Last night, I appeared again (here and here) on the PBS Newshour to discuss President Barack Obama’s comments about the Zimmerman trial. While I usually do not intrude on our weekend guest bloggers, I have received a few emails about a comment that I made about the Stand Your Ground law. I was commenting on the President’s statement that we need to reexamine the Stand Your Ground law and noted that the law was not in play at the trial. This led to a few emails objecting that I had ignored the jury instructions that they claim imposed the standard of the SYG law on the jury. I disagree and wanted to briefly explain. Most were civil and insightful and I thought, after our exchange, it would be good to post a brief discussion on this insular issue from the trial. There are important things to discuss in the aftermath of the verdict, as the President said, but we should be clear about our view of the underlying legal standards and trial record.
First, as I mentioned last night, I found Obama’s statement to be powerful and helpful. His sharing of his own experience is a valuable insight. I noted that there are two narratives in this case: a due process narrative (favored by those who agree with the verdict) and a race narrative (favored by those who disagree with the verdict). The President spoke largely to the latter narrative. It would have been useful to see the President acknowledge that this outcome can be justified by people of good faith on the basis for the evidence (though the President did commend the judge on her handling of the trial). However, his words were eloquent and deeply meaningful. I have included the full comments below for your reading if you have not had a chance.
Second, it was interesting to see the President signal that people should not expect too much from the civil rights investigation. As I have said before, this case does not present a record for a hate crime charge and would present an even weaker case for conviction.
However, it is my comment about the SYG law that I wanted to address. There is a common misunderstanding about the case. Many people believe that SYG was used as a defense. This mistaken view has been reinforced by people, including the President, calling for a national campaign against the law. (To his credit, he did not expressly claim that the law played a role at trial). In fact, the defense elected to present a traditional case of self-defense. SYG was waived pre-trial by the defense, which did not seek immunity under the law. As the Florida Supreme Court has stated, it is the immunity provision is generally referenced as the Stand Your Ground law. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (2010) (discussing “immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2006), commonly known as the ‘Stand Your Ground” statute.'”) The point of the law was to avoid the need for a criminal or civil trial entirely due to the immunity grant. Id. (“While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial.”).
I also want to note, as many on this blog know, I have been a vocal critic (if not one of the most vocal critics) against these laws. I have written extensively against the Castle Laws currently in place in a majority of states and the SYG laws that extend these laws outside of the home. My argument for years has been that these laws are not necessary and encourage people to use lethal force with often disastrous results.
Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that 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].”
However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force.
There has been much to do about the inclusion of an instruction that “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.” That is also found in many states though some states have different burdens of proof. That is not a reflection of SYG immunity but a state preference in self-defense cases generally. As noted above, the legislation that included the immunity provision also adopted the common law rule on self-defense. You have no duty of retreat in many states that do not have a formal SYG law. Many people who may not like the immunity provision (barring criminal prosecution) would likely support the common law rule that, once attacked, you do not have to flee in order to claim self-defense in the use of lethal force. Note that in cases of non-lethal force, there is no such rule even in retreat states and, under the common law, you must still show that your use of lethal force was commensurate with the threat.
Moreover, the jury verdict seemed to reflect its view of the fact in relation to the main charge of the instructions (a standard charge) on self defense that 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.” That is a standard that is used in the same basic form by all states that I know of.
This case turns on classic self-defense. Moreover, Zimmerman seemed motivated by an obsession with crime and not the SYG law. Even without the law, this encounter would have likely unfolded in the same way and the outcome at trial would have likely been the same, in my view. The outcome may have been different if Angela Corey had not over-charged the case and framed it as manslaughter. Many experts have criticized her charging and handling of the case. Yet, this again has little to do with the SYG law.
