As I’ve repeatedly written, absent the confluence of an ethically challenged prosecutor, racialist politics, media investment in a politically correct—and fanciful–narrative and remarkable and serial disregard for Florida law by the criminal justice system, the Trayvon Martin case would be nothing more than one of many unremarkable shootings justified by self-defense around the nation each year. The case would never have gained garish national prominence, only to essentially and inevitably drop below the national radar when it no longer provides immediate benefits for those using it for their purposes.
The system initially worked. The police investigated, the local prosecutor reviewed their work, determined that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense under Florida law, and did not charge him. There the case should have ended.
With the presidential race to be decided next week and with bigger issues to cover—or as in the case of Benghazi, to ignore—media and public interest in the case has temporarily lagged. My last post on the case, Update 15.2, was on August 9. It has been my practice to post only when there is sufficient new information to justify my reader’s time, and mine, thus this update.
WHAT’S NEW:
An Apparently Confusing Strategy:
An August 13, 2012 AP story, via Fox News, seems to have considerably muddied the strategy ground:
The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he’ll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state’s “stand your ground” statute.
Mark O’Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn’t retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.
Zimmerman’s attorneys had said last week that they would use Florida’s controversial ‘stand your ground’ law, which allows people to use deadly force — rather than retreat — if they believe their lives are in danger.
‘The facts don’t seem to support a `stand your ground’ defense,’ O’Mara said…
University of Miami law professor Tamara Lave explained:
…this change by O’Mara may be a signal that he thinks his case for self-defense is solid even without the special provisions afforded by ‘stand your ground.’
‘Stand your ground’ makes it easier to prevail under self-defense theory than the law that existed beforehand,’ Lave said. ‘I think what he’s saying is his case is so strong that he doesn’t need `stand your ground.
In the meantime, Zimmerman’s defense fund is fast depleting. His attorney Mark O’Mara said only about $60,000 remain against some $20,000 in outstanding bills. He suggested it might soon be necessary to petition the state for defense expenses.
ANALYSIS:
Is O’Mara choosing a strategy path that seems odd on its face, or is the media confused instead? The simple answer is that there is often a difference between what an attorney says pre-trial and what they do at trial. In this particular case, O’Mara certainly has a tactical interest in misleading the prosecution. However, in reality, there is little real difference between a traditional self-defense claim and a “stand your ground” claim. Here are the involved Florida statutes:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person:
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Stand Your Ground:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
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.
A successful self-defense argument under 776.012(1) invokes immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions under 776.032, and so would a successful argument under 776.013 (3). It’s hard to see what, if any, advantage arguing 776.012 over 776.013 would have. The only real difference seems to be the language relating to being in a place one has a right to be, and having no duty to retreat (invoked when deadly force in self-defense is justified).
In this case, Zimmerman clearly had no ability to retreat, thus eliminating any argument the prosecution might have on that account. In other words, they can’t reasonably argue he should have retreated when he was knocked to the ground, his nose broken, and his head was being pounded into a sidewalk by Martin who was astride him, pinning him to the ground. And if deadly force was justified, he had no duty to retreat under either statute. On the other hand, the narrative has always suggested that the moment Zimmerman left his vehicle his actions from that moment were somehow illegitimate, perhaps even evidence of criminal intent. Perhaps Mr. O’Mara has information suggesting the prosecution plans to pursue that avenue.
In either case a successful argument invoking either statute ends the case, frees Zimmerman, and prevents civil actions.
Zimmerman Gets A New Judge:
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 requires a trial judge to grant a motion to disqualify without determining the accuracy of the allegation in the motion, so long as the motion is ‘legally sufficient.’… ‘A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.’ … Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman’s motion, standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test, and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency. Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.
This ruling by a three-judge panel, handed down August 29, 2012, granted a new judge for the Zimmerman case. This text is the majority of the opinion and all of the relevant text. There is no explanation beyond what I’ve provided here. One of the three judges did dissent, but only to say he believed the motion did not meet the “legally sufficient” burden. The Florida Attorney General’s office announced that the decision would not be appealed.
