Below is a slightly expanded version of today’s column in USA Today on the Zimmerman verdict. As I wrote before the case was sent to the jury, I saw no alternative to acquittal even on manslaughter and expected the jury to render a full acquittal. I respect the conflicting views of many on this blog on the case and how it was charged and handled. We will now have to wait to see if the Justice Department will re-try Zimmerman as a civil rights matter. I have serious reservations about such an effort, but that can be for a later discussion. For now, a few observations on the verdict can serve to as a foundation for our own discussion.
SEPARATING LAW AND LEGEND IN THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT
The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin was not minutes old when an outcry was heard over racial injustice and demands for yet another prosecution by the Obama Administration. There was even a call for President Barack Obama to address the nation from the Oval Office to promise action to quell projected violence. With the verdict, the George Zimmerman case entered the realm of legal mythology – a tale told by different groups in radically different ways for different meanings. Fax machines were activated with solicitations and soundbites previously programmed for this moment. The legal standards long ago seemed to be lost to the social symbolism of the case.
Criminal cases make for perfect and often dangerous vehicles for social expression. They allow long-standing social and racial issues to be personified in villains and victims. We simplify facts and characters – discarding those facts that do not fit our narrative. We pile meanings on the outcome that soon make the actual murder secondary to the message. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin became proxies in a long-standing our unresolved national debate over race.
Before the case is lost forever to the artistic license of social commentary, a few legal observations should be considered, even if unpopular, before condemning this jury.
First, many of us from the first day of the indictment criticized State Attorney Angela Corey for overcharging the case as second-degree murder. While Corey publicly proclaimed that she was above public pressure, her prosecution decisions suggested otherwise. Investigators incorporated the family in key interviews. For example, one key witness was first interviewed by an attorney for Martin’s family and then talked to prosecutors in the home of Martin’s mother. The prosecutors were accused of withholding evidence from the defense until shortly before trial — a delay that the defense said denied them the ability to use text messages that portrayed Martin in a more violent image.
However, the widespread protests and anger over the shooting seemed to have its greatest impact on Corey’s decision to charge the case as murder in the second degree. This was clearly a challenging case even for manslaughter and the decision to push second-degree murder (while satisfying to many in the public) was legally and tactically unwise. The facts simply did not support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted with intent and a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” Had Corey charged manslaughter, the case might have been closer but would have still been a challenge.
Many people were highly critical of the prosecution for putting on what seemed like a case for Zimmerman. The prosecution clearly made its share of mistakes like leading its case with the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend, Rachel Jeantel. Jeantel was a disastrous witness who had to admit to lying previously under oath and produced conflicted testimony. She also stated that just as Zimmerman was accused of calling Martin a derogatory name, Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker.”
The prosecution consistently overplayed its hand in a desperate attempt to overcome its own witnesses, such as handling the damaging testimony from the detective that Martin’s father clearly denied that it was his son calling for help (He later changed his mind after listening to the tape 20 times). Even after being criticized by many experts for overcharging the case, the prosecution proceeded to make a demand at the end of the trial that the jury be able to convict Zimmerman on a different crime: third degree murder based on child abuse. The judge wisely rejected that demand but allowed the jury to consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.
However, in the end it was the case and not the prosecution that was demonstrably weak. The fact is that we had no better an idea of what happened that night at the end of this trial than we had at the end of that fateful night. Jurors don’t make social judgments or guesses on verdicts. While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. That is not unlawful. It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed. The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim. No. It does create added doubt on the question of the use of lethal force.
There is also no evidence as to who threw the first punch or committed the first physical act in the struggle. A juror could not simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman was largely consistent in his accounts and his account was consistent with some witnesses. After 38 prosecution witnesses, there was nothing more than a call for the jury to assume the worst facts against Zimmerman without any objective piece of evidence. That is the opposite of the standard of a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial. There was evidence to support both accounts but that evidence remained in equipoise, leaving the jury with no objective basis to reject one over the other.
Even for manslaughter, the jury had to find that George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. but was told that “a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.” The jury instruction on deadly force states in part: “A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” That lesser charge still brings the jury back to the question of who started the fight and how the fight unfolded. The prosecutors never had evidence to answer that question in a reasonably definitive way. In the end, the jury had no serious alternative to acquittal. That does not mean that they liked Zimmerman or his actions. It does not even mean that they believed Zimmerman. It means that they could not convict a man based on a presumption of guilt.
