Tweet
I haven’t diaried on this affair previously in part because I feel it is one of those sideshow voyeurish quasi-meta things to discuss, and also cuz I thought the matter would have died down and been largely forgotten by now, late June and entering the campaign season.
Since the beginning, the ‘MSNBC fake left’ and the ‘Al Sharpton fake left’ have thoroughly embarrassed themselves even as the evidence against their narrative piled sky high, misleading their audiences and shielding them from the most important evidence, and thereby blithely alienating the hispanic and white working and middle classes, really making a point of it. Alienating, in other words, tens of millions of potential voters for either President Obama or the presidential candidates to the left of him. But I note MSNBC giving the anti-Zimmerman crusade a rest in recent days. This is what they usually do when exculpatory evidence comes out, but hopefully they’ve realized that it’s best to run away from the topic, far and fast, on a permanent basis. I think that would be smart, and, hey, no need for an apology to the fair-minded, we’ll consider it implied.
Anywho, in case you’re unaware here on MyFDL, the latest evidence release shows that the murder case against George Zimmerman is at this point and probably permanently dead. Talkleft’s excellent criminal defense attorney Jeralyn summarizes succinctly (cuz that’s all that’s needed) and very capably in ‘George Zimmerman Statements and Reenactment Released‘ (emphasis added):
the point the fear comes into play (#71)
is after he is attacked by Trayvon. He has to be in fear when he responds using deadly force.
His fear was eminently reasonable at the point in time it matters: after being attacked and unable to get up.
Don’t assume [interviewing detective] Serino’s questions are legally relevant. They are not. Why he thought Trayvon was suspicious, whether and if he followed Trayvon, why it took him whatever time it took to get back to his car, why he equated Trayvon with criminals make no legal difference. He had every legal right to get out of his car.
What I glean from all of it: Trayvon physically attacked Zimmerman without legal provocation. He had no legal right to do so.
Trayvon initiated both the verbal and physical encounter between them.
There is not one iota of evidence that would legally justify Trayvon’s physical attack on Zimmerman.
Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with his version of the attack. Zimmerman cried out for help. The witnesses’ statements the night of the event support Zimmerman’s version of events.
Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:05:58 PM EST
The reasonable fear question arises again later in the comments, and Jeralyn summarizes beautifully, after bmaz (emphasis added to her nuanced reference to the Stand Your Ground law):
Actually… (#158)
by bmaz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:56:37 PM ESTI think the self-defense claim involves both of those factors [fear of TM going for his gun, and fear of death by head-banging] and either one alone would be sufficient as making Zimmerman’s use of force “reasonable”
Bmaz is correct (#177)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:46:30 PM ESTHe [Zimmerman] says just west of the “T”, Trayvon appeared out of the darkness and confronted him. When he reached for his phone, Trayvon punched him. As he struggled to get up, Trayvon started banging his head into the cement. His body was on the grass, his head on the cement. Zimmerman cried out for help. Trayvon put his hand over his mouth. He thought he was going to lose consciousness. As he was trying to move his head onto the grass, his jacket lifted and his gun was exposed. Trayvon reached for his gun and told him to shut F* up. He was slamming his head into the cement.
At that point, anyone in that situation would reasonably fear serious bodily or death. He was also unable to extricate himself. He was justified in using deadly force under traditional self defense principles even without Stand Your Ground. But Stand Your Ground also applies. He was in a place he lawfully had a right to be – a public area in his community. He was attacked. He did nothing to provoke a physical assault. His fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death only had to be reasonable, not actual. He had no duty to retreat, but even if he did have such a duty, since he was unable to extricate himself by any lesser means, he was justified in using lethal force, whether in fear Trayvon would get his gun and shoot him, or to stop him from beating him into unconsciousness.
On the Mason in Blue (MyFDL) focus on where the body of Trayvon Martin (may he RIP) ended up, please read without prejudice these comments under the same article. In sum, there was a dynamic and intense fight taking place, so imperfect memory on the ‘where’ question is expected.
In sum II, unless the prosecution has hidden earth-shaking evidence to the contrary, this case is an open-and-shut one, especially in reference to the second-degree murder charge. The common sense view should be, imho, that Zimmerman’s actions were wrongheaded, and certainly no one should want him on any police force, but they weren’t illegal. He might’ve been able to cool off the confrontation after Trayvon Martin asked him what he was doing around there, by identifying himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer and speaking very reassuringly to Martin, for example. But there was nothing illegal, of course, about not doing so. And then the fight started and it became a clear-cut case of self-defense.
Anyone for moving on to the economy, or the empire’s war on Syria, or how to win the ‘vote for a third party’ argument? That’s what I’m gonna do. Barring the thought of mea culpas, can we leftists just, as quietly as possible, walk away from this mess?
(If you continue to be fascinated by the Zimmerman case and just can’t get enough detail, I (obviously) highly recommend TalkLeft, at least as a way to balance out your intake of the mainstream ‘fake left’ media on this case.)
156 Comments
If I remember the video of the re-enactment correctly, Zimmerman claims that while he was on the ground, Martin used both hands to his (Zimmerman’s) to cover his mouth and nose. Now, get the picture, Zimmerman’s attacker, whom he outweighs by 50 pounds, has both hands occupied, and Zimmerman has both hands free. I know what would happen next if I were the armed man on the ground.
But, to convict Zimmerman what he claims happened next has to be dismissed BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in the minds of 12 jurors. I doubt the prosecution to meet that burden.
Your recollection of Z’s recollection doesn’t seem exactly accurate, but let’s agree his memory is imperfect, as can be understood considering how chaotically, violently, and fast things were happening. At the point several moments into having T on top of him, Z already has had his nose broken and already has had his head repeatedly smacked on the concrete. It’s again understandable that his memory of what was happening is unclear at that point, but more important (all important) is that it’s “eminently reasonable” (as Jeralyn says) to consider your life under threat then.
That video is full of lies and is worthless as far as any kind of rational analysis goes. It doesn’t match the evidence at all but I guess that’s not important to anybody who wants Martin to have been a thug and Zimmerman just a misunderstood citizen. One thing none of the geniuses who are trying to pre-exonerate Zimmerman is that we’ll never hear Martin’s side of the story because he’s dead. Yes, that goes for Bmaz too. I’m not an attorney but if being one means that I have to side with the white aggressor instead of the black victim, then I’m happy to not be.
Yep! And Zimmerman suffered the only broken nose in history to not show any signs of swelling or bruising.
I just reviewed the video of the re-enactment that’s available at Masoninblue’s post: http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2012/06/21/zimmerman-video-reenactment-contradicts-statement-and-crime-scene-evidence/
Go through it to the point where Zimmerman puts both hands in front of him and says “He put his other hand …”
IMHO, Zimmerman is a lying asshole who should go to jail for the rest of his life. But that’s irrelevant. The question is whether the prosecution can convince 12 jurors, some of whom are southern whites, beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life. It’s clear which way I’d bet were I one to bet on such things.
Speculating about others motives in making posts is not necessary or allowed. Please debate the facts at hand. -MyFDL Editor
Adding to the list at the end of my diary, ‘Yo Soy 132‘ is another movement well worth writing about, learning about and supporting. They’re showing us Americanos one critical thing to focus on, the control of our information by the political elite, including in the U.S. context (of course) NBC. It’s one of the bad guys’ weak points, because they need us to watch them if they’re gonna make any money:
Those “with no legal knowledge” understandably tend to focus on “who’s to blame” rather than “what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
If you don’t believe his nose was broken despite the medical reports … Hmm, not sure I can convince you on that one, but just check yourself out.