ANALYSIS:
This is the only reasonable decision the courts could have made in this case. To do otherwise would have given the appearance of a stacked deck against Zimmerman–in this case, a doubly stacked deck–and arguably opened the case to a successful appeal if Zimmerman were convicted. Two of the three judges obviously decided to play it safe, a decision also quite within the law.
NBC Sued?
The New York Post reported on October 4 that Zimmerman intends to sue NBC News over its editing of his 911 tape to make him appear to be racist. The Post wrote:
NBC launched an internal probe after producers misleadingly edited the 911 call placed by Zimmerman just before he shot the unarmed Florida teenager. The edit made it appear that Zimmerman had immediately told police that Martin was black, when the full tape reveals the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher. Combined sections from two different parts of the tape gave the false impression that Zimmerman had said: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.’
NBC News brass reportedly interviewed more than half a dozen staffers during its internal investigation, and at least three employees were let go. They determined that a ‘seasoned’ producer was to blame for the clip and news executives did not know the 911 call had been misleadingly edited until reports about it surfaced days later.
An unidentified NBC executive previously told Reuters the ‘Today’ show’s editorial control policies missed the selective editing of the call. It is not known if any other ‘Today’ execs or anchors will be named in the suit.
This is an interesting development. On one hand, NBC’s rapid throwing of several lower-level employees under the bus may help to make a successful suit difficult. On the other, public confidence in the Lamestream media is at an all time low. About 57% of the public, according to Gallup, say they have little or no trust in the legacy media to accurately and honestly report the news. In addition, NBC has a long and damning history of falsifying its reporting. One of the most interesting and disgusting examples was its November, 1993 rigging of gas tanks of GM pickups with incendiary charges to support its allegation of exploding gas tanks in collisions, yet another ugly stunt that blew up in NBC’s face, and could blow up once more.
Upcoming and Current Hearings:
Judge Debra Nelson, the new jurist in the case, set a murder trial date for Zimmerman of June 10. In addition, the next hearing date in Shellie Zimmerman’s perjury trial case was set for December 12. There is currently no trial date set for that case. It appears there may be good reason for future delays:
Nearly two weeks ago, O’Mara formally asked the judge to delay the case. This week, co-counsel Don West filed paperwork, complaining that the special prosecutor in the case has failed to turn over all the evidence that’s required and had been uncooperative.
Remaining issues for hearings in the near future include whether to allow O’Mara to subpoena Martin’s school records, whether the prosecutors should get Zimmerman’s medical records, and similar issues.
And in one of the more incredible acts of hypocrisy in a time of incredible acts of public hypocrisy…well, let the Miami Herald tell the story:
Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda filed papers Thursday in Seminole County Circuit Court asking a judge to muzzle defense attorney Mark O’Mara, whom the prosecutor accuses of taking to the Internet to try his case in the media.
‘Unless defense counsel stops talking to the media about the case, in person or by use of defendant’s website, it will [be] more difficult to find jurors who have not been influenced by the media accounts of the case,’ de la Rionda said. ‘…An impartial jury could never be seated.’
Mr. O’Mara has also been active:
In the past few days, O’Mara posted motions asking for a monthly review of discovery, arguing that de la Rionda has yet to turn over key evidence, and submitted inaudible recordings and incomplete materials.
Prosecutor De la Rionda also wants the public cut out of the process:
Prosecutors objected when O’Mara publicized a list of subpoenas he planned to issue for Trayvon Martin’s school, Facebook and Twitter records. De la Rionda now wants future subpoenas to be issued in secret, something both defense and media lawyers say is not allowed under the law.
‘The state has the ability to toss as wide a net as it wishes into waters chopped up by storms created by racial innuendo and political pressure,’ O’Mara shot back after being accused of going on a ‘fishing expedition.’ ‘It cannot drown within that net a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to prepare an appropriate trial and to defend himself against that tide.
Unsurprisingly, Martin’s family has continued to try to establish some relevance:
We think the attorneys for Facebook are essentially saying the same thing we have been saying all along: Trayvon’s Facebook and social media are completely irrelevant,’ said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon’s family. ‘All of these issues are distractions that take the focus off George Zimmerman…
Trayvon’s parents are expected in court Friday [10-19-12] to urge prosecutors to push for release of Zimmerman’s medical records.