Of course, little of this matters in the wake of a high-profile case. The case and its characters long ago took on the qualities of legend. A legend is defined as “a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.” People will make what they will of the murder trial of George Zimmerman. However, this jury proved that the justice system remains a matter not of legend but law.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
This is not the first time that i have seen the law subvert justice.
Our society will be poorer for it, once again, as those who once put their trust in the ‘system’ will now look elsewhere . Groundswells like the ones that form almost immediately surrounding events like this are occurring more and more rapidly around the occurrance…soon they will break like a wave and the ‘law’ will be cut out of the equation altogether. What has been accomplished? No one has disproved that Trayvon Martin was stalked, accosted and (even giving GZ the benefit of the doubt…) may have in that unwitnessed moment, objected to being stalked, and accosted for being black, wearing a hoodie, having the unmitigated gall to go to the corner market without a cadre of witnesses to buy skittles and a drink. In the phucking rain.
I should add that the “danger” that Zimmerman should have realised and apparently did realise at “Oh crap. I don’t want to give that all out” what simply what he says was his perception of Martin.
It does not mean that he was actually in that danger. He simply beleived that there was a danger.
He made no move to get away from that perceived danger in that dark deserted place.
Rather the indications are that he went in search of that “danger”.
Did he actually think he was in danger?
What followed “”Oh crap. I don’t want to give that all out”?
“I don’t know where this kid is”.
Did he think that he was searching out someone he could detain?
Adding another bit…..
The 2.5 minute gap (Nen to 911 pickup)
Zimmerman says in the walk-through that he headed back for the truck immediately after the NEN.
This is impossible in the timeline. He was never questioned about the time gap because Singleton got the wrong time for the start of the NEN call from the Sheriff’s Office. The time she got shortened the gap in her timeline by 1 minute 38 seconds. Effectively, as far as she and Serino were concerned *at the time*, there was no gap that was significant to require explanation.
We don’t have any testimony from Zimmerman that attempts to explain the gap.
MOM acknowledged the gap and offered a theory that Zimmerman might have been looking around during the ‘missing’ time. Looking for what? Where? It’s dark, cold and rainy. He’s already been out of the truck for minutes. What’s to look for?
There is something obscenely wrong with a thought process / law that would limit itself to considering the fight only and completely discount the immediate lead up to it.
I saw a good one-liner a while ago:
The opportunity to see justice served was destroyed by an utter buffoon trying to justify an overcharged M2.
Had the prosecution used a vaguely competent lawyer to persue a manslaughter charge, thing would have been very considerably clearer.
.
In the absence of independent evidence of what exactly happened at the moment of the shot, one surely must look back at the circumstances.
The shot itself appears to have been very deliberate – according to Zimmerman.
Despite being on the point of passing out due to a frenzied head-pounding, he ‘achieved wrist control’ – drew his gun – ensured his own orm was not in the way – shot Martin cleanly in bodymass center.
THere is no evidence of him using alternative means to physically escape during a fight that seems to have lasted over a minute and ranged over at least 50 feet. He did not exhibit any defensive bruising. What was he doing with his hands all that time?
We don’t know for sure how the fight started.
We do know absolutely for sure that the Martin/W8 call dropped an *absolute minimum* of 17 seconds *after* the fight began.
Here’s part of something I posted in another place:
————————————————————————-
I can take timestamps from MOM’s timeline.
When did the call between Martin and W8 drop? 7:15:43
When was Lauer’s 911call picked up by the dispatcher? 7:16:11
Ah! That’s when it was picked up. When did it start ringing? The answer is in the Event Report for the call. It was a 911 call, so the metadata for the call is automatically collected. The Event Report shows that the system detected the incoming call at 7:16:00
Lauer finished dialling 911 at 7:16:00
This is just 17 seconds after the Martin/W8 call dropped.
17 seconds
The fight had to start. The noises had to be come noticeable. Lauer muted her TV. She listened. She decided that a 911 was appropriate. It seems there was a problem with phones. It might have been 20 to 30 seconds after she decided to dial 911 before she dialled.
What this very obviously means is that the fight had been in progress for some significant time before the Martin/W8 call dropped. This sounds like W8’s version of what she heard.