None of this means that we should not get rid of these laws. Those of us who have criticized these laws for years would welcome allies, particularly the President. I do believe that these laws, including the Castle Doctrine laws, do motivate some people like Joe Horn in Texas. However, the controversy over the Zimmerman trial should not be allowed to stray from the central and material questions, in my view. Reasonable people can disagree on the facts. In fact, one of the reasons this debate has remained so bitter is a refusal of both sides to recognize that reasonable people can disagree about what the evidence shows without revealing some bias or deep-seated prejudice. The jury clearly found the evidence lacking, as I pointed out in an earlier column. That does not mean that they were carrying out a racial agenda or blind to the historic mistreatment of blacks in America. They could have had a good-faith reason for reasonable doubt of what occurred at this place at that time.
Here are all of the jury instructions.
Update: In commentary on this posting, some have objected that Stand Your Ground was used in the jury instructions, which is precisely what this blog addressed below (though one person noted that he decided not to read the whole blog). There was an insistence that there is nothing to waive and no pre-trial hearing. That is simply not true. What most people refer to as the purpose of SYG is the immunity provision, which states as follows:
Fla. Stat. § 776.032 (2013)
§ 776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
In order to seek immunity, you have to invoke the SYG provision and have a substantive pre-trial hearing. The court rules on the matter from the bench. If successful, there is no criminal trial. See Wonder v. State, 64 So. 3d 1208; 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1246 (Fla. 2011). That is the most significant difference in the SYG law and most of us have referred to that provision in the case. The defense did indeed waive that argument in not seeking the pre-trial hearing. They wisely chose to make a conventional self-defense argument to the jury. Moreover, for those who read the entire blog, the point was that the no retreat language in the instruction is not the invention of the SYG law but rather a common law rule (though Florida did once have a retreat rule). No retreat is the common law rule and the SYG language comes from common law cases. While the wording may differ from state to state, most states have always recognized the right to defend yourself without having an obligation to flee or retreat in the face of an attack. In other words, you can have the same defense with no duty to retreat in states without a formal SYG law.
While this may be only of interest to some lawyers, these distinctions are often lost in the actual application to given cases. Even states with a duty to retreat like Connecticut, that duty is required only if “he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating. . . ” See Conn. Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. As stated in Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330, the legislature did indeed change a prior rule with a duty to retreat in Florida with the legislation. Furthermore, as discussed in Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044, the Florida case law required a duty to retreat, but most states do not under the common law. The prior Florida law had exceptions for home or “retreat to the wall” defense. The legislation effectively adopted the common law rule in those other states. See Wayne LaFave & Austin Scott, Jr., Criminal Law § 5.7(f) (2d ed. 1986). Notably, even under the old Florida rule, Zimmerman could have made the same defense that he used at trial. He insisted that it was Martin who attacked him and that during the struggle he had to use lethal force in the struggle. Under the prior Florida rule, “if the defendant was placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it would have increased his own danger to retreat then his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm was justifiable.” Dias v. State, 812 So. 2d 487 (2002) The adoption of the common law rule however certainly changed the instruction to expressly eliminate any retreat duty. If you waived immunity by not asking for the pre-trial SYG finding, you were left with the same rule in other states under the common law.
Below are the President’s comments which I commend to you as worthy reading:
I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues — immigration, economics, et cetera — we’ll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.
The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week — the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.
The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.
You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.
There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.
And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.
Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.
And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.
I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.
I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.
That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.
When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.
And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.
So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let’s figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.
Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.
I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “stand your ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?
I’m not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I’ve got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.
And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.
And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.
And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.
Thank you, guys.
“If you jump on a stranger, and attack them, then you take your life in your hands. ” ~Squeeky
——————————
And if you manage to kill them, then you’ve done away with all the witnesses (you hope) and can say what-evah you want happened.
Trayvonites? Interesting word, do you mean these misguided people?
Sheriff Richard Mack on InfoWars talking about Obama’s forged birth certificate
One last try … this time in three parts ….
1 of 3 ( or alternatively 0 of somthing swallowed by WordPress )
———————————————————————————
.
Interesting is it not?
When the 6 jurors left the courtroom, two of them thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter and one of them thought he was guilty of M2.
