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
I don’t agree with you on this case but rational people can disagree and I love this blog.
Frank, Thanks for providing that very reasoned and thought out analysis. I personally believe charging 2nd degree is what lost it. They weren’t even close to having that evidence.
Florida has more active hate groups per capita than any other state in the U.S.eh?
California has 82, Texas has 62, and Florida has 59.
(Florida’s hate groups).
Davidm
“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.”
1) Your attitude to gun ownship/carring is your attitude.
2) Zimmerman had absolutely no idea that he was carrying a gun.
He didn’t remember it when he first saw Martin.
He didn’t remember it when he noticed that Martin ( aka suspicious person who was on drugs or something ) was walking straight at him with “his hand in his waistband”
He didn’t remember it when Martin apparently circled his truck (hand in waistband) and confrontational body language.
He didn’t remember it when Martin apparently came at him saying “You got a problem Homie?”
He didn’t remember it while on the ground an apparently getting a beating.
It was only at the very end, when he was just about to lose conciousnes due to an exploding head that he felt Martin’s hand heading somewhere… and suddenly…..
ZOMG!! ZOMFG!! I have a GUN!! Where the hell did that come from?
That’s not “Responsible Gun Ownership”.
That’s “Incredibly Forgetful Gun Ownership”.
SlingTrebuchet – Have you ever forgotten your cell phone was in your pocket instead of in your car or on your desk? If so, would that mean you would be an irresponsible cell phone owner? I don’t think so. I have a little pocket knife always on my keychain to open boxes or cut fruit or whatever. Unfortunately, there have been times I have forgotten about it when going through security into a restricted area that does not allow that item. Such does not mean that I am irresponsible with my carrying it. I often think to myself when walking to that area, “wait, I forgot about my knife, let me go leave it in the car.” Sometimes I forget until the security guard says, “what’s this? We don’t allow this.” One time I even got through airport security with it and did not remember until after I arrived at my destination. I mailed it back home so I would not lose it when trying to go through security on the way back.
Sometimes I think you put too much emphasis on minor details. People who carry their gun all the time put their weapon on like they do their belt. It is there, but not thought about every minute of every day. So Zimmerman wasn’t thinking about his gun until he was faced with a life or death situation and started thinking about what course of action he had. I don’t have much of a problem with that. I really don’t relate to your sentiment about his statement.
David really, equating did you forget you had your cell phone in your pocket with Oh I forgot I was carrying a deadly weapon but remembered just in time to kill someone is the height of ridiculousness.
According to a June 2012 study by researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws.
The study, which analyzed FBI crime data nationwide from 2000-2009, says it could mean either that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the use of violence in states with the laws. “Regardless, the study said, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
———————————————————————————————
“Researchers also find striking racial disparities in how Stand Your Ground laws play out once a defendant claims self-defense. John Roman and Mitch Downey of the Urban Institute find that in states with Stand Your Ground laws, twice as many homicides are deemed justified as in non-Stand Your Ground states. In the Stand Your Ground states, when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable, while only 3 percent of deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white.”
http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/08/stand-ground-laws-worsen-racial-disparities/
What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction:
Alafair Burke
Novelist, Criminal Law Professor
GET UPDATES FROM ALAFAIR BURKE
What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Posted: 07/15/2013 11:19 am
Read more
George Zimmerman Jury, George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin, Stand Your Ground,Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, George Zimmerman Trial, George Zimmerman Verdict, Jury, Law, Self-Defense, Trial, Black Voices News
More than 16 months after George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, the images from the case are engrained. For some: a teenaged boy in a hoodie, carrying Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea, shot in the back by a wannabe cop who was armed with a gun and a prior history of violence. For others: a broken-nosed and bloodied neighborhood watchman trying to protect a community.
The temptation to view Zimmerman’s acquittal through cultural and racial lenses is nearly irresistible. To critics, the verdict is yet another reminder that we undervalue black humanity and overvalue gun rights, at least when those guns are used by some members of society against certain others. For Zimmerman’s supporters, the verdict proves he is an innocent man who was charged only because of public pressure.