Alternatively…. Martin attacked Zimmerman while still holding his phone in one hand. Seriously? He went and took on some guy whose fighting abilities were a complete unknown while holding a phone?
The phone was found on the grass some 50 feet South of the T-junction. Did Martin carry the phone all the way there while assaulting Zimmerman one-handed? Or..did the phone show any signs of being used as a weapon?
————————————————————————-
.
Working backwards from the fight…….
What Zimmerman did in following/same_direction into the dark someone he describes as a very threatening person was reckless in the extreme.
Very early in his Extra Vehicular Activity, his own words in the NEN prove that he was aware of the danger.
.
Again from another of my posts, where I was responding to MOM’s 4-minute pantomime……
————————————————————————-
What could *Zimmerman* have been doing during those 4 minutes? It’s a long time.
He wasn’t heading for his truck for all that time.
He started the 4 minutes by heading away from his safe truck and straight at a dark corner around which a person had sort of skipped – a suspicious person who might be on drugs or something and had just circled his truck with confrontational body language, hand in his waistband and something in his hand.
Let’s ignore for the moment that heading blind at that dark corner might have been a reckless thing to do. Not illegal – but just plain crazy and reckless. He had no guarantee that the person would not be just around that corner in the dark. He also knew that the person was not alone not running, but was also not in fear.
Wut? Martin NOT running? And not in fear? Yup! That’s what Zimmerman asserted and confirmed under query on the Hannity show.
.
Dispatchers are not allowed by policy to tell people what to do. This is because they could be held legally responsible for the outcome. The dispatcher hears (wind)noises and asks “Are you following him? – Yeah – We don’t need you to do that.” He can’t instruct Zimmerman not to follow. All he can do is suggest some really sound advice.
It is not clear if the advice would have been put in stronger terms if Zimmerman had told him that Martin had just circled the truck with confrontational body language.
As an aside, Zimmerman in his written statement later that night wrote: “The dispatcher told me not to follow him.” Told me.
But maybe Zimmerman did not have the common sense to realise the potential danger of what he is walking into.
He soon does realise this.
A few seconds later, we hear him in the NEN confirming that he has become aware that the ‘suspicious person who might be on drugs or something and had just circled his truck with confrontational body language, hand in his waistband and something in his hand’ could actually be so close to him in the dark as to overhear his conversation.
The dispatcher asks for Zimmerman’s home address, as Zimmerman was unable to supply any other address than the clubhouse. Zimmerman speaks out his address and then immediately says “Oh crap. I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.”
He voices that realisation of potentially being in very real danger of attack just 1 minute 11 seconds after Martin’s 4 minutes began.
Zimmerman has nearly 3 minutes after which he clearly says in the NEN that he is aware that the ‘suspicious person who might be on drugs or something and had just circled his truck with confrontational body language, hand in his waistband and something in his hand’ could be right beside him.
When he was safe in his truck, he wound up the window on Martin’s approach. Presumably his doors were locked.
Now he’s out in the open in the dark. Apparently he’s not a fighter. He has no idea that he is carrying a gun. He has completely forgotten about it. He won’t even remember about the gun until he is reminded about it by Martin’s hand heading South.
What would any *reasonable and prudent* person do under such circumstances? They would immediately head for safety.
What did Zimmerman do?
He started his 3 minutes of clearly being aware of a danger.
What happened in Martin’s 4 minutes and Zimmerman’s 3 minutes? (Actually, Zimmerman actually had the same 4 minutes that Martin had.)
Note: On Hannity, Zimmerman’s minutes are reduced to “Less than 30 seconds” – which seconds apparently begin on “We don’t need you to do that.” Why…..is he so fixated on denying the following and the length of time that he spent inside that dark area?
————————————————————————-
.
Working backwards again to the events at the truck in Twin Trees..
Any reassonable person would see that Zimmerman is lying about significant matters.
In particular his tightrope walk on Hannity – attempting the impossible of promoting Martin as dangerous and threatening while simultaneoously downplaying any suggestion that he should have exercised caution – shows his dishonesty
————————————————————————-
“Let me know if he does anything” – twice
As I wrote in a previous thread, it was effectively asked only once. It’s twice in the transcript, but if you actually listen to the NEN, it’s just one occasion. Zimmerman describes Martin coming to check him out. He adds more detail to his description of Martin. He begins to sound concerned. Hand in his waistband – something in his hand – don’t know what his deal is.
