It now appears that a trial—if one actually occurs—will not take place earlier than the first months of 2013. What is happening now is the usual legal wrangling and argument that sets the stage for a trial. But in keeping with the unusual nature of virtually everything relating to this trial, this process too is out of the ordinary.
As I mentioned in Update 14, it’s important, when considering this article and this entire case, to keep in mind the existence of two realms and their essential qualities:
(1) The Court of Public Opinion: in this court, truth and fact matter not at all. Innuendo and accusation hold sway, particularly if they define and support “the narrative.”
(2) The Court of Law: in this court, truth and fact do matter, but in the Zimmerman case, reality is so distorted as to render an actual trial a potential kangaroo court and/or circus.
WHAT’S NEW:
ITEM 1: Judge Lester Refuses to Disqualify Himself. In response to the defense motion, Judge Lester was uncharacteristically circumspect. He did not engage in attacks against George Zimmerman—as he had in previous decisions—but merely wrote that the motion was “insufficient,” without explaining why (a partial PDF of the decision is available here) in any real detail.
In that motion, Mr. O’Mara wrote:
Mr. Zimmerman Has a Reasonable Fear That He Cannot Get A Fair Trial or a Fair Stand Your Ground Hearing by the Court.
On July 5, 2012 the Court filed its Order Setting Bail. In said order, the Court makes gratuitous, disparaging remarks about Mr. Zimmerman’s character; advocates for Mr. Zimmerman to be prosecuted for additional crimes; offers a personal opinion about the evidence for said prosecution; and continues to hold over Mr. Zimmerman’s head the threat of future contempt proceedings. In doing so, the Court has created a reasonable fear in Mr. Zimmerman that this Court is biased against him and because of the prejudice he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial or hearing by this Court.
ANALYSIS:
The state’s reply to the defense motion to disqualify ( PDF available here) is of a piece with its other filings in this case. It uses essentially a first person, cynical, even taunting, voice and smears the character not only of Zimmerman but his counsel. This is unusual in that legal decorum and professional practice requires attorneys to deal in law and fact rather than the kind of rhetoric one sees in a heated political race. However, considering that the prosecution has, from the first, seemed to be playing to the court of public opinion to a greater degree than the court of law, this is not surprising.
For example, the Prosecution wrote:
As an example: among other things, Defendant asserts that he might have testified to a Grand Jury. However, he omits mention of the fact that when presented the actual opportunity to testify (at his second bond hearing) regarding the very matters germane to his credibility, he declined to do so.
Notice how the prosecution baits and switches, referring to grand jury testimony and suddenly switching to the second bond hearing. This is dishonest on at least two significant counts: it was the decision of the prosecution not to take the case to a grand jury, hence Zimmerman was denied that potential opportunity to testify. He can scarcely be held accountable for an opportunity he never had. Saying that he might have testified is inoffensive and cannot reasonably be falsified. Secondly, the prosecution well knows that Zimmerman has an absolute constitutional right not to testify. The prosecution also knows that it is unethical, even grounds for a mistrial, should he try to present Zimmerman’s decision not to testify to a jury. Even mentioning such a thing is forbidden, a fact known to every first year law student, yet de la Rionda writes as though Zimmerman’s decision not to testify—a decision almost surely based on the advice of his attorney—is evidence of wrong doing.
The prosecution reply might also reasonably be read as shamelessly pandering to the prejudices of Judge Lester and a stirring defense of his prerogatives.
There is no question that the assertions of Mr. O’Mara in the motion are factual. Judge Lester did all that O’Mara asserts in his motion. Again, this is unusual. Judges normally go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of bias. One matter also brought up in the motion is the Judge’s assertion that Zimmerman planned to flee, but this plan was thwarted. As O’Mara noted, there is no evidence whatsoever of such a plan—Zimmerman’s close and continual cooperation with the police and the courts is well-known–or of any thwarting of a plan that did not exist. It is difficult to imagine where the judge got such an idea other than unreasoning prejudice.
Motions to disqualify are always a tricky matter. Any defense attorney would be foolish to file such a motion without good cause, because if the judge refuses to remove himself, it is highly likely he will not be well disposed to the defense attorney and the defendant from that point forward. Even if the judge thereafter gives the appearance of scrupulous fairness and even-handedness, he may harbor resentment and bias toward the defense and defendant and it will be difficult or impossible to prove it.