CBS reports that in a hearing on October 30, Judge Nelson postponed any decision on the gag order and won’t issue a written ruling until at least Monday, 11-05-12. Judge Nelson also set a date for a “Stand Your Ground” hearing of 45 days prior to the June 10 murder trial date, however, that date should be considered flexible. Nelson also gave the prosecution redacted copies of Zimmerman’s medical records.
ANALYSIS:
Hypocrisy? Mr. De la Rionda is now concerned for the sanctity of the justice process and for Mr. Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial? Defense attorneys surely can and do make outrageous statements to the press and public, but considering the overwhelmingly biased nature of the trial in the court of public opinion conducted not only by the prosecution and by the attorneys for the Martin family, Mr. O’Mara is comparatively pure as the driven snow. Consider just a small part of Special Prosecutor Corey’s statement at a news conference early in this case:
Just moments ago, we spoke by phone with Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton. Three weeks ago our prosecution team promised those sweet parents we would get answers to all of their questions, no matter where our quest for the truth led us.
“Those sweet parents”? A visit to Update 2 will provide more in-depth and in- context commentary on that issue.
It would also be worth your time to visit Update 9.4 wherein I discuss Ms. Corey’s bizarre and unhinged attack on Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who had the temerity to question her legal ethics in pursuing the Zimmerman case. A sample from that article:
State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions. She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.
She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.
When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.
These are, of course, only a few representative examples of the cynical manipulation of the media and others by the prosecution in this case.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
As always, it’s best not to delve too deeply into issues over which one has no control and about which one has, at best, incomplete information. I don’t know what Mr. O’Mara’s pre-trial strategy might be, and can only make informed suggestions about possibilities. Why is O’Mara thinking of not invoking the “Stand Your Ground” statute? I’ve no idea, but as I noted earlier, the practical effect and result would seem to make little difference. We’ll have to wait and see.
I am unsurprised that the prosecution is apparently slow-rolling discovery in this case. Competent, confident, ethical prosecutors have no trouble promptly turning over all relevant and required evidence in their cases. They know that the materials they turn over will serve only to remind the defense of the hopelessness of their cause.
During my police days, I delighted in personally carrying feet-high stacks of reports and evidence directly to defense lawyers, and was happy to discuss things with them. Any prosecutor who would make the discovery process difficult is quite simply, suspect. Such actions do not speak of confidence, a strong case, or honorable personal or legal ethics.
If the self-defense hearing occurs in mid to late April as scheduled, the entire matter could easily end at that point. Knowing what we now know about the case, considering the testimony of the prosecution’s lead investigators, there is no evidence to effectively rebut Zimmerman’s account. That being the status quo, under Florida law there seems no other option but to dismiss all charges and to immunize Zimmerman from civil liability. As I’ve noted before, the political pressure on any judge to force a murder trial will be enormous. Expect public threats of riots and other civil unrest and outlandish media and political theater.
In the meantime, the pre-trial legal jousting will continue, and when matters build to the point that a new article is worthwhile, I’ll add to the SMM Martin Case archive.
MISCELLANEOUS:
The website set up by O’Mara for information on the defense case is available here.
It would also be worthwhile for readers to visit The Conservative Tree House, a site that has done some fine work on this case. I refer particularly to an article from September 16 of this year titled “These People Never Met Each Other—Therin Lies The Misunderstanding of Viewership.”
The article provides clear and informed insight into Trayvon Martin, his friends, associates, and lifestyle, his parents and their attorneys and entourage. It’s a concise view into the reality of Trayvon Martin quite apart from the photos and narrative depicting him as an innocent, candy-eating cherubic child. In other words, it appears to tell the truth, a truth the prosecution, media and Martin’s parents would rather you not know.
And for those interested in the complete case file to date, The Stately McDaniel Manor Trayvon Martin Case Archive begins here.
As always, thanks for taking the time to read, and your comments are always welcome.
My thinking on the “why” of O’Mara telling the press that he would proceed on common self-defense, rather than Stand Your Ground, is as you allude, to throw off the prosecutors.
Moreover, recall that a lot of the brouhaha and noise Crump and others have made about Stand Your Ground is about how that is a flawed law. Relevant to Zimmerman, they have attempted to make it look as though Zimmerman is taking advantage of that law to get off, on technicalities.
