Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial are facing a collapsing case and renewed question over whether Angela Corey succumbed to the political pressure and overcharged the case. The prosecution’s case has thus far been a disaster and many are now questioning whether charges should have been brought at all, let alone charged as second degree murder. For some inexplicable reason, the prosecutors led with Rachel Jeantel, who was one of the least compelling witnesses that they could have called from earlier perjury to ever-changing testimony. Now Angela Corey (right) and her office appear to be turning toward alternative areas of prosecution involving the daughter of one of the defense counsel.
Don West, who took apart Jeantel’s conflicted testimony on the stand, took his daughter out for ice cream and she posted on Instagram a picture with the caption: “We beat stupidity celebration cones #zimmerman #defense #dadkilledit.”
Prosecutors have asked for an inquiry on the basis that witnesses should be treated with respect. However, such rules apply to counsel not their progeny. West insists that he was not aware of the message.
The photo was actually taken the day before the cross examination.
I fail to see why the prosecutors would not accept the word of opposing counsel, particularly given the fact that this is his daughter.
Given the earlier allegations of withholding evidence in the case, the prosecutors should show a bit more judgment in my view. Of course, they have been busy presenting what appears a case for acquittal.
I have long been critical of Corey’s charging of the case as second degree murder and concerned that this was a case where public pressure influenced the prosecution. The video of Zimmerman’s account and the supporting testimony of these prosecution witnesses were known to Corey before the charges. Yet, she pursued second degree murder in what would be viewed as a difficult case even for manslaughter. I would leave counsel’s daughter alone and focus on the disaster unfolding in court.
Source: ABA Journal
DarreN:
They did, but as you know I can hire experts who can find pulses on corpses. The medical examiner, who is usually believed — said the wounds were not of sufficient magnitude to match Zimmerman’s statements about the beating he supposedly took. That said, if it could be shown that his head was being slammed into the pavement it could be considered a life-threatening event.
Mark:
Didn’t the defense bring up testimony the head wounds to Zimmerman could be caused by blows to the head caused by a sidewalk or pavement. If this was the case it could be articulated a person being subjected to that kind of injury would fear for grevious bodily injury or death.
A few years ago Washington’s Supreme court ruled (I know this isn’t applicable to FL but just for example) that a suspect pounding the head of a victim against a hard floor or street constituted a felony assault with a weapon where the weapon was the surface. If that is the case in florida wouldn’t george zimmerman be able to claim a ratcheting up the force continuum since he was being attacked with a weapon?
davidm:
You seem to be ignoring the Florida Statutes. If a person believes he is about to be killed, it is not manslaughter.”
******************
It’s a reasonable belief there david. The medical examiner said Zimmerman’s wounds were NOT consistent with his head being slammed repeatedly to the pavement. If that didn’t happened, he’s lying. If he’s lying about the beating he can’t be believed about his justification for deadly force.
Under your analysis, if I’m standing at the corner and a police officer chasing a bank robber with gun drawn arouses a fear in me he might shoot me accidently I’m perfectly justified in pulling my .40 cal and blowing him and the bank robber away. The law is not quite that stupid yet — not even in Florida.
@davidm2575 1 – Thank you for expressing your appreciation. I do my best to be precise. I apologize for the delayed response; I was away for a couple of days and just assumed this would have been a dead thread.
Two more legal definitions:
Returning to the Florida statute:
Trayvon Martin was not committing, nor had committed, a criminal act. Martin had the “Constitutional protected activity” to walk home unmolested, without threat or intimidation. He fled as soon as he could safely do so. He told his friend that he could not see or hear the “creepy” guy. At that point, Martin could have laid down smack in the center of the sidewalk and picked his nose for a hour if he wanted to. There is no evidence that he ‘double-backed’ to assault Zimmerman, and no legitimate reason has been provided for this theory other than the racially-loaded explanation that he felt ‘dissed.’ Because, as I wrote earlier, black males are only allowed to be scary and angry, never scared and intimidated.
George Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch coordinator, who, as with anyone else participating in NW, was to report any suspicious persons or activities, or actual crimes in progress. The idea of NW is to observe and report, then wait for the police. Zimmerman knew this, and had previously obeyed the guidelines. He had no official authority; he was neither a police officer nor a Citizen on Patrol. He could, as a concerned citizen, courteously ask for a person’s purpose in being in the neighborhood. He did not, however, have the authority to demand anyone to comply with his questions or directions, or to detain them. Not that he ever did so; he didn’t even have the intent or courage to question or approach Martin civilly.
George Zimmerman moved his vehicle to follow Trayvon Martin. He exited his vehicle to follow Martin as soon as Martin ran away. He remained in the area even after understanding, and agreeing with, the dispatcher’s advisory to not follow Martin. He remained in the area after confirming to the dispatcher that Martin had disappeared (“he ran”). He remained in the area, in fact, 1½ minutes after he said “he ran” to when the NEN call ended. He remained in the area, in fact, 3½ minutes after he said “he ran” to when Martin’s call with Rachel Jeantel abruptly ended.
George Zimmerman’s pursuit and hunt for Trayvon Martin had no legitimate reason, and belies any allegation that he was afraid or too ‘soft.’ He did not return to his vehicle when he had plenty of opportunity to do so. He lied in his multiple statements that he was returning to his truck as the NEN call ended. If he told the truth about the confrontation at the T, then he also had the unhampered ability to get to his feet and move away – and chose to move southward rather than westward to get to his vehicle.
After pursuing Martin, Zimmerman’s response to Martin’s reasonable question (“Why are you following me?” or “Do you have a problem?”) was obviously disingenuous. Zimmerman’s action of “looking for my cell phone to call 911” is too ludicrous to be expected, or accepted, by any reasonable person. My opinion is that he reached behind him to retrieve his gun. Regardless, such action would lead a reasonable person to assume that s/he was imminent danger, and that reasonable person could legally respond appropriately to protect himself.
— A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
Again, should Zimmerman’s story be truthful and Martin punched in him in the nose after Zimmerman followed him, pursued him, lied to him, and made an inappropriate physical response, this is not battery. Accordingly to Zimmerman, Martin made his presence known, approaching him by walking while asking a question, and only punched him when Zimmerman was “looking” for his “cell phone.”
davidm;
The “most people – crimes” is extremely bad form;
and bodes not well for character as a contrarian.
Defense rests, no Zimmerman testifying.
“From my perspective, this is a classic self defense case. Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him, and when Martin said he was going to kill him, he feared for his life, and thinking he was going to die, he pulled his gun from its holster and shot Martin”
There is no independent evidence that Martin said he was going to kill Zimmerman.
Other than Zimmerman going for his hip at the beginning of the encounter as he describes, I can’t see that Martin had any way of suspecting that there was a gun there. He certainly would not be able to see it in the deep darkness – even if he could see through his own leg.
Neither would he be able to feel it against his leg given that it was holstered inside the belt and behind the hip.
It’s a tiny gun – 0.8″ wide and 5.85″ overall length.
How did Martin intend to kill Zimmerman?
Zimmerman appears to have been on the losing end of a fight that he himself provoked.
What is a “reasonable” fear of death? How does one judge that moment?
A single punch can kill. Is it therefore OK to shoot someone who is preparing to punch? Do they first have to land a certain number of punches of a given force?
What does a person have to experience before a fear of death can be *proven* to be “reasonable”?
Are the circumstances of the lead up to the moment totally irrelevant?
Is this not a licence to kill?
.
What was Zimmerman doing in the 4 minutes between entering the dark central area and the 911 connect?
What was he doing in the 2.5 minutes between the end of the NEN and the 911 connect?
Why did he suddenly at the end of the NEN change from a meeting at the mailboxes to one of being ‘somewhere’ (that he clearly would not be able to describe) when the cops arrived?
Why did he try to give the impression that he was attacked almost immediately after “We don’t need you to do that.”?
Why does he say on Hannity that the timescale was “less than 30 seconds”.
So many unanswered questions. They are very relevant questions. His stories to not stand up to the clock.
.
I will be fascinated to see the detail in the timeline chart that MOM flashed today to be entered into evidence.
Unless he’s misrepresented the timing of events. it will have to show the 2.5 minute gap.