The case exposes and goes to the core of what is wrong with the U.S. left, so maybe that aspect makes it worthy of discussion. The Democratic Party, and therefore any part of the left that wants to make a well-paid career on the ‘left’, has sold its soul to “race-hustling” identity politics. I mean, Al Sharpton’s role in the Tawana Bradley affair? The Duke lacrosse team fiasco? But it’s strictly verboten to see any sort of pattern, or to be concerned over the effect such Democratic-Party-connected fiascos have on people comparing right and ‘left’. And it’s not as if fair-minded people forget these things, this history, whenever they see Al Sharpton on the MSNBC air. And ‘being fair’ is extremely important to the less-than-powerful, and they make up all of the potential left voting base.
We don’t even know enough to make a reliable call on who’s to blame, although I would agree that that is a closer call than the purely legal one. But I honestly haven’t seen many people even bother to acknowledge that there might be a distinction between the two ways of looking at the case. The overwhelming one-way bias has been palpable, and very discouraging to witness.
And, of course, nothing we’ve said here really accounts in any acceptable way for people calling me a “liar,” a “hypocrite,” or a “racist,” for simply making the points that were obvious to me as a lawyer with a long-term interest in self-defense issues.
Didn’t expect Sharpton to give it a rest:
The first time I saw this hypocrisy was long ago when Bork was on tap to become a Supreme Court justice. The ‘liberals’ went crazy over the fact he’d smoked pot a little back in grad school or something, setting decriminalization and common sense on marijuana back a thousand years.
Yes, it is rather infuriating to contemplate. Identity politics may well be the death of the left. My natural sympathies are always with the underdogs and the downtrodden, but if we have truly reached the point where we cannot entertain even the possibility that a 17 year old football player with a “No limit nigga” website, and some evidence of criminal behavior in his own life (drugs, stolen jewelry, gold teeth that cost a lot), might have copped a bad attitude about being followed, then identity politics has succeeded in metaphorically lobotomizing us, IMO. “No black people ever commit a crime or get violent” is a facially untenable proposition.
I guess the fundamental question in everyone’s mind is: “Whose side are you on?” So, if you make any observation, however obvious, that might be helpful to one side, you are deemed to be on that side.
Yeah, but that is just fucking crazy. Is reality always on one side? Is truth always on one side? Obviously not. What I see in this case is a melding of longstanding pro-black and anti-gun sentiment to synergistically produce an environment where careful analysis becomes the enemy. And that is just not acceptable to any thinking person. That is what lynch mobs are made of.
I think I’ll wait for the trial. That’s all that really counts.
… and a long history of racial injustice …
That’s very sane and reasonable, and sets you apart from the majority here. Once a case like this become a national event, you know you are going to get deluged with inaccurate and imprecise info from both sides. Happens that way every time.
Perhaps the interest in this SYG case stems from its potential to affect future SYG cases. Perhaps folks are interested for the sake of education. There is no reason to fault people for intense interest in a case. Also, there is no rule that writers must limit their writings and discussions during these months to the limited list of topics in this post.
Of course, and I include that in the “pro-black” adjective. There’s no denying the horrible history, nor would any decent person want to, but even that horrible history doesn’t mean that every black man is automatically an innocent victim in every case. Trayvon’s background should have been treated the same as Zimmerman’s in the discussions that have taken place, since one would really want to understand the dynamic between the two of them at the critical moment.
“Anyone for moving on to the economy, or the empire’s war on Syria, or how to win the ‘vote for a third party’ argument? That’s what I’m gonna do.”
Then do it, rather than violating your rule, that writers should only write about Syria, how to win the third party vote, or the economy.
I haven’t really followed the details on this case. But I’m still amazed that the press got away with using those highly misleading photos of Trayvon (innocent little 12 year old) and Zimmerman (bulky swarthy menace) from the get-go. Just those pictures alone have set a lot of people’s minds on the case. You look at the two, and you think “how could the kid be a menace?”. That the left then instrumentalized the case to push back against stand-your-ground laws was maybe inevitable. A laudable aim, perhaps irresponsible means.
We could certainly have a very healthy debate/conversation about whether and how to tighten up and clarify self-defense law in this country. It is very complex when you actually get down to trying to draft good language that sets out the best concept and accounts for all the variations of human behavior and interaction. I personally feel that something more tangible should be required than states like Florida and Georgia (and many others) do. BUT, there’s no excuse for blaming Zimmerman for living under the law he lives under. And, IMO, having multiple head wounds inflicted on one should allow for raising a self-defense claim justifying the use of deadly force in most instances. Even under the common-law.
This case highlights one of the things terribly wrong with the artificial ‘left’ that is the official left in the U.S. That is worth discussing, because it has a devastating effect on how the working and middle classes in the U.S. generally feel about what they think is the left.
The case itself is open and shut, as Jeralyn points out, not very interesting of itself except perhaps for how the facts and evidence have been agenda-distorted by our corporate media.
The stand your ground law would not be needed by Zimmerman if this case were treated as it should’ve been, as a non-crime. Only in the potentially kangaroo court context is he lucky to have SYG to fall back on. Basically, it’s just confusing to discuss stand your ground over a case where it doesn’t apply to the facts in evidence, where there is nothing showing Zimmerman was not in actual danger of serious bodily harm or death.
Yes, that picture business, and how people accepted it, has driven me crazy from the beginning. Only bias can explain it, IMO.
The racist photo of Zimmerman, but hey, all’s forgiven, let’s move on.
Hmmm…Zimmerman comes away with a few bruises. The boy is dead. I’m sorry, but if Zuckerberg had been walking down the street in his “hoodie” there would have been no death involved. If Zimmerman had followed the dispatcher’s order not to pursue the kid, there would been no death. If these stupid “Stand Your Ground Rules” were not on the books, there would be no death.
I agree with everything you say except the “multiple head wounds” part. We disagree on that, but this is a complex case that may likely shape future cases. SYG cases are not all clear, cut and dried. Not at all.
You don’t know his nose was broken? Odd. Most important, his injuries, broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head, exactly conform to his story.
In the spirit of fairness, I should add to that last line that we wouldn’t want lawyers fixing our plumbing, our electrical systems, our cars, our air-conditioning, our computers, etc., etc., either lol. And probably those tradespeople would ridicule us if we tried, and properly so.
“The case itself is open and shut,”
No case is ever open and shut. (Although it looks like that Sandusky case might be!)
But this is not one of those tricky SYG cases, because Zimmerman “was justified in using deadly force under traditional self defense principles even without Stand Your Ground” (Jeralyn). Pretending a traditional self-defense case is an SYG case unfortunately only ends up increasing public support for SYG.
I know and respect you as a person of good faith, C-S, and I will just say that most self-defense cases can be very difficult to resolve with certainty. Even if Z does not get prosecuted or convicted here, it still does not guarantee that he should not have been. We will never know exactly what happened on the ground between the two of them.
Let me know when you are willing to let me punch you in the nose and then crack your head against a sidewalk hard enough to cause the two wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head. Then we can go out for a beer afterwards, cuz it’s no big deal. ;-)
The initial and now (after we’ve seen most of the evidence) in hindsight very reasonable local law enforcement judgment was that there was not enough evidence to charge Z with a crime, so we may have found one of those rare open and shut cases (though not as open and shut as the Sandusky case).
I short-handed that a bit, and you are within your rights to call me out on it. I was just trying to convey that I think some kind of tangible corroboration of threat and fear should be required, but I don’t know exactly how that language should be formulated. It’s not enough to just say, “He looked at me funny, so I shot him.”
My articles feature evidence based legal analysis with an eye toward how a jury might react to the evidence.