But as I’ve tried to make sense of the verdict, I find myself focusing a little less on race and its complicated and enduring relationship with the criminal justice system and our attitudes about guns and self-defense, and a little more on something far less divisive: jury instructions.
Why Jury Instructions Matter
In our system, we leave questions of fact to a jury. But to render a verdict, a jury must know the law. For this, we rely upon jury instructions. Instructions are supposed to translate the law into lay terms that the jury can apply to the facts as they determine them.
Most followers of the Zimmerman trial know that the jury was instructed about the definitions of both second-degree murder and the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. They also know that the jury was instructed about the definition of self-defense.
The self-defense instruction tracked Florida’s broad right to self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in three important ways:
1) A defendant 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.” This means that Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin did not actually have to be necessary; Zimmerman simply had to have a reasonable belief that it was necessary. (This is typical of self-defense in other states.)
2) If Zimmerman “was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed [as above].” This is part of the “stand your ground” aspect of Florida law, which does not require a person to exercise reasonably safe retreat options.
3) “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.” In some states, defendants have to prove by some level of certainty that they acted in self-defense. In Florida, the state has the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notice how these three parts fit together to Zimmerman’s advantage. Following someone — even if because of the most horrific racial stereotypes, even while armed, even after apolice dispatcher warns one not to — is not unlawful. And if jurors had any reasonable doubt about whether Martin “attacked” Zimmerman — even if he did so out of fear of a strange older man who was following him for no legitimate reason — they were instructed to acquit.
How Even Floridians Lose the Right to “Stand Your Ground”
Does that mean that Florida law allows a person to trigger an altercation and then use deadly force when he gets a defensive response?
No. Even Florida’s broad self-defense statutory scheme follows traditional self-defense limitations by prohibiting “initial aggressors” from using force provoked by their own conduct. A defendant in Florida cannot claim self-defense if he “initially provokes the use of force” against himself, unless he either withdraws from the conflict and conveys the withdrawal to the other party (the legal equivalent of “saying ‘uncle'”) or uses reasonable escape options to avoid death or great bodily harm (in other words, the initial aggressor has no right to stand his ground; he must retreat).
Because jury deliberations are secret, and no jurors (as of this writing) have spoken publicly about deliberations, it is impossible to know the basis for the jury’s acquittal. But let me explain why the verdict might have boiled down to jury instructions.
The state asked the court to instruct the jury not only about the justification of self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in the ways described above, but also about its initial aggressor limitation. (View the state’s argument here, beginning at 3:00.) According to the state, the jury might have concluded that Zimmerman provoked any physical response from Martin by following him. If a jury could reasonably find an instruction applicable, the instruction should be given.
The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. (See the defense argument here.) As a factual matter, the defense argued that no evidence indicated that Zimmerman physically initiated the confrontation. As a legal matter, the defense relied on Gibbs v. State, a 2001 decision from the Fourth Division of the Florida Court of Appeals, which held that a defendant loses the right to self-defense as an initial aggressor only if he provokes the victim’s use of force through either force or “threat of force.”
After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, “Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law…. That cannot be considered provocation under the law… Force means physical force or the threat of physical force….” In conclusion, he emphasized, “It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury.” (See 3:37 here.)
The state attempted to rebut the defense’s argument by noting the defense’s request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, “We’re not there yet,” then quickly ruled without elaboration: “The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it.”
The court is not going to give it.
That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.
Why the Jury Didn’t Hear the Full Legal Story
Why didn’t the jury hear the full story?
Time. This was a trial whose fast pace triggered a complaint from defense counsel about their physical ability to continue. By the time Judge Nelson ruled on the initial aggressor instruction, the parties had squandered more than fifteen minutes arguing primarily about factual inferences that should have been for the jury to draw. The judge’s curtness indicates that she was ready to move on, even though the relevant legal issues had barely been touched.
“Error.” Watch the video. Watch how West emphasizes the word “error.” Error is a word used to invoke fear in trial court judges that they will be reversed on appeal. Coupled with his previous phrase, “as a matter of law,” West was suggesting to the court that delivery of an aggressor exception would be the kind of decision that would lead to reversal on appeal if Zimmerman were convicted. No trial judge wants to be reversed, even in a case less controversial than this.