The dispatcher does what he is trained to do. He coaches the caller, trying to keep them calm and focussed on describing whatever the situation is. What they (or the best of them ) do is coach callers into being observers.
Listen to the 911 call made by the W#18. The dispatcher in that call is absolutely superb. The caller is desperately upset and frightened. The dispatcher puts a lot of effort into calming her and coaches her into giving a good report of what she can see out of her window. He stays with her, trying to ensure that she will get comfort from neighbors or friends.
Zimmerman sounds concerned by Martin’s approach. “Let me know if he does anything” is as much to soothe Zimmerman as to ask the literal question.
What happens then?
Zimmerman ignores the question. He actually interrupts the end of the question to ask about getting an officer over here. The dispatcher needs to soothe/coach again and repeats the question (that Zimmerman had ignored and interrupted).
In the courtroom, MOM represents the question as two entirely separate questions. Then he goes on a short tour with his glass of waster, pours some and returns.
This was not a straightforward parallel to what he was purporting to illustrate.
What did he not do?
He didn’t circle the jury with his hand in his waistband and with confrontational body language. If he had done, I am sure that everyone watching would have noticed. They might even have commented on it. Twitter-Storm! BDLR would probably have leapt to his feet – possibly defending the jury by striking MOM with the dummy.
Listen to the NEN, the dispatcher gets the second attempt at coaching in. He wants Zimmerman to report if the guy does anything. Last he heard, the guy was coming at Zimmerman with something in his hand, etc.
Can you hear Zimmerman saying anything like “He’s freaking circling my freaking truck”? Nope!
Instead, the conversation turns to people always getting away and to the location of the truck. We must assume that Martin was then walking away. The dispatcher must have assumed that too. Crisis over.
Maybe Zimmerman thought the circling was no big deal, and not worth reporting – even if he had been asked to report anything the guy did. He did mention it later in his written statement and in the walk-through.
Maybe Zimmerman was so upset/ terrified/confused by the circling at the time that he couldn’t get the words out? No. On the Hannity show, he says that he was not particularly alarmed by Martin’s actions. But then, on Hannity, he doesn’t mention circling.
Could it be that the circling never actually happened? Zimmerman was asked to report if the guy did anything. He was asked twice – if you really insist that it was twice.
————————————————————————-
.
If it is true that the law can only consider the moment of the fight, that’s frightening.
here’s the problem for me….
Along with the audio recordings of six calls to Sanford police that George Zimmerman made in the weeks before the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department has posted reports of 46 911 and nonemergency calls it says Zimmerman made between August 2004 and Martin’s shooting.
The Daily Beast has compiled a list of the calls from the reports. Verbatim excerpts of the reports appear in quotes. An explanation of Sanford County police codes can be found here.
General Terms:
TEL = non-911 police number (answered by 911 dispatcher)
BM = black male
LSW = last seen wearing
46. Feb. 26, 2012 – 7:20 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Repeats prior report
45. Feb. 26, 2012 (night of Martin shooting) – 7:11 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Black male “late teens lsw dark gray hoodie jeans or sweatpants walking around area” … “subj now running towards back entrance of complex”
44. Feb. 2, 2012 – 8:29 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “BM lsw: black leather jacket, black hat, printed PJ pants, he keeps going going to this” location
43. Jan. 29, 2012 – 5:38 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Children “running and playing in the street”
Neighborhood Watch Death
Orange County Jail / Miami Herald / AP Photos
42. Dec. 10, 2011 – 5:29 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: “At the club house” … “Male subject [arrived on scene] that thought he was employed by” Zimmerman … “Subj is expected to get paid for serving food.” … Zimmerman “said that he didn’t wish him to serve at the [event]” … Zimmerman “hired someone else, subj sounded upset and wants to get paid”
41. Oct. 1, 2011 – 12:53 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Two black male suspects “20–30 YOA in [white] Chevy poss Impala at the gate of the community.” Zimmerman “does not recognize subjs or veh and is concerned due to recent” burglaries in the area
40. Sept. 23, 2011 – 11:08 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Neighbor/Suspicious activity
Report: Zimmerman reports “open garage door” … Describes “neighborhood watch mtg last night with Sgt Herx who [advised] to report anything [suspicious]” … Zimmerman “is part of neighborhood watch” and is concerned because of recent burglaries in the area
39. Aug. 6, 2011 – 10:20 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Two black males, one wearing a black tank top and black shorts, the second wearing a black t-shirt and jeans … “Subjs are in their teens”