They speak for themselves.
I respectfully disagree with Jeralyn, whom I know personally and professionally from our participation on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
I also respectfully disagree with Bmaz, whom I know through his excellent work on Marcy Wheeler’s blog.
Both are knowledgeable and experienced criminal defense attorneys, but so am I, although I retired from practicing law in 2005 and went on to teach law for three years.
My credentials speak for themselves, just like my articles.
If people do not like what I have to say, they do not have to read it.
There is more than a hint in this article and in a few of the comments questioning my motives for writing about the Zimmerman case.
Odd, but I thought that sort of criticism and rank speculation was recently declared unacceptable and immediate grounds for being banned.
There is zero in the article questioning your motives, and I note that questioning people’s motives is a just-announced-by-Jane ground for banning/disappearing participants here. So put up or apologize.
Very good questions.
What I find remarkable about this entire fol-de-rol is the number of commenters who manifestly have neither legal qualifications nor any sort of scientific background who nevertheless issue pronouncements from on high (and who then expect to be taken seriously). After each such pronunciamento I keep on glancing round wondering when the heavenly chorus and the tablets engraved with THE LAW will make their appearance …
mfi
PS: For the record, I’m a qualified barrister and former lecturer in explosives forensics at the federal war academy, DTU, and Sandhurst. None of which qualify me to opine authoritatively on this case.
That’s the German Federal War Academy btw.
mfi
Reread what you wrote.
I agree on a need for articulate language.
You mean the trial is over? Why didn’t the media report it? /haw haw haw
The common law of self-defense in the Anglo-American world encompasses what the evidence indicates occurred, so I’m sure you’re eminently well-qualified to offer an opinion if you’ve studied the relevant facts, which are not particularly complex. (The irrelevant facts, on the other hand …) If this were in fact a grey-area SYG case, fine, that would be a difficult discussion to enter into, as most experts acknowledge. But it’s not, it’s a case where none of the evidence collected before this became a cause celebre, the best evidence, indicates anything other than Martin initiating the fight and then Zimmerman’s actual fear of imminent grave bodily injury or death.
Put up actual evidence that I questioned your motives or apologize.
Phoenix Woman, if there is any sentence where I’ve questioned any MyFDLer’s motives, show me.
That was my take too. I also flagged what I thought were the inappropriate comments.
Everyone stop. Now. There are different views of the case. People can say what they want about it. The court and jury will decide it. Do not use this uncertainty to start yet another flame war, fighting each other or questioning anyone’s motives. Enough, people.
As I see it, here is the problem. “The best evidence” in Mr. Zimmerman’s defense is what Mr. Zimmerman told us the best evidence was. There is no film of the encounter. We have only Mr. Zimmerman’s word for it. Mr. Zimmerman currently resides in jail because not me, or any member of the passing public believed one thing or another. He sits in jail because the judge in the case determined that Mr. Zimmerman was untruthful to the court. Judge Lester went on to say that the evidence against Mr. Zimmerman is strong. So, the case is not open and shut. Mr. Zimmerman will have to take the stand if the case goes to trial, right? Unfortunately, each time he has opened his mouth so far, his mouth has worked for the prosecution, and there will be a limit to how many free passes he gets for being, say, in the wrong place, or having a dead guy talking to him, or screaming when his nose and mouth were covered or being indigent when he isn’t, and so on…all b because he was just a terrified victim.
That has yet to be determined in a court of law.
The relevant facts have yet to be determined in a court of law.
None of this has yet been determined in a court of law. It is your opinion and your opinion only.
I am sorry but you manifestly haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about here. Not a clue. Go take comparative jurisprudence 101 before making such a ludicrously inaccurate statement.
mfi
This is a hilarious diary. It purports to be about the Zimmerman case but it’s really not. In terms of the case, the author doesn’t analyze anything and simply takes Zimmerman’s word as truth along with a couple of interpretations from Talkleft that he/she agree with. Nonsense. In the real world, Zimmerman’s lawyer was on Piers Morgan last night acknowledging the credibilty problems his client and wife has and how he plans to approach them.
The diary is just using the Zimmerman case as a device to make a stupid attack on his/her “fake left” bogeyman and when you compare it to Masoninblue’s work who, whether you agree with him or not has actually analyzed the case, it’s an embarrassment.
Mark, Americans all watch CSI. That makes us all forensics experts, dontchaknow!
<snort><giggle>Ah that explains it!</giggle></snort>
One thing that is beyond dispute is the existence of the wounds on the front and back of Zimmerman’s head. The other thing that is beyond dispute is that none of the pro-Trayvon arguers have dealt with that factual evidence in anything approaching reasonable good faith balance or thoroughness. That indicates that people are more comfortable basking in their bias. And it’s OK with me if they stay there, the world is full of incorrect people. Plenty of room for everybody.
“That has yet to be determined in a court of law.” True, and the law enforcement and local district attorney didn’t think there was evidence to bring this case to a court of law. That indicates, and the indication would be accurate, that there is virtually no evidence that George Zimmerman committed a crime.
“The relevant facts have yet to be determined in a court of law.” They’re out there, and using your lawyer’s mind, I think you’ll determine, as Jeralyn has, that the relevant facts involve the final confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman and whether Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger had an actual fear of grave bodily harm or death. Evidence in reference to that indicates no crime took place.
“None of this has yet been determined in a court of law. It is your opinion and your opinion only.” No, there are facts in evidence. Fact: Zimmerman has a broken nose. Fact: He has lacerations on the back of his head. Fact: Zimmerman’s rendition of events matches his injuries and the injuries to and trace evidence left on Martin. Fact: the nearby eyewitness saw the person on top wearing clothing that matched Martin’s.
“I am sorry but you manifestly haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about here. Not a clue.” Ad hominem attacks are allowed at MyFDL so I’ll let this one go, but note:
And none of the facts in this obvious case point anywhere except at those circumstantial requirements being satisfied. It still is a simple case of common law self-defense, broken nose and having your head beat on concrete, without possibility of retreat. Self-defense took place under any common law definition, so no crime took place.
Yes using Zimmerman’s actual publicly available mugshot was racist. Of course….
The constant photo whine from some quarters was interesting because it had nothing to do with media accuracy and was an obvious ploy to find a “scary Trayvon” photo to boost Zimmerman’s story. Since that was a fail, you got all of the “football player” stuff until the cornoer’s report was released and revealed that TM was all of 5-11 and 158lbs.
Trayvon looks like a nice kid, even his more recent 16-17-year-old photos, except for the one where he displays his gold grill. Zimmerman looks like a nice young man too, except in the one photo from several years ago where he’s overweight and unshaven and in an orange prison jumpsuit.
I almost exclusively quote the eminent criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt. Nothing from Zimmerman at all. I’m surprised you didn’t notice that.
Here is where you’re mistaken. You cannot pick a fight with someone and then claim self defense when you lose the upper hand. The events before the moment the trigger was pulled are far more relevant to the case. The moment the trigger was pulled is almost irrelevant, in that we know Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman is not. What allows the jury to make a distinction between self defense and murder are the details of events leading up to that point.
That Zimmerman shot Martin is not in dispute. Why he shot him is, and is Zimmerman’s sole defense.
Now, the only evidence thus far indicating that Zimmerman was defending himself is Zimmerman’s testimony. The wounds are almost irrelevant in that they could have been obtained while Zimmerman was winning or losing a fist fight that Zimmerman may or may not have started.
The witnesses who seemed to initially support Zimmerman’s story of events have since admitted that they may have been directed by law enforcement in their statements, or that they may have been mistaken in position or persons that they saw. The eye witnesses have little-to-no credibility.