The jury ended up returning a “not guilty” verdict, not because they discovered – in that disorganized pile that necessitated a request for a list to even begin to make sense of it – evidence that changed their minds It was because they found that the jury instructions did not allow them to consider anything but the fight itself.
Even Juror B37, who came away from the courtroom thinking “not guilty” says she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of ……. (read below)
.
She thinks that Zimmerman started the whole thing, that he should not have got out of the truck, that he lied in his stories and that he confronted Martin.
Nevertheless, she considers that SYG (which was not the defence) trumped all of that and that therefore Zimmerman had to be “not guilty”
It seems clear from her CNN interview that had a “not guilty but at the same time not innocent” verdict had been available, she would have gone for that.
.
From her interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN…
I’ll try this as two parts, as WordPress seems to be swallowing stuff again …..
—————————————————————————-
Interesting is it not?
When the 6 jurors left the courtroom, two of them thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter and one of them thought he was guilty of M2.
The jury ended up returning a “not guilty” verdict, not because they discovered – in that disorganized pile that necessitated a request for a list to even begin to make sense of it – evidence that changed their minds It was because they found that the jury instructions did not allow them to consider anything but the fight itself.
Even Juror B37, who came away from the courtroom thinking “not guilty” says she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of ……. (read below)
.
She thinks that Zimmerman started the whole thing, that he should not have got out of the truck, that he lied in his stories and that he confronted Martin.
Nevertheless, she considers that SYG (which was not the defence) trumped all of that and that therefore Zimmerman had to be “not guilty”
It seems clear from her CNN interview that had a “not guilty but at the same time not innocent” verdict had been available, she would have gone for that.
.
From her interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN…
.
She thinks that Zimmerman was hunting for Martin
He wanted to catch these people.
He was the hunter but the roles changed.
.
She is sure that Zimmerman lied about some aspects at least
Her certainty that Zimmerman lied about heading for the truck may be related to the fact that she understands that times are unexplained by his stories.
In the trial, there was no evidence to indicate where Zimmerman was during those missing minutes after the call. In his closing, MOM offered a theory that Zimmerman “might have been looking around”.
Try again WordPress…..
.
Interesting is it not?
When the 6 jurors left the courtroom, two of them thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter and one of them thought he was guilty of M2.
The jury ended up returning a “not guilty” verdict, not because they discovered – in that disorganized pile that necessitated a request for a list to even begin to make sense of it – evidence that changed their minds It was because they found that the jury instructions did not allow them to consider anything but the fight itself.
Even Juror B37, who came away from the courtroom thinking “not guilty” says she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of ……. (read below)
.
She thinks that Zimmerman started the whole thing, that he should not have got out of the truck, that he lied in his stories and that he confronted Martin.
Nevertheless, she considers that SYG (which was not the defence) trumped all of that and that therefore Zimmerman had to be “not guilty”
It seems clear from her CNN interview that had a “not guilty but at the same time not innocent” verdict had been available, she would have gone for that.
.
From her interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN…
.
She thinks that Zimmerman was hunting for Martin
He wanted to catch these people.
He was the hunter but the roles changed.
.
She is sure that Zimmerman lied about some aspects at least
Her certainty that Zimmerman lied about heading for the truck may be related to the fact that she understands that times are unexplained by his stories.
In the trial, there was no evidence to indicate where Zimmerman was during those missing minutes after the call. In his closing, MOM offered a theory that Zimmerman “might have been looking around”.
She wasn’t specific about the other “fabrications and enhancements” that she is sure that Zimmerman asserted as being truth.
A leading candidate has got to be the “circling”. Although the dispatcher was right then asking him to tell if the guy did anything, Zimmerman does not mention anything. He came out with it later -–although he dropped it in Hannity.
.She might have had doubts about a guy who clearly is utterly confused about significant parts of events that happened during the NEN can remember a dialog from a movie when they encountered. She might also wonder that a guy whose head was about to explode could remember lines from a different movie.