By telling everyone that Zimmerman intends to proceed on traditional self-defense, that renders moot the arguments, whining, and indignation that Crump has been spouting to the media.
To be sure, after O’Mara explained to the press how he would be proceeding, I have not heard much from Crump and crew about Stand Your Ground laws. In other words, O’Mara’s ruse and disinformation worked.
Of course later O’Mara can file a motion to dismiss on either self-defense or Stand Your Ground theories. (And I don’t know Florida criminal law), but does Zimmerman have to elect now on which defense he will be proceeding, or can he wait until he files the motion to say on what basis he will proceed (after he has had a chance to conduct discovery, etc.)
Also, can George plead in the alternative on the motion? Or does he have to pick one or the other?
Dear iMNM:
Thanks for your comment and questions. The bottom line is that with the evidence as it is now known to be, regardless of which path O’Mara chooses, Zimmerman must be found to have legitimately used deadly force under Florida law. Remember that under both statutes, victims have no duty to retreat (stand your ground) when the threat of serious bodily injury or death is involved. That is surely the case here.
There is no requirement that O’Mara plead specifically one way or another–surely not prior to the hearing–particularly since the language of both statutes that have bearing on this case are virtually identical; the elements of the statutes surely are. I suspect O’Mara is merely keeping his options open to keep the prosecutors off balance and to be prepared for any potential dirty tricks they will surely try in court. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Thanks again!
With regard to the perjury thing, it seems it would be in everyone’s best interests to make it go away, given (a) it was apparently unsuccessful at its presumed purposes of stressing the Zmmerman’s financial resources and amping up the pressure on Mr. Zimmerman to take a plea, (b) given the complaint seems facially unlikely to survive a demurrer or whatever the equivalent is in Florida criminal procedure, and (c) the media frenzy has ebbed enough that there seems little marginal payoff in terms of reinforcing the crumbling narrative. For that matter, I’m not sure why Mrs. Zimmerman’s counsel hasn’t filed a demurrer or motion to dismiss yet. Any ideas how it’s still helpful for that to be hanging out there, Mike? Or do you think we’ll see it trail until some resolution of the main case and then get “dismissed in the interests of justice” or somesuch?
On a related note, I wonder where the smart money is landing on the odds of an acquittal of Mr. Zimmerman being followed in close proximity by an ethics complaint against the Special Prosecutor. My paralegal experience is in California and not Florida, but making intentional misrepresentations to the court is frowned upon in every jurisdiction I’m familiar with.
Dear Tammy:
Thanks and welcome back! Like you, I think that if and when the charge against Zimmerman fails, it is equally likely the perjury charge will fall. If there is justice in Florida, that should be the inevitable result, but of course, when you’re dealing with a politically corrupt and vindictive prosecutor, all bets are off.
Like you, I believe the charge against Shellie Zimmerman was a tactical matter, leverage the prosecutor hoped to hold over George Zimmerman to force a plea. It’s obviously not working, and since the charge was filed by a dishonorable and unethical woman, she will not drop it unless forced to do so. It will eventually fall, but not until the prosecutor has essentially financially ruined the Zimmerman’s for life.
As to the ethics complaint, I’m sure there are those who will file it. I suspect the prosecution and their tactics will not come off looking good after any hearing that examines the evidence in depth. It remains to be seen whether the bar system in Florida is interested in ethics and justice or is more likely to circle the wagons to protect a corrupt prosecutor. Much will depend on what is eventually revealed to the public.
Thanks again!
I’m not sure that any sensible lawyer would pass on one avenue of defence on the grounds that the case was so strong that he could win under a ‘less protective’ avenue of defence. His duty is to put up the best defence.
The problem with a ‘stand-your-ground’ approach is that the case would really be pushing the limits of the intention of that law.
Zimmerman didn’t just take his castle out of his home and out into the streets for a walk.
He took his castle out of a safe secure place in his truck and went into a dark area looking for a potential attacker.
When he got out of his truck and followed Martin into that dark walkway area, he behaved very unreasonably/stupidly – and incidentaly broke very important and sensible NW rules.