MOM won’t be allowed to offer an explanation of the gap. Zimmerman must. The problem is that in all of Zimmerman recorded interviews, he insists that he was returning directly to his truck.
The only way for a Zimmerman explanation of the gap to get before a jury is for Zimmerman to testify.
If Zimmerman takes the stand, he will self-destruct onder cross examination.
Defence will have to leave 2 minutes immediately before the encounter completely unexplained.
If the prosecution drive that message home to the jury, it’s a huge credibility issue for Zimmerman.
davidm2575,
So how’s that Rorschach test workin’ for ya?
Bob, I don’t *know* exactly what happened that night Mr. Martin was killed. I don’t think anybody but Zimmerman and Martin knows, and tragically, Martin is not here to tell us his side. Nevertheless, we can interpret evidence and make our best judgment about it. Furthermore, the law has a presumption of innocence which I think is very important. If it cannot be proven that Zimmerman murdered or killed Martin accidentally through negligence, then he should be set free. From my perspective, this is a classic self defense case. Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him, and when Martin said he was going to kill him, he feared for his life, and thinking he was going to die, he pulled his gun from its holster and shot Martin. I realize that other people see it differently. From my perspective, they want to punish Zimmerman for being suspicious of Martin, and since the law does not allow for that, they want to use murder or manslaughter as the vehicle by which to punish him, whether or not that is actually proven to have happened.
From talking with people in person who have considered the case, most people I know who think Zimmerman is guilty have a lot of past experience with other people reporting them for crimes. Therefore, it seems to me that they have a bias toward punishing someone who wants to be a Goody Two-Shoes citizen and report people to the police. I am not suggesting this applies to people in this forum who I do not know.
“Zimmerman trial’s a Rorschach test dividing those who think the know 4 SURE what happened from those who know what “Rorschach test” means.”
-today’s tweet from Lamont, a character in “Candorville,” a comic by Darrin Bell.
I’m very reassured by Justice Roberts’ assertion that things have changed in the South.
I’m comforted that so many commenters on this blog feel that a black man walking through an apartment complex is a life-threatening situation.
It is. For the black man.
One of the fascinating features of this case is the perceptions of credibility.
We saw a huge drama about DeeDee/Elouise Dilligard and PURJURY!!!!
As far as I can tell, the puported purjury was in her sworn statement to BLDR.
BLDR: “Did you go to the hospital or somewhere?”
Dilligard: “Yeah. I had high blood pressure”.
It therefore followed that Dilligard was a puppet of he Crump/Scheme team and clearly impeachable. “She lied about going to hospital”.
BLDR asked a silly ambiguous question. She took the easy option. Everyone goes “or somewhere”.
Compare and contrast with any remotely similar drama concerning John Good.
a) His initial statement to SPD and ‘behind-the-door’ TV interview had Martin raining down MMA-style punches and head-pounding. He had Zimmerman shouting for help.
b) His next statement to FDLE has him unable to see very much. He doesn’t see hands or faces. He sees no punches. As he left them he noticed that the one underneath seemed to be trying to raise their upper body and falling back.
He said MMA in his first interview because he thought that being on top was being in control – which to his mind was something like MMA (which he didn’t really know much about).
He simply assumed that the one underneath was shouting.
c) On the witness stand he sticks to his second story. It was too dark to see much. The closest he can get to punch-pound do is to describe some undefined downward arm movements. These movements could be simply “holding down”
This one is curious. My immediate reaction was “Well, describle these arm movements. Reenact them. All the lawyers are reenacting parts of the struggle”.
Could it be that neither prosecution or defence are interested in getting him to be more specific? MOM does not want to hear something that can not be interpreted as punching. BDLR does not want to hear something that describes punching. Both avoid the risk?
.
Story (a) is what was and still is being trumpeted by Zimmerman supportives.
Story (b) is ignored by them
Story (c) on the stand is ignored.
It is MOM who chooses to describe Good’s description as “MMA” and “ground-and-pound”. He keeps repeating thes terms in questions.
The message that careless media and supportives take from this is that Good has testified to “MMA” and “ground-and-pound”.
.I don’t know what the prosecution did not object to MOM’s trickery. Presumably they will take some pains to remind the jury during closing.
.