38. Aug. 3, 2011 – 6:45 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Black male last seen wearing a white tank top and black shorts … Zimmerman “believes subject is involved in recent” burglaries in the neighborhood
37. May 27, 2011 – 9:18 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Alarm
Report: Zimmerman “has a self responding alarm that just notified him of” an alarm at this location
36. April 22, 2011 – 7:09 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Juvenile black male “apprx 7–9” years old, four feet tall “skinny build short blk hair” last seen wearing a blue t-shirt and blue shorts
35. March 18, 2011 – 9:26 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Animals
Report: Zimmerman requested an officer meet him regarding a pit bull in his garage
34. Nov. 26, 2010 – 2:54 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Alarm
Report: Zimmerman was out of town and a motion alarm he monitors himself went off
33. Nov. 8, 2010 – 6:54 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Maintenance
Report: Zimmerman reports “trash in roadwy”
32. Oct. 2, 2010 – 1:55 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Zimmerman reports “blu jeep grand Cherokee female driver yelling at elderly passengers … windows are tinted” … “the veh was rocking back and forth and he could hear the female yelling”
31. June 26, 2010 – 11:00 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: “Loud party … approx 50 subjs & blocking the street”
30. June 12, 2010 – 11:13 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Subject “at the clubhouse & pool areas having a party”
29. April 28, 2010 – 9:02 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: “White older model four-door Buick or Oldsmobile” obstructing road
28. Feb. 27, 2010 – 4:46 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “Residence w/a lot of [suspicious] activity” … “multiple vehs are constantly coming to the” location … “unk subs run out to the vehs and run back inside” … “the subjs are always outside w/the garage open” … “the subjs hang out towards the st all night//ongoing problem”
27. Jan. 12, 2010 – 10:25 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Neighbor
Report: Open garage door … Zimmerman says “this is very unlike his neighbor” … “there is a lot of electronics in the resd and posb in the garage”
26. Jan. 1, 2010 – 4:34 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Zimmerman reports reckless driver in “purplish Ford Ranger single cab”
25. Nov. 3, 2009 – 5:04 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: White Ford F350 that was “cutting people off”
24. Nov. 21, 2009 – 2:26 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Unclear
23. Oct. 23, 2009 – 9:18 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Animals
Report: “Aggressive white and brown pitbull” sitting outside Zimmerman’s home
22. Sept. 22, 2009 – 6:00 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: “Yellow speed bike … was speeding and weaving in and out of traffic and doing wheelies”
21. Sept. 7, 2009 – 9:01 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Maintenance
Report: “Pot hole in the road” … “it is deep and can cause damage to vehicles”
20. Aug. 26, 2009 – 8:35 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “Gold Caprice … male driving with no headlights … speeding”
19. Aug. 21, 2009 – 6:57 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Conflict
Report: “Landlord is trying to take [Zimmerman’s] money for rent … and home in foreclosure”
18. June 16, 2009 – 3:50 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Persons in the pool area playing basketball, “jumpin over the fence going into pool area and trashin the bathroom”
17. June 10, 2009 – 1:55 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Alarm
Report: Fire alarm going off
16. May 4, 2009 – 4:07 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Reports a blue Audi A4
15. March 12, 2009 – 6:58 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Patrol
Report: Patrol request between March 13 and March 22
14. Jan. 5, 2009 – 10:53 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Alarm
Report: Fire alarm going off
13. Nov. 25, 2007 – 12:40 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: “Ex roommate is letting people that [Zimmerman] don’t like in the” house
12. Nov. 25, 2007 – 12:21 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: White male ex-roommate last seen wearing a red Florida State University shirt
11. Oct. 14, 2007 – 4:10 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Possible criminal mischief to the tire of Zimmerman’s black Dodge Durango
10. June 24, 2007 – 12:48 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “By the pool”, two Hispanic males and one white male with “slim jim”
9. Nov. 4, 2006 – 2:37 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: A call regarding a “late model red” Toyota pickup “driving around the neighborhood and apt complex for the past 5 min”
8. Sept. 23, 2005 – 7:03 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Zimmerman’s “little sister just call him from above” his address and advises “there was a” suspicious person “at the front door”
7. Sept. 21, 2005 – 9:00 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Animals
Report: Reports a stray dog
