He didn’t fire more shots into a dead body? He’s a hero.
He did better than most cops do, and he was willing to sacrifice his time and potentially his life to safeguard his community.
It’s only your vileness that could lead you to quibble, and it is the weakness of your case that forces you to dissemble.
Tom Perkins – are you trying to earn more jewels in your heavenly crown by trying to talk sense to the subhuman filth that ooze out of this website as if they’re human beings or something? Single cell organisms aren’t capable of that level of comprehension. Those and retired government workers.
Every one of your posts has been thoughtful and respectful and all they do is racebait, namecall and impugn motivations out of bad faith. Something completely bland and reasonable and they just thumbs down your comments out of spite.
Pearls into the pig pit.
You might as well be graffiti tagging Idiocracy’s House of Representin’ with Hannah Arendt quotes in calligraphy. Or cursive, who as we now know is not even capable of being read by the people who allege to have written it.
“the greatest evil perpetrated is the evil committed by nobodies, that is, by human beings who refuse to be persons”
Only problem is, because he did not follow neighborhood watch rules, and because he was not competent to carry out his self-appointed cop role, a member of his community ended up burying his child.
Self-appointed cops, do us all a favor. Stay home and watch cop shows. Leave police work to the people we pay, train, and give legal sanction to do it.
And you’ve made it clear this not just a legal thing – you think Zimmerman was morally correct too.
That’s pretty f*cked up. Have you even attempted to put yourself in Martin’s shoes?
Again: Martin’s death is not an outcome we should want. Martin was not, in fact, committing any crime when Zimmerman saw him and decided he was suspcicious (he may, in fact, have committed one later, if he struck Zimmerman unprovoked, which Zimmerman claims). He went out for drink & a snack. While I don’t hold him blameless (he should have continued home, perhaps to call the police about the guy following him), none of this had to happen. The whole think sucks, and some of that is on Zimmerman, even if his actions were perfectly legal. I think it’s unfortunate you can’t see that.
@Tom Perkins:
My vileness? Typical modern conservative.
You have a distinctly juvenile middle-school view of the world. My father was a city cop for nearly 30 years and he never once fired his gun while in service on tough city beats. People like you romanticize an OK Corral kind of a world where the supposed ‘good guys’ are out there dealing justice based on their suspicions. Zimmerman gave us a glimpse of your world – idiots with poor judgment and a lot of firepower meting out ‘justice’.
The jury’s decision was spot on. The race hustlers and uninformed Black Americans (and members of some other races too) either don’t (or don’t want to) understand how the law works. Zimmerman walked, the left balked, the right cheered and the rest veered. Sadly, it has now boiled down to young black men running wild in the streets of LA, Oakland, New York City and just about everywhere else where there’s a plate glass store window to be broken. Eric Holder; a dunce; just can’t figure out how he got out of law school; he would be crushed in a civil rights lawsuit against Zimmerman. The best thing the Martin Family could do today is to address the entire nation on live TV, tell the left-wing zealots to cut out the nonsense and tell all of those who want change to go out and vote. Unfortunately, many blacks don’t vote, so how can they complain about the system if they’re too lazy to get out there and change it?
@Nate: The point, clown, is that the law is stupid. It allows two people to escalate a conflict, and one may kill the other without culpability for their actions leading up to the altercation. There is no duty to avoid the conflict. Both parties may fire on each other consequences be damned as long as they shoot in fear of bodily harm.
You talk tough today because a black teen was killed and that demographic means little to you. But your tune will change like RuPaul backstage the day some Tea Party/Rightwing person gets iced by a liberal or minority that claims they were afraid of being harmed. THEN the stupidity will make sense…..when people that look like YOU are in the crosshairs.
@al-Ameda:
” The point, clown, is that the law is stupid.”
It is well written to an excellent purpose.
“It allows two people to escalate a conflict, and one may kill the other without culpability for their actions leading up to the altercation.”
It does no such thing. RE SYG, It states that a person who has the right to be where they are has no right to retreat from a criminal. This is a right and proper attitude towards a criminal, if you chose to do so. RE the law of self defense just as you should be, you are empowered to employ lethal means of self defense when you have a reasonable expectation your life is in danger. Being beaten qualifies. In this case, Martin escalated to felony criminality by assaulting Zimmerman–there is no evidence to the contrary, circumstantial or otherwise, and all the evidence which exists shows Zimmerman was where he had a right to be, doing what he had a right to be doing.
There should not have been a trial here, because there is no evidence against Zimmerman–that is why the prosecution’s witnesses sounded so much like defense witnesses.
” There is no duty to avoid the conflict.”
There is a duty not to assault. RE SYG, there is no duty, and can of right and per this law be no duty, to retreat from crime when you chose instead to stand against it. If there is no evidence you are in the wrong, you should be free to go.
“Both parties may fire on each other consequences be damned as long as they shoot in fear of bodily harm.”
In the unlikely event both fired simultaneously, you’d be correct. In the real world, the question of who more reasonably feared danger would then need to be answered. That doesn’t happen often, though, does it? In the real world, the mugger says, “Your money or your life.” and then you are and should be free to open fire if you can.
“You talk tough today because a black teen was killed and that demographic means little to you.”
No, I’m talking reality because this black teen made a thug of himself–to go by what he recorded of himself and boasted of online–and then he assaulted someone without provocation. Unlike liberal talking heads and politicians, I do care about the black males (and women and babies) who get killed by black on black violence every week, and I know for example, that Chicago will calm right the hell down as soon the common citizens of every color have the 2nd amendment protected rights respected by their city and state. The thugs can;t operate nearly so well when they know every thing the try might be the end of them, it’s worked the same way everywhere else int he country, it will work that way in Chicago too. Of course, it will work best if like in Florida, they have no duty to retreat from a criminal, and are protected from political trials when no evidence exists of their guilt.
“But your tune will change like RuPaul backstage the day some Tea Party/Rightwing person gets iced by a liberal or minority that claims they were afraid of being harmed.”
It won’t change my tune a bit, if like in this case there is no evidence against that liberal or minority, and there is evidence to support them.
That’s the vile, evil thing about this show trial Zimmerman has illegally had to endure, there is no evidence against him, and there is strong evidence as to the criminality of Martin. This trial should never have been held.
” THEN he stupidity will make sense…..when people that look like YOU are in the crosshairs.”
Your stupidity will never make sense.
There is nothing about either the Stand Your Ground law or the law of self defense which permits or encourages the escalation of violence between two people of non-criminal intent, they solely have the effect of preferentially empowering non-criminal people in defending themselves against criminals.
Why are people still going on about this just look if Zimmerman was black n martin was white it’d be totally different !!! Nothing can change the jury’s decision I’m just being honest its pointless its over let it be done
@tom perkins:
I did not write that, nor did anything you wrote following that have anything to do with my reponse to you. But thanks for thinking of me.
Late to this party.
In my state, under very similar laws, guilty would have been the correct verdict, given that Zimmerman provoked the encounter. Guilty should have been the verdict in this case.
@Hello World!:
There is no evidence Zimmerman wanted a confrontation. There is only evidence he wanted to be able to tell the police where Martin and he himself were. In contrast, there is evidence in the timeline, in photographs, and in testimony (by people other than Martin) that Martin sought not merely a confrontation, but a violent one.
@al-Ameda:
@Pharoah Narim, then, not that there’s a dime’s worth of difference between you in this matter.