Mr. O’Mara has not indicated whether the decision will be appealed, though he has said that unspecified events have complicated the case for the defense and will require more preparation time, likely pushing any trial back to the beginning of 2013.
Item 2: Alteration of Bond Conditions. A recent report indicates Zimmerman intends to petition the court to allow him to live outside of Seminole County as he awaits trial.
His lawyer, Mark O’Mara, said one main concern is money. He said Seminole County is the most dangerous place for Zimmerman to live, and the cost of round-the-clock security is draining the defense fund.
‘We’re preparing to file a motion to modify George’s bond to allow him to move out of Seminole County,’ said O’Mara.
If the money continues to go out faster than it comes in, the next step will be to declare him indigent.
‘It has around $40,000 to $50,000 in it — not as much coming in, and it’s draining off due to things like providing security,’ he said.
ANALYSIS:
As I’ve noted in past updates, the lives of George and Shellie Zimmerman are not only on hold, but in a state of chaos. Neither can work, they will never again be able to live in their home, and death threats continue to be a genuine issue. With no means of support other than donations, they also have no means to mount a defense to the unconscionable charges lodged against them.
On one hand, Judge Lester has claimed—without any evidence presented in court–Zimmerman intended to flee but was somehow thwarted. It is therefore unlikely he will grant any request for Zimmerman to live elsewhere. However, such a request, considering the bizarre nature of the case, and the expense and continuing danger to Zimmerman’s very life, is surely reasonable and the means to ensure Zimmerman’s appearance are easily available.
All of this is overshadowed by Judge Lester’s decision to remain on the case and the possibility of an appeal of that decision. Should Judge Lester deny Zimmerman’s request, that might provide additional evidence of bias against Zimmerman, perhaps even as an attempt to make it difficult or impossible for him to defend himself.
Item 3: “Stand Your Ground” Hearing. As I’ve noted before, this case is not, at its heart, a stand your ground case. Once attacked, flat on his back on the ground, straddled by and being brutally beaten by Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman could not retreat or escape. There was no “ground” to “stand,” and the field of battle—so to speak—was decided entirely by Martin. However, Florida law does provide an important immunity for Zimmerman. I reproduce the sections of the law that relates to this specific case:
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 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(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.
(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).
Mr. O’Mara has announced that there will be a “stand your ground” hearing (no date has been set). He wrote:
Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing.
In the case against George Zimmerman, a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing will essentially be a mini-trial. Most of the arguments, witnesses, experts, and evidence that the defense would muster in a criminal trial will be presented in the “Stand Your Ground” hearing.
There are significant differences between a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing and a trial. In a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing, there is no jury; the decision is made by the judge alone. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing, the burden is on the defense to prove that the evidence fits the conditions of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. If the Court rules in favor of the defendant in a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing, not only are criminal charges dismissed, the defendant is also immune from civil actions related to the shooting. The primary focus of a ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing is whether George Zimmerman reasonably believed that his use of his weapon was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself at the hands of Trayvon Martin.
Preparing for the ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing will require the same time and resources that would be necessary to prepare for a trial. It will take time to collect and submit reciprocal discovery, depose witnesses and experts, and identify evidence to be submitted during the hearing. We anticipate this will still take several months. Mr. O’Mara, again, urges everyone to be patient during this process and to reserve judgment until the evidence is presented in the ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing.
ANALYSIS:
The primary issues at such a hearing will be:
(1) Did Zimmerman reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself? 776.012 (1)
(2) Was Zimmerman engaged in an unlawful activity? Was he attacked in a place he had a right to be? 776.013(3)
As Mr. O’Mara notes, the majority of evidence in this case is known, as are the answers to these two essential questions. Zimmerman did reasonably believe the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances. Considering his position as the neighborhood watch captain, his right to be where he was, looking out for his neighborhood, might well be stronger than that of a mere resident, and of course he was not engaged in unlawful activity. Remember at the first bond hearing on April 20, 2012, the special prosecutor’s investigator—Dale Gilbreath—admitted that the prosecution had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account.
Under 776.032 (2) it is clear that the Sanford Police Department and the local prosecutor followed the law in not arresting Zimmerman because their investigation clearly concluded that there was no probable cause to believe his use of force was unlawful, and the special prosecutor has found no such cause since, yet continues to prosecute Zimmerman in contravention of Florida law. In fact, as I, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and others noted in Update 2, the special prosecutor failed to produce probable cause even in their charging affidavit for second degree murder.