6. April 27, 2005 – 12:40 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Neighbor
Report: Open garage door
5. March 17, 2005 – 7:21 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Maintenance
Report: Pothole “that is blocking the road”
4. Oct. 20, 2004 – 9:13 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Drunk pedestrian walking in the road
3. Aug. 20, 2004 – 11:33 p.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Neighbor
Report: Reports an open garage door
2. Aug.12, 2004 – 10:03 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Repeats earlier report
1. Aug. 12, 2004 – 9:59 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Places a call reporting a male in a green Ford pickup
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
its extremely funny how no one else but killerman called all all the reports of suspicious black men in his area guess he was the only one who saw them.. and please with the suspicious behavior because many of those calls are just about them walking in or near the area.. they say he was worried about a recent rash of break ins. well if i wanted to be a bigoted racist i could surmise. that they wont ever catch the burglars because they are focused on black young men and not white young men who steal also and a gut instinct says that who is doing the robbing. it has to be someone who has inside knowledge of when the people robbed would not be home. and sorry but it isnt, and wasnt trayvon martin. and now to get on a anger rant….. TRAYVON HAD A ICE TEA AND A BAG OF SKITTLES IN HIS HANDS. exactly what about made him suspicious? and everyone keeps talking about how trayvon should have gone right home. BLEEP THAT IF I KNOW SOMEONE IS FOLLOWING ME AND NOT THE REASON WHY.. NO WAY AM I GOING STRAIGHT TO MY HOUSE WHICH WOULD LEAD THEM TO MY FAMILY.
also when killerman was first arrested the pictures and cops said he had no injuries and we saw none in the pictures or videos of him during that time. yet 4 months later suddenly they began posting pictures of his so called head injuries.; NOT!!!!!!!! how well photo shop worked for him. good thing his father is jewish, a mason and a ex judge.. hip hip hooray@@@@
The questions at the root of it all are highly unlegal and unanswerable: would Zimmerman have thought that a white youth was suspicious? And equally: would Martin have reacted in this way to a black neighbourhood watch following him? I think you’ll find that the probable answers are uncomfortable to all, and say a great deal about the problems of race relations in the US.
I agree with Professor Turley’s interpretations here. As far as the federal civil rights prosecution goes, I do not believe there is probable cause to support an arrest. That doesn’t unfortunately guarantee this administration would not instigate such a prosecution.
For one, it is going to be an uphill battle to claim malice on the federal case when a jury has ruled on the state level the defendant was not guilty, and if there is a finding of self defense. Additionally, despite what some might see as objectionable, I don’t feel from the legal community there is a belief the trial was nothing other than fair and legitimate.
Coupling this with statements, and I have watched two examples of this, the attorney of the family of Trayvon Martin’s stipulated this was not a case of racially motivated attack. Plus, George Zimmerman was not an employee of the state or a law enforcement officer and a civilian is going to have less scrutiny.
I think it is going to be wrong to make a federal case out of it. The pistol was lawfully possessed, the serial numbers were not removed, Zimmerman was not previously convicted of a violent felony or drug possession so he is not federally banned from possessing a firearm or ammunition. So if the administration is going to go after him just to quell the masses or try to champion themselves in the minds of some members of the public, it would be objectionable to many.
Mac, Let me list the things which I have had applied to my head in fights. folding chairs,twice, pool cue once, fists, tables, and I found out that my head bleeds like a stuck pig. So I can say that I truly bloodied my oppenents one way or another, mostly with my own blood. I also got big goose eggs,yet I saw NONE on Zimmerman. Yet I never thought I needed to have a gun for self defense. Since I am not very well schooled in fighting, I asked some former Marines who work with me about how many times have YOU ever heard one of the combatants cry out for help. I know I never did, nor did I ever hear my opponents do so since we were more concerned with fighting and defending ourselves than crying for help if we were losing. They said they never heard of that either, so my experience is not unique.
So I DO have practical experience with violence especially against ME. Unfortunately, I was not just an observer. I can also say that I had gotten hit on the side of my head with a gun in a mugging, but that one doesn’t count since it was not much of a fight on my part. I broke my ribs in that one because I fell on my camera while running after a crook who had stolen my wallet, and his partner was following me and nailed me. I got this from the witnesses and they could not believe that I did not see the partner. I was too focused on the theif.