She believes that Zimmerman confronted Martin
Apart from her stating that “nobody knows where the two of them went to”, the missing 2 minutes and MOM suggesting that Zimmerman might have been ”looking around” during those missing minutes, it might be that she considered that Zimmerman’s responses to Martin on the encounter were confrontational – this would apply both to Zimmerman’s version and Jeantel’s version.
.
She goes on to say that she would not be happy to have anyone who acted like Zimmerman did on the night being on watch in her neighborhood.
She would be OK with Zimmerman being there because she thinks that Zimmerman now – despite “not using good judgement” on the night and “not knowing where to stop” would be the “most careful person on the planet”.
Well, one might expect him to be. Quite apart from the realization that his stupidity had resulted in the death of a person, there was all that terribly inconvenient stuff that happened afterwards.
Cut to the Hannity Interview…
For some strange reason, neither she nor Anderson Cooper got to wondering why Zimmerman would need to assert what B37 is sure were “some fabrications, enhancements” (aka “lies”).
His lies were all to do with Martin being a clearly dangerous violent thug, and he being a concerned citizen who did what he had to do, did not hang about unnecessarily – but got jumped as he headed straight back for his truck.
There is one who knows all of the facts. Why not leave it in his hands? Doing such prevents war, but people with darkness inside likes to war.
😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhhJwJbYruA
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhhJwJbYruA&w=420&h=315]
Jesus stood his ground but he stopped conflict getting away from conflict. He also judged himself. People that are complaining about the outcome of the court are not judging themselves. Don’t do that have people end up hurting people and or property. Not a heavenly attitude.
Interesting is it not?
When the 6 jurors left the courtroom, two of them thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter and one of them thought he was guilty of M2.
The jury ended up returning a “not guilty” verdict, not because they discovered – in that disorganized pile that necessitated a request for a list to even begin to make sense of it – evidence that changed their minds It was because they found that the jury instructions did not allow them to consider anything but the fight itself.
Even Juror B37, who came away from the courtroom thinking “not guilty” says she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of ……. (read below)
.
She thinks that Zimmerman started the whole thing, that he should not have got out of the truck, that he lied in his stories and that he confronted Martin.
Nevertheless, she considers that SYG (which was not the defence) trumped all of that and that therefore Zimmerman had to be “not guilty”
It seems clear from her CNN interview that had a “not guilty but at the same time not innocent” verdict had been available, she would have gone for that.
.
From her interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN…
.
She thinks that Zimmerman was hunting for Martin
He wanted to catch these people.
He was the hunter but the roles changed.
.
She is sure that Zimmerman lied about some aspects at least
Her certainty that Zimmerman lied about heading for the truck may be related to the fact that she understands that times are unexplained by his stories.
In the trial, there was no evidence to indicate where Zimmerman was during those missing minutes after the call. In his closing, MOM offered a theory that Zimmerman “might have been looking around”.
She wasn’t specific about the other “fabrications and enhancements” that she is sure that Zimmerman asserted as being truth.
A leading candidate has got to be the “circling”. Although the dispatcher was right then asking him to tell if the guy did anything, Zimmerman does not mention anything. He came out with it later -–although he dropped it in Hannity.
.She might have had doubts about a guy who clearly is utterly confused about significant parts of events that happened during the NEN can remember a dialog from a movie when they encountered. She might also wonder that a guy whose head was about to explode could remember lines from a different movie.
She believes that Zimmerman confronted Martin
Apart from her stating that “nobody knows where the two of them went to”, the missing 2 minutes and MOM suggesting that Zimmerman might have been ”looking around” during those missing minutes, it might be that she considered that Zimmerman’s responses to Martin on the encounter were confrontational – this would apply both to Zimmerman’s version and Jeantel’s version.
.
She goes on to say that she would not be happy to have anyone who acted like Zimmerman did on the night being on watch in her neighborhood.
She would be OK with Zimmerman being there because she thinks that Zimmerman now – despite “not using good judgement” on the night and “not knowing where to stop” would be the “most careful person on the planet”.