He says that Martin circled his truck and appeared confrontational. He says that he rolled up his window because he wanted to avoid a confrontation.
Then he gets out and follows Martin into the dark.
Even after “we don’t need you to do that”, he continued ‘going in the same direction’.
Even after he ended the call, he’s still in the walkway area for 2 minutes – although his statement that he was returning immediately to his truck should have him in the truck and driving within 1 minute.
What we have at the very least is the death of Martin resulting from the reckless behaviour of Zimmerman – i.e. manslaughter.
Maybe he would get away on self-defence.
Stand-your-ground would definitely be pushing his luck.
Echoing old, proven-false or irrelevant talking points of Crump and Angela Corey does not add to the topic of discussion in this article.
Anyway, from what I have seen, MOM West are quite good at leading Bernie and Angela Corey-Nifong down the path. So anything MOM says to the press (for the consumption of the prosecutor) should be taken with a bag of salt.
“Echoing old, proven-false or irrelevant talking points of Crump and Angela Corey does not add to the topic of discussion in this article.” — ItsMnotM, I am a bit confused on this statement, would you please demonstrate exactly what was Crump and AC’s talking points, since a lot of what STreb mentioned came from Zimmerman’s recount of the evening, and indeed, common sense?
Rule… I disagree with your characterization. And to keep things on topic I did not retort to each of the points made.
I assumed THIS article and discussion was about MOM West pursuing a SYG-based motion to dismiss versus traditional “common law” self-defense.
To be sure, I’m all talked out on most of the details mentioned in STreb’s post. For example, STReb characterizing Zimmerman’s behaviour (sic) as “reckless.” I don’t for a minute believe Zimmerman acted “reckless.”
Sure, it is easy to Monday morning quarterback things, to think as Zimmerman would do as you or I would do, but under the law his behavior is NOT judged on what WE think is reckless, under Florida law the motion will be decided on the Judge deciding if Zimmerman had a reasonable belief that he may suffer serious injury or death.
Under that standard there’s NO evidence that Zimmerman’s thought processes were unreasonable.
It is just like all the talk about “his injuries were not serious enough justifying his shooting Trayvon.” Well, those people don’t understand that to prevail on SYG or self-defense Zimmerman did NOT have to suffer injury. He only has to prove that he thought he MAY suffer serious injury or death, and that HIS thinking such was reasonable.
That Zimmerman was in fact injured goes to proving that he was reasonable in concluding he may suffer serious injury or death. And remember Zimmerman’s low level of proof on the motion to dismiss, the weight of evidence has to be “by a preponderance.” That generally means that 51% of the evidence has to tip in Zimmerman’s favor. As I have said since March, 51% is NOT much. (I thought that level of proof would not get him charged, but then Angela Corey-Nifong came into the picture and all bets were off.)
So when people in late October comment about Zimmerman acting recklessly, e.g. by attempting to keep in sight what he thought to be a fleeing suspect, that kind of talk is irrelevant, especially in this thread.
(By the way, evidence does in fact establish Trayvon Martin did “flee.” See, e.g., sworn testimony of DeeDee. So Zimmerman is actually a hero. Knowing that suspects keep getting away, he tries to keep this suspect in sight, exactly as that same dispatcher told him to do. See NEN audio where dispatcher tells Zimmerman words to the effect “let us know if he does anything, the officer is almost there.”)
Dear iMNM:
Quite so. Thanks!
I guess you and I have different definitions of what a “suspect” is. Same with “hero”. And “reckless”. And “common sense”. And “unreasonable”. And when following, what “we don’t need you to do that” infers.
With regards to SYG, I don’t think MoM wants to persue it, because Zimmerman pretty much states that its not Z’s ground, as he is following some one.
Given being followed by a suspicious character (CWIDT?), it wouldn’t be unreasonable to wonder why you are being followed by the the same person whom rolled up a window on you a few minutes earlier, and I do consider it strange to the point of alarming that the last time I saw this suspicious character was in his car, now he obviously followed to my present locale. Dare I say, since dialogue was not was this person was interested in, from this suspicious person whom followed me from his car to this pathway,I “MAY suffer serious injury or death”.
