Below is today’s column on the Zimmerman trial, which is a close follow-up to the web column from the night of the acquittal. As expected, it appears that we have lost a few regulars upset with my opinion of the case. I am always sorry to lose people on our blog. However, this has never been an echo-chamber blog that maintains a party line or ideological view. While we remain fervently pro-free speech and civil liberties at this blog, we often disagree about the outcome of trials or the merits of cases or policies. We try to maintain a site where civil but passionate disagreements and debate can occur. As an academic and a legal commentator and columnist, I have always tried to be fair and call these cases as I see them regardless of how unpopular those views may be. At the same time, I have enjoyed reading the opposing views of others on this blog who often make fast and lethal work of my opinions. I realize that the killing of Trayvon Martin is loaded with social and racial meaning. Yet, this site is dedicated to tolerance and diversity of views in discussing the legal and policy issues of our times. I hope that those who stated that they would leave the site will return and rejoin our discussion. This is a blog that values differing opinions and free thought. This is a chorus not a solo performance and it is the variety of voices and views that makes this blog so unique.
Here is today’s print column:
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.
With the verdict, the Zimmerman case entered the realm of legal mythology — a tale told by different groups in radically different ways for different purposes. Fax machines were activated with solicitations and sound bites programmed for this moment.
Criminal cases often make for easy and dangerous vehicles for social expression. They allow longstanding 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. Zimmerman and Martin became proxies in our unresolved national debate over race.
Many have condemned this jury and some even called for the six jurors to be killed or demanded that they “kill themselves.” The fact is that this jury had little choice given the case presented by the prosecutors. This is why I predicted full acquittal before the case even went to the jury.
Before the case is lost forever to the artistic license of social commentary, it is worth considering what the jurors were given, or not given.
State attorney’s misstep
The problem began at the start. Many of us 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 interviewed a key witness at the Martin home in the presence of the family — a highly irregular practice.
The decision to push the second-degree murder charge (while satisfying many in the public) was legally and tactically unwise. The facts simply did not support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with intent and a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” Had Corey charged manslaughter, the case might have turned out differently.
The prosecutors then made that bad decision of charges worse by overplaying their evidence to overcome the testimony of their own witnesses.
For example, the prosecution inexplicably decided to lead the case with testimony of Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel. Jeantel was a disaster, admitting to lying previously under oath and giving conflicted testimony. She also stated that just as Zimmerman was accused of calling Martin a derogatory name, Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker.”
The prosecution’s zeal for conviction seemed to blind it to the actual strengths and weakness of the case. It also led to allegations of withholding key evidence from the defense to deny its use at trial, though Judge Debra Nelson seemed to struggle to ignore the alleged misconduct.
Some questions unanswered
Ultimately, 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 judgment or guesses on verdicts.
While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. 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 Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim? No. It does create added doubt on the use of lethal force.
A juror could not simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor. 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.
Even for manslaughter, the jury was told that Zimmerman was justified in the use of force if he feared “great bodily harm.” That brought the jury back to the question of how the fight unfolded.
The acquittal does not even mean that the jurors liked Zimmerman or his actions. It does not even mean 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 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.
July 15, 2013
blouise17
Most people consider Hispanic separate from black and white. For years clowns like Sharpton and Jackson among others have screamed about the “plight” hispanics “suffer” from “white oppression”. Conversely plaeoconservative racial nationalists like Pat Buchanan, The Coalition of Conservative Citizens and Frosty Wooldridge among others dont see hispanics as white but apart of the “white genocide” ploy by liberal elites.
Point is that people are turning this into a race issue which it’s not.
I always admired the way a good lawyer could divorce their emotions and external stimulus when evaluating a case. I think such dispassion build better law. But this is a case designed to inflame passions (in no small part because the deciding law itself is the child of passion not reason). I don’t like your opinion but it is probably the correct one.
There is little doubt in my mind that the jury made the only decision they could if they followed the crappy little law of that crappy little state. The crappy little law would allow me to commit a violent crime and if confronted claim I was in fear for my life and kill the person who was trying to stop me. That was not the stated objective but it is the reality as enforced.