Gibbs. With the clock ticking and a fear of reversal, the court struck the initial aggressor instruction, but it did so without noting the flaw in the defense’s reliance on Gibbs v. State.
Interestingly, that case involved another racially charged conflict, but in the other direction (African-American defendant, white victim). The defendant, an African-American woman, said good morning to a white couple. When the couple didn’t acknowledge the greeting, the defendant asked why. The white woman responded, “Get away from here you dirty n_____, you don’t belong here.” The defendant responded with a “racial slur” and a “mooning gesture.” The two women ended up in an altercation. After the white woman subsequently died of heart failure, the defendant was charged with “culpable negligence with injury.” The trial court instructed the jury about the right to self-defense, including the initial aggressor limitation. The defendant was convicted, but her conviction was reversed on appeal because of an error in the delivery of the initial aggressor instruction.
Using those important words “error” and “as a matter of law,” Zimmerman’s lawyers successfully focused on the fact that Gibbs’s conviction was reversed to persuade Judge Nelson to strike the instruction. But in Gibbs, the defendant’s conviction was reversed because the court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant’s “provocation” — as used in the initial aggressor limitation — had to be provocation through either “force” or “threat of force.” Acccordingly, the appellate court reasoned, the jury might have mistakenly believed that the defendant’s words or gestures were sufficient to make her an initial aggressor – “no matter how slight or subjective the provocation.” Importantly, the court in Gibbs did not indicate that the jury should have heard nothing about the initial aggressor exception. The only error was that the instruction was overly broad by failing to include the “force or threat of force” language.
In Zimmerman’s trial, however, the defense used Gibbs to persuade the trial court to strike the initial aggressor instruction in its entirety. Faced with the argument, the prosecution failed to distinguish between an accurate instruction reflecting Florida law and giving no instruction at all.
A properly instructed jury should have heard the complete law of self-defense in Florida, not just the portions that helped Zimmerman. Had the jury been instructed about the initial aggressor exception, it might have concluded that Zimmerman’s following of Martin, though itself not criminal, was reasonably apprehended by Martin as a “threat of force.” Put another way, the jury might have concluded that Martin was the one acting in self-defense during the physical confrontation that preceded the gunshot, making Zimmerman the aggressor.
The tragic facts of this case should absolutely encourage us to talk about race, guns, and violence. But before we condemn the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman, we should remember that they were asked to do something extraordinary. They were asked to listen to the facts and apply the law to the best of their ability in a case the world was watching.
And the only law they had came from those jury instructions. Losing the initial aggressor instruction may have been the moment the state lost its case.
frankmascagniiii wrote: “Had the jury been instructed about the initial aggressor exception, it might have concluded that Zimmerman’s following of Martin, though itself not criminal, was reasonably apprehended by Martin as a “threat of force.””
A threat of force is criminal. It is called assault. If you do not view Zimmerman’s “threat of force” (surmised by his following Martin in a “creepy” way) as criminal, then you are not properly understanding the Stand Your Ground law and threat of force issue.
See, the problem is that unless there is actual evidence of either the use of force (battery) or a credible threat of force (assault), then putting these instructions in when they do not really apply to the case at hand could lead to biasing the jury. I think the jury instructions were appropriate for this case after all the evidence was presented. Following is from the Jury Instructions concerning the self defense issue:
“In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.”
@ Jonathan Turley:
http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf
Confirmation Bias, A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.
by
Raymond S. Nickerson
Review of General Psychology 1998, Vol. 2, No.2, 175 – 220
(page 175 distinguishes legal discourse, debate and dialectics from generally unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and use of evidence to build a case to justify a conclusion all ready drawn). “Motivated Confirmation” is a subjective process of interpretation that lends itself to single minded perspectives that interpret and frame “evidence” in ways that favor an outcome. This is a more substantial category than a sampling bias, but ‘sampling bias’ can be demonstrated in the way people have pooled their data and selectively accepted the partials from witnesses (in this case) where no comprehensive single witness exists aside from the defendant.