It is probable that Zimmerman will not have to take the stand in this hearing. His complete cooperation with the Sanford Police, including a videotaped pseudo-reenactment will make that unnecessary. O’Mara will only need to call the investigators and officers involved, introduce their reports and all related documents, and let the evidence tell the story, a story the special prosecutor has no evidence to refute.
At the hearing, the special prosecutor will surely try to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor and argue:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Mr. de la Rionda and supporters of the narrative have already tried to argue that Martin was somehow provoked into attacking Zimmerman because he was being “profiled” or followed simply because he was black. However we know that Martin lost Zimmerman and if he chose, could simply have gone home, never seeing Zimmerman—who was merely trying to keep him in sight for the responding police–again. This line of argument is dangerous to the prosecution because of 776.041 (2)(a) and (b). Zimmerman’s testimony and injuries, as well as the statements of eyewitnesses are strong proof that he reasonably feared for his life at Martin’s hands. In addition, his many and desperate screams for help—also heard by many witnesses—are strong proof that Zimmerman was not engaged in a fight but was the victim of an assault.
The evidence in the case is not in question, at least not to those who are considering the evidence rather than the narrative. The primary issue will be Judge Lester. If he is truly not biased against Zimmerman, the law is clear. The evidence of Zimmerman’s adherence to the law will not be refuted, and Lester will have no choice but to dismiss the case and declare that Zimmerman may not be sued. But will he?
As I’ve written, the political and social pressures of this case are, in many ways, unprecedented. Innocents in far-flung cities have been attacked and brutally beaten supposedly as a means of securing “justice for Trayvon.” The threat of violence, rioting and all manner of civil disorder–should believers in the narrative not receive what they believe to be justice–is very real and omnipresent.
In addition, any judge dismissing this case will find himself in the position of having to answer for the very prosecution itself and his role in furthering it, including revoking Zimmerman’s bond, the perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman, and the destruction of their lives and meager fortune. Understand that no judge may be compelled to publically address such questions, but anyone with a conscience would surely feel their weight.
I suspect Judge Lester—and virtually any judge—will feel enormous pressure to hold a trial as a means of letting a jury take the heat for their decision. Judge Lester can simply argue that he felt the matter so serious it must be heard by a jury.
And therein lies another major problem: can Zimmerman receive a fair trial anywhere? Even the President of the United States has injected himself—and race–into the case, saying that Martin looked like the son he never had. The First Lady also sounded off on the case as have various Congressmen, pundits and nationally known race baiters, and death threats and other forms of intimidation against jurors are a certainty. The kinds of social and political pressures felt by Judge Lester will also be present. Who in their right mind would want to serve on this jury?
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Even if the case is dismissed at a “stand your ground” hearing, George Zimmerman’s life will be irrevocably changed. His wife will still face a perjury charge that would never have occurred if not for this misbegotten prosecution. Their lives will be in danger well into the future, a threat that may never truly end.
Even after the revelation of the FBI’s report essentially exonerating Zimmerman of the charge of racism, it remains likely the Holder DOJ will prosecute Zimmerman. In fact, if the state case is dismissed or Zimmerman is acquitted at trial, I suspect a federal prosecution would be even more likely. After all, Mr. Holder is determined to take care of “his people.”
It remains equally probable that the longer the case drags on, the more likely it will be that the prosecution will dredge up witnesses like “Witness 9,” Ms. Christina Meza Johnson, whose “testimony” has no bearing on the Martin case, but is presented only to slander and smear Zimmerman in any way possible. Since the momentary excitement over her utterly unsubstantiated story of racism and sexual abuse decades old, she has dropped off the radar. No rational judge would allow such unrelated and blatantly prejudicial testimony in the first place, so her disappearance is hardly surprising.
What is unlikely indeed is that the prosecution will turn up any additional incriminating evidence. The law does not allow the prosecution to ambush defendants at trial—through I strongly suspect the prosecution will try to do just that. The prosecution is bound by law to turn over all of its evidence to the defense far in advance of any trial; there can be no dramatic, Perry Mason surprises. If the prosecution does not have any effective evidence by now, it is very unlikely they’ll find it in the future.
