The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
Dershowitz is going on several things, one of which is his obvious desire to show up Angela Corey. But he is putting in “small print” the caveat that he has not seen all the evidence she has seen. The recent revelations do add to the stack of stuff that people look through to decide what can be proven and what can’t be proven, but the one big piece that is missing — and I hope the press will jump on this and insist that it be either provided or acknowledged as “still withheld” — is the statements (3) that George Zimmerman gave the cops BEFORE he realized that (a) there was a phone call with a witness who could contradict his fantastic version of reality; or (b) that the physical evidence would contradict his fantastic version of reality; or (c) that this case would not just be stuffed away to never haunt him again.
See: “Not included: [Zimmerman’s] three statements to police or the video-taped reenactment he did for detectives the day after he killed Trayvon. Under Florida law, confessions are exempt from public records laws.” Here’s a url:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/05/17/152948727/new-evidence-released-trayvon-martin-had-traces-of-pot-in-system
When I read this, several things come to mind.
1. Since a defense of “self-defense” whether it is SYG or any other kind of self-defense must get into evidence by testimony of some sort, and since the only testimony that could get it into evidence in this case would be the testimony of George Zimmerman himself, Dershowitz is missing a big, and very obvious, point: Zimmerman gave three statements and apparently did a video-taped reenactment of the event that night to the police. These have not been revealed to the public or the press, and Dershowitz did not have them when he made his grand Zimmerman-defense pronouncements. Can you imagine Zimmerman getting up on the stand and testifying to something OTHER than what he told the police that night, and the next day, and risking the jury concluding that he’s just a damn liar?
2. If Zimmerman did a reenactment of the event for the police and that reenactment does not match the possibilities that are presented by a careful scientific analysis of all the combined 911-call tapes and the recorded phone time spent on Martin’s girlfriend’s call, the entire SYG idea evaporates, as properly it should.
3. There are at least two, and possibly three, witnesses from the nearby residences who have already gone public with statements indicating that the police either ignored their attempts to give important witness information to aid the investigation OR tried to make them change their stories to match up with Zimmerman’s statements made directly to the police. Therefore, even the police testimony that might otherwise be considered presumptively valid and significant in favor of Zimmerman is going to be seen as possibly contaminated by the police’s obvious desire to see this case “administratively disappeared.”
So in my opinion, Dershowitz has gone off, with all the credibility he throws around to support his own theories and his own positions, in a direction that constitutional and other lawyers should really scrutinize this time. Yes, he’s a heavy hitter. But he is aiming a little high now, attacking a prosecutor who had plenty of information in front of her before she acted, defending someone whose position is shaky and whose conduct has been highly questionable. I’m not saying Dershowitz shouldn’t defend any defendant he wants to defend, I’m just saying that although the best defense is a good offense, he’s gotten a little too offensive on this one, a little too soon.
Now, on to something that really concerns constitutional law and particularly criminal procedure. The statements to the police made by Zimmerman are allegedly being withheld because of the Florida law saying that confessions are “Exempt from Public Records Laws.”
But Zimmerman did not confess.
Those statements to the police were NOT confessions.
They should be covered under the law that applies to statements made to police, same as all the statements that Zimmerman made when he phoned in his concerns about people’s garage doors being open and about young Black men in his neighborhood without his permission.
Zimmerman never confessed to any crime. Those statements should be produced, and every news source that has covered this matter should demand them immediately, and the video-taped reenactment should be produced, and we should all be able to view it, because Zimmerman never confessed. You can’t have it both ways.
What I think is happening here is that people like Dershowitz — and others — are screaming about Zimmerman being “over-charged” and they are attacking the SYG laws as if they apply to this case, which they do not, except to the extent that Martin would have been covered by them had he survived. They are trying to divert the public’s attention from the unlawful killing of an unarmed teen to (a) the boo boos on the head of his killer; and (b) the bad law that let his killer kill him in the first place. Both the boo boo and the bad law are red herrings. NO kind of self-defense (whether by standing your ground or by any other means) is a presumption when there is a killing; it has to be presented as testimonial or physical evidence. Physical evidence of injury does not show its cause. If a bloody head were all you needed to get away with murder there would be plenty of people willing to kill and then bonk their heads up to avoid the whole distasteful trial and prison thing. But the screaming about “over-charging” is serving a big purpose here.