While I have no proof I do not think this result was unintended. In a world of shoot first ask questions later your best option is to be armed & to shoot first. Had Martin carried a gun & killed Zimmerman he would have been protected by the same crappy little law. The NRA and their owners could not be happier as it should generate more gun sales in a market already over-saturated and with an ever dwindling number of customers. For years the number of gun sales have been up but the number of people buy has been down, There has to be a limit to the number even the most paranoid of owners can possibly own. The manufactures need to amp up the fear beyond 11 to 12 or 13 & cases like these are just the trick they need.
I am a criminal defense trial attorney, practicing criminal law since 1977. My “two cents”: the judge did a great job handling the objections and rulings on admission/denial of proffered evidence; the government had a very difficult case to prosecute based on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; I personally believe the original charge was very difficult to prove based on all the facts it had; but, the system worked.
Whether you agree or disagree with the 6 member verdict, Zimmerman has a constitutional right to be presumed innocent and only convicted by a 6/6 vote (under FL state law), based upon competent admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, of each element of the crime(s) charged. The government did not reach it’s burden of proof, in my opinion.
As I explain, when asked: the jury is not asked if Zimmerman was “GUILTY or INNOCENT”, but rather, “Guilty or Not Guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence it heard. The criminal justice system is flawed, but after 36 years, I still believe in the system, acknowledging it needs to be monitored, reviewed, questioned and tweaked.
We should agree to disagree on this site and remain civil and professional.
I am reminded of a quote I still strongly believe and adhere to:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
chill1184,
You are wrong Hispanic is not a race. His roots are Peruvian which is Spanish which is white on his mother’s side and white on his father’s side. Guess what race that makes him?
It’s amazing that people would accuse the Prof. of allowing his feelings about race to affect his view of the law; that people would accuse him of being racist is even more amazing. I can’t argue with the Prof. that based on the law as written, the charges as drawn, or the prosecutors case as argued, GZ should be found not guilty. (I’m also surprised nobody has suggested the prosecutors may have tanked the case by overcharging.) But I disagree with his earlier contention that criminal cases make poor vehicles for developing social policy. This case could have spoken loud and clearly about the responsibilities and obligations under conceal/carry.
I suspect Zimmerman’s actions that night had less to do with race than with power and respect, and he probably focused on Martin because of his age as much as his race. GZ strikes me as a marginal individual with self-esteem issues who thought his gun would get him some special status – it certainly did. He pulled it as the ultimate power play and one thing led to another. Martin’s dead, GZ will be marked for life, probably with a target on his back, and he might be coming to a town near you some time in the near future.
The lawyers here will argue the about the fine points of the law, from the particulars to the specifics of this case, and higher philosophical meanings in the law; that’s understandable – lawyers will talk about legal maneuvers and judicial interpretations the same way ball players will analyze pitchers and umpires. My interest is on what this case means for the general issue of guns. I see this case as the first couple of pages of a new chapter for the handgun in America.
There is an arming of American society taking place, now that nearly every state has adapted some form of a conceal/carry law. With every new tragedy, gun buyers flock to buy guns. The Zimmerman case fits neatly with the NRA’s position that there aren’t enough guns in society and the jury’s verdict advances the cause for ordinary citizens carrying a gun. Flooding a country as sharply divided as the U.S. with guns, is a bad enough of an idea without taking testosterone, anger, and stupidity into consideration. As if we don’t already lead the rest of the world in gun deaths. Bar fights? They’ll be a thing of the past once everybody’s carrying – not. As a few posters have noted, there’s going to be more of these tragedies because of this verdict, as more vigilantes take to the streets with visions of Charles Bronson in “Death Wish” in their heads. The question in my mind, as GZ crawls back under his rock, is what can be done about restoring some sanity to the gun laws before we go from, “Have a nice day” to, “Make my day.”
RTC wrote: “The Zimmerman case fits neatly with the NRA’s position that there aren’t enough guns in society and the jury’s verdict advances the cause for ordinary citizens carrying a gun.”