Dilligard answered an ambigous question that was *not material* to the case. She did not actually assert that she went to hospital on the day of Martin’s wake. The ambiguity of the question allowed that she was asserting that she went “or somewhere” – which would be very hard to prove as false.
Good had given two very significantly different accounts under oath. He was very specific about what he said. There was no ambiguity. Both accounts were *absolutely central, important and material* to the case.
How is it that Dilligard becomes the poster-girl for purjury and impeachment – but Good is Mr Credible?
.
Yep.
Man with gun ends fistfight with an unarmed teenager with a gunshot. That’s manslaughter. It’s always been manslaughter. It’s really that simple — all that incessant lawyering, posturing, and spinning notwithstanding. Martin is no angel but he didn’t deserve what he got. Zimmerman is no saint and he is deserving of some reprobation for lethal busybodyness.
mespo wrote: “Man with gun ends fistfight with an unarmed teenager with a gunshot. That’s manslaughter. It’s always been manslaughter. It’s really that simple…”
You seem to be ignoring the Florida Statutes. If a person believes he is about to be killed, it is not manslaughter. It has never been manslaughter. The killer is justified to using lethal force to save his own life.
My take on this case hasn’t changed significantly since I first began to anaylse the timelines of NEN/911 calls against the map.
I don’t buy the ‘racial’ thing. Zimmermna profiled Martin – not a black person, but as the sort of person who had been burgularizing the neighborhood. They always get away.
Zimmerman got out of his truck immediately on Martin’s disappearance down the central pathway.
He was reckless in doing so. He describes a threatening person but follows blindly into the dark. Even if Martin ran (as in a bad guy fleeing justice) it was reckless to follow. He had no guarantee that this person would not be just around the corner.
In his walk-through he describes Martin actually circling his truck in a threatening manner. He didn’t describe this in the NEN despite the dispatcher asking to “Let me know if he does anything else”.
On Hannity, he says that Martin was not running. Apparently he sort of skipped out of sight aaaaannd… “Not in fear”.
This makes the following into the dark even more reckless.
In all previous calls to NEN, the suspects had run away between the houses. In this instance, the suspect walks right up to and past him. Not alone that but he later claims that the suspect circled him with confrontational body language.
My guess is that Zimmerman got pumped full of adrenaline by this compleley unprecedented approach. Martin just walked past leaving Zimmerman in the ‘fight’ part of the ‘flight-fight’ condition. Martin disappearing seemed to have triggered his reckless actions.
From analysis of timelines and map, Zimmerman rounded that back corner of Lauer’s condo and approached the T-junction at 2:42 into the 4:06 NEN call.
This is some 20 seconds after “We don’t need you to do that.”
He then spends another 1:24 in that area while finishing the call.
2:30 after the call ends, Lauer’s 911 call connects.
Zimmerman is in the central pathway area for nearly 4 minutes before that 911 connects.
What on earth was he doing in the rain and cold for all that time?
.
He says that he got out of the truck purely to get an address.
He says that he was not following but simply walking in the same direction to get a house number on Retreat View Circle.
If he had done that, it would take him 20 seconds to cross the open area. Give him 30 seconds.
If Martin was some way down the central area, he would only have sight of Zimmerman for that time. Zimmerman would remain out of sight for 3 minutes. How would Martin know to “double-back” and find him?
Zimmerman says he walked to RVC and stayed there.
It would take him 20 seconds to get form there back to the point just beyond the T where he says he was attacked.
His story does not add up.
He has major unanswered questions as to what he was doing in there for those 4 minutes.
He is aware of this.
He tries to telescope time. His story ignores the objective timeline. He says he finished the call on RVC and immediately started back. That’s impossible.
On Hannity he goes even further with this. He says that he next saw Martin “less than 30 seconds” after “We don’t need you to do that” – or at best “less than 30 seconds” after the NEN ended. Both are patently impossible.
If he was standing at RVC when the call ended, why did he not give a house number to the dispatcher? That’s why he says he walked along that path at all – to get a house number on RVC.
Why did he agree to meet at the mailboxes and then change at the last minute to “Call me”? Did he notice something? – Like the glow or sound of Martin’s phone?
Any reasonable person would surmise that he was looking for Martin.