But, you know, dead men and their tales. Its all so much rain water (that washed of every bit of evidence from Martin’s hands and credence to Zimmerman’s story about the fight) down the drain.
iMNM,
My comment went directly to the topic of the blog post – what is MOM doing re SYG v. self defence?
The points that I made re Zimmerman’s actions on the night speak directly to that. What they echo is Zimmerman’s NEN call and statements.
You wrote:
“(By the way, evidence does in fact establish Trayvon Martin did “flee.” See, e.g., sworn testimony of DeeDee. So Zimmerman is actually a hero. Knowing that suspects keep getting away, he tries to keep this suspect in sight, exactly as that same dispatcher told him to do. See NEN audio where dispatcher tells Zimmerman words to the effect “let us know if he does anything, the officer is almost there.”)”
Disregarding an implication that you regard DeeDee to be a credible witness, there is a problem there v MOM’s sttrategy.
Remember the Hannity Show? In that interview, Zimmerman asserted that Martin did not in fact “run”. He said that Martin rather ‘skipped’ and ‘not like he was afraid’.
The problem is that if Martin is running/fleeing, then it means that Zimmerman’s behaviour has alarmed him. This sets Zimmerman up as a predator. Martin would not have been fleeing the scene of a crime. The only thing that would make him flee would be Zimmerman’s actions. Presumably this is something that MOM does not want, thus the Hannity reversal of “He’s running” and “He ran” from the NEN call.
Also, “following” is a problem. Try “going in the same direction”.
The context of “let us know if he does anything” is that Zimmerman is sitting safe in his truck with Martin under observation. He is decribling Martin and his behaviour to the dispatcher. He is safe in his truck, and up to then, following NW rules to ‘observe from a safe distance’.
Zimmerman’s “let us know if he does anything” mission ended as soon as Martin disappeared out of sight down the dark central walkway – whether by running or skipping.
That this mission is over is confirmed by “Are you following him? We don’t need you to do that” – which postdates and overrides “let us know if he does anything”.
Zimmerman ignored the NW rules and he ignored the dispatcher’s words. Both of these have to do with observing from a safe distance and not getting into a situation that could be confrontational. Following into the dark was reckless. NW volunteers are explicitly told not to do that sort of thing – and with good reason.
My take is that Zimmerman – who seemed to have been following NW rules up to that point – had a crisis moment when Martin passed close to the truck.
In the NEN call, you can hear his mounting concern as Martin walked up. Then Martin just walks on, leaving Zimmerman pumped full of adrenaline. Martin’s departure and run/skip tipped the normal human ‘flight/fight’ state into ‘fight’.
The sensible and NW-guided course of action would have been to stay in the truck and drive down to near the rear entrance gate – which Zimmerman had said he considered to be Martin’s destination.
This is MOM’s problem.
WIth Zimmerman following Martin into a dark area – following an encounter at the truck that appeared tense – an SYG argument is weakened. It also impacts a self defence argument – particularly with e NW training connection.
Additionally, clear questions are raised by the timing and content of the NEN call as to what Zimmerman was up to in the minutes after the call ended. This speaks to his credibility.
It seems that MOM will try to defend the case purely on the basis of Zimmerman’s description of the final struggle.
MOM does not want Martin “flee”ing.
He wants him skipping in an unconcerned manner down that walkway, with nothing at all in Zimmernman’s behaviour that should have made Martin feel threatened.
MOM does not want Zimmerman “following”. He wants him “going in the same direction” purely in order to get an address which he never actually got – which was coincidentally the same direction in which Martin had disappeared into the darkness.
SYG should be the easiest and fastest defence.
It seems that MOM sees issues with the applicability of such a defence.
Sling… Like I said, don’t really feel like rehashing things, or as we say here in America “beating an old horse to death.”
Besides, I have not chosen my words carefully and/or you misunderstand. Nevertheless, we can’t spend hours correcting each other, clarifying points, or what I call “playing blog chess.”
For example, you think that I believe DeeDee a credible witness. No I don’t, and there’s probably 500 posts around the Net that confirm that.
And perhaps some misunderstand my use of the word “flee,” as some form of running. That is not what flee means. One can flee the scene by walking, skipping, riding a bike, or even by taking a cab.
iMNM.