Perhaps we should consider advancing society toward open carry laws instead of the concealed carry laws like we presently have in Florida. If Zimmerman were openly carrying his weapon instead of having his weapon concealed as per Florida law, would Martin have started a fight with him (if that is what happened)? In the so-called Wild West days of the past, the murder rate was lower.
Some have suggested that Zimmerman was emboldened by carrying his weapon. I disagree. I have a concealed weapons permit here in Florida, and if I carry my weapon, I am less emboldened because of the responsibility I have for carrying that firearm. Zimmerman apparently carries his weapon everywhere. I have a son-in-law who does that, especially to movie theaters. For myself, I am more reluctant to carry because if someone has a beef with me, I would be reluctant to use my weapon against him, and so all I would be doing is providing a weapon for my enemy to use against me. I would be more likely to carry is if I am in a situation with family members where I would be responsible for their protection. I do not trust police or sheriffs to be able to do that. They usually show up after the event. In Zimmerman’s case, I think he would feel a greater degree of responsibility by carrying, and if he only retrieved his weapon at the point when he believed he was about to be killed, as he claims, that illustrates responsible gun ownership.
Ralph Adamo – NOWHERE can I find where Sling and Betty Kath saying ANYTHING about Kel Tec PF9 recoil hitting GZ in the face. Where were you going with this? If anything it has a failure to eject problem not massive recoil. Also GZ probably self-inflicted his wounds or had a unsub do it. The prosecution said he didn’t have enough blood stains on his clothing (actually none) to support his claim of death-dealing blows to the concrete walkway. Here’s a video on the Kel Tec PF9 (GZ’s gun he is getting back soon – BTW!!!) – BTW Dr. Vincent DiMaio was proven wrong in the Robert Perry suicide case March 29, 2001. So he is either too ambiguous or wrong in the Trayvon Martin murder case.
Blouise
Zimmerman isn’t white he’s hispanic
“black kids are the so-called invisible people” (sonofthunderboanerges)
The “invisibility” factor. There are those who recognize it and those who don’t. I have found it to be the one true test of racial bias and closeted white privilege thinking and it runs rampant throughout this case … especially within the various analysis offered. The Feds will shine a light on it or they won’t depending on the level of skill the prosecutors bring to the table.
Once Zimmerman is taken outside the parameters of that very bad Florida law in which he’s sheltered, this case becomes real.
That’s why Zimmerman Sr. published his e-book and Zimmerman Jr. is race baiting. They have to get the white privilege ball rolling, keep the cloak of invisibility fastened over the body of Martin and maintain the status quo. Otherwise poor George could be facing a whole lot of brotherly love.
“Dismissing a law blog over a high-profile case seems to suggest one wasn’t here for the “law” part to begin with.”
Lots of (false) assumptions in that statement.
There’s plenty of evidence that Zimmerman lied. That’s evidence that he committed murder. He had no reason to lie, other than that he was trying to cover up the fact that he committed murder.
There’s no evidence that Zimmerman was even close to being in danger of his life, no solid physical evidence, other than hired witness testimony and his own taped testimony. Root? That guy has an associates degree and isn’t an “expert” in anything. They got him to testi-lie about all sorts of things, including his unsupported claim that Zimmerman had no other choice.
Judge Nelson also gave bad jury instructions. One very important point: she left out is the fact that according to Florida law if you are the initial aggressor, you DO have to retreat and you have to take all efforts to withdraw before using deadly force. This was not explained to the jury. Listen here: http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/wesun/2013/07/20130714_wesun_11.mp3?dl=1
Zimmerman lied repeatedly. His story’s details fluctuated and escalated to make Trayvon seem like the typical “angry black male,” even inserting one “homie” from Trayvon in one retelling, even though Rachel Jeantell said Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a ‘creepy ass cracka.’ It’s a stereotypical sounding usage of the term “homie” from Zimmerman, as if all black people walk around saying “homie.”
Where’s the DNA on Trayvon? No blood from Zimmerman’s profusely bleeding nose? All washed away, yet Zimmerman’s blood stayed on? Where’s the DNA on the gun? Important: The gun was re-holstered and underneath Zimmerman’s jacket so it wasn’t magically washed clean by the light drizzly rain like Trayvon’s hands.