Well, I think this case needed a closer look and likely a trial.
The defense did well, and the prosecution did not have a strong case.
After a legitimate trial, I can see too that Zimmerman should be acquitted.
I would love it if someone who feels that justice was done would address the issue of Zimmerman being, essentially, the aggressor in this matter. @GaryT ?
He had the gun, and the power that comes with that. And he did not walk away, as he was told to do. He is was explicitly driven by some degree of racial motivations – that much is stipulated in the testimony. You can debate the degree, but not the fact of it. And in this confrontation that he initiated he ends up shooting the kid.
In any other state that did not have this horrid and brutalizing law “Stand your ground” it would have been no contest. (According to other legal posts I have read.) A man was indeed slaughtered.
So, in accepting the justice of this verdict you are essentially validating the justice of this law?
I understand how this verdict was arrived at in Florida. I don’t understand how it is accepted by the rest of the country, and some on this board, as justice.
Please make that case.
Wasn’t TM standing his own ground?
Reblogged this on dreams on the hill and commented:
Should George Zimmerman be charged with hate crimes
Is it not germane that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by stalking for no reasonable reason? And is it not germane that Martin was unarmed, while Zimmerman held a loaded gun? Is it not germane that Zimmerman suffered injuries no greater than most of us (guys) did in schoolyard scuffles? And is it not germane that none of this would have happened had Zimmerman simply followed his instructions (don’t approach)?
There was no ‘great bodily harm’ inflicted on Zimmerman. The confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman when he left his vehicle and began chasing Martin.
I respect you, professor (we’ve spoken via phone for articles I’ve written), but it seems clear to me that Zimmerman, by leaving his vehicle and giving pursuit absent compelling reason, initiated the confrontation.
Manslaughter should have been a slam dunk.
@Mac : “It is as if there are two realities, one where the facts matter…..the other where the emotional impact if this case and what folks want it to be about matters…..it’s becoming clear to me that these two Americas are increasingly irreconcilable”
————–
I agree with you. Certainly there are two , at least two, realities. I encourage you to read thru the D.Simon posts I referenced above. It will elucidate some of these realities.
And then there are your “facts”. Here you seem to assert that the facts of the case are fully in Zimmerman’s favor. Where the only “fact”, according to JT in the original post, is whether Zimmerman or Trayvon initiated the fight, with the implication that if Trayvon did then the shooting was justified. And since we cannot know (because of the weak prosecution!) there is reasonable doubt.
I say there are more ‘facts’ than this simple one that are relevant. rpwbp does a good job of laying out some of them.
And then there is the larger issue of the morality of the underlying Stand Your Ground law. To which DSimon speaks eloquently to and which I posted a parallel case that shows the selective justice being applied. (See above). And then there is the meta context of the racism, which I and others are attempting to assert into this conversation. These also are facts. Just not ones addressed by the limited view you and JTurley seem to be advancing.
It may have been “legal” by some twisted sense of the term, for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon. It was legal to string blacks up like “strange fruit” as well years ago. It was legal to have Jim Crow laws. And while that much has been changed, is it not apparent by this, and so many other recent examples in the news that the underlying racism in this country has not abated?
That also is a fact.
It is as if there are two realities, one where the facts matter…..the other where the emotional impact if this case and what folks want it to be about matters…..it’s becoming clear to me that these two Americas are increasingly irreconcilable…..I have nothing in common with the side of this case that fixated on absurd interpretations and bizarre analysis that are nothing but politically self serving and fallacious. It’s not a difference if opinion, some if you folks are angry at this verdict because you want your own facts….facts that don’t exist in reality but you feel need to be fabricated to appease sons bizarre sense of fairness.
What was described by Zimmerman was not a marque of queens bury rules round of sport fisticuffs, but a violent assault…..it is ironic that those MOST dismissive of Zimmermans right to defense on the grounds that it was ‘just a fight’ are those LEAST experienced in real violence…..you have it backwards on the cowboys…..they’d have thrown this out if the courtroom…..mothers were the best chance of getting a conviction.
There is a reason that referees stop MMA matches very quickly when they reach the ground and pound stage and one fighter appears to be ineffectively defending himself…..very real risk of serious physical injury…..that risk is heightened by the application of concrete…..should I cite case after case if real works incidents nearly identical that have resulted in death it serious physical injury to damn the arguments of the smugly and ignorantly dismissive?