I’ll continue to update the case as additional information becomes available.
Mike,
The only good news is that this will continue into the next year. That means, if Romney wins, this will go away. Not quietly. I do wish the POX on Judge Lester.
Going by the message of what Zimmerman said on the Hannity Show, he does not have the same faith that you seem to have in a certain interpretation of law’s intent and effect.
He went to some trouble to downplay any sense that he might have been unwise to go in the same direction as the then unseen Martin, with no guarantee of not coming in close proximity to him.
Martin had “his hand in his waistband, but now this is not at all significant – although mentioned in the NEN call and the subsequent walk-through. It was just maybe some sort of bluff. Zimmerman did not feel worried, and it certainly did not remind him that he himself had something in his waistband.
Martin doesn’t run now. Running might imply that Zimmerman had given him some reason to be fearful.
Zimmerman didn’t go faster than a walk. He was only looking for a house number. No need to rush for that. Those noises were 20 seconds of wind.
He could have walked 100 feet North for a house number on Retreat View Circle. He chose to walk to a part of Retreat View Circle that was 250 feet away. The fact that this involved walking past the place where the non-frightening Martin had sort of skipped rather than run in fear – was simple coincidence.
If he could put full faith in a dismissal or an aquittal based on the law as you see it above, then he might as well say:
Yes, I followed him. I was concerned that he was up to no good. I was simply acting absolutely as a concerned resident and as a Neighbourhood Watch coordinator.
In the two minutes after I ended my NEN call, I tried to locate him.
He attacked me. I had to shoot in self-defence.
Such a story would dismiss the challenges to his narrative within the absolute time frame imposed by phone calls.
Such a story should leave him with the same protections under the laws as you interpret them.
Why bother with turning “running” into “skipping” – “hand in a waistband” into a thing of nothing – “Following? Yeah” into “going in the same direction”?
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/hannity-interview.html
I don’t feel that he’s home and dry.
Certainly going by the Hannity interview, Zimmerman / O’Mara don’t think so either.
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
It’s important to realize that a TV interview is not, in any way, trial testimony. I watched the Hannity interview. Hannity did a reasonable job conducting a TV interview with its ultimate goal of entertainment, but a wretched job of asking definitive questions and following up on those questions to obtain firm, unquestionable answers. But that’s not a big deal because he was conducting a TV interview, not a direct or cross examination.
It would be a mistake to use anything Zimmerman said in that interview and think it truth. Oh, but the prosecutor might use that interview in court! Fine; let him try. Zimmerman and O’Mara can simply explain that Hannity didn’t ask the necessary follow up questions or edited those questions and answers out–oh yes, that was done; it’s always done on TV–to get to the completely accurate answer, which is X, Y or Z.
TV is not sworn testimony. The Hannity interview will be meaningless in the ultimate disposition of the case.
Yes Mike
I agree with you completely on the TV as evidence thing.It didn’t add anything to the sum of knowledge.
My point above was that I saw a very deliberate pitch in Zimmerman’s performance.
This was to downplay any dramatic elements of the lead up to Zimmerman getting out of the truck.
This would be to remove himself as far as possible from any suggestion that he should have been wary of venturing in the direction of the place where Martin left his sight. This would also be to remove himself from a suggestion that he had done anything to alarm or provoke Martin.
The question that came to my my mind was “Why does he feel the need to overplay (my impression) this?”
It seemed to me that introducing this on Hannity was an essential part of the game plan.
Going by your interpretation (above) of the applicable laws, this new additional distancing should be unnecessary.
I sent this to certain people and have now posted it on the Net. So it is no secret. (My background is 22 years as a federal litigator, prosecutor for a couple years (sheesh, has any lawyer not done THAT :), and seven years as undercover investigator.)
I noted this from the second discovery dump (or was it the 3rd?, hell, I dunno).
It pertains to showing that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, and that he fully intended to assault George Zimmerman WHILE HE WAS ON THE PHONE WITH DeeDee (or is it Dee Dee? No matter, I like to say “while Trayvon was on the phone with Crump” since Dee Dee’s narrative is an echo of Crump’s false narrative).
Since the level of proof in George’s motion to dismiss (Stand Your Ground hearing) is by a preponderance (what we lawyers refer to as “51% of the evidence has to be weighted on your side”) IMO this single bit of evidence weighs way beyond a preponderance to establish Trayvon as the aggressor.