I believe Corey and O’Mara, and the entire Seminole County government, and probably the Florida government, and possibly even the US Government (DOJ) would like a plea deal to be cut. If the public remains as indignant as it has been about the failure to hold Zimmerman responsible for what he did to Martin, it will be hard to get a plea deal for Zimmerman that involves very little incarceration. He may be aiming for NO INCARCERATION; certainly he is the kind of person who doesn’t think he deserves any, now that he has the whole thing blamed on his victim. So if the public doesn’t see the evidence that makes it clear that O’Mara can’t put his guy on the stand in the trial, the evidence that makes his client a damned liar and a murderer, then people can say, “Oh we know why the prosecutor had to let him off so light; all that evidence of self-defense; she couldn’t risk acquittal.”
See, I think Corey had all the evidence she needed to say, “You can’t use self-defense and you know it” and then, the plea bargaining would be way way different.
I hope some news source goes after those three statements and that video-tape. Because if Zimmerman walked out that night from the station, he surely did NOT give a confession, and his statements were NOT a confession, and they should be disclosed.
Malisha, this is one of my possible scenarios, Zimmerman overreacting out of fear about possibly having to go through another felony/misdemeanor process once matters escalated with police arriving soon. His father may well have warned him of that. Not so easy, if it basically involved another violence scenario, due to the now cleaned violent resistance against officer charge.
This image fascinates me: Student: George Zimmerman is pictured making a pizza in a home economics class at Osbourn High School in Manassas, Virginia in 2000. He is Trayvon’s age at that time.
I was really frustrated in my early schooldays that all females had to do needlework, while boys could take handicraft or more technically oriented lessons. That’s why I wonder at his choice, and it feels it was his choice. No?
@Malisha: I really do not know the case, but somebody that willfully attacks a police officer just doing their job is a danger to society. I do not care about his IQ, I care about his choice, it was his choice to attack a police officer, and anything that happens after that is his fault. I also do not care if he was frightened; being afraid of arrest and going to jail does turn his attack into some sort of “self defense.”
You are making the argument for Grossman that others here are making for Zimmerman, that somebody can pick a fight and THEN ask to be excused for a killing because they were in fear for their life.
Alan Dershowitz Is Wrong: Trayvon Martin’s Alleged Killer Must Be Tried
by Mansfield Frazier May 20, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
The famed attorney is arguing that the charges against George Zimmerman should be dropped. But Mansfield Frazier says a trial in open court is the only way we’ll know that justice was served.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/20/alan-dershowitz-is-wrong-trayvon-martin-s-alleged-killer-must-be-tried.html
When a voice as authoritative in legal matters as Alan Dershowitz’s calls for charges against George Zimmerman to be dropped, people listen. In a New York Daily News article he recounts the documented injuries Zimmerman suffered and then writes, “If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman—if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.”
While I have the utmost respect for Dershowitz, in this case I have to disagree. There are simply too many unanswered questions to even suggest circumventing the jury process by dropping the charges. This case cries out for a very public and thorough airing of the facts.
Certainly Zimmerman’s injuries add another layer to an already cloudy set of circumstances, but all they really prove is that a violent struggle took place between him and Trayvon Martin, which is all the more reason to allow the legal process to play out. We need find out—to the greatest extent possible—what really happened. And while Zimmerman’s attorney is duty-bound to get the best possible outcome for his client, the prosecutor in this case has a duty to assure that all of the facts are presented in a legal forum.
At heart, this case is really about the type of society some want to have versus the one the National Rifle Association wants to foist on an unsuspecting public. Just imagine for a minute that Trayvon Martin was an adult instead of a juvenile; further, that he was licensed to carry a concealed weapon; and still further, that he had a gun on his person when Zimmerman approached him. Under “Stand Your Ground” laws Martin could have just as easily shot and killed Zimmerman instead, and (if not for the fact he was black, and that laws—when race enters into the picture—have been applied unequally in this country for centuries) he then could have made the same self-defense claim. Under this type of Wild West mentality fistfights can (and will) escalate into murders.
Nonetheless, more laws are being proposed in some states to allow concealed weapons to be carried into bars, schools, and public buildings, all in the name of creating a safer society.
