The Most Balanced Account Of What Happened On That Florida Street And, Subsequently, In Court
William Saletan has a terrific piece up at Slate. An excerpt:
I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn't followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn't just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It's a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.
The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn't tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you do to that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence that both men "were scraping and rolling and fighting out there." He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn't match Zimmerman's story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn't fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.
That doesn't make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O'Mara, claimed that "the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong," that "the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense," and that Zimmerman "was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I'm glad that the jury saw it that way." That's complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin's death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin's behavior. "It's raining, and he's just walking around" looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, "He's got his hand in his waistband." He described Martin's race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.
Saletan is halfway there. Who deliberately slanted the coverage to create these impressions? Who repeatedly lied about the facts of the case? Who deliberately ran photos of a twelve year old kid instead of the 17 year old young man? Nice profession you've got there, sir. It's held in the same regard as Congress, for good reason.
MarkD at July 16, 2013 4:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/16/the_most_balanc.html#comment-3805718">comment from MarkDMark, sorry, but ridiculous comment. We're on our way to becoming a police state. Does that mean every cop is a bad cop?
Saletan did a very good job here, and you criticize him because others in the media haven't? It's a big profession.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2013 5:07 AM
And Uncle Ted concurs: http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerman-verdict-vindicates-citizen-patrols-self-defense/?utm_source=MGA&utm_medium=MGA&utm_campaign=Nugent+on+Zimmerman
I especially appreciate this quote: "Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling over in his grave that he sacrificed his life for the cause of judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, as so many of his own race carry in in self-destructive behavior while professional race mongers blame everything on racism. It is painful and heartbreaking to say and write this, but horrifically it is true. Blacks kill more blacks in a weekend in Chicago than the evil, vile Ku Klux Klan idiots did in 50 years. Truly earth shattering insane. And not a peep from Obama or Holder. Tragic."
Much respect, Uncle Ted.
Flynne at July 16, 2013 5:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/16/the_most_balanc.html#comment-3805731">comment from FlynneBlacks kill more blacks in a weekend in Chicago than the evil, vile Ku Klux Klan idiots did in 50 years.
Where's Al Sharpton?
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2013 5:14 AM
Oh, he's coming out of the woodwork now, Amy. He just announced this morning that there will be demonstrations this weekend in front of federal buildings "all over America".
Windbag. I really dislike that guy.
Flynne at July 16, 2013 5:16 AM
Amy, I think MarkD was talking about media people, not cops.
Cousin Dave at July 16, 2013 6:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/16/the_most_balanc.html#comment-3805806">comment from Cousin DaveI got that. My point was that there are bad apples in every profession, whether you're looking at nursery school teachers or the media.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2013 6:29 AM
So where were the accuracy police in media?
Yelling about the Fairness Doctrine while exempting themselves?
Radwaste at July 16, 2013 6:40 AM
"My point was that there are bad apples in every profession, whether you're looking at nursery school teachers or the media."
True that. But in the media, as in politics, the bad applies are firmly in charge.
Cousin Dave at July 16, 2013 7:16 AM
"So where were the accuracy police in media?"
They have a fact checker. He's a Chinese guy, and his name is Wot Da Fuk.
Cousin Dave at July 16, 2013 7:18 AM
I think the fact that he called 911 also went a long way in helping Zimmerman. A man with intent to harm wouldn't have done that. Seems he had every intention of leading police to him and didn't want him to allude police.
Trust at July 16, 2013 7:39 AM
" Who deliberately slanted the coverage to create these impressions?"
Check out the CNN page. Still pimpin' the race angle - praying for an exciting riot to report, no doubt.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 16, 2013 7:43 AM
Where's Al Sharpton?
He's planning BIG protests. But where is Obi? He got the proles all excited by getting involved. Now the proles want a good ole' lynchin'. Ever since the 2000 election, the US has been falling apart. Maybe even before, as Bill was a weak Pres.
Stinky the Clown at July 16, 2013 7:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/16/the_most_balanc.html#comment-3805933">comment from Cousin DaveBut in the media, as in politics, the bad applies are firmly in charge.