I’ll just re-post my comment here and you can play Judge Lester and decide what these facts establish.
End note: If you don’t agree with me I will file a motion to have you kicked off the case.
______________
In relevant part, on George’s call to the SPD non-emergency line (that fact alone, by the way, is evidence that George Zimmerman was NOT profiling Trayvon Martin. If he was, he would have sounded the alarm and dialed 911) George Zimmerman said:
“He’s got his hand in his waistband… He’s got a button on his shirt… He’s comin’ to check me out. He’s got sumpin in his hands.”
IMO when George Zimmerman says this he has observed one of three possibilities:
– Trayvon Martin was carrying the 7/11 bag containing the Skittles and Beverage; or,
– He (Martin) was in the process of removing the items from the brown plastic bag and putting the items into his pockets; or,
– He was holding or touching the cell phone which he was using to talk to Dee Dee.
I suspect what George Zimmerman saw is Trayvon Martin adjusting the phone on his waistband, perhaps redialing or answering the phone or that he was carrying the brown plastic bag (at night, in the rain, poorly lighted area, and the distance I am not sure George Zimmerman could ID the object other than “something.”)
Why is this significant? IMO George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin as he (Martin) made the decision to assault Zimmerman. Consider:
1. Vanishing act: George saw Trayvon Martin vanish. (He said this to the dispatcher as he observed Trayvon Martin walking away at a brisk pace.)
2. Brisk pace: (or “skipping” as Zimmerman said on Hannity). I submit this is additional circumstantial evidence of Trayvon Martin’s intent to confront Zimmerman. He did NOT want to run so as not to put Zimmerman on the defensive or report that to the police, whom Trayvon assumed Zimmerman was talking to on the phone).
3. Flanking maneuver: Trayvon Martin then doubled back and flanked Zimmerman to confront him.
4. Preparing to Assault: IMO as Trayvon Martin was doubling back he put the beverage into his shirt pocket and the Skittles into his hoodie pocket or front pouch.
5. Colombo Moment: One of the recent discovery dumps (see below) revealed that AFTER the shooting the beverage and Skittles were found inside Trayvon Martin’s clothing, one item by the medical examiner, and the other by a paramedic. The significance of this is discussed below.
6. Da bag, da bag: The 7/11 bag was found at the scene, on the lawn. The significance of this cannot be overlooked, see below.
Conclusions
George Zimmerman did NOT tell the police (during his multiple interrogations) that when Trayvon Martin confronted him that he observed Trayvon was holding a plastic bag. Obviously that can’t be because Zimmerman would have mentioned it in his recounting of events. E.g., he would have said that he observed Trayvon Martin put the items into his pockets.
The inescapable finding of fact: this is damn good circumstantial evidence that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor. IMO when he doubled back to confront Zimmerman he “put everything away” so his hands and arms were free.
There’s only one reason when Trayvon Martin is a few yards (from the safety of) Brandy Green’s apartment why he would want his hands free, so he could attack Zimmerman.
While Corey/Crump team (is there anyone who thinks Crump is not daily involved with prosecutors on how to get George Zimmerman, aka making a huge profit on the Trayvon Martin shooting?) will argue these facts/evidence prove nothing they are free to explain WHY Trayvon Martin deliberately removes the items from the bag and puts them into his pockets, instead of leaving them in the bag he had been carrying for 49/50ths of the way home from 7/11. (The bag recovered was NOT torn or ripped.)
Additional Discussion
I read a LOT of the released disclosures. While the media has said there were no earth shaking revelations (in the discovery dump), I totally disagree.
— We have to look at different witness statements, in the discovery just handed over to the defense.
– On discovery page # 35 the medical examiner (coroner) on scene reported seeing the Skittles in Trayvon Martin’s hoodie top front pocket. She does NOT recall seeing the beverage Martin also bought at 7/11.
– On discovery page # 81 a paramedic/firefighter on scene reports that he lifted Martin’s hoodie and saw the beverage in Trayvon Martin’s shirt pocket.
– The brown plastic that the 7/11 clerk had placed Trayvon Martin’s purchases was found on the ground by where the shooting occurred.(See pic.) (See 7/11 surveillance video.)