There are two main possibilities.
1) He is conciously lying
2) He doesn’t actually remember much of what happend, and is manufacturing a story ( and doing so incompetently ) to explain how he came to be where he ended up.
He certainly seems delusional. Compare the actual NEN to his walk-through account of the conversation.
His testimony is the least credible of all.
It is demonstrably contradicted by objective evidence.
It is understandably self-interersted.
PatricP, that’s just ridiculous. This was not about who had a chip on their shoulder or how old a child was when killed by an armed and dangerous citizen who felt he should have powers beyond what any person in a democracy should have; this was about the Seminole County police and prosecutor’s office blessing a cold-blooded murder because the victim was African American and had no significant government connections.
Until people learn that crime is defined by its legal definition rather than by the pre-crime significance of its victim(s), our democracy can do no better than to fail in microcosm and fake in macrocosm and there ARE those of us who consider the correction of that problem quite a priority.
All people who know the real facts of the Trayvon Martin murder case AND the Trayvon Martin murder cover-up understand that the issues are:
1. Can a person get away with murder by killing someone previously unconnected to himself and then crying “self-defense” even if it defies the laws of physics and all the physical forensic evidence collected?
2. If so, is it safest for whites to kill Blacks or should Blacks kill whites?
Ahhhh, NOW is it a priority?
Patric;
Your indifference and haughtier is yours to have, misguided and disingenuous as it is; except for your note that “Methinks our priorities are seriously screwed”.
For, tis true – you are twisted.
When we first rallied around the case, GZ was getting a cakewalk, the police told Trayvon’s Mom that GZ was “squeaky clean”. With that bogus foundation the ‘Stand Your Ground’ advocates desired to utilize the case to set an unG-dly precedent. And Trayvon Martin’s Mother’s online Petition had 25,000 signatures.
That is when good faith national advocates helped get 2 million signatures!
Then (with the help of MarinadeDave’s blog {the man who won Awards for his Casey Anthony case coverage}) – we had people on the ground, pictures of the scene, maps of the routes/ paths (and where GZ lived – in Another area). This, combined with subsequent discoveries that Zimmerman was Not “squeaky clean”, with a violence history, a (failed) desire to be a cop and a retired judge/ father;
launched the case to the level where the FL State AG and Feds said hello.
As a result, the Sanford Police Chief had to bid adieu, the SYG issues became more prominent an argument on the national stage and the prosecution began.
So, if you can get an issue like Stand Your Ground to be noted as part of your aforementioned cases. And/ or if you have evidence of a cover up and a party getting a pass due to his family being connected to the system. Or, if you wake up tomorrow and actually do give a damn that the “chip on” CHILD (not adult) was murdered. Then, by all means, fell free to bring those apropos issues to our attention.
Otherwise, your apathy and disdain for all that is good – is unwelcomed.
I personally do not care which side wins this case. I strongly suspect both males sported a big-bad case of shoulder chip. I am not so enamored to an agenda that it matters very much.
I do care that some otherwise bright observers here seem so married to what they want the truth to be, that they play word-games with the narrative.
For one, stop calling a 17-year-old a “child.” If the tables were reversed and Zimmerman lay dead, I suspect we all know that Martin would be charged as an adult. And there is a reason why he would be.
If Zimmerman were “stalking” Martin with serious intent, why on earth would he call the PD at all? Why risk cops coming around the corner just in time to witness your nefarious plan?
If Martin was being “stalked” why didn’t he call 911?
We can play “what if” all day long, as millions apparently are.
But to my mind, the off-the-chart expenditure of negative energy on this case is pathetically misplaced, within the context of what else is going on, in just ONE other city:
(Chicago) 49 homicides were recorded in ONE MONTH – July 2012, according to RedEye data.
Victims:
July 2 – Terrence Graves, a 23 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Washington Heights.
July 2 – Damani Henard, a 14 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Austin.
July 2 – Ashley Hardmon, a 19 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Austin.
July 1 – Stephon Miller, a 18 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Washington Heights.
June 30 – Jordan Jefferson, a 24 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in South Shore.
June 29 – Shannon Ware, a 28 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in West Pullman.
June 28 – Malcolm Whitney, a 16 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in South Shore.