Minimal injuries to Zimmerman after he had his head supposedly pounded onto concrete– making him feel like his “head was going to explode,” a phrase he made sure he repeated exactly verbatim in key places– a dozen times? (Funny that Zimmerman’s story kept changing but he always made sure to clearly mention that his head ‘felt like it was going to explode.’) If you pound someone’s head a dozen times on concrete with the force that Trayvon– that powerful, angry black male– was alleged to have had, you don’t think there would be greater injuries? No headaches? No dizziness? George just gets up and walks just fine? I know I would be having my head x-rayed the next day or even that night. Oh wait, George was within an inch of losing his life because his skull was being pounded on the concrete yet he never got x-rays? He wasn’t worried about internal bleeding? Nobody in his family demanded or insisted he go get them?
There’s no evidence to backup Zimmerman’s claim that he feared for his life. Well, he might have imagined that he feared for his life, but there’s no evidence that a reasonable person would fear for their life in these circumstances.
There are other things we can talk about that make this case easily a conviction.
And yes, citizens are “allowed to follow people in their neighborhood.” But let’s be clear: George did not SIMPLY follow Trayvon. He followed him for what to Trayvon must have seemed like an eternity. Put yourself in Trayvon’s shoes. You just go to the store. On your way back, cutting through pathways that all the teenagers and neighborhood kids use, some guy starts following you in his vehicle, clearly watching you. He doesn;t introduce himself. He doesn’t say ‘hi.’ he’s glaring at you. Pulls into the clubhouse and parks. Then pulls out and follows you some more. Your friend on the phone suggests he’s a rapist– she doesn’t explicitly say ‘gay’ but maybe that’s the implication. A pedophile/rapist kidnapper. Those do actually exist in the real world. Men who prey on young boys. So Trayvon is freaking out. The incident ends with the guy parking his vehicle, getting out, and– by Rachel Jeantel’s version of events– it sounds like Zimmerman jumped on or somehow accosted Trayvon. What if Trayvon fought back? He was certainly also Standing His Ground. What if as Zimmerman got close to Trayvon, Trayvon struck a pre-emptive blow? Trayvon would have been defending himself against what he perceived to be as a threat– a man who outweighed him by 50 pounds has been following him in his vehicle and actually got out of his car to confront Trayvon. in those circumstances, Trayvon is clearly defending himself from a reasonably perceived threat.
In most normal jurisdictions and neighborhoods and cities in America, under these circumstances, it would be the person doing the following who would be a suspect of potential criminal activity, following closely someone you don’t know. In my city, it would be Zimmerman who the cops would be called on to talk to. he would be the one doing the explaining.
I could go through the long list of lies in Zimmerman’s interviews and versions of events.
A good one is his claim in the Hannity interview that he had never heard of Stand Your Ground law. This was simply a flat-out lie. He took a community college course on the law in which they specifically discussed the Stand Your ground law. It wasn’t simply mentioned in passing either. It was covered in some depth and discussion. But even if you might say he simply forgot it, that is just not plausible: he was very interested in the law and legal matters. he was highly motivated to remember the material on a personal level. He even got an A in the course and the professor clearly remembered him. Just a flat-out lie that he had not even heard of SYG.
I could go on. There are other lies, other details. We could also talk about how the 5 white women probably come from conservative families, given that this community is conservative and mostly white. Were they in fear of what might happen if they went back to their probably conservative lives? I’m sure the one minority on the jury was probably worried about little details like losing her job or being threatened by co-workers. We could talk about how in Florida , under Stand Your Ground cases, if the victim is black, the killer goes free 73% of the time, while if the victim is white it’s only 59%. That’s a huge statistical difference. Read more: http://t.co/1g6HTqINM8
But for a law professor like Turley to be completely dismissive of the prosecutions case is ridiculous, and i don’t blame anyone for not wanting to come back to this blog.
Ralph – sweetie – relax.
You might have missed the bit where I said that the recoil thing was not an article of faith.
I merely noted that *the particular gun* (as opposed to guns that you might have fired) had a significant kick. This is very clearly demonstrated in the video that I linked.