Well, one might expect him to be. Quite apart from the realization that his stupidity had resulted in the death of a person, there was all that terribly inconvenient stuff that happened afterwards.
Cut to the Hannity Interview…
For some strange reason, neither she nor Anderson Cooper got to wondering why Zimmerman would need to assert what B37 is sure were “some fabrications, enhancements” (aka “lies”).
His lies were all to do with Martin being a clearly dangerous violent thug, and he being a concerned citizen who did what he had to do, did not hang about unnecessarily – but got jumped as he headed straight back for his truck.
“I was reading a news clip that basically stated that he questioned if the prosecutor in the Martin case really wanted a conviction…. Interesting….”
AY,
Somewhere on one of the earliest threads on the verdict I raised the same issue. A “victory” for the prosecution would have been a rebuke to the Sanford P.D. and its enabling politicians. There is the distinct possibility that the prosecution “threw” its case via overcharging and incompetent trial management.
Mike Appleton: “I’m still sorting this case out in what remains of my brain. But I fervently disagree with those who argue that racism played no role.”
ChaZ: “You’ll read this in newspaper: “Tall person shoots and kill short person.”
Me:
It think that if the people who had been burglarizing the neighboehood had been universally tall or universally short, Zimmerman would have profiled a strange tall (or short) person as a potential burglar.
Racism certainly played a role but this was played by other people – on both sides – afterwards.
Let’s see. Detroit was once the 4th largest city in the U.S. Prior to WWII, people came from around the world to see a city that symbolized America’s industrial capacity. While reading books on WWII, time after time one comes upon statements about “________” having visited Detroit and thus, “knew the industrial capacity of America… .” What lesson do you think people now take away from the same visit?
But, forget about that sort of BIG, important National issue. Just toss it a verbal “bone” Mr. President. “Pay no attention to [the problems] behind the curtain”. Instead, “speak from the heart” about your horrible experiences while growing up Black, and ending up, somehow, a wealthy, two-term President of the U.S.
OK, Mr. President, I’ll go along with your narrative. Basically lived in Indonesia until age 10. Then moving to that horrible, awful paradise called Hawaii. Raised by a white mother and her parents, seemed to do OK while in Hawaii. Definitely not rich, maybe just hanging on. But, there was that private school & all, plus nary an incident of racism. In fact, this is where the President learned his great “secret” of being entirely comfortable around White people, & vice versa.
Then, off to an expensive college in California for two years (for some reason, those two years are never discussed), before starting to discover his “Blackness” & transferring to Columbia University and the Ivy League. It’s not easy to transfer, and students usually lose credits when they come from a school not the calibre of where they end up. But, I don’t know anything about all that, even though I was treated to every course & grade Bush took at Yale. (Kind of like when Al Gore supposedly left Vandy Law after two years. Right! No one leaves Vanderbilt Law after two years unless they have to. No money, conduct, or bad grades? Three choices, first two don’t count).
The President then has to tough out Harvard Law, I presume on scholarship. Grades before & during… not known. Unlike with Bush’s MBA, or Romney’s academics. Harvard Law Review editor, though whether wrote on or graded on… unknown. Unlike anything with Bush, where we knew all about grades at B-school. Meets Michelle, and they hook up, making him officially Black.
Query: if the half-Caucasian Barack Obama had married a blonde of Scandinavian descent, or a “Ginger” with an Irish name, would he still be “Black” in the eyes of the Black community? And I pose the question seriously. How “Black” would he be, politically? (Please, no antiquated, “one drop of blood” stuff. We’re in 2013 America, not 1901 Arkansas).
The Prez toughs it out for a few years at a major law firm ($$) in Chicago, where he somehow gets to bill anywhere from one-half to less than two-thirds the hours any other Associate would need. Earmarked, understandably, for politics by the local Dem. machine, he settles down with Michelle, has kids, joins an anti-Semitic church, and Michelle earns some $$ in one of those “legal” jobs one can’t quite explain to an educated person from, say, the U.K.