According to a study published in the prestigious American Journal of Epidemiology, however, “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home …”
Writing on the website for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence, Dennis Henigan said, “The NRA has a wonderfully simple story to tell. In the NRA’s world, people are neatly divided into two readily identifiable groups: good guys and bad guys. In this imaginary world, we know that legal carriers of guns must be good guys and that good guys use their guns only in legitimate self-defense—that’s what makes them good guys in the first place. The Trayvon Martin tragedy reveals the real world to be far more complicated.” Indeed it is.
In the streets there’s a phenomenon called “pistol courage” which poses the question, would Zimmerman—if he wasn’t armed—have approached Martin in the aggressive manner in which he did? Put another way, are cowards, when they’re empowered with the advantage of firepower, willing to take more risks, and even provoke situations that could have been handled in another manner if they were not armed?
Many gun nuts brag about how they could blow someone away and sleep like babies, and for some of them that’s the gospel truth. But for others (even case-hardened soldiers and police officers) once they’ve taken the life of another human being they’re forever changed—and not for the better. And there’s really no way to know in advance how a person will be affected.
In the Martin/Zimmerman case, issues such as who was crying out for help and what Trayvon was saying to his girlfriend in the seconds before the confrontation cannot be dismissed, and can only be thoroughly examined in a court of law. But the real upside of a trial is that a much-needed spotlight will be placed on “Stand Your Ground” laws. Even if Zimmerman is found not guilty, if those dangerous laws are changed, society will have won a victory.
A death sentence case from Florida: Martin Grossman. He was a 19-year-old who had been to Juvenile Detention for some kind of misconduct with a car (not involving any violence). He had a friend who wanted to show him how to fire a gun so they went to a park in the evening and were apparently going to shoot at stuff after the activities in the park closed. They got pulled over, however, before getting into the park, and the park police officer (a young woman) searched them and found the gun. She returned to her official vehicle to call in the infraction and Grossman followed her to her vehicle and tried to wrestle the gun away from her while pleading with her not to turn him in. This was no innocent young man; he was a guilty one, but I’m just saying something about intent. SHE FIRED FIRST and as he beat her and smashed around inside the car (while still STANDING outside it), he then shot HER to death. I can’t remember which gun (his or hers) fired the fatal bullet. He was convicted of first degree murder because he formed the intent while he was trying to get the gun away from her. He got the death penalty because (a) there was the enhancement of his killing her “in the commission of another crime” [probably of violating the parole he had from the juvenile conviction] and because she was a parks police officer.
Our work on that was part of a clemency petition to commute the sentence to life without parole. The enhancement was based on a juvenile crime that resulted from his being interviewed with neither a parent nor a lawyer present, without being read his rights, and being bullied (as a kid) into saying he did things that the cops then charged as crimes. There was evidence that the initial crimes had not occurred. Grossman’s I.Q. was only borderline normal (72 when tested years later) and his friends had gotten in trouble with the cops and told the cops it was really him. So although the idea of a habeas corpus 25 years later to undo that “enhancement” might have flown if there were more lawyers and more time, the clemency petition failed (Charlie Crist, then governor, counting his votes for senate against Rubio and figuring he better get another execution under his belt).
The intent to kill the parks police officer was said to have formed in Grossman’s mind right before he shot her. Probably there was NOTHING except blind fear in his mind at that moment, but we couldn’t prove anything about that.
Idealist, yes, you’re right about the police. They would get a call from George and they would say, “That guy George Zimmerman again calling in something that bothers him today.” And this brings up another issue that I have touched on briefly before. Zimmerman was getting damn sick and tired of nobody taking him seriously. He had been fired from jobs for being too much of a wild-eyed Rambo (security guard at private party, “under the table” so he didn’t pay his tax on money earned, apparently) or too pestiferous and irritating (sales at some kind of larger retail outlet where he bullied a Middle Eastern employee hired a few months after him, and where he called HR constantly with complaints). He was getting on the nerves of the NW group itself and he was getting on the nerves, probably, of the police, calling in kids playing and garage doors and barbecues in the summer. Now why would they hurry out there?