June 28 – Aaron Knox, a 29 year old black male, caused by a stabbing in New City.
June 28 – Chavonne Brown, a 31 year old black female, caused by a gunshot in New City.
June 28 – Sterling Sims, a 5 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in New City.
June 27 – Freddy Lara, a 31 year old white male, caused by a gunshot in West Lawn.
June 27 – Tracey Gipson, a 18 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in South Shore.
June 26 – Robert Douglas, a 31 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Englewood.
June 26 – Cortez Bailey, a 23 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in South Shore.
Where is the appropriate level of venom that ought to be spat toward the fact that these poor dead folks probably shouldn’t have died, either?
In my view, elevating the Zimmerman case to the pious levels of national focus, is a slap in the face to the families whose tragedies were caused by those of their own race. And 91% of them, apparently, are.*
Methinks our priorities are seriously screwed.
*The U.S. Justice Department provides a breakdown of homicides by the race of both the victim and offender
davidm, he called the non-emergency police # and then, according to his own statement to the police, when a neighbor said he would call 911, Z said, “no, don’t.” Everybody knows that NEN calls are not immediate response calls. He was setting up his little scene where he apprehends a criminal and the police (Timothy Smith, in fact) walk in and congratulate him and then he gets an award and then the community hires him and lets him patrol with a gun. Pretty transparent.
Especially since he doesn’t follow up, “Shit, he’s running” with “Get someone over here; he’s headed for my wife back at home I have to call her immediately to warn her.” Also he doesn’t STAY in his truck and head home immediately to protect the little lady from the marauder! He jumps out of his truck and wanders around. Sure, right, sounds logical. Yeah.
“If the police got there and found Zimmerman physically attacking Martin, Zimmerman would go to jail.”
Exactly. Z said [on Hannity] that he was “running out of time” and it is pretty clear that if the cops had arrived before he managed to kill “the suspect,” it would be hard for Z to have ONLY HIS STORY heard. He needed to kill Martin before the police showed up and stopped his heroic save-the-neighborhood act.
Davidm, that business about wanting to be freed by a jury rather than going forward with a SYG hearing would amount to obvious malpractice if it were within the realm of possibility to win a SYG hearing. You ask if I have considered the possibility? I did and very quickly had a good laugh. It was the excuse offered by O’Mara who doubtless knows that giving up a clear right of a client without even trying to protect it is the most base form of malpractice, especially when prison is a possibility for failure.
The defense can promulgate any number of myths — that’s their first amendment right. Considering them is not a bad idea. In the case that the ideas are as foolish as “they gave up the SYG so they could clear his name in a trial,” though, such consideration doesn’t take up much time at all.
Whether it’s lawful to follow another person is is subject to intent. Innocently following someone because s/he happens to be going in the same direction as you is not illegal. Tenaciously following someone because you have an agenda, an agenda you make no effort to communicate to the followee, an agenda that would evoke feelings of intimidation and fear in the innocent followee, is called stalking.
Zimmerman introduced every account of that evening, as well as every NEN call, with the problem of neighborhood burglaries, and the black male he saw standing around Frank Taafe’s house a few weeks earlier. On that occasion, Zimmerman remained nearby, called the NEN, and waited for the LEO.
A mere 2-3 days after that incident, a black male, Emmanuel Burgess, was arrested and charged with several burglaries and thefts in the area. Zimmerman had nothing to do with it; Burgess was recognized by a man who was working at the complex and who had seen Burgess at what he later learned was a crime scene. This man followed Burgess and got his address for the police. When the arrest became known, Zimmerman told people that it was Burgess he saw at Taafe’s house.
On this night, Zimmerman called non-emergency dispatch to report a suspicious person, a black male in his “late teens” whom he found suspicious because the male was walking leisurely, casually, in the rain, “looking around,” “looking at the houses.” This made him think that the male was “up to no good,” “on drugs or something.” It was early on a Sunday evening, when most people are home; both the NBA All-Star game and the Academy Awards would be playing on television. The black male in his late teens was wearing a dark gray hooded sweatshirt, khaki pants, and white sneakers. (Zimmerman must have gotten a good look at him under well-lit conditions because he knew it was a “dark gray hoodie”). He was carrying nothing but a can of fruit drink in a beige plastic 7-11 bag. He was looking around as he walked along the route towards home because a person tends to do that. He may have looked a bit loony because he was seemingly talking to himself. But, that’s not a crime; nor was anything else he was doing.