What we are left with is Zimmerman’s testimony that is tainted by his changing of events, his lies about other things (passport?!), his bail revocation, and his wife’s money conspiracy. We also have forensic medical evidence that may offer some insight. We will have bullet trajectory analysis. We will have the few 911 recordings which are indisputable, along with forensic analysis of voices on those tapes. All of these things look pretty bleak for Zimmerman.
Further to the point (I’ve underlined above). If George Zimmerman is determined to have started the fight, then Trayvon Martin was indeed the person in a position to defend himself, not George Zimmerman. One cannot claim self defense if they are the aggressor. This is why the events leading up to the killing itself are so important. We already know who killed who, what we need to know is why.
Has the judge set a trial date yet?
Hmmm. The underline didn’t work.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin, and that matters. Your speculation may be accurate, but no evidence means no case, means no crime should be charged.
Btw, as Jeralyn often points out, it is not against the law to talk angrily at someone (though there’s no evidence of Zimmerman doing so), and it’s not against the law to follow someone (though when the fight took place there’s no evidence Zimmerman was following Martin). It’s not against the law to not try to be conciliatory and calming toward Martin (though there’s no evidence other than his testimony regarding what exactly Zimmerman did or said in the seconds between the initial confrontation and the fight).
Questions, and it goes to Zimmerman’s intent.
Why did he stalk (or follow) Martin?
Is this action “picking a fight”?
Does that go beyond the 4 corners of the SYG law?
Whet is the distinction between SYG and stalk?
What would have happened if Martin had shot Zimmerman when being stalked? Would STY apply?
Does following or stalking (and I deliberately use “stalk” as a provocative & emotive word) entitle Martin under the SYG law to attack Zimmerman?
Does the act of stalking make Zimmerman the aggressor?
They’re out there, and using your lawyer’s mind, I think you’ll determine, as Jeralyn has, that the relevant facts involve the final confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman and whether Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger had an actual fear of grave bodily harm or death. Evidence in reference to that indicates no crime took place.
Those aren’t all of the “relevant facts”. They are simply the relevant facts that you and Jeralyn want to focus on. I understand Jeralyn’s position since she’s a defense attorney. OTOH, you just seem to be pushing an agenda against your “fake left”.
If you read GZ’s interview with Det. Serino, you’ll see that the bmaz post you agree with above leaves out a key detail. When Det. Serino asked GZ to consider that TM might have had valid reason to fear him because he watched him, chased after him in the dark and when they confronted each other he reached into his waistband for his cell phone, the normally chatty GZ got strangely quiet. Gee I wonder why?
Also, I think you misunderstand. Regardless who was the initial aggressor, after Martin slugs Zimmerman, breaking his nose, and after he is on top of him slamming his head into the concrete, it is at that point that Zimmerman’s right to self-defense is determined. At that time did Z have (under common law self defense principles) an actual fear of grave bodily injury or death? Whatever he did to get himself into that situation, in which there is no possibility of retreat, is irrelevant for the defense of self-defense.
Overcomplicating things seems to be the main problem here.
This is where it will come down to a jury. Zimmerman pursued Martin by his own admission (support by phone call with girlfriend) and Martin fled. The jury may well interpret that as aggression, giving Martin reasonable cause to stand his ground and confront his pursuer.
Synoia basically hits the same points above.
This all goes to whether you can successfully argue that you were defending yourself when you were pursuing the person that you ended up killing in the first place.
Again, I think you misunderstand. If Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, maybe indicating he had a gun or displaying it in some way, then Martin was completely justified in trying to kill Zimmerman.
This goes both ways and we can argue it until the cows come home. Or we could sit back and watch the prosecution and defense do it in front of a jury where it will actually matter.
Understand that I only waded into this conversation to try and rationally poke some holes in your argument that the case is closed. I think I’ve done so.
The bottom line is that self-defense cases are extraordinarily fact-specific. If we still have to speculate about key facts, then trying to assign guilt is a futile exercise. I know that is frustrating, and that it is also frustrating that the legal machinery must have strong evidence to move, not belief, not speculation. But, we on the left are supposed to be the careful, thoughtful, disciplined ones. We should be trying harder to live up to that standard, or else be prepared to drop it as a talking point, IMO.
I would make a final point, and then I’m going, but defending against a murder charge is a life-changing, often life-destroying event. Even if found innocent eventually, you may never recover financially or emotionally, friends and lovers will leave you, employers will shun you, Black Panthers might put a bounty on your head and someone might even kill you. The Florida legislature obviously decided, in their wisdom and purvue, to try and limit that effect, so they put a mechanism in place to allow for a quick determination to decline prosecution of these cases. Smart or dumb, that is what they did.
You can engage in as much dodging, weaving, and opinionising as you wish. The fact remains that the facts of the case have yet to be determined in a court of law.
I’ll repeat myself but first I’ll repeat what you wrote:
I am sorry but you manifestly haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about here. Not a clue.
Now having repeated myself I am going to repeat myself again and then amplify and expand. You manifestly haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about. Not a clue. Nobody who had successfully got through day 2 of comparative jurisprudence 101 would make such a ludicrously inaccurate ridiculously false claim. Find and cite to me cases from the superior courts of any of what are commonly called the “common law jurisdictions” in support of your claim and no copying and pasting from Lexis Nexis or any other secondary source won’t cut it. You’ve claimed and I’ll quote you again:
Fine – prove it, I will accept as proof that which any lawyer would demand as minimum proof — citations from primary sources such as AER, IR, or FLR.
You should note that minority opinions and dissents are not law.
Verifiable cases from superior courts are what you’ll need to prove your assertion. Lots and lots of luck finding them.
Finally you should note that nobody who successfully passed logic 101 or rhetoric 101 or who survived their first moot (ask a lawyer what that last one means) would have written this:
An ad hominem attack is where I attack you personally I didn’t attack you personally I didn’t need to. I attacked the half-assed, factually incorrect, ill educated, and effing stupid argument you were making. I attacked it because as an argument it was:
1. Half-assed.
2. Factually incorrect.
3. Ill-educated.
4. Effing stupid.
And nobody who had even the remotest idea what they were talking about would have been idiotic enough to make such an argument.
Feel free to mail Jane snivelling as much as you like about “ad hominem” making sure you include links to your ludicrously inaccurate assertion, to my rebuttal, and now to this comment. Given the amount of aggravation she has to put up with she could probably do with the laugh.
TTFN
mfi
PS: I’ll also accept certified reports of the COS – isn’t that nice of me?
mfi
Yes and further to my post above about GZ following TM, note that GZ never identified himself as “Captain of the Neighborhood Watch” even after TM apparently asked him twice “Why are you following me?”. The latter question TM asked is confirmed by both “DeeDee” and GZ. So when you consider that and GZ’s statement that he reached into his waistband for his cellphone after that, trying to pretend that the ONLY thing that matters is what seemed to happen directly after that until the fatal shot but, nothing before and/or after, seems absurd.
Even when you look at what GZ claimed happened during the struggle it’s problematic. GZ’s “felt his head was going to explode and he was on the verge of unciousness” but yet he manages to scream for help 50 times while having his mouth covered, notice a neighbor opening a door and call for help, get his gun, stop TM from getting his gun, shoot TM all while laying on his back. Yeah.
“The initial and now (after we’ve seen most of the evidence) in hindsight very reasonable local law enforcement judgment was that there was not enough evidence to charge Z with a crime, so we may have found one of those rare open and shut cases …”
There are several flaws in your reasoning here. First, we don’t know that the initial LE judgment was that there was not enough evidence to charge GZ with a crime. There are indications that the police wanted to charge GZ but were overruled by Wolfinger. Second, at the time of the initial determination, much of the evidence was not yet available (forensics, autopsy report, etc.) It is possible that the “smoking gun” lies in that evidence. Even though much of the evidence itself is now publicly available, expert interpretation is not. For example, the significance of Trayvon’s brain edema is not clear.
This case is “open and shut” only if GZ’s statements are blindly accepted.
Whew. We are all on edge these days, aren’t we?
markfromireland – so good to see your name here! And I thought your comments extremely reasonable. (disclaimer: I am a lawyer, only recently returned to practice, with some criminal defense experience).
The only thing I’m going to add is that (not having read Jeralynn’s analysis) is that the conclusions of this post seem to be based on accepting Zimmerman’s testimony as true.
I have a problem with this, since his record for veracity and honesty seems to be, um, mixed, at best. He is actually back in jail for lying to the court, and that hurts his credibility a lot.
If he isn’t credible, then his version of the facts isn’t credible, either.
Maybe Martin attacked – but I can’t help thinking that whay MAY apply here is thinking “the best defense is a good offense.” You figure you are being stalked by someone with ill intent, you decide to take him out before he can hurt you.
That might not be what happened. But then again, it might be.
And it’s true that what comes out in court and the verdict there may not be the truth, either. But it’s the closest we’re ever gonna get, so I’m willing to wait.
It’s amazing how often when a case gets to court some fact that never got into the press puts an entirely different light on the case, and leads to an unexpected result.
So, just sayin’, I wouldn’t be going around posting titles like “case closed.” OTOH, I’d be lying if I said I weren’t interested in the case and how it turns out.
Okay with everybody?
Entirely unexceptionable I would have thought. Others’ mileage “may vary” to coin a phrase. :-)
mfi
I <3 you.
In spite of following this story on the news, and on several other blogs, no where else did I find out that Zimmerman’s nose was broken. That is a rather telling indication of how our “news” is slanted.
One of my main reactions about this story is to consider exactly what other “news” this heated discussion was designed to distract us from considering. The House of Representatives Bill, passed just several Fridays back, that basically makes the USA the fifty first state of Israel? More information coming out about the three card monte game that is played in Washington DC with out lives and fortunes, including the now “news” of the Trans Pacific Plan for our future. And no one here would have been discussing the Trans Pacific Plan if there had not been the needed leaks.
mfi, Kris in TX — back atcha.
And now, I must return to actual work. : )
Oh, it was Zimmerman’s family doctor who claims that he made a report in the period right after the February event to the effect that Zimmerman had a broken nose, and blackened eyes.
Okay, so here”s the problem I have with that – why didn’t Zimmerman have any type of band aids on his face? I have known people with broken noses, and if they bother with going to the doctor, they usually get a splint/bandaid kid of deal. Quite often, that splint is worn for four to six weeks, because of doctor orders. Other times, surgery is required.
And I sure did not notice any blackened eyes while Zimmerman was being filmed in the police station during the week immediately after the event. If I was a juror on this case I would be more than slightly suspicious of this doctor’s report.
So far I have read here in this particular post concerning what would normally be a local – and totally ignored situation – enough composted manure to start an organic farm.
And it has destroyed my bovine excrement meter.
There’s no dispute he was bleeding from the nose at the scene, it does not need to be broken to have hurt a lot and made him see stars and generate maximum adrenaline at the time it was hit. Try it lol.
Same with the bleeding wounds on back of his head. You or anyone else can bang your own head on concrete until you have two bleeding wounds (they can be “minor”) and then report back on the experience.
Here’s a good analysis of why it is physically impossible for Zimmerman to have stopped Martin from grabbing his gun (holstered behind the back he was lying on) while simultaneously drawing the gun himself, in the way Zimmerman describes it in the re-enactment video.
Unless Zimmerman was some long-armed Superhero making an incredible comeback against a villain who says things like “You Got Me!” after being fatally shot in the chest.
Dear Fairleft:
Thank you for confirming the value of my services.
You have been played.
Respectfully,
Mark O’Mara Esq.
Wow, that is telling. So GZ claim’s he did all that while pinning TM’s arm and getting to his gun which was holster behind him as he lay on his back? Yikes. But this nugget from the same link is amazing:
Worse ye, at 21:11 of the audio tape he lets slip a detail. He says Martin was apparently upset he called the police. Now how would Martin know Zimmerman called the police? How much you want to bet the confrontation was longer and had a lot of exchanges, including Zimmerman telling Martin he called the police and his gun out trying to detain the boy?
He better be plea bargain right now.
I’ll just repeat what Jeralyn and the many defense attorneys at TalkLeft have said over and over, that there was no stalking under its legal definition. It is lawful to follow a person. I think that answers all your questions. For example, is following someone ‘picking a fight’?: No, definitely not.
Where this line of questions is coming from seems other-worldly to me, and admit I’m not familiar with the permutations of the MyFDL or MSNBC discussion on matters that are irrelevant to whether Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with deadly force when his head was being smashed on the concrete and Martin was allegedly reaching for Zimmerman’s gun.
For you, anything! I can’t say I really want to mosey over and talk about this _more_, though.
You are assuming facts not in evidence, and using ‘allegedly’ when the only person alleging this is the person on trial for murder.
Two minor injuries to the back of the head don’t constitute smashing, nor do the medically indicate that the person’s head was being smashed. I had a worse injury as a kid from falling off the bed while jumping around. I actually cracked my skull, with no more force involved than a 4 year old falling 4-5 feet. 45 lbs of person at nowhere near terminal velocity falling onto carpet with concrete beneath.
His head injuries do not come close to indicating that a strong, average sized 17 year old boy was slamming his head into concrete.
Please stop playing fast and loose with the facts. Zimmerman’s statement is a version of events, nothing more, and seems to be the only thing you’re basing your entire argument on. It’s ludicrous.
Of coure you are going to just repeat what you agree with and not review anything because even a facile review reveals that the many inconsistencies in GZ’s statements are plain even in the part of the story you are focusing on. Like I said, I get why Jeralyn is doing it and limiting the entire encounter to a few seconds and taking GZ’s word as true but you, otoh, don’t really seem to have an interest in the case other than political posturing.
No comment without a vote, no vote without completing the three steps lol. Dem’s da rules. ;-)
So your theory is that the family doctor was conspiring from the start, the day after the incident, to make up stuff like a broken nose that would bolster Zimmerman’s defense, in case he was charged sometime down the line. I think it more likely the doctor did an honest medical examination and just happened to find those injuries.
A young man who wasn’t bothering anyone is dead. Zimmerman followed him when he had been told not to. Z had a gun and could have shown it without getting near Trayvon and, unless Trayvon was crazy, he wouldn’t have come closer to Z. And finally, Trayvon would be alive if he had been white. There’s no way that Z would have accosted a white person to find out what they were doing in the neighborhood. He is, at best, a coward.
None of that will be relevant, since it is legal to follow people. And regardless who initiated the fight, if one of the combatants begins to threaten imminent grave bodily injury or death, the other combatant has a right to self-defense with deadly force. And that’s what the eyewitness (Zimmerman and the witness who was only a few yards away) and physical evidence either points to or doesn’t contradict, a traditional, common-law, non-SYG case of self-defense. Zimmerman seems to be a very strong witness, since his story hasn’t varied meaningfully since he started telling it.
Oops, I was thrown off by the first comment, sorry.
As a person who was followed many times, by young males (I am talking about events forty years ago) I think a lot matters to the “followee” as to the intent of the “follower.”