That would give even more punch to his complaint, “These assholes always get away.” He was so riled up by the time he reached and found Trayvon Martin that he wasn’t going to tolerate any mouthing off, any “lip” from the “asshole.” He ESPECIALLY wasn’t going to tolerate self-defense or another attempt to escape (remember he complained about the first time Martin was “running”) — he was gonna nail his suspect this time.
Leander’s information from page 41 is extremely important, and now I wish I had found the time (couldn’t) to go through things as well as Leander did. Nowhere in George Zimmerman’s account of what happened was there ANY RUNNING AND CHASING. He does not admit to running away from Martin and being chased; he does not admit to running after Martin and chasing HIM. (Now I remember Ibrahim Rashada saying he did not want to take walks in his own neighborhood after Zimmerman handed out his flyers profiling potential burglars because he didn’t “want to be chased.”)
In Zimmerman’s story, he did not even know where Martin was when suddenly whomp he’s on the ground getting a pounding. Then he has to pull his gun and shoot to save his life. In Martin’s story told by the girl on the phone, there’s a meeting up of the two, a question from Martin, a question from Zimmerman, and then sounds of push or shove or grass or something. They could just as easily be sounds of a push and then running, if you think about it. And the witness on page 41 says there was THEN a fist-fight. Sounds vertical, but not necessarily. Then a gunshot. Remember, the bullet goes in straight from “Intermediate” range.
That story does explain, however, why there would only be a small amount of splatter on Zimmerman’s clothing from the blood. If you shoot a guy on top of you (so you can save your own life), gravity will make sure there’s blood on YOU by the time he’s dead.
Malisha,
There is the obvious possibility that George’s hit rate make it a “don’t-hurry” priority, thus the delay.
He was the “Chicken-Little” of the “watchers”.
As for his presence in the gene pool, that hangs together with reproductive success. He has no special advantages other than a magistrate father, and possibly a protective large family which aids him
BUT, he has a personality charaacterized as useful by the LEO system and the LEO would wish to prize his existence and thus lead to reproductive success. NO, they are not fixing him up with dates; they are just aiding him to stay alive in spite of the Travon mistake..
QED or not?
Manny O: “Lets pretend that Zimmerman was walking behind Martin”
I have a better idea.
Let’s pretend that if we listen to the call recording, that we would hear
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Let’s pretend that the shooting happened about 200 feet away from the road and SUV down a dark path, and that Zimmerman must therefore have followed for at least that distance.
I know it’s a bit of a stretch, but let’s try to pretend that.
BUT…with Martin initiating verbal contact…BOOM…that’s confrontation.
There you go again with the Don’t Speak First Law. – DSF Law
But …how to determine the confronter if both speak at the same time?
That’s where the Don’t Inhale First Law comes in. – DIH Law
How to determine the confronter if both inhale and speak at the same time?
That’s where the Don’t Inhale More Deeply Law comes in. – DIMD Law.
This is a novel definition of confrontation and aggression. It’s quite interesting as this threatening deep inhalation (or even speaking) technique could be applied to warfare.
Line up opposing armies and have them inhale. The army that inhales best, thereby demoralising the opposing army, wins.
The victorious army then shouts at the defeated army – “You guys suck, but we suck more!”
It is also possible that the long-drawn out screams that I thought were “go away, go away” were something like “no way, no way” and that Zimmerman had his gun out while those screams were issuing.
One thing that I haven’t figured out yet is whether, in the amount of time between the cop telling Zimmerman that they were sending someone out to the address he gave (by the clubhouse) and the time of that shot being fired, there should have been at least one squad care ON THE SCENE well before the fatal shot was fired. I don’t know the distance between the station house and the clubhouse in the neighborhood. Surely with George phoning in calls all the time, the cops knew their way over there. I’m wondering what phone calls were made to and from George’s phone that night, a piece of information I have not yet seen. Frank Taafe?
Tony c.,
It is also possible that Martin saw the gun and that would add to the reasonable expectation of imminent physical harm.
@Manny O: Intimidation, and Assault by acts of intimidation, can be accomplished using otherwise legal acts.
It is legal for me to tell a lifelong friend (and I have) “Okay, now I’m going to have to kill you.” That is not illegal because my friend is amused, not afraid, and in the context where that was said, no jury would think I was serious or he was afraid I would do it. That is not intimidation.