– Zimmerman has said that when he saw Trayvon Martin that he (Trayvon) pulled out his cell phone. Trayvon Martin’s T-Mobile cell phone was found laying on the grass where the shooting occurred.
— My point is this. Why did Trayvon Martin walk back to the complex with the beverage and Skittles in the 7/11 plastic bag, but apparently when VERY CLOSE to the apartment he was staying at did he remove both items from the bag and put the Skittles into his hoodie pouch and the heavier canned beverage into his inner shirt pocket? (I also suspect that Trayvon Martin quickly shoved the empty plastic bag into the lower hoodie pouch. When he assaulted Zimmerman or after he was shot the bag fell out of the hoodie pouch.)
Martin Was The Aggressor
It is my contention that Trayvon Martin’s actions in this regard are evidence of his preparing to assault Zimmerman. Basically, Trayvon Martin wanted his hands free.
The bag filled with items was a hindrance so he quickly puts the Skittles into the hoodie pouch, places the can (that is heavier) into his shirt pocket, where it would be more secure, and either tossed the bag aside or put it into the hoodie pocket also (where during the assault it fell out of the pocket and on to the ground).
I welcome an alternative explanation on why Trayvon Martin in the 7/11 video accepted the 7/11 clerk’s offer for a bag, the items were placed in a bag, then Trayvon Martin walks home, and a few yards from the town home he was staying at he removes the items from the bag and puts them into his pockets. Why did he do that?
Zimmerman’s Account Corroborated
Zimmerman says that Trayvon Martin bushwhacked him, then there was an exchange of words after which Trayvon Martin swung and broke Zimmerman’s nose. The above and other evidence establishes:
1. Trayvon Martin securing the Skittles and beverage in his pockets were the first steps in Trayvon Martin being the aggressor.
2. Trayvon Martin pulled a flanking/doubling back maneuver (something a football play, thug, criminal, truant, and video game player would be skilled at doing).
3. Martin allegedly told DeeDee he was not going to run, supposedly expressing offense/rage to Dee Dee that a (white) guy was following him. In reality, Trayvon Martin did not run to avoid making Zimmerman even more suspicious, to prevent Zimmerman alerting the police that “he is running,” and to affect his “sneak attack.”)
4. DeeDee while talking to Trayvon Martin on the phone allegedly told him to run home. (This was a statement fabricated by attorney Crump to fit with his racial profiling narrative, that when black people are stalked or profiled it is best to run home. But poor Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman got the jump on him and “shot him dead like a rabid dog.”
Anyway, DeeDee supposedly told him that twice, to run home.
Note: Since Trayvonites are so vehement when saying that George Zimmerman refused the police order not to follow Trayvon Martin (there was no such order), Corey and Crump need to explain why Trayvon Martin did not do as DeeDee told him to do, run home.
5. In her talk with Crump (his “witness tampering” meeting) and the State Attorney, DeeDee did NOT tell the Crump-Corey legal team that when DeeDee told Martin to run home he did NOT respond “I am too far away, I can’t make it home.” Nor did he say “I can’t outrun that guy, he looks really fit and he looks like he can take me with one or two punches.” We know of course WHY none of this was said to DeeDee.
It is because Trayvon Martin was only a few yards from Brandy Green’s apartment and there’s no way a 17-year-old, stud football player, who made fight club videos, would feel threatened or outmatched by a pudgy, short, out-of-shape guy looking like he was calling the police, like all little girly men do, instead of taking care of business like a real man does.
Sidenote: I actually saw in a YouTube comments section a girl say “that was not Trayvon Martin screaming in that video. It better not be. Trayvon Martin needed to die like a man, not screaming like a little beech.”
*end*
Michael not mike you always have the best stuff on this case. I saw a comment on reuters if the scalp is split you must aquit
It
Response to Allyn:
“Have you ever carried watermelon juice in your shirt pocket, inside of a hoodie? That was one of the main items in the analysis to which you replied but ignored.” — Concerning pockets, there are a lot of things I have stored in places other than outter pockets, since should I RUN they would bounce around, and hit me. Keys, wallet, walkman with no belt clip, etc. In as much as Martin was seen running, it would stand to reason rather than having a pound-ish of fluid hitting him in the groin as he ran, he would store it elsewhere.