If the eprson looked to be up to no good, I was not happy about it.
Trayvon was so unhappy about the “vibe” that Zimmerman exuded that he called his Girl Friend and let her know about it. No one else ever heard a peep out of Trayvon, except for whatever Zimmerman heard.
Family doctors do stuff for families all the time. This would certainly not be the first time that a doctor made a report up at a later date and back dated it.
I do get that there is the notion out there that no blacks ever did anything thuggish. As one commentator has stated, if some black thug had killed Zimmerman in February, noone outside of his community woulodknow about it.
But I am fairly on Trayvon’s family’s side on this. I can remember an incident that happened to a young black boy inside Disney World, of such a blatant racist and nasty energy that I have never returned to Florida. The perp was a Disney World employee! Who probably had done such things before and did them again. Perhaps that incident overshadows anything else, so maybe I am not seeing this without prejudice.
But again, I saw numerous photos of Zimmerman during the days right after the Feb event, and it is weird to me that it isn’t until May that an account comes out that attempts to exonerate the man by supplying the needed medical assessments to the fact that he had been injured. If injured, why no bandages on Zimmerman back in February? Why no obvious to the camera blackened eyes? Black eyes show up, and are quite visible when filmed.
Aren’t most cases “over” if you take the defendant’s testimony as gospel?
You did not answer all the questions:
1.There is no single “legal definition” of stalking. It varies state by state.
2. The Florida definition is “Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”
Wilful – yes, after being told not to follow by the Police Dispatcher.
Malicious – Could be judged by a jury, to be malicious, could not be. I’d assert that following someone with a loaded gun is malicious.
Repeatedly – Depends on the definition of repeatedly. Continuing to seek to follow a person could be considered repeated attempts. Depends if Zimmerman repeatedly followed people he believed to be suspicious.
You did not address the question, if someone is following me under the SYG laws am I entitled to confront the follower, so the person following me is the aggressor, not myself? (Seems to me the SYG laws should be renames as “itchin’ fer a fight” laws).
Before SYG laws, I, the person being followed had a clear duty. Run away.
Finally, why are you posting this anyway? Do something useful, such as Occupy Something.
You mean the witness “John” who has already recanted key parts of his statement? GZ’s story has been consistent? You really haven’t been paying attention, huh? It hasn’t been really been consistent but, more importantly, as has been made clear consistent doesn’t mean true.
But I guess you’re in the “la, la,la…I can’t hear you” stage.
Boom.
Scarecrow, at the risk of being bounced out of here and this being somewhat off topic, this little back and forth you are addressing is what concerns me with the recent rules Jane mentioned.
I’ve seen in other sites where the imposition of more rules did more harm than good. So people get caught up in trying police others on rules and the main issues get lost, or it puts a chill in the air and the discussion is well, boring, less than vibrant because the vanilla response is the safe response.
I don’t know, just saying. I’ve seen a few sites I liked go down this road and while the intentions may be good, the results are worse than the cure.
Enough of Zimmerman, here’s some REAL NEWS:
Darn, 40 a month. Still, great move by Uruguay!
Never mind, the whole diary has already been taken down.
I’m Occupying Al Sharpton as we speak, and loving it.
Frankly, the focus on whether or not Zimmerman was or was not following Martin is just legally irrelevant, and really kind of odd, so I assume it must be something emanating from MSNBC and the other media that has decided Zimmerman must be guilty.
The possibly legally relevant actions take place beginning with the verbal confrontation between the two. But what most matters is whether Zimmerman had a reasonable or actual fear of grave injury or death when he pulled the trigger. Whether or not Zimmerman a few minutes earlier was following or not following Martin is irrelevant.
Well, unless the prosecution is attempting to show that Zimmerman by following Martin was enticing Martin into a confrontation that put Zimmerman in imminent fear of death or serious injury as a way to then murder Martin. I speculate that that is pretty darn spectacularly unlikely prosecution strategy.
Darn! I didn’t even get to respond to your comment!
You f’ing crack me up, Kris.
Yes, that witness still testifies the person wearing clothing matching Martin’s was on top. Also, the original, what I would call the ‘untainted by the hanging media frenzy’ testimony, is still there and I’d guess will be heard by the jury.
Again, this is where we differ! If Martin had a reasonable or actual fear of grave injury or death, he would have been totally justified in beating Zimmerman’s ass.
What happened leading up to the confrontation is then entirely relevant because it goes to state of mind. If Zimmerman was the pursuer and Martin the pursued, Martin would have been in fear while Zimmerman would have been aggressive.
What you’re suggesting, if my above speculation ends up being the case, is that Zimmerman (or anyone) can pick a fight with the expectation that if they’re losing, they can then be allowed to shoot the opponent and claim self defense.
If Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin feared for his safety as a result, Martin’s legal right to defend himself from ‘fear of serious injury or death’ precludes Zimmerman’s right to defend himself.
Martin was obviously not presenting a physical threat while walking down the street. No physical threat was presented until the ensuing confrontation when Zimmerman and Martin finally were face to face.
If Zimmerman can say that he feared for his life, it’s just as easy for Martin to say that he feared for his life…. if he were alive to say it.
So again, the entire argument rests on Zimmerman’s version of events. The witness who was a few yards away has already changed his story and said that he may have been mistaken as to who was or was not on top of the other person, so that’s out. Can’t be counted on if he can’t be certain of what he saw. At this point in time, without knowing what additional evidence may be available, it all comes down to Zimmerman’s testimony.
HOWEVER – I think we’re all looking at this the wrong way. The burden of proof does not rest on Zimmerman, as he is the accused. The prosecution has to prove to 12 folks, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was indeed the aggressor here and was not defending himself.
Maybe we need to reframe this debate?
I’ve been cracking me up all day!
My belly button lint joke earlier was only surpassed by my heroin joke at the diner, IMHO.
One could also note that the original testimony could have been ‘tainted by the police frenzy’. It’s been documented that an officer attempted to pressure witnesses.
The best part of this is that a jury will eventually decide, fairly, with all of the evidence and testimony, Zimmerman’s fate.
Until then this is all just banter and speculation and none of us know how jurors will react to the information that we’re all reacting to.
Thanks for the lively forum fairleft!
No one has gotten bounced for this thread, that I know of. I don’t pretend to know what the correct balance is. Having been here a while, you get a sense for what works and what doesn’t. the goal is to allow interesting, informative news, analysis and debates on matters of public importance.
People have different views, life experience, expertise, wisdom, and that’s good. But to have those come out, including especially from the ones who don’t enjoy rhetorical battle, but do have worthwhile opinions, experience, expertise, we try to promote an atmosphere conducive to everyone participating. It’s not just or even primarily a debating society, or a place to prove your manhood or whatever.
That seems to require some simple rules, like don’t insult each other; listen and respond with respect, without flaming people. Some people are much better at this than others. It is not true that this forum exists primarily for those who love to argue, or zing others. Nor do I believe that those people have the most to offer. Often, it’s the folks just reading along, who have something valuable, but don’t want to be harassed, bullied, etc.
Those who turn threads into flame wars, for ego or other reason, are a problem for the mods and editors, and they require enormous attention. We have to waste time on them, because we value others too.
The rules are not, probably can’t be, perfect, or the correct balance,whatever that is. But since the mods are just people, you can expect that if someone just becomes a persistent pain in the ass, they probably won’t last here . . . And we won’t miss them, no matter how smart or clever they were.
Dunno what else to say. If we have healthy discussions, with lots of very informed people, we are succeeding. If we have mostly flame wars, we are failing. commenters can help set that tone, or destroy it.