If I said exactly the same thing to a stranger that had never met me, at night, cornered in an alley, that IS intimidation, and Assault, and a crime.
In this case, a pattern of legal behaviors by Zimmerman, including following in the car, following on foot, and (I believe) looking on foot for Martin when Martin tried to run away, culminated in a confrontation in which Zimmerman was close enough to physically attack Martin. I believe a jury would agree that Martin had a reasonable expectation of imminent physical harm, and good reason to be frightened.
You are allowed to walk behind people. If you start to get close and they cross the street to get away, and you cross the street and run to catch up to them, you have crossed the line into threatening behavior. If they turn to confront you and ask why you are following them, it is still YOU that sought that confrontation, not THEM. It is still YOU that assaulted them first.
Even if every one of your acts is individually a legal act, if a jury thinks the acts are intentional (as Zimmerman’s were) and the collection of them together would constitute intimidation and make the subject of your pursuit fearful, then you are committing an assault.
@anon: You may wish to try being on a jury and not making assumptions.
I have been on a jury, and I have observed trials in the courtroom. It is impossible to be on a jury and not rely on assumptions; for the most part it is the jury’s job to figure out conflicting testimony, denials and accusations, and arrive at what they believe actually happened, and by that, determine who is lying and who is telling the truth. They often cannot do that without making assumptions about critical facts that are not possible to be known.
This jury will not have Trayvon Martin testifying about his state of mind immediately before the fight, the closest they can get will be the conflicting testimony of DeeDee and Zimmerman, and inferences they can draw from the physical acts of Martin that are NOT contested, because they are described by Zimmerman and corroborated by DeeDee.
They will not just let it go, that state of mind is critical, and Zimmerman’s fate hinges upon it. if the jury decides Martin was badly frightened, then for reasons stated above I think Zimmerman is found guilty of manslaughter.
“Let’s pretend” he was just walking behind him has nothing to do with this whole case. Let’s pretend that Trayvon Martin was not Trayvon Martin at all and let’s pretend he was two individuals instead of one. Let’s pretend they were two middle-aged white women walking a dog and talking. Let’s pretend that the call to the police was George telling the police that he saw two women he knew and they had left their garage door open again.
It’s ridiculous.
George Zimmerman went out looking for trouble. Trayvon Martin went out looking for a snack and a chat on the phone. Zimmerman saw Martin, called him names, chased after him with a loaded gun, scared him, fought with him and killed him. Then the COPS pretended it had happened a different way. Then there was a giant public outcry and people had to stop pretending.
Manny, he was not simply ‘walking behind’ Martin. That is not the first meeting.
Martin first saw him staring at him from a unmarked vehicle.
And if Zimmerman was so scared, why is he getting within easy reach of his ‘suspect. He upposedly had training ..i….s he simply a dumb ass, or did he want to crowd this person to intimidate him or bully him?
Besides the smarty pants little answers George gave this boy who was trying pretty desperately to find out what was going on around him.
I will bet you one thing. If that vehicle George was in had been marked Sheriffs Dept., Trayvon Martin would have told his girlfriend “the police are here’. He would not have said that there was some creepy guy following him.
Martin would NOT have been afraid -even if he saw this man following him down that path. He might have even said hello.
Lets pretend that Zimmerman was walking behind Martin,. Walking behind someone is not confrontation. It happens every day and yes even in the dark.
People walk behind people every day and night in streets, within communities, across America. People take walks around their blocks, through their ground, and inevitably end up behind someone else taking a walk. Sometimes you might wonder if someone is walking behind you, but unless you are paranoid you just keep walking
If nothing is said and no physical contact is made, there is no “confrontation” period and by definition
BUT…with Martin initiating verbal contact…BOOM…that’s confrontation.
Just like if you were walking home at night on a street and someone is coincidentally walking behind you because you happen to share a common destination. If the person in front freaks out due to paranoia and turns around and “confronts” someone verbally it could turn into an altercation if attitude/disrespect is involved.
Sling – Walking behind someone and following someone depend on interpretation. Neither of which is “stalking” and neither of which is illegal or “confrontation” however by definition. Stalking requires repetition so people that use the word “stalking” are just using it as baseless pejorative
“If I were on the jury, I would assume he was very frightened and intimidated by Zimmerman. ”
You may wish to try being on a jury and not making assumptions.