This is true in many, many professions.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2013 8:10 AM
The thing I find telling is even in the news stories that claim the jury was correct to find Zimmerman not guilty, let alone the ones claiming it a travesty, almost none of them mention the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin at the time of the shooting
lujlp at July 16, 2013 8:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/16/the_most_balanc.html#comment-3805961">comment from lujlpThat's amazing to me, too, luj. The picture of him, bleeding with his nose all out of joint, was that of the guy who seemed to be losing a fight.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2013 8:33 AM
At the very least, Zimmerman was wrong, and an unarmed man who might or might not have been dangerous is dead. There should be consequences for being wrong, especially when you take on the mantle of public defender, even unofficially.
MonicaP at July 16, 2013 8:36 AM
"Whatever its basis, the inference was false."
Really?? Really??
I think in retrospect, there is plenty of evidence to "infer" that Trayvon Martin was indeed casing houses for burglary at the time Zimmerman spotted him.
What you have here is almost the same situation as when store security keeps track of a suspected shoplifter.
Only this time it was the neighborhood watch for an HOA.
Isab at July 16, 2013 8:43 AM
At the very least, Zimmerman was wrong, and an unarmed man who might or might not have been dangerous is dead. There should be consequences for being wrong, especially when you take on the mantle of public defender, even unofficially.
Posted by: MonicaP at July 16, 2013 8:36 AM
When you can end up in prison for being "wrong". as opposed to the higher standard of a deliberately wreckless or criminal act, there are going to be very few of us on the outside of the criminal justice system.
You have no right to attack someone who is merely following you. This is NOT provocation.
How stupid do you have to be, to not understand that basic fact?
Isab at July 16, 2013 8:54 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19488815-zimmerman-juror-he-shouldnt-have-gotten-out-of-that-car?lite
From the article: The juror said she had “no doubt” that Zimmerman feared for his life and was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin.
The woman said Zimmerman had a right to carry a gun, and did not take issue that he may be eligible to have it returned to him.
"I think it's everybody's right to carry a gun,” she said.
Though she said she was unaware of the national attention the trial received until the trial was over, she said the verdict took an emotional toll on the jurors once it was decided.
Flynne at July 16, 2013 9:08 AM
Obama originally[1]:
Per Jay Carney on 07/15/13:
Then why was it appropriate for The One to make a comment last March?
[1] -- www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/obama-trayvon-martin_n_1375083.html
Jim P. at July 16, 2013 9:16 AM
Isab:
Stupid enough to get a job with the media.
BUT, let's not change our initial impression!
No, it's not "complete BS."
By getting out of his car in his own neighborhood.
That's utter bullshit that Zimmerman had any culpability in the case - but it demonstrates that the conventional wisdom is totally wrong.
Zimmerman was right that Martin was up to no good.
And where is the evidence that he was wrong?
Only Martin knows what he was doing that night.
And the fact that Martin chose a punch in the face to start the interaction demonstrates that (As de Becker's "The Gift of Fear" details) he was correct that Martin was a problem in the neighborhood.
Unix-Jedi at July 16, 2013 9:21 AM
I'm not sure I'd give this reporter a pass. As he said, "Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling."
He was all set to join in the lynching, after not watching the court proceedings, after not looking at both sides. But this time he decided to actually look at evidence.
I also got to agree with Isab, we don't know TM may have been also casing the neighborhood. Zs call was about suspicious behavior, not just walking down the street, but looking at houses. Though to bring that up at trial would be seen as racism. It is much more a comment on the way someone is walking and looking at things.
Joe J at July 16, 2013 9:23 AM
No, Martin was not unarmed. His choice of weapon were his fists. He was also depending on his superior size when he attacked Zimmerman.
Zimmerman knew he was carrying a concealed firearm and was deescalating the situation by walking away.
Martin came back and attacked Zimmerman.
There's a joke among the military: Better living through superior firepower.
Zimmerman had the superior firepower. Martin lost his life because of that. I feel sorry for his family, but there was no reason for Martin to attack Zimmerman. Why couldn't Martin have called 911 and say "I have some white dude following me"?
Jim P. at July 16, 2013 9:41 AM
"At the very least, Zimmerman was wrong"
Strong opinion, not supported by facts, MonicaP. Care to drop a few facts in the comments to support your opinion?
Dave B at July 16, 2013 10:49 AM
Trayvon Martin did not live in Sanford. He lived over 200 miles away, in another county.
He was in Sanford because he'd been caught with stolen goods and break-in tools, and suspended from school... and with no place else to go, he was "hanging out" at his father's wife's house.
There's a lotta bad judgement in this story - but not much of it is Zimmerman's... and most of it is endemic to certain sectors of the black community.
Zimmerman was right to suspect Martin.
And right to defend himself.
Links:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/v-print/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
http://theothermccain.com/2013/07/15/mega-dittos-rushlimbaugh-credit-where-credit-is-due-and-more-questions/
Ben David at July 16, 2013 12:06 PM
"When you can end up in prison for being 'wrong'. as opposed to the higher standard of a deliberately wreckless or criminal act, there are going to be very few of us on the outside of the criminal justice system. "
Most countries in the world criminalize the investigation of aircraft accidents; when an accident occurs, their actions are oriented towards finding something to put the pilots on trial for. The U.S., Canada, Australia, and a few Euorpean nations are the major exceptions. One shouldn't be surprised to find out that those countries, without exception, have lousy safety records. Criminalizing being human may be satisfying for the proletariat, but it does nothing to actually solve the problem.
Cousin Dave at July 16, 2013 12:10 PM
and an unarmed man who might or might not have been dangerous is dead.
The fact that he attacked someone without provocation and hit him in the head multiple times suggests, to me at least, that Martin was dangerous.
I dont really consider myself a very kind person. Quite frankly if I knew I could get away with it there are a couple of people I'd like to kill.
Due to nearly freezing to death and some mild damage to my hypothamus I'm tempted(quite irrationally in most instances) to beat the ever living shit out of two or three people a week.
But thats not acceptable behavior in a civil society and rationally I understand that following thru on such impulses will not benefit my existance in any way.
Suppose Zimmerman did not have a gun though? What was Martins goal? Zimmerman had lost him, so what was the plan? It wasnt to defend himself, becasue he had nothing to defend himself against.
We can choose to be more than the sum of our biological urges and irrational fears. Martin chose not to.
Darwinism in action
lujlp at July 16, 2013 12:15 PM
I posted on my Facebook wall that I agreed with the verdict. The result was the biggest firestorm I've seen on my wall yet.
What I find troubling is not the fact that it's produced more than 200 replies, but the nature of some of the replies.
For a taste:
I replied, "Then, David, you would face battery charges, possibly attempted murder, and in court, you wouldn't have a prayer."
To which he replied:
And I countered with, "If you truly did what you described, your wife and children would be paying you visits in prison. You need to ask yourself if it's worth it."
But to no avail:
It gets even better. David further goes on to state that someone should just "cap Zimmerman between the eyes and be done with it."
How nice. He's advocating murder.
Patrick at July 16, 2013 2:06 PM
This case seems to bring out the same irrational frothing hatred that Sarah Palin did, and recently here in TX, the no-abortions-after-20-weeks law. I simply can't understand this absolute refusal to listen to ANY facts whatsoever, and just say he was wrong. Because, you know, he was wrong. He didn't break a single law, Martin did, but somehow HE is wrong and Martin is innocent.
When I see otherwise normal-seeming people wishing murder and rape on others for no logical (if there could even BE a logical reason for that) reason then it really, really makes me worry for the future. Rome lasted a really long time. I fear the US may not.
momof4 at July 16, 2013 3:50 PM
There's so much disinformation about this case, thanks to the media. The media really needs to be called out for disinforming an entire nation.
We have the NAACP now targeting the Stand Your Ground law. Stevie Wonder has now announced that he will not play in Florida again until Stand Your Ground is repealed.
Would it do any good to point out to these epic idiots that Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with George Zimmerman's defense?
O'Mara based his arguments entirely upon self-defense. He did not invoke Stand Your Ground once. Not once.
Patrick at July 16, 2013 4:13 PM
What momof4 said.
Dave B at July 16, 2013 4:14 PM
"He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin's behavior."
Um, the whole POINT of neighborhood watch is to look for suspicious people in your neighborhood. The insidious implication here, is that you have no right and no business trying to protect your own neighborhood, or looking for suspicious people in your own neighborhood. Bullshit. You have every right to do so. You have every right to do so armed.
Lobster at July 16, 2013 4:16 PM
What Patrick said.
I want to scream - You people cannot be that stupid. Alas, they can.
Dave B at July 16, 2013 4:18 PM
And this account that you posted, Amy, is not balanced. Zimmerman, in calling 9-1-1, did exactly what he, as a neighborhood watchman, was supposed to do. He saw someone whom he did not recognize walking through his neighborhood, and appeared to be casing houses.
That's what neighborhood watch people do. If they don't recognize you, and your behavior appears in any way aberrant, they call the police. They're supposed to. And in light of the fact that Zimmerman's neighborhood had recently suffered a rash of breakins, Zimmerman should have called the police.
Patrick at July 16, 2013 4:20 PM
"The fact that he attacked someone without provocation and hit him in the head multiple times suggests, to me at least, that Martin was dangerous"
'Suggests' is an understatement. It's just a point of fact, like the sky is blue, Martin was attacking Zimmerman on a level that was life-threatening.
MonicaP "At the very least, Zimmerman was wrong, and an unarmed man who might or might not have been dangerous is dead. There should be consequences for being wrong"
So if you're home alone, and you see someone suspicious hanging around your yard, you have no right to ask them what they're doing, and if they attack you, you're responsible if you're forced to fight back while they're smashing your face up?
Lobster at July 16, 2013 4:21 PM
"If someone like Zimmerman started to follow me for no reason his face would look a whole lot worse than that and he wouldn't have a chance to pull a gun."
Yeah, I know what he means, last week some woman was following me, so I smashed her face up. Come to think of it, in hindsight, I think she might just have wanted to ask me directions. Oh well, it's her fault, she was following me.
"Suppose Zimmerman did not have a gun though?"
If Zimmerman didn't have a gun I suspect he probably would have been dead now ... breaking someone's nose then smashing their head against a pavement is attempted murder.
Lobster at July 16, 2013 4:28 PM
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
Similar case, roles reversed
Stinky the Clown at July 16, 2013 5:21 PM
The problem is all the important facts are unknown. There is some minutes where there is no one able to say anything but the defendant. If the defendant has much brains he is going to be able to come with a story that makes him look innocent.
The media also did a really poor job. The first I heard of it they were reporting the defendant had claimed stand-your-ground which from all accounts now did not happen.
It sounds like the police didn't do a great job either though I doubt it would have changed things. I mean like supposedly Zimmerman's car was moved because they didn't know he had been driving.
The Former Banker at July 16, 2013 7:15 PM
"Stevie Wonder has now announced that he will not play in Florida again until Stand Your Ground is repealed."
Have you seen Stevie Wonder's latest position paper regarding black-on-black gun violence?
Neither has he!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 16, 2013 7:31 PM
Let's take some of the facts on:
So in the 15 minutes of this starting Zimmerman concocted a way to get Martin to attack him bodily for following Martin, and come up with a way so he could be on bottom when he fired his firearm, then lie to everyone so convincingly that he withstood an experienced detective's scrutiny.
So the original Sanford police chief was wrong and was fired. The prosecutor took it to a grand jury and barely had an indictment.
A Florida staffer fired over evidence in Zimmerman case.
So please don't say The problem is all the important facts are unknown.
Jim P. at July 16, 2013 7:57 PM
Just a couple of issues JimP.
No one called 911 until the shooting. Zimmerman was talking to the police dispatcher but it was not the emergency number.
There was no grand jury indictment. The prosecutors office skipped the grand jury because they knew it was self defense all along.
Minor quibbles, I know.
And I agree with you. The only unknowns here, are what motivated Martin to attack Zimmerman.
Isab at July 16, 2013 8:04 PM
Thanks Jim P.,
All those seem pretty irrelevant to me except for one. Well, I suppose they could go to show that he was actually pretty stupid so wouldn't have had the brains.
You claim as fact "Zimmerman was walking away when Martin attacked him." I find no indication of that other than Zimmerman's claim and derived from that. The friend on the phone's conversation would point away from that happening though certainly wouldn't be conclusive even if assumed 100% accurate. If there is some other evidence that suggests that please let me know and I apologize for missing it.
I can't tell what happened. Is it as Zimmerman claims? Or maybe Martin was trying to sneak back to his house and they ran into one another? Maybe Zimmerman saw him and confronted him? Which it sounds like to me happened on the Phone call.
As far as I can tell, who made the final aggression is unknown? Did Zimmerman foolishly do it and then get over powered by a younger stronger Martin? Did Martin feel threatened and attack? I don't know and don't see a reasonable way of making a good guess at it.
Lets say Zimmerman continued to hunt for Martin and found him, and then tried to hold him until police arrived which resulted in a scuffle. You think that Zimmerman wouldn't have been smart enough to think "hmmmm....I'll say I gave up and headed back to my car and he jumped me from behind and that resulted in the scuffle."
The Former Banker at July 16, 2013 8:56 PM
Your post:
So you are going to argue that the vehicle was farther away because the cops moved it? Or because Zimmerman was constructing a lie including the police?
I might not say I didn't fight hand to hand with someone. Why should I have to?
What if I was carrying a dagger and pulled it out and used it?
How about a can of MACE?
What about a Misericorde?
All of the arguments fall flat from the view that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Once you become the aggressor you no longer have rights beyond those specified in the U.S. Constitution.
Jim P. at July 16, 2013 10:27 PM
My only point about the car/truck was that the police were doing a sloppy job.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make in the middle paragraphs.
All of the arguments do fall flat when you assume facts that make them do so. I do not make those assumptions. I have no reason to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman -- only Zimmerman's claim that is what happened. I take the position I don't know.
Determining the aggressor can be quite difficult. Obviously Zimmerman was initially the aggressor. Did that change? At what point? Did Zimmerman's pulling the gun make him the aggressor at that point?
The Former Banker at July 16, 2013 11:54 PM
The Former Banker:
You remind me a lot of my friends on my Facebook wall. You seem to think that you can forward a hypothetical situation that appears to fit with the evidence (as you think you know it), and it's up to Zimmerman to prove that it didn't happen that way.
That's not how it works. It is not up to Zimmerman (or any other defendant) to let the prosecution concoct hypothetical situation after hypothetical situation and say, "Well, it could have happened this way..." and expect Zimmerman to defend himself and disprove each and every theory.
Zimmerman does not have the burden to prove his innocence. The state of Florida has the burden to prove his guilt. And in this, according to the jury, the state failed.
The Former Banker: I have no reason to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman -- only Zimmerman's claim that is what happened.
Well, you do have the fact that Zimmerman had injuries that are consistent with being beaten up as he described, and the fact that Martin had none.
And while you have no reason to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman, the State of Florida does: the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's account, and they cannot prove otherwise.
Again, it is not for the state to forward bogus theories, such as yours, and expect Zimmerman to shoot each other down, otherwise, he's proven guilty. Under that standard, no one would ever be able to claim self-defense, and you may as well let your attacker kill you.
Patrick at July 17, 2013 3:15 AM
All of the arguments do fall flat when you assume facts that make them do so.
I do not make those assumptions.
Determining the aggressor can be quite difficult. Obviously Zimmerman was initially the aggressor.
So much for not making those assumptions
lujlp at July 17, 2013 4:02 AM
"Obviously Zimmerman was initially the aggressor"
I think a lot of people are confused about the definition of agression.
Following someone, who is wandering around between houses, is not agression.
Jumping them, and knocking a person to the ground, is agression.
Isab at July 17, 2013 6:09 AM
Was Zimmerman the initial aggressor?
If you defined 'aggression' as following somebody, yes, but if that sounds rational to you, then you've probably got a mountain of tinfoil hats in your closet.
Did Martin have any bruises, scratches, or injury of any kind beyond the gunshot wound?
If Zimmerman had been the physical aggressor...well lets think about this.
4 inches in height split the two men, with Zimmerman the shorter.
Around 40-50 lbs also split the two, with the heavier (FATTER) being Zimmerman.
And Martin was considerably younger.
Now ask yourself this people, do you really see a much older, shorter, fat guy launching a physical violent attack on a young, physically fit, considerably taller man?
Now bear in mind that Zimmerman was armed with a gun, he didn't NEED a physical attack, he could have just drawn his firearm and held Martin until the police arrived.
He might have even been guilty of a crime for doing so.
Zimmerman had motive to follow, motive to report, and motive to detain...but he had absolutely no reason to shoot Martin.
Add to that fact, that Martin had, as previously stated, precisely NO injury to himself beyond what you get when you start beating somebody, while Zimmerman had plenty...and there is no plausible way to draw a conclusion that Zimmerman just decided to throw a punch or make any violent aggressive action...unless of course you just want to assume that he hated black kids and wanted to kill one, so he let himself get beaten up first so he'd have an excuse to draw and shoot.
The stupid is strong in those who believe that.
Robert at July 17, 2013 6:27 AM
There was an interview (can't find it to post a link) in which the prosecutor in this case stated that she knew for a fact that Zimmerman had drawn his gun and stalked Martin because Martin was black.
That was an assumption not supported by any actual evidence. The prosecutor then tried to make a legal case out of her assumption.
The case failed because there was no evidence that Zimmerman's gun was out of its holster until the two of them were tussling on the ground.
Petulantly, the prosecutor called Zimmerman a "murderer" in a post trial interview - again with no actual evidence to support the claim.
Our justice system requires evidence to convict someone. Bullet trajectory, powder burns, wounds, eyewitness testimony (beyond Zimmerman's), and other evidence indicate that Martin was on top, pummeling Zimmerman. The prosecutor, the media, and the hate mongers continue to ignore that evidence.
==============================
An angry 17-year-old boy without solid parental guidance in his life made a tragic mistake in attacking a man who was following him as he wandered aimlessly through a neighborhood which had suffered a series of break-ins.
That the boy had been kicked out of school in connection with stolen property, drugs, and violence indicates that Zimmerman's suspicions may not have been unfounded.
The media hit upon the perfect chance to generate ratings and played it for all it was worth. The usual hate mongers (Jackson, Sharpton, Jealous, et al) saw career-extending moves in ginning up racial resentment. A state prosecutor saw a case which could, if played right, carry her to the governor's mansion. A judge saw a chance at moving up to a higher court.
The media chose to display the pictures of a younger Martin, before he got into the gangsta lifestyle and became the kind of person people cross the street to avoid. They labeled Zimmerman white until forced to acknowledge his Hispanic heritage; then he was a "white Hispanic." Copies of the 911 call were truncated so they would appear to support the stalking and racism narratives.
The prosecutor lied and withheld exculpatory evidence. In a desperate bid to save a crumbling case for second-degree murder, the prosecutor tried to introduce other conviction options late in the trial, including felony child abuse.
The real victim in all this was the truth.
Thomas Wolfe was ahead of his time.
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2013 9:09 AM
Tom Wolfe
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2013 9:12 AM
Here's an article on Angela Corey, lead prosecutor in the Zimmerman railroading...er...case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2013 3:22 PM
How was Zimmerman an aggressor? Because he followed an an unknown person? What if Zimmerman just sat still and looked at an unknown person? Is he an aggressor? What if Zimmerman's house was in that direction? Would he still be an aggressor?
Jim P. at July 17, 2013 9:13 PM
The defense actually did a pretty good job of demonstrating Zimmerman's innocence, even though they weren't required to. Nearly all of the physical evidence that was presented either favored Zimmerman's claim, or came across as immaterial and not supporting either side. It helped a lot that of the prosecution's two star witnesses, one made a fool of herself in court (and in the process, demonstrated that some of the prosecution's evidence was almost certainly a forgery), and the other's testimony greatly favored the defense. I very much got the impression that towards the end, the prosecution was just throwing random stuff out in an attempt to wear the jury down.
Cousin Dave at July 18, 2013 7:48 AM
Interesting theory that homophobia may have driven Martin to attack Zimmerman:
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/18/trayvon-sharpton-and-homophobi/print
Conan the Grammarian at July 18, 2013 9:03 AM
BTW found what looks to be a fairly balanced timeline of what happened:
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
Jim P. at July 19, 2013 4:24 PM
Leave a comment