Could I please add that replies to each other should not be personal. That’s just uncalled for.
As in, personally offensive? Sure, it’s a good goal, though the written word can be misconstrued and loses a lot in translation. But worthy of keeping in mind.
Yes, that’s what I meant. Hurtful remarks that do harm.
Book burners are us. Hilarious. Just the kind of club for thinking people who don’t have a stick up their ass.
What Martin had a legal right to do is not relevant. What Zimmerman had a legal right to do, specifically the evidence supporting or contradicting his self defense claim, is relevant. Let’s say just for argument’s sake that for some reason Martin had a right to try to kill Zimmerman. That doesn’t impact at all whether Zimmerman, because of a reasonable or actual fear of grave bodily injury or death, had a right to self-defense with deadly force.
Even this is a huge stretch, fairleft. You see, there’s this thing called “harrassment.”
What you’ve constructed here is “case” based on complete acceptance of GZ’s statement – a statement his victim cannot refute, because GZ made sure of it. That fact that all this good cyberspace has been chewed up thanks to your drivel – that’s the only mystery here.
RC, I acted in good faith a couple days ago when I suggested you wind down and stop taking this stuff personally. Since then I’ve watched you do little except detract from the conversation and pick fights with people using intentionally inflammatory remarks.
I think you’re really bright, and that you have a lot of valuable insight and opinions to offer this community. I for one value your viewpoint. I hope you pull it together and stop this slow march toward flameout, but I’m done talking to you for now.
Peace to you, my fellow firedog.
Appreciate the response.
I’m gonna use this as my yardstick:
you can expect that if someone just becomes a persistent pain in the ass, they probably won’t last here
I’m sure many of us here including Jane can be a pain in the ass and that’s fine. Every once in a while you gotta do that. The brick wall I guess is when you constantly hit that wall in the same thread.
If your head was banged repeatedly on cement, there would be a lot more damage than what I saw in the picture.
T^he medical report, from his own family physician, said he “probably” suffered a broken nose. I’ve never heard a doctor hedge like that in the case of a broken nose, have you?
Thanks tejana. I tried to point out in comment #3 that just According to the actual analyses I’ve read, Zimmerman has a really enormous credibility problem, the evidence doesn’t match his story, his story has changed somewhat and Trayvon Martin couldn’t be interviewed because he’s dead. The author of this post seems to have tried the case in his mind and exonerated Zimmerman based on his statements alone. Sorry fairleft, I think I’ve got to go with the actual attorneys on this one.
I don’t see that word “probably” in the news reports, such as this one from HLN and this one from BBC. Where do you find it? Has an actual copy of the medical report been released?
LMAO! Release Charles Manson. He never killed anybody and if you listen to his story, he never pressured anybody to kill.
I know I’ll probably get flamed for this, but funny, almost no one here and virtually no one in the media includes the Sandusky case in that admonition. Or, for that matter, the legal requirement that someone be proven “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” because in the Sandusky case I can’t see that criterium being met. (I can sooner see it being met in the Zimmerman case than the Sandusky case, because there it’s possible to get beyond he said/he said).
-stewartm
Hmmm, I wish I could remember where I read that. Since I cannot, I withdraw it. That does nothing for the fact that his story doesn’t match the evidence though and it’s already been determined he’s an accomplished liar.
Why? Others have said this, but if Zimmermann can attack Martin if in fear of his life, then why can’t Martin attack Zimmermann if genuinely in fear of his life?
Stand your ground cuts both ways. Though it’s not intended to.
-stewartm
You not think that the fact it was Zimmerman following Martin undercuts his self-defense motive?
I mean, if you think that someone’s a threat who could beat you to a pulp, do you follow that someone? Try to catch up with them?
-stewartm
No, the physical evidence entirely matches his story. His story hasn’t changed hardly at all except in minor and unimportant details as is normal. Also this, from Jeralyn:
Jeralyn and any unbiased observer looks at this case and one thing stands out: where is the evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s version of events? Speculation won’t do, you need evidence. And, as Jeralyn indicates, whether you accept Zimmerman’s version of events or not, what is the credible alternative version of events that matches the physical and other factual evidence and shows Zimmerman committing either manslaughter or murder?
Suppose we speculate that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Who knows, maybe he did, but there is no evidence of that. The voice shouting “help” on the cell phone tapes has not been identified, so it is no help to the “Zimmerman attacked Martin” version of events. What else is there? The nearby eyewitness didn’t see how the altercation began (besides testifying that that the clothing worn by the person on top matches Martin’s clothing).
The prosecution case is speculation and non-eyewitness testimony, and it has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can’t attack someone for following you. That is not reasonable or actual fear for your life. Imagine a world in which it was legal, not assault and battery, to attack to the point of trying to kill anyone you reasonably determined had been following you.
It should be added because the voice recognition experts can’t match it to Martin’s voice because they lack samples.
-stewartm
Excellent point. If somebody aggressively came up on my with a weapon, with no badge or any credentials as a law enforcement officer, would I hit that person? That would depend on the circumstances but yeah, if I thought the jerk was going to shoot me, I’d have hit him in more than the nose. So maybe somebody can explain to me why an armed Zimmerman who is confronting a guy walking = reasonable but unarmed Martin hitting a guy with a gun who is demanding to know who he is, why he’s there etc = just cause for Zimmerman to shoot and kill him. Once again, we’ll never be able to get Martin’s side of the story so his credibility is not an issue. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I watch CSI Miami, CSI Los Angeles, CSI New York or CSI Mars But it seems to me that the guy’s credibility or lack thereof would weigh hugely in this case.
You’re saying you have to have some standard of objectivity which must be met before using that as a self-defense claim?
Where then, is the objective evidence that a 17-year old with Skittles and ice tea is a threat to Zimmerman’s life? Just from his appearance.
And why would someone be stalking someone else if they thought indeed they were a dangerous person? Me, I try to avoid people who I think are dangerous, not catch up with them.
-stewartm
Well, since you are determined to take the word of a known perjurer, (whose bond was revoked for perjury), and you have already decided Martin was guilty of harming poor, innocent, (but armed), Zimmerman, I guess that concludes our conversation. I’ll be like Southern Dragon though and wait for the trial to pass judgment.
Well, as expected these diaries have unseemly popularity. I hope it was therapeutic, and at least people here are aware that there are rumblings of discontent on the left with the seemingly ‘Stalinist line’ that the politically correct must toe on the Zimmerman-Martin case.
The more important issue IMHO is how this Stalinist line repeatedly is imposed by the ‘Al Sharpton lobby’ on progressives, the Democratic Party, and Democratic/progressive-associated big and small media. And how when the b.s. and rank unfairness is exposed, that damages the image of the Democrats and progressives with millions of working and middle class people who think being fair is a very big deal.
Again, that’s just your opinion and subjectively at least, seems to be based on nothing but your own well established anti left narrative.
I know what your agenda is and I want no part of it.
i’m quite surprised by a lot of what i read here. the selective picking of “facts” by fairleft is neither fair nor what i expect from “the left.” i’m not interested in reading someone’s result-driven opinion where all inconvenient evidence is thrown out and dismissed as not relevant rather than dealt with head-on. as one example, if GZ’s story is true, where are all the wounds on TM’s hands? they are not there. i read fdl precisely because it doesn’t do what is on display here.
From the beginning this case has been NOTHING but a travesty of any semblance of justice or even basic investigative and legal protocol.
Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged on the night of the killing. He wasn’t.
The fact that it took so long just to notify Martin’s parents, then to eventually charge Zimmerman is a big indicator to me that much of the working of this case was not on the level.
The police chief just got fired not too long ago, THAT took way too long IMO.