To recap
You wrote:
“(By the way, evidence does in fact establish Trayvon Martin did “flee.” See, e.g., sworn testimony of DeeDee”
1) You use the testimony of DeeDee to support Martin as “flee”ing. Her evidence is either credible or non-credible.
2) I understood “flee” to mean ‘get away’ – at whatever speed – although it does imply an element of haste.
Bear in mind that as Martin was not engaged in any criminality as he walked from the 7-11 to where he was staying, then any “flee”ing would not be down to getting away from the righteous. It would be getting away from a suspicious person who had been following him, and who did not explain his business in doing so.
MOM/Zimmerman used to Hannity interview to assert that Martin did not appear to be in any fear of Zimmerman.
HANNITY: Yeah. You said — then we get to the issue where you said to — on the 911 call that he’s running. You said that to the dispatch. Is there any chance in retrospect as you look back on that night and what happened, and the nation obviously is paying a lot of attention to this–
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Sir.
HANNITY: — trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time — that maybe he was afraid of you, didn’t know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don’t think — why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more –
HANNITY: You said he’s running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn’t running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn’t running.
HANNITY: So he wasn’t actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, Sir.
MOM does not want Martin fleeing or in fear. Such would raise the problem that Martin would have been standing his ground.
MOM wants Zimmerman just going to get an address in a direction that just happened to coincide with the direction that Martin took. He wants that Zimmerman did not provoke Martin in any way.
MOM probably considers that on balance, his best chance is to have the state try and prove murder to manslaughter beyind reasonable doubt – without Zimmerman on tha stand.
If Zimmerman gets on the stand in support of a SYG claim, he may well have problems. It won’t be Hannity doing the cross examination.
“Even after “we don’t need you to do that”, he continued ‘going in the same direction’.
Even after he ended the call, he’s still in the walkway area for 2 minutes – although his statement that he was returning immediately to his truck should have him in the truck and driving within 1 minute.”
George Zimmerman did not continue following Martin after replying ‘ok.’ By his own account he lost sight of him and logically could no be certain where Martin even was.
DeeDee stated that Martin told her he lost the person observing him. DeeDee also stated that Martin headed south, down the path to the back of Green’s unit. George walked to the west toward Retreat View Circle.
George never said he was returning to his truck ‘immediately’ nor was he under and obligation to do so. He simply stated he was heading toward his truck at the time of Martin’s violent attack. The speed at which he was heading toward his truck is irrelevant. The prosecution already admitted they have nothing to disprove George’s claim that he was heading back towards his truck.
oops! I obviously meant to say George walked to the EAST toward Retreat View Circle, then west back towards his truck.
Also ‘nor was he under and obligation to do so’ should be ‘nor was he under ANY…’
James wrote:
“George Zimmerman did not continue following Martin after replying ‘ok.’ By his own account he lost sight of him and logically could no be certain where Martin even was.”
One big problem you have there is the word “continue”. MOM would prefer that Zimmerman got out of the truck simply to look for an address that was conicidentally in the same direction as that in which Martin had disappeared from sight.
Another big problem is “lost sight of him”.
If you listen to the NEN call, you will realise that when he lost sight of Martin, Zimmerman was still in his truck. If Zimmerman was following at any stage after leaving the truck, he was following after “We don’t need you to do that”.
Your next problem is “logically could no be certain where Martin even was.”
Zimmerman was headed to the far corner of the townhouse at the top of the unlit walkway. For all he knew, Martin could have been waiting for him there. For all he knew, Martin might have been meeting with associates there. That’s reckless.
If you listen to the NEN call, you will hear Zimmerman give his address and number to the dispatcher and then realising that this might have been overheard. This is just as he had arrived into the walkway area. It’s so dark that “the suspect” might be very close by. He says that he rolled up his truck window moments before in order to avoid a confrontation. Now he realises that “the suspect” who seemed to circle his truck in a threatening manner might be close by in the dark. That happens about 40 seconds before the call ends. That’s nearly 3 minutes before the first 911 call connects.
The most reasonable/sensible thing to do at that stage would be to get out of that potential danger. He should have thought of that before he got out of the truck. Now that he realises the potential for confrontation, he should definitely get to a safe place. He doesn’t.