There’d been no recent crimes in the weeks since Burgess’s arrest. Zimmerman had previously waited for the dispatched LEO; he knew that was what he was supposed to do. But, for some reason, Zimmerman decided this night would be different. He was going to follow, he was going to get an address. But, he never did get that address; obviously, he planned to do something else. Find the guy, keep him in sight for when the LEO called him, detain him if necessary.
God help you if you’re just walking back home after a trip to a local convenience store while on the phone with a friend, taking shelter from a downpour, and continuing on home despite the creepy skinhead-looking guy who’s been staring at you while sitting in his truck; who moves his truck so that he can drive slowly behind you. When you reach a point where he can’t follow you in his truck, you run away into the darkness. When you stop running, trying to catch your breath, you don’t see or hear him; obviously, you lost him. The pressure is off; you can stay still, take deep breaths, continue talking to your friend. You’re not in any hurry, the danger has passed. You continue walking home, but, dammit, the guy is back, following you again. And all this time the guy hasn’t said a word. No, “Hi, I’m your friendly Neighborhood Watch guy. Do you need any help?” He followed you, looked for you – silently.
We know that Zimmerman’s jacket was unzipped, we know that he carried his holstered gun behind his right hip inside his waistband. If you believe Zimmerman, Trayvon approached him from behind and to the left, calling out “Do you have a problem?” After all this activity, Zimmerman looks at him and replies, “No, I don’t have a problem.” Clearly, he’s lying. And he’s doing this thing of patting his jean and jacket pockets. The guy has freaked you out with the silent menacing following act, has just lied to you instead of saying what his problem is, and he’s… patting his pockets? Zimmerman later explained that he was looking for his cell phone to call 911. Right. Or he could have been reaching behind him for his gun. And Trayvon, being a reasonable person unlike the creep in front of him, punches him in the nose, or swings the bag with the fruit drink at him, or simply turns and starts running. Whatever he chose to do, Trayvon had the right to stand his ground.
Trayvon had the legitimate right to be where he was. The right to walk home unmolested and unharassed. The right to stand in place and twiddle his thumbs, if he wanted to, or roll up and down the grassy inclines between patios and sidewalk. And he had the right to protect himself from the asinine and creepy skinhead-looking guy.
Zimmerman had the right to call the NEN and report and suspicious guy. But, once he took the aggressive act of driving behind Trayvon, of leaving his truck and pursuing Trayvon, of looking for Trayvon, of saying “these assholes, they always get away,” of saying “f^^^ing punks,” – he was stalking Trayvon with spite and ill will.
And only a racist would think that black males can only be scary – and never scared.
nemerinys – your outline is more based upon facts in evidence than any of the other posters here have presented. I appreciate that. A couple of points:
Stalking laws in Florida define stalking more precisely than you do. You can find it here:
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048
Which specific section, if any, do you think applies to Zimmerman’s actions? I would not define what he did as stalking. I agreed that he followed Martin and that these actions bothered Martin. You characterize it as making him afraid. I would characterize it has angering Martin because Martin referred to him as a creepy a* cracker and as a n*ggr. When Martin ran, it seems to be in response to Rachel “Dee Dee” Jeantel telling Martin to run, but it also could have been his plan to sneak up on Zimmerman and catch him by surprise. In either case, it is all speculation at this point.
As for Martin perhaps being provoked by Zimmerman’s evasive answer as well as reaching into his pocket, I find this very insightful on your part and may very well have been the thing that caused Martin to hit him. The question before us is whether that action of hitting Zimmerman is justified? I don’t think it is. The law calls it battery. But even if it were justified by you, at this point we only have a fist fight which does not justify using lethal force.
The crux of the matter is whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman feared for his life and that Zimmerman believed, right or wrong, that unless he shot Martin, he would be killed. If Zimmerman believed he would be killed by Martin, then he would be justified in using lethal force. Can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would be unreasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger?