Chris Francescani's otherwise solid Reuters article about George Zimmerman, with previously undisclosed and illuminating background info, is marred by Francescani's baseless assertion that Zimmerman "disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin." Actually, there's no known evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher "suggested" he halt, but the lynch mob has brainwashed a lot of people into perceiving fiction as fact.
There needs to be probable cause (incriminating evidence) that the shooting was unlawful. The use of deadly force when it's reasonable to fear great bodily harm or death is a right, not just a defense that can be used in response to charges. That's why the State of Florida submitted a probable cause affidavit. In other words, it's unlawful to prosecute someone without probable cause. Renowned criminal defense attorneys such as Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz have explained (here, here and here) why the affidavit is terribly flawed. If the best refutation of their criticism is that it's common to prosecute people who've shot others, the State has failed to meet its evidentiary burden.
One needn't be a legal expert to recognize that nothing has been disclosed which indicates Zimmerman violated any law. There's a huge and discrediting gap between that nothingness, and the phony certainty of the lynch mob.
Francescani's "reporting" (as if it were an undisputed fact) that Zimmerman "disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin" is typical of the pro-prosecution bias that dominates our culture. It's not even complicated. Quite simply, nobody is known to have witnessed what George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin did or said between the moment Zimmerman finished speaking with the police dispatcher, and when the Zimmerman/Martin encounter thereafter began. Zimmerman said "okay" when the dispatcher implied he shouldn't keep following Martin. He then sounds (in the recording of his conversation with the dispatcher) as if he indeed aborted his pursuit. Zimmerman later told police that after the call, he did what he and the dispatcher agreed he should do, which was find an address so he could tell the responding cops exactly where to meet him. How does this add up to Zimmerman chasing Martin with murderous intent -- or chasing him at all -- after the phone call?
That such a flub is contained in even a basically impressive piece of journalism, and that nobody (to my knowledge) has commented on it, shows how deeply ingrained the bias is.
Of course all killings should be thoroughly investigated. My beef is with the public's rush to judgment, and special prosecutor Angela Corey's decision to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder when no evidence has been presented that supports it. Corey is placating the lynch mob instead of honoring established evidentiary standards.
It's not as if charging Zimmerman with second degree murder was a prerequisite to uncovering evidence. Corey's ample investigative powers would not have been diminished had she decided Zimmerman should not be charged.
Those who demanded a criminal prosecution see themselves as righteous defenders of a victim, but they fail to realize Zimmerman is also a victim, because he's been denied the presumption of innocence to which he's entitled. Moreover, the lynch mob's phony certainty undermines the stalwart and important efforts of reputable watchdogs who are working to eradicate police misconduct, particularly the sort of racial profiling that infringes on the liberty of innocent Americans. In the name of justice, misguided supporters of Trayvon Martin and his family are rallying around a ridiculously weak case, and ignoring incidents in White Plains, NY and Los Angeles that deserve greater scrutiny.
This piece was also published at CitizenJeff.com.
Follow Jeff Norman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizenjeff
The autopsy is now showing Trayvon's knuckles had abrasions. First move? It could have been.
It's against the law to kill people. Zimmerman killed Martin. Was the killing justified? That's what the courts are there to determine. And Zimmerman is going to have that determination made in court, because he has a presumption of innocence.
“…Martin recalls what Serino said:
"He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, 'Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon 'I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up.
"Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, 'What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says 'I don't have a problem.'
"Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him.
"At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'"
So, how is the person that initiated, confronted, and chased AFTER Trayvon possibly a "victim"? Nice try, but "victims" to not initiated the conflict, "confront" people with a gun, and chase after people trying to flee.
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS NOT A VICTIM, PERIOD!
Zimmerman and no one else has any "probable cause" or any "reasonable to fear great bodily harm or death" in this case BECAUSE ZIMMERMAN was the aggressor, not Trayvon Martin.
It is amazing how bigoted and racist Whites will try time after time in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, (and the perpetrator's own words and account of what happened), to justify any White person killing a Black person.
Disgusting!
There was no such agreement.
The dispatcher asks if Zimmerman wants the police to meet him near the mailboxes.
Zimmerman at first agrees but then asks to be called by them when they arrive for further directions.
Zimmerman could have said that his vehicle was parked on the northern end of Twin Trees near where it turns to the south and given them the make, model, and color. No address needed.
At the point where the dispatcher said "Ok, we don't need you to do that." (follow Martin), Zimmerman had only been out of his vehicle for 16 seconds and the start of the struggle was another 3 to 3 and a half minutes in the future.
Plenty of time for Zimmerman to have returned to his vehicle had he wished to do so.
It doesn't take over 3 minutes to walk around from the back of those houses to the front to see an address.
Although it's obvious from the call that giving directions is not something at which he is particularly skilled, I have to wonder if he planned to give them directions to the vehicle, or if he was hoping to give them directions to the as yet unknown location where he hoped to have Martin cornered or detained.
That's nonsense. There was no agreement between Zimmerman and the dispatcher that he looks for an address. Zimmerman could have simply told him, my truck is a white pickup it's parked about x yards past the clubhouse and mailboxes on the right. Instead he asked the dispatcher if the officers could call him when they arrive.
"Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance..."
---
"Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address."
The back entrance is 70 or more yards south and to the east of the cut-though.
Zimmerman probably would not have been able to see if Martin actually ran through the back entrance or not, only that he ran in that direction. Which is the same direction as the house in which Martin was staying.
The dispatcher asked which way Martin ran, but only asked for the address in front of which Zimmerman was parked, which Zimmerman was too far away from his vehicle to be able to give just then.
None of this is helped by Zimmerman's horrendous lack of skill at giving directions.
It’s irrelevant that it was only implied rather than stated explicitly that Zimmerman would look for an address. The point is that there’s no indication Zimmerman followed Martin instead of finding an address to give to the responding cops. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin ran away, and it sounds from the recording that Zimmerman had halted.
The issue we’re discussing is a red herring, because following Martin to keep track of his whereabouts would hardly be an indication of murderous intent.
From Zimmerman’s recorded conversation with the police dispatcher:
2:27 DISPATCHER: Are you following him?
2:29 ZIMMERMAN: Yep.
2:30 DISPATCHER: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
2:32 ZIMMERMAN: Okay.
2:44 ZIMMERMAN: He ran.
3:23 DISPATCHER: What address are you parked in front of?
3:25 ZIMMERMAN: I don’t know. It’s a cut-through, so I don’t know the address.
3:52 ZIMMERMAN: Could you have him call me, and I’ll tell him where I’m at?
3:55 DISPATCHER: Okay, yeah, that’s no problem.
4:05 DISPATCHER: Okay, no problem, I’ll let him know to call you when they’re in the area.
4:08 ZIMMERMAN: Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8
It's an excellent indication of no intent to return to his vehicle and let the police handle things.
I am of the opinion that Mr. Zimmerman might have had self interested reasons to lie about his motivation and there is clearly enough circumstantial evidence to offer an alternative opinion about what happened, and for that reason, he should stand trial and be judged by a jury of his peers. Martin had rights too before he was murdered by Zimmerman, and this article could not be a more one sided piece of well articulated nonsense.
As a quick example of the writer's nonsense
"Those who demanded a criminal prosecution see themselves as righteous defenders of a victim, but they fail to realize Zimmerman is also a victim, because he's been denied the presumption of innocence to which he's entitled." Apparently negative public perception and a person's death are now equitable in the "victim" department. I am not in agreement with the writer on this point and I don't see how any person claiming to be the rationally superior observor as this writer is could make those two facts comparable. For one notable difference, the negative public perception can be overcome by crafty apologists, like the writer of this article. The murder itself, well that's a different story isn't it?
you are talking about witness "John", he said nothing about Martin slamming Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk, that is something Zimmerman claims.
Actually, there are other witnesses, and none of them have accused Zimmerman of any crime. It’s not that the incriminating evidence isn’t “overwhelming” as you suggest; it’s that there’s no incriminating evidence.
Well there is that pesky admission made by Zimmerman that he followed Martin because of his fear over what Martin was doing, other than that, no evidence.
There's also that small fact that the girlfriend of Martin indicated Martin questioning Zimmerman about why he was following him, not said whether on foot or not, but obviously indicating Zimmerman initiating the contact between the two, which sounds very different from fearing for his life. Other than that, no evidence.
Oh wait, that fear came conveniently later after follwing him, after initiating the encounter. Another irrelevant fact.
Then there's all those pesky open questions, such as.
Who did instigate the fight between the two?
Who screamed for help?
etc. etc. etc.
None of this sounds to me like first degree murder, but manslaughter, yeah it does. The only statement against my position seems to me the stand your ground law. Of course, that ignores the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin, which isn't standing ones ground, and the only person stating Martin was the pursuer on any level is the one who followed him around in his SUV and got out of his car armed to go look for him. More pesky facts that become awful convenient once the boy is dead.
But other than all of that, no reason at all to take a second look at this case.
Nonsense!
"Despite the burglary problem, and even though you didn’t observe Martin’s comportment, you’ve somehow concluded that Zimmerman’s suspicion was unfounded."
I've got a tremendous amount of reason to conclude his opinion was unfounded.
A. The boy left his dad's or dad's girlfriend's to go get a snack, which he did. That's a fact not even in dispute.
B. The boy was talking on a cell phone, walking on a sidewalk, not peering into the windows of any of the neighbors houses. (I know this because of cell phone records and the fact that Zimmerman doesn't mention this to the police while saying Martin appears to be on drugs. Incidentally, the boy wasn't found with any drugs and had been with his father just before the incident. This alone should call Zimmerman's motivation into question, and make his supporters cringe with doubt, but it doesn't, because the fear mongering gun nuts don't care about the explicit problem with this completely unfounded accusation from Zimmerman. It doesn't make them nor you for a second question whether his motivation had any legitimacy when in fact it should make you doubt every freakin' word he said. This alone shows his suspicion wasn't rational, but was basic fear based profiling.)
lol
It's "no arrest if there's no evidence of wrongdoing".
One needn't be a legal expert to recognize that nothing has been disclosed which indicates TRAYVON violated any law. He was walking in a neighborhood where his father lived.
thanks for playing