Given where he is and how and why he got there, this is a huge problem for a SYG defence.
A self-defence argument might work better.
James: “The prosecution already admitted they have nothing to disprove George’s claim that he was heading back towards his truck.”
They do have circumstantial evidence.
Listen to the NEN call. At the end of it, the dispatecher suggests that Zimmerman meet the incoming patrol at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agrees to that.
Then he breaks in over the dispatecher’s voice to say “Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
Listening to the interruption and the tone of his voice, it’s clear that some plan has occurred to him. That involves him being somewhere as yet unknown.
From where he says he was standing – at the Eastern end of the East-West path, he can see his truck and the clubhouse area at the other end of Twin Trees. A leisurely stroll would have him back there in under a minute. If the patrol car arrived while he was strolling back, he would be well able to see it.
Two and a half minutes later, the first 911 call connects.
Given that he changed the plan from a meet at the mailboxes to one of being ‘somewhere’, it is reasonable to ask what exactly he was doing during those minutes.
Thanks for the nice words. This is one of the few places on the Net where I enjoy discussing the issues, in a manner as arguments would be presented in court. No personal insults, no belittling.
In regards to all this, we simply have differing opinions on what is relevant, irrelevant, and what constitutes admissible evidence.
In mid-March when this story broke and I saw Crump for the first time, HIS “theme” (to the extent he had one) appeared unsupported by the evidence and common sense. (The bells went off in my mind when I heard Crump accuse Zimmerman of being a racist profiler, stalker, but before he went hunting Trayvon Martin he called 911. That defied common sense in my mind. To be sure, when I was a prosecutor I could not recall a single defendant who called the police before committing the crime.)
In early March I also began to smell a rat, as the saying goes, when I heard Crump’s theme was not only that Zimmerman was a racist killer, but also that the police and State Attorney were corrupt racists “protecting one of their own” (those were Crump’s exact words). As with the 911-calling criminal, I thought this was a bit much, that not only did an implied white supremacist gun down a LITTLE boy, but the police and prosecutors were protecting him. (I knew that in the “deep south” there were still parts of it where racism is tolerated, but I was not aware that in Sanford city council members were wearing white sheets to council meetings.)
Anyway, back on topic of this thread, when the story first broke nationally (via Reuters and CBS This Morning) I was not at all familiar with Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law (which I preferred to understand as Florida’s “portable castle doctrine”.) I looked at the case from a traditional self-defense perspective, something that is now being discussed as a case strategy.
All said and done, all opinions are warranted because this case is the most bizarre spectacle I have ever witnessed. (And this is coming from someone who had a cable feed in his office and watched the OJ murder trial from start to finish. I didn’t think anything could top that horse and pony show. Then again, I had never heard of Angela Corey-Nifong.)
Bottom line: I have not seen a shred of EVIDENCE the state has to prove its case, even if the charging document passes muster (which it won’t). And judging by the state’s performance and misconduct, the state is not going to be producing evidence to support the charge. Besides, the state’s obligation to provide that evidence has long passed.
Bonus Comment: I don’t think at this stage Judge Nelson would dismiss the charges, (as any fair Judge would have done at the beginning of the case).
I assume she is simply waiting for the defense to file the motion to dismiss, which in her mind she has already granted. Judge Nelson’s demeanor in court on October 19 was NOT that of a Judge unaware of case details. See below.
Judge Nelson knows full well what’s going on. (For example, notice how quick on October 19 she made Crump a witness and required him to produce a list of the names of people who were present on both ends of the phone when he made that self-serving recording of DeeDee’s statement.)
My videos are here, by the way:
Will you help us get the word out about this petition, will you do a post and ask everyone to sign this petition.Launch a Federal investigation into the malicious prosecution of George Zimmerman in Seminole County
petitions.whitehouse.gov
Launch an immediate federal investigation into the malicious prosecution of George Zimmerman
here is the link.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/launch-federal-investigation-malicious-prosecution-george-zimmerman-seminole-county-florida/TWv1G7lk#thank-you=p
Dear Preston:
I don’t have immediate plans for another Zimmerman post, but when next I do, I’ll include the link and information. Should you see my memory failing in that regard, please remind me.
Thanks!