State House, waltzes into being a U.S. Senator when his opponent’s divorce proceedings are “tapped into” (i.e., someone unseals and reads the beautiful ex-wife’s deposition) and embarrassing info is leaked. After all, it’s the public’s right to know allegations about Jeri Ryan’s sex life, by Ms. Ryan, that were dismissed out of hand by a court, right? Wouldn’t want Barack to run against someone with bona fide, earned credentials. Then Obama is groomed to run for Prez, raises an incredible amount of money, and becomes personally wealthy (big house you have there, Mr. Prez) by playing upon a relationship he never actually had with a bum father, who deserted his mother when the Prez was very, very young.
Obama then defeats the Wicked Witch in Dem primaries. Stop a sec. Does anyone recall the blatantly racist politicking HRC resorted to when the chance to be prez was slipping away? Obama handily wins the presidency, and easily wins reelection. A great, great Moment in America finally purging its Original Sin of Slavery. Forgiven, maybe not. But penance, yes.
Believe it or not Mr. President, I don’t want to hear the leader of the Executive Branch of the U.S. opine for 20 minutes on a case in the Florida state court system, in which political pressure forced the overcharging of a defendant, resulting in an acquittal. As a former “professor of Constitutional Law”, you understand the danger in things like giving your opinion on how a state court judge handled her trial. Mr. President, you are a wealthy, educated guy, and you damn well know its not 1954, or 1962, nor 1968.
But it’s just so GD easy to breathe new oxygen into the dying flame of racial politics than to, e.g., explain why your A.G. is not only giving the thumbs up to the greatest invasion of privacy ever seen in the U.S., but also has not always been, uh, truthful. Or, exactly what the H-ll our Rules of Engagement are with drone aircraft. Or, the continued weakness of the dollar. Or, the 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., etc., etc., etc.
Yep. Just give the sheeple their “Bread and Circuses”. A lot easier than working.
“But it’s just so GD easy to breathe new oxygen into the dying flame of racial politics”
Warspite,
Clever narrative deftly blending fiction with fact. I think you might try a novel next. A little advice though stay away from history and politics because your
pre-judgments overcome your perception.
Mike, you have no idea the extent to which your comment is incredibly & ironically humorous.
I’m no Birther, Obama groupie, or other fringe nut. I’m just calling ’em like I see ’em. Admittedly, always a subjective process.
Americans fall in love with ‘Obama crusher’ Clare Daly
Lady who scorched warmonger ‘barry the fairy’ gets surprising proposal
http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/americans-fall-in-love-with-obama-crusher/
Can crushers teach anything that is good?
Do you know what’s funny?
What if there was no black people? What if there were no white people? What if they all got mixed up and as a result, we all became brown people?
I can imagine it now… that in the future when there’s no more black or white people but just brown people.
Does that mean there will be no racism?
No…
You’ll read this in newspaper: “Tall person shoots and kill short person. Bob “Shorty” Smith, spokesperson for Short People Allied accuses tall person of instigating the crime on basis of heightism.”
It will never end.
MikeS:
Yes, Mike, anybody who doesn’t agree with you must be a racist! And OMG, FOX News, oh one just knows how they are. Sorry dude, but if anybody has the wrong take on this, its the Trayvonites who are doing the best Great Racist Witch Hunt they can do.
Problem is, the jury done spoke. It wasn’t about race, and it never was except in the fevered imaginations of people who I suspect are Latent Racists. Because you know how you get suspicious that people who complain about gay people all the time, maybe are just over-compensating, and are gay themselves??? Well, I think the same is probably true for people who see racists behind every tree. Maybe it is their own racism that angers them.
As for me, it wouldn’t make any difference if Poor Little Trayvon was white. If you jump on a stranger, and attack them, then you take your life in your hands. He did, and it turned out badly for him. Guess he’s got some “Limits” now. And there isn’t a Black Yute exception to self-defense. Except over on MSNBC.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Yes, Mike, anybody who doesn’t agree with you must be a racist!”