As a teaching Professor, i would think these may be of some interest.
Regards: Bruce
Bob Kauten 1, July 15, 2013 at 1:07 pm
I sympathize with folks who are considering abandoning this blog. As one commenter asserted, the “neo-confederates” have moved in.
For me, it’s not the blog posts, which are overwhelmingly intelligent and articulate. It’s the readership.
Reading the racial/ethnic/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it, fear and hatred expressed by a growing number of commenters is not conducive to mental health and well-being.
I am filled with revulsion at the antebellum attitudes I see here. I’d rather not be so angry. Lashing out at stupidity and racism probably doesn’t help.
The hideous situation in Florida is used as an excuse to express very thinly-veiled contempt upon the descendants of former slaves. No veil at all, in some cases.
Justice Roberts, who wrote that the South has changed, should read the comments here. It’s not just the South, of course. The cancer has spread.
====================================
It is evangelism of The Bully Religion at work Bob.
DavidM2575: The number of REPORTED homicides was lower back in them ol’ days.
You may be a responsible gun owner, and that’s great. I’m also certain you wouldn’t drink and drive. But what about those knuckle heads out there who qualify for permits and licenses do something irresponsible, like drink and drive or get buzzed and fight over something stupid. What about careless shots, crossfire and innocent victims in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Even the most responsible gun owner can make a mistake when handling a weapon. My cousin, a longtime Chicago firefighter was cleaning his handgun when it discharged. The bullet went through a wall in the living room. Fortunately, nobody was on the other side. Simple mistakes with guns can result in tragic, irreversible consequences. As it is, my cousin’s wife won’t let him patch the hole. She put a frame around it.
“The point is that justice was always going to elude Trayvon Martin, not because the system failed, but because it worked. ” (from SwM’s link)
Bingo
LCinTexas – What’s wrong with “YOU PEOPLE” (yes pun intended)… Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-bating riot-inciters??? Are you related to David Duke or Gov. George Wallace? Exactly what do you ACTUALLY know about what they are REALLY doing today? Or are you depending on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for your Fair and Balanced News Source?
The list is long and deep. In 2012 alone, police officers, security guards or vigilantes took the lives of 136 unarmed black men and women—at least twenty-five of whom were killed by vigilantes. In ten of the incidents, the killers were not charged with a crime, and most of those who were charged either escaped conviction or accepted reduced charges in exchange for a guilty plea. And I haven’t included the reign of terror that produced at least 5,000 legal lynchings in the United States, or the numerous assassinations—from political activists to four black girls attending Sunday school in Birmingham fifty years ago.
The point is that justice was always going to elude Trayvon Martin, not because the system failed, but because it worked. Martin died and Zimmerman walked because our entire political and legal foundations were built on an ideology of settler colonialism—an ideology in which the protection of white property rights was always sacrosanct; predators and threats to those privileges were almost always black, brown, and red; and where the very purpose of police power was to discipline, monitor, and contain populations rendered a threat to white property and privilege. This has been the legal standard for African Americans and other racialized groups in the U.S. long before ALEC or the NRA came into being. We were rendered property in slavery, and a threat to property in freedom. And during the brief moment in the 1860s and ‘70s, when former slaves participated in democracy, held political offices, and insisted on the rights of citizenship, it was a well-armed (white) citizenry that overthrew democratically-elected governments in the South, assassinated black political leaders, stripped African-Americans of virtually all citizenship rights (the franchise, the right of habeas corpus, right of free speech and assembly, etc.), and turned an entire people into predators. (For evidence, read the crime pages of any urban newspaper during the early 20th century. Or just watch the hot new show, “Orange is the New Black.”) http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/15/the-us-v-trayvon-martin/#.UeQyKGhKguc.twitter
Bettykath,
I believe JT’s analysis is an outcome of the evidence, as presented, as it collates with the law as it sits on the page, all personal feelings aside. Of course he’d place his personal feelings over legal reasoning if the victim was someone he knew well. He’d also strenuously argue for conviction, if that’s what he was charged to do as a lawyer. But he doesn’t know the victim and he’s not the prosecutor; he’s just doing his thing as a professor and telling you how he sees it.