I also follow a blog by David Simon of HBO “Wire” fame. He has a poignant comment about this case that I think addresses it at the level that the case is actually functioning. Racism and Guns.
Read the comments as well. It is a substantial commentary driven by someone who knows these corners of our society well.
http://davidsimon.com/trayvon/
@JT Re these bits:
It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed. The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. ….
———-
I think I understand your approach to this. One that is very lawyerly considering “just the facts”. But it seems to me that you are missing the point while being, doubtless, correct on the various legal arguments. (I certainly don’t have the legal training to debate you at that level.)
First in direct response to a couple of your points quoted above:
> I listened for, and never heard anybody note the contradiction of the claimed “bodily harm” done to Zimmerman, having his head pounded against the pavement as was claimed and yet, no real damage to said head? I think it was noted that he cleaned up and didn’t even go to a Doc. Hardly substantiating a head beating on the sidewalk. This seems like a major flaw in the received story. One that on its own gives the lie to the theory of him feeling his life was in danger.
> You say the question who started the fight is the determinate factor in this case. And since we cannot know this absolutely then there is no basis for a conviction. This seems glib and not substantiated by the given facts. How is it that a man who is armed, all legal as you say, told to stand down, does not, certainly has the power in his hands because of the gun, and knows it, is allowed to provoke the assault if in no other way then just by his refusal to back off and let the police handle any actual problem. And then shoot to kill.
It does seem to me that this is a case that demonstrates and surfaces a virulent racism in our country. And I assert that it is this fact that has driven this case from the beginning.
It is simply not serious to imagine a black man in the exact same circumstances but playing the part of Zimmerman would get the same treatment by the police and the subsequent verdict. And if that is true then this is what is important about this verdict and this case.
As if to underline this point and in direct counterpoint to this Zimmerman case, there is this case about a woman, black of course, denied the “stand your ground” defense and facing 20years… And she didn’t even kill anybody. But, as it is reported ..”the bullet she fired could have ricocheted and hit any of them”. But it didn’t. Zimmerman’s did. He walks. She walks into prison for essentially the rest of her life. This is not justice.
Reported here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html
I appreciate your (JT) limited legal analysis of the case. I can agree that 2nd degree murder may have been too much. Who knows. But manslaughter seems more relevant than your analysis allows.
Either way, the case, sure seems to be larger than that small container you have fitted for it.
Michael, For a different case but similar facts, check out what happened to Craig Washington when a car at night tried to run him down on his own property. He fired at the car, hit it three times, yet he was arrested the next day. Craig is a black former member of Congress and well respected, but they did not credit his claim of self defense. So I find it quite interesting that he was forced to go to trial and be arrested despite being assaulted with a deadly weapon.
Repeating:
The sponsor of the self defense law successfully used by Zimmerman is Florida State Representative Dennis K. Baxley and the law itself ain’t that old as it made its way through the Florida legislature in 2005.
(Back in 2005, the National Rifle Association identified about two dozen states as fertile ground for the passage of laws just like this one. Florida was the first state to pass such a law. Today, at least 20 other states have followed suit.)
“As Florida police chiefs predicted in 2005, the law has been used to justify killings ranging from drug dealers’ turf battles to road rage incidents. Homicides categorized as justifiable have nearly tripled since the law went into effect.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html
While I agree with your point on second degree murder, I have a hard time using your logic in this case. Let us use another example using different hypothetical combatants. A man is angry at his wife, he retreats but falls back, trips over a chair. She gets on top of him and starts beating on him. He then pulls his gun, after having sustained head scrapes and a broken nose, shoots and kills her. Can he reasonably claim fear of death or bodily injury and use self defense? Another case, a bar fist fight in which one guy knocks the other down, gets on top and starts hitting him. Will that case mean the guy on the bottom losing a fight, has the right of self defense and can use deadly force?
I was quite concerned at the all woman jury since I figured it would be good for the defense. I know that a jury of Texas cowboys would have had a far different take on this. It is bad form to even use a knife in Sat night fights,much less a gun.
Surprised that you would cite the “cracker” comment as equally weighted as the Zimmerman comments. It’s a question of subtlety, accuracy of reading…. which our justice system is not equipped to accommodate and therefore is fatally flawed in its conception, at least in terms of the society it has to serve today. Disappointed to see such a narrow reading…..