It struck me (no pun intended) that as Zimmemrman would have had to hold that gun one-handed right in front of his face in “the grip from Hell” then the whack on the nose might have been the gun whacking the back of his hand.
Why did the prosecution not explore this?
Well, it’s not actually a show-stopper item. Zimmerman had other injuries.
Not that I am saying they made that judgement. I doubt if they made any intelligent judgements.
A guy playing Falstaff in a badly-written Shakesperian drama doesn’t do intelligent judgements. He does shouting. He weeps. He bestrides the stage waving his arms. He’s AWESOME!!
” But the police were very honest. ”
Give me a break.
Raimondo, yes.
Tim Smith’s testimony was not consistent with his report.
Ayala’s testimony was not consistent with his report.
Singleton suddenly appeared as a witness to Tracy Martin’s listening to the tape and close enough to hear him but wasn’t seen by either Tracy Martin or Serino.
Serino tried to tell all but he wasn’t asked the right questions. Did he believe gz? Well, yes or he’s a “complete pathological liar”. A lot of questions were “at that time” which was early in the investigation. He wasn’t asked what he believed just before the case was taken from him. Fact is, Serino did 3 drafts for charges. The first two were for M2, the last for manslaughter. Also, what didn’t come out is that Serino, while interviewing witnesses, was telling them that it was gz doing all the yelling, not the child that they heard. The witnesses were able to sort this out in their FDLE interviews.
2012 Florida Statutes / Title XLVI / CRIMES / Chapter 784 / 784.048 “Stalking”
“stalking” Verb
1. Pursue or approach stealthily: “a cat stalking a bird”.
2. Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: “the fan stalked the actor”.
In what world are “citizens” allowed to follow (aka stalk) people for questionable reasons? – Sheldon Cooper Big Bang Theory
The problem, to me, seems ot be stand your ground. The jury has spoken (although have to see what comes of the hate crimes/civil rights violation prosecution if it goes forward.)
I just keep reminding myself not guilty doesn’t mean innocent.
Prof. Turley has goofed. Sling and bettykath have discovered the real reason that the prosecution lost. The defense had a very strong expert, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a forensic pathologist and gunshot wound expert, to help prove the defendant’s case. But, as Sling and bettykath have discovered through their own analysis based on own their own extensive forensic pathology and gunshot wound expertise, the injuries were caused by Zimmerman’s own gun recoiling, not from Martin’s blows. The prosecution was obviously too stupid to see this or they were too lazy to go out and shop around for an expert of their own.
Here is the defendant’s expert:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9167445
But who was the prosecution’s expert? They were just too dumb and lazy. So that, Prof. Turley was the fatal flaw in the prosecution’s case. Had they simply gone out and got an expert, the case would have been a slam-dunk for them.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/07/15/2297541/self-defense-zimmerman/ Three self-defense cases that went the other way with racial roles reversed.
Well, I guess this is true if they dismiss the testimony of the only witness as you have done.
“Various witnesses said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said they believed that he was the man calling for help. “
Factually FALSE. FOUR witnesses had gz on top, most of them identified the calling for help was by a child. Only John Good, the one whose testimony was slanted by his “rational thinking” put Trayvon on top and said it might have been gz calling for help b/c, according to his “rational thinking” he was the one on the bottom.
————————–
“Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel. Jeantel was a disaster, admitting to lying previously under oath and giving conflicted testimony. She also stated that just as Zimmerman was accused of calling Martin a derogatory name, Martin called Zimmerman a ‘cracker.'”
Misleading. Rachel lied about two things that had NOTHING to do with the case. Her testimony was consistent. I thought she did an outstanding job given that she was put through 7 hours of condescending, nasty cross examination. IF she was such a liar why did West throw down his pen in disgust and quit b/c he couldn’t shake her basic story that gz what the instigator? As she explained, “crazy ass cracker” is slang and denotes a pervert.
JT’s characterization of Rachel suggests that he has trouble hearing her. Is it her gender? her race? her class? Especially when he seems to believe all of gz’s many, many lies that go to the heart of the matter.