If you think his opinion is colored by race, then that says more about you than it does about him. The man’s a lawyers’ lawyer and he puts his personal feelings away before giving a legal opinion the way Mr. Rogers changed into a sweater at the start of his show.
Personally, I think GZ should have been convicted of something; I think he’s liar and he was dong something wrong that night. I see now where he’s giving interviews claiming God had a plan for him. Well, I hope he’s able to clarify what that plan is real soon.
davidm2575 1, July 15, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Dredd quoted: “The Florida criminal justice system has sent two clear messages today,” Brown said afterward. “One is that if women who are victims of domestic violence try to protect themselves, the `Stand Your Ground Law’ will not apply to them. … The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently.”
==================================
Yes, the quote was a quote of a congress woman who was there in the court room at sentencing.
The Florida law should be named “Stand Your White Ground” in the eyes of a growing number of people.
Ralph Adamo – The sarcasm was not necessary. I already agree with you that Ms. Corey screwed up. Yes Dr. Henry Lee from CT would have wiped DiMaio out on the stand. “Sumtin’ es’ not right in Sanfold’ Froida’ ” – sorry for the Sino-pejorative-mocking, but honest to God, that’s how he talks! He is the quintessential Charlie Chan. Arguably the world’s best forensic scientist.
DiMaio was at best ambiguous in this case. Couldn’t say which way Martin was leaning toward – backward or forward. I say he was on his knees execution style with NO ONE under him. As Whitey Bolger will tell you people like that ALWAYS beg for their lives like a child in that scenario!
If I had that same multimedia software they used at the UN to convince us of Saddam Hussien’s WMD (i.e. Colon Powell?) I could really show you my unsub-analysis better. I wish I knew what that guy in court used for animation.
sonofthunderboanerges,
“Black men are “invisible” when they are obeying the rules as the elite feel they don’t matter unless they are in the service of them (i.e. fast food, service industry, janitorial, bus drivers, etc.)” … and women
Hey man, walking the path of the white privileged always gets noticed and laws are written to justify removing one from that path … and those laws alway have good cover. That’s why the Florida’s self defense aspect of SYG only applied to Zimmerman … not Martin. Invisibility reaffirmed.
A colleague of JT has a different take on the case.
She prefers laying the defect at the time of crafting the jury instructions.
Her focus is also on the judge (What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction). “Reasonable people can differ.”
The MEDIA seems to be the big problem, they keep poking the hornets nest to make news for profit. Anyone that bothers to collect the facts will know the facts. How many incited to riot people are really interested in the case except to benefit themselves whether it be political, financial or anything else? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, our public officials and anyone else that is trying to incite a riot when their is no reason should be dealt with by the people. We need more people like Dr. Carson to lead us.
I was thinking mestizaje or mestigo but I didn’t want to have to explain it. I wasn’t too sure I understood it too well either. But we are of like minds.
68! Wow you got me beat! (LOL) John O. Brennan (I’m sure you know who that is) and Bruce Wyllys are all the same age. And we were in NJ H.S.’s concurrently – no lie! Bruce and I were in the same county concurrently. John was further north thinking up ways to get Nikola Tesla’s “robot plane” idea off the ground literally (LOL) – i.e. General Atomics MQ-1?
What’s funny about the Florida SYG it was Gov Jeb Bush’s baby. Judging how racist he was with him and Katherine throwing black presidential votes in the trash for his brother Dubya’ you’d think he would be supporting GZ. He is not. He says GZ’s case fails to meet the criteria of Florida SYG.
Black men are “invisible” when they are obeying the rules as the elite feel they don’t matter unless they are in the service of them (i.e. fast food, service industry, janitorial, bus drivers, etc.) They don’t see Dr. Huxtabal (Bill Cosby?) in Florida. But let them be in a gray hoodie on a dark rainy day at RATL! Bang bang bang – oh sorry there was only one round – my bad! NOT INVISIBLE enough I guess!