I hope Zimmerman gets a fair trial and that the jury looks at the facts of the case as impartially as they can.
But WHATEVER the outcome; it was sabotaged long before MSNBC or Al Sharpton or anyone else got a hold to it. The cops, DA and police chief did a hell of a job doing that all by themselves.
And yes, RACE was and is a factor in this case; and it would be with or without Al Sharpton and MSNBC or anyone or anything else. In fact; without, SOMEONE talking about this case I doubt Zimmerman whould have ever been charged; even though the responding detetcive wanted to charge him on the night of the shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aTvELXNXNU&feature=related
I think all of the jury will be White: I have watched trials in Florida, lots of them. I have never seen a Black person seated on a jury.
Minor and unimportant details? Like the location of TM’s body not being consistent with GZ’s story? Like the imaginary bushes that TM supposedly jumped out of? Like TM smothering GZ but yet GZ supposedly calling for help 50 times? Like actually not knowing who cried out for help? Like ignoring or downplaying witnesses like “DeeDee” who don’t support GZ’s tale but elevating a witnesses like “John” who’s already changed his story? Like looking at GZ’s injuries but not examining his rather fantastic tale of what supposedly happened during the struggle especially while he was on his back? Like glossing over the “You got me” line despite the fact that TM was shot in the heart and his lungs collapsed? Like saying there is not one iota of evidence that would legally justify Trayvon’s physical attack on Zimmerman while ignoring that not only did GZ follow TM in the dark, he chased after him, and when they met he didn’t identify himself and reached into his waistband?
And so on….
Like I said I get Jeralyn’s spin but, fortunately for GZ, his actual attorney seems to be taking everything into account including his client’s current problem with his bail/bond.
Al Sharpton? A Democratic shill, at least his MSNBC show is (to me).
But really, speaking for myself as well, all the evidence I’ve seen points to Zimmerman being a cop wannabe, and in the worst sense (i.e., not because he wants to aid/protect the community, but because he fancies being a badged bully who can push people around). That night he obviously did not see TM as someone who was dangerous (to himself, at least) and that’s why he followed him. That bit is important as it undercuts Zimmerman’s whole self-defense shtick.
And while the facts of the encounter will hopefully come out in court, the fact that Zimmerman initiated everything up until the actual encounter (despite being warned not to by the dispatcher) makes him at least in part morally culpable, if not strictly legally so. TM may indeed have attacked, but we know that the cries of “help” were not Zimmerman’s–and if they were TM’s, that would fit with the notion that TM attacked merely out of fear for his own life.
And if TM had killed George Zimmerman instead of the opposite, I’d say that given the uncontested story leading up to the encounter and given that it was Zimmerman, not TM, who had the gun, I’d say that TM would have a much better self-defense case than Zimmerman has.
-stewartm
And what in the world does Al Sharpton have to do with this case? What does MSNBC have to do with this case?
The thing I have against Al Sharpton is that he advocates for Charter schools.
The thing I have against MSNBC is they have a UniParty/corporate media bias and cheerlead for Dems while hardly ever taking them to task.
But I don’t see what any of these things have to do with the Zimmerman case.
Well, as expected these diaries have unseemly popularity. I hope it was therapeutic, and at least people here are aware that there are rumblings of discontent on the left with the seemingly ‘Stalinist line’ that the politically correct must toe on the Zimmerman-Martin case.
The more important issue IMHO is how this Stalinist line repeatedly is imposed by the ‘Al Sharpton lobby’ on progressives, the Democratic Party, and Democratic/progressive-associated big and small media. And how when the b.s. and rank unfairness is exposed, that damages the image of the Democrats and progressives with millions of working and middle class people who think being fair is a very big deal.
That’s ridiculous drivel. Thanks for confirming my earlier thoughts. You don’t care a whit about this case and know little of it other than to repeat “…what Jeralyn said…”.
You are just using to push, frankly, a bizarre narrative. ‘Stalinist line’? politically correct? “Al Sharpton lobby”? What a load of silly rubbish.
I been away from the infoboobtubes for a day or so and I just happened on this thread, but haven’t yet read many of the comments. But who is this Jeralyn person anyway? A lawyer, a legal expert.
Why put so much faith in what she says about this case, is it because you completely agree with her take? If you have some quibbles it would be nice to see the new and improved nuanced Fairleft.
She seems to be ignoring the fact, and it is a fact, recorded on Zimmerman’s 911 call that he is stalking the teenager because there were recent burglaries of homes in the subdivision.
He is clearly coming after this kid with extreme prejudice, not to mention a gun.
A 17 year old is being followed by a much older, heavy set thuggish looking man, not the other way around.
The incident didn’t start with Martin turning back around on Zimmerman. Quite the opposite. Its hard for me to square Zimmerman’s actions in initiating the entire incident with claims that he was defending himself.
This should be a key point of the trial, because its not he said/she said or pure speculation. Its caught on tape.
Zimmerman clearly initiated the incident by stalking an innocent teenager with a gun, whom he suspected of committing a recent string of burglaries without even a whiff of evidence. It was pure racial profiling. Zimmerman reported the details of his own stalking maneuvers to the police (who advised him to back off, btw). That the kid was foolishly brave to confront Zimmerman is obvious but hindsight is 20/20.
I submit that is just as logical to conclude that Martin was defending himself by confronting Zimmerman. Under the circumstances it was reasonable, like turning around and going “WTF dude?”
Meant as a serious question about Jeralyn’s bonafides but forgot the ??
“A lawyer? A legal expert?”
What?
Ah, I see where you are saying that once Martin started kicking Zimmerman’s ass that gave the older man the right to shoot to kill.
Yes, this will be a key point because of a very bad law.
Zimmerman was in a fight with younger fellow he outweighed by what 50 lbs?
He had a broken nose. Big deal. Broken noses are a dime and dozen and this one looked innocuous. He had scratches on the back of his head. Again, big deal. Neither is life threatening. If that was true, basketball players must be putting their lives on the line every game. Broken noses on NBA players are the rule and they look a lot more mashed than Zimmerman’s schnoz for sure.
Didn’t even require a trip to the ER or even much medical attention at all, right? Perhaps a little clean-up of the small wounds, like momma used to do when we were roughhousing as kids.
But the right to use deadly force? Maybe because of a stupid, bad law.
One that you seem to support, at least implicitly.
I recall reading an article by Bork on antitrust law some time before he was nominated the Supreme Court. It struck me as intellectually dishonest. And I knew a little about antitrust law in those days.
There were, in my view, excellent and non-trivial reasons to keep Bork off the Court.
“seemingly ‘Stalinist line’ “?????
Now you have moved into Fox News territory.
I never try to predict a jury verdict as I have no expertise in that area – indeed if OJ can get off, Zimmerman could also.
But I suggest we just wait for the professionals to do their work – and at the moment for the defense job one is restoring Zimmerman’s credibility so his story at least passes the laugh test.
Spot on -
Bork would have been a disaster – but then GWBush’s choice are disasters and Thomas never met a common law that, if it affected a political position in a way he did not like, could not be turned on its head by way of blog writings in 1780 – that old “original intent”.
You don’t? Remarkable. Give him credit or discredit, but the Martin case would not have been in the national spotlight except for Sharpton’s efforts. Hey, if you don’t watch MSNBC that’s great, no need to enlighten you. If you’re interested, http://www.dailyhowler.com does great work exposing what they’re really all about.
Thanks for all the comments everyone! If you want to continue this discussion, we can talk over at pffugeecamp. Here at MyFDL I’m moving on!
this is as true as the “reenactment”. LMAO!