Squeeky,
I only call racists, racist. A rule of thumb about who is a racist is the use of the term “play the race card”. This is a meme made up by racists to deflect the discussion away from their own complicity/belief in racism.
Let’s be honest though Squeeky. You are here to promote your birther website.
I was nice enough to give you a couple of views and I must say the coherence is lacking and the crap flows freely. I will also categorically state that any birther is a racist. There is much to criticize in our President, but his citizenship is a proven fact to all but those who hate Black people, some though who don’t even have the courage to admit their prejudice.
Hi Squeeky,
It’s so very good to hear from you again!
Are the pigs allowing you access to a computer?
You sound like you haven’t aged a day, since we were working together!
How’s that Black/White race war that we instigated, coming?
Remember to pull the slide back, before firing the .45, next time, OK?
Chuckie
Hi Mike!!!: Too late, The hand is already dealt. Thankfully, more people are calling the dealers out, including a lot of Black people. Which is really irritating some of the Trayvonites.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
People need to go to those Trayvon Martin rallies saying to people :Stop worshiping the dead. God is the God of the living. Worship the dead make more dead to worship. Stop the madness.
Squeaky, as I’ve said in another context, the best way to prevent someone from playing the race card is to quit dealing it.
notes to ponder
while i had not heard anything about this i seem to miss the point, what was all his fault? i’ve just watched the video of the attack, it’s posted on several news sites, but what is his fault? the acquittal? the charges? the shooting?
she seems to me to just be some looney who needs her meds adjusted.
OMG, had Martin been white, and Zimmerman black, there wouldn’t have even been a trial, because most White Americans would figure that he had it coming for jumping on somebody, breaking their nose, knocking them to the ground, and then banging their head into the concrete. White Americans would not have been out there protesting about Skittles and hoodies and all that crap. At least, I wouldn’t have. The State never would have felt compelled to put on a show trial. IMO.
It would have been even less likely if there were pictures of Poor Little White Trayvon, smoking dope, flashing gang signs, texting that he was a “gangsta”, posing with a gun, having a bag of jewels that didn’t belong to him, and going by the name of “No Limit Cracka”.
Man, some of you people are way too invested in playing race card games.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hi Bettykath!!!
The Travonite Hypotheticals were presented by the prosecution and not accepted by the jury. In spite of that, the Trayvonites are playing “What if” games. Here is a Jeantel quote, and analysis from AFTER the trial:
==========
“Prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, speaking to Piers Morgan on CNN last night, explained that George Zimmerman had misunderstood the beating he was receiving from Trayvon Martin, and so had the jury in his trial. Zimmerman was not facing a potentially life-threatening “bashing,” but simply a “whoop-ass.”
They don’t understand, they understand, “Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.” When somebody bash somebody, like, blood people, trust me, in the area I live, that’s not bashing. That’s just called “whoop-ass.” You just got your ass whooped. That’s what it is.
It was Zimmerman’s own fault for not understanding the cultural context in which he was being attacked.
Morgan tried to save Jeantel’s statement by asking her whether Martin would have “whooped ass” in self-defense. But the damage was done. For a split second, the camera caught a member of the audience reacting in shock, her jaw dropping at Jeantel’s admission–and her apparent expectation that Zimmerman should have understood the supposed cultural practice of “whoop-ass,” rather than acting to protect his own life.”
==========
Jeantel is the gift that keeps on giving. IF Martin was in fear for his life, as the Trayvonites urge, then why would he simply be “whoop-ass’ing”???
The point is, the Trayvonites have nothing but raw SUSPICION that something else was at play. Based on their own flawed world view. But what do we call those people who are really great at spinning some unfounded SUSPICIONS into definite guilt??? What do we call people who invent “What if” theories, and then start believing them over the available evidence? What do we call people who invent ersatz legal theories to support their SUSPICIONS, like the “Black Yute” Exception to Self Defense??? Well, one word fits all three actions very well – BIRTHERS.
Please don’t turn into one for the left.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“I might also add that in my view it matters not a whit who struck the first blow.”
Yep.