@Manny O: By that defintion of “assault” Trayvon martin could have felt threatened just that someone was calling the cops on him and staring at him
No, that is false. The definition includes what a judge and/or jury concludes.
If a judge and/or jury, meaning 12 people chosen at random, conclude that Trayvon Martin had good reason to be afraid, it does not actually make a difference what was actually in Trayvon Martin’s mind, which is good because we cannot ever know that.
This is a question of what most people think would be frightening enough to count as Assault. For convenience, in our justice system, we have set the standard that “most people” means 12 jurors unanimously agreeing.
So this is NOT about what Martin felt. This is about what the jurors believe he probably felt, since they cannot know and he cannot testify in person.
You do not seem to be able to follow my argument.
If I were on the jury, I would assume he was very frightened and intimidated by Zimmerman. Therefore, I would think Zimmerman, by pursuing Martin (which I think he did) and getting the confrontation he was looking for, had committed Assault, by acts of intimidation. Therefore, I would think Martin would be justified to throw the first punch in self defense (whether that is what happened or not). Therefore also, I would think that Zimmerman, by his stupid acts, picked a fight, got a fight, was losing a fight and by shooting Martin committed Manslaughter.
It doesn’t have to be racial, it doesn’t have to be his intent to kill somebody, but I do think he acted recklessly and out of anger when we would have expected a responsible adult to act cautiously. His reckless actions led directly to the death of somebody acting lawfully and committing no crime, and that is manslaughter.
First, answering a question with a question is not “threatening”. That’s a huge stretch.
It is highly confrontational. You may feel that Zimmerman and not Martin had the right to ask questions, you may even have reacted similarly: how does this guy dare to ask “me” anything, if anyone asks questions it is me, and I have to be answered.
It’s simply not the way things happen usually in a normal encounter. If someone asks you for the time or a street, do you ask him what time he thinks it is, or why he needs to know where that street is?
It surely is a highly prejudice response, it indirectly suggests Martin had no right to be there. Fact is he had.
Manny OTo be fair, George had been doing the watch for sometime and had been key in stopping a number of burglaries/robberies.
I am afraid this is a pious rumor. He caught nobody, neither did he prevent a burglary. Fact is on 02/02/2012 he reported a black guy with a black bomber hat, as he called it. He later called back to give the precise address 1460 Retreat View Circle. He also called the owner of the house Frank Taaffe, who later claimed GZ prevented a burglary in his house on that day. Fact is, when the police arrived the person had gone, there is no report of any burglary that night. Neither was there any damage that suggest a burglary was in process and prevented by the police that Zimmerman alarmed. The only difference to the TM case is that he didn’t shoot the guy.
Of the two people who were caught. One was Emmanuel Burgess, he was caught with the help of two witnesses not living in the gated community, and not by GZ. Some write they were roofers. They informed the police on 07/02/12, that the person they thought committed a burglary the day before was present with 3 others again. Police arrived and arrested the suspect and found the Macbook of the victim in one of the guys backpacks. He kept it for Burgess. The other person caught, was caught solely through police work, at no point was Zimmerman involved in the case as a witness or as someone calling 911. A Sony game station and 11 games had been stolen by a guy from outside the gated community in the neighborhood, who had played with a kid inside the community. The burglary was reported by his mother, who suspected a black homeless person her son knew. The “unsuspicious” real thief tried to sell the game station and buy himself an new one. The place he choose to do so had obviously been informed by police and had the serial number of the stolen item, thus he was arrested about three weeks later.
These are the only two people caught, in none of the cases Zimmerman was involved in any way, either as a witness or as somebody preventing something.
There are two sources for the story that GZ had prevented burglaries in the community, one is Frank Taaffe, some say he had been the Neighborhood Watch caption before, the other is Cythia Wibker the secretary of the houseowners association, or the houseowners association generally. Is Taafe its spokesperson.
If you have further information, I would be pleased to see it.
Manny O< He and his wife counseled the victims of crimes in their community, for free.
The source of that seems to be mainly Olivia Bertalan, the next door neighbor, no one else is ever mentioned in this context. In this case Zimmerman indeed helped. But why are not any of the other victims ever mentioned in this context?
Again if you have further information, I’d be pleased to see it.