————————–
” It also led to allegations of withholding key evidence from the defense to deny its use at trial”
The defense made many allegations while trying the case in the media. The defense had evidence but didn’t want to admit it. O’Mara had a press conference every day of the trial. His office was feeding false or misleading information to Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinal on a nearly daily basis.
The termination letter to Kruidbos at http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/pdf/7/13/kruidbos.ltr.pdf may be enlightening.
—————————
“While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. 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.”
Anyone following me as gz followed Trayvon, would have me calling the cops. But then I’m an old white woman who usually sees the cops as friends, not a Black teen who probably sees his friends getting stopped by the cops for WWB.
———————————
“A juror could not simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor.”
Well, I guess this is true if they dismiss the only testimony of the only witness as you have done.
Why am I still here? I left my computer on with another thread open. Seems I have been deleted from the email list. Several new posts and no email. Guess I’m not supposed to be able to change my mind.
Richard Faust – I agree with a lot of your sentiment. However, in defense of Tracey Martin (Trayvon’s dad), how can you vilify him? Trayvon was having trouble in Miami due to being setup by some bad kids at school. Due to the short-sighted Zero Tolerance rules he got some “time off”. He wanted to stay with his dad. Why not? Dad was temporarily living with his fiancee at RATL. It appears that niether Tracey or his fiancee ever attended ANY of the condo meetings. If they did they would have known about Frank Taaffe and George Zimmerman’s cop-wannabe ways and patrolled the condo streets like Wyatt Earp!
Little did they know the condo president fired GZ weeks before at last condo meeting. However, Frank was appointed watch capt NOT GZ! So what if you let your 17 year old pre-adult go a mile to 711 for snacks in the rain? The RATL condo neighborhood is not a bad one as GZ would have you believe. It’s very upscale. GZ and his sister live there. His sister lives on the very street he claims to the SPD police-officer dispatcher that he didn’t know where he was (huh)?
GZ was not patrolling but was going to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon looking in Frank’s window (GZ claims) during Trayvon’s return to dad’s common-law home. He calls Frank on his cell phone (and/or FRS walkie-talkie) to inform him. Being the racist P.O.S. Frank is you know what his reaction was. How was Tracey supposed to know this was transpiring?
I would think Trayvon did this MANY times before without incident. GZ never noticed him as 1) black kids are the so-called invisible people, 2) GZ was staying at home a lot due to his firing by condo prez, 3) GZ is not very good at watch capt and only sees what he wants to see (some reason he never sees the SPD responding to white boys committing burglaries at RATL) which I believe is HIGHER than black boys.
And I wish people would stop calling GZ Hispanic. His had is Ashkenazim and his mom is a mixed Spaniard and Incan indian from Peru. Spaniard is NOT Hispanic as they are OFFICIALLY Caucasian. GZ is WHITE (Caucasian) by federal standards.
And to hold Twana Brawley against Sharpton is absurd. He was setup by Twana. He had no intentions of committing a hoax. Twana did. She lied to him. His heart was in the right place. Like his heart is in the right place about Trayvon. I posit that this was a conspiracy by two white men to cover up GZ’s racially inspired rage. The DNA and powder residue evidence suggest that an unsub (unidentified subject) was there and handled and/or fired the gun. Of course GZ is psychologically predisposed to unethical behavior and violence (per his documented history). He is covering for the unsub by not fingering the unsub friend (i.e. Frank Taaffe IMHO).
sonofthunderboanerges wrote: “And I wish people would stop calling GZ Hispanic. His had is Ashkenazim and his mom is a mixed Spaniard and Incan indian from Peru. Spaniard is NOT Hispanic as they are OFFICIALLY Caucasian. GZ is WHITE (Caucasian) by federal standards.”
You are mixing apples and oranges here. Hispanic is not based upon race but language. Hispanic means related to a Spanish speaking people or culture. Zimmerman primarily spoke Spanish in his home, except in the presence of his English speaking father. Therefore, he is Hispanic.
From Oxford Dictionary:
▶ adjective of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin America.
• of or relating to Spanish-speaking people or their culture, esp. in the US.
▶ noun a Spanish-speaking person living in the US, esp. one of Latin American descent.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is what applies now.