“You described nothing that GZ MIGHT have done that was illegal. At worse, I assume you are trying to suggest that GZ was the aggressor or that he provoked the initial use of force. He still walks as his screams for help were, in your world, proof of his attempt to disengage, which according to the law quoted above, re-establishes the provoker’s right to immunity” — Why do people keep saying “he wasn’t doing anything illegal”? Before the dude bought the drugs, he wasn’t doing anything illegal! Before the drunk got in his car, he wasn’t doing anything illegal! Before my car hit 25 mph in the neighborhood, I wasn’t doing anything illegal! A series of legal acts can indeed lead up to some one doing something wrong. In any case, yes, GZ walks on murder 1. But… assuming he was given something more appropriate, like culpable negligence, or a variety of manslaughter he wouldn’t be. That has been something I have been adamant on. Yes, GZ walks on a murder charge. Not on a man charge.
#3 has hearing people argue. Assuming Zimm reached for a concealed object, and TM feared for his own well being (like by seeing a gun, for instance) he has no obligation to let Zimmerman produce it.
“…that he would have had his gun in hand and perhaps concealed in his pocket, ready for action?” — actually, that would best explain how GZ would have been able to produce his gun during the “head exploding” and gun reaching he described. Of course, that would also mean he has a host of other questions to answer, like having his weapon unholstered after running after some one, that is.
Since a lot of what you posted is delving into the realm of suspect, please allow me to interject.
1.”George saw Trayvon Martin vanish. (He said this to the dispatcher as he observed Trayvon Martin walking away at a brisk pace.)” —- I believe his exact words were “ran”. Ran away. “get away” was another phrase Zimmerman described to what Martin did. Of course he prefaced it with some other choice language, but that is not in the scope of this rebuttal. So, since Martin RAN away, what choice does Zimmerman have? (rhetorical) The obvious one to be RUN after him. Can’t have some one getting away, can we? (rhetorical)
2. doesn’t all that flanking blah blah blah hinge on knowing you are being followed? If the point was simple assault, why wait for Zimmerman to get to the T of the courtyard? Why not just assault him in the middle of the road?
3. “…and to affect his “sneak attack.” the sneak attack that came in an open courtyard. Which, btw, doesn’t fit well with ear witness accounts of an argument before the cries for help.
4. TM is under no obligation to run home. Though, what with the later points, if your speculations were true, why not go home, put the purchased items in the fridge, and come back? The time frame would amply fit a side track to refridgerate his fruit punch and come back. Assuming I was interested in freeing myself up for a fight, I wouldn’t have a can of anything on me. Or candy. Or phone. It wouldn’t make sense to pocket those items, they would just get in the way.
“George Zimmerman did NOT tell the police ” — dude, what Zimm decides to tell and not tell people at given times could fill a book. Skipping/running. Circling the car. Sneak attack from a bush vs “You got a problem”. Looking for a street addy that just HAPPENS to be in the direction the kid ran. I think he is heading to the back entrance (but I don’t drive there).
“The bag filled with items was a hindrance so he quickly puts the Skittles into the hoodie pouch, places the can (that is heavier) into his shirt pocket, where it would be more secure, and either tossed the bag aside or put it into the hoodie pocket also (where during the assault it fell out of the pocket and on to the ground).” — so… why not just leave them in the place where the phantasmal blunts are? Or just leave them anywhere that is not on my person… or take them home… all these fit just fine in the time frame but didn’t happen. Mostly because setting up TM as a master planner of a battle field strains credulity.
“Zimmerman says that Trayvon Martin bushwhacked him, then there was an exchange of words after which Trayvon Martin swung and broke Zimmerman’s nose.” — then you aren’t bushwhacked. BTW, which account did you pull that from? Zimmerman’s story also includes being attacked from behind, and also being jumped from a bush. The bush declined to comment.
Trayvon Martin: master tactician, four armed ninja, and diviner. He runs away from Zimmerman KNOWING that Zimmerman will exit his vehicle and follow him. In his plan for the assault, he waits for 3 minutes or so for Zimmerman to find his street sign, catch his wind from doing so, and finish his phone call to the non em operator (how polite!). He then covers the ground in an open courtyard with sub sonic speed, first announcing his presence by asking Zimmerman if he had a problem (Zimm lied, btw, said “No”. Point of note). He may or may not have had a shrub with him. Zimmerman wasn’t clear on the matter. In any case, he fells Zimmerman in one blow. He then tries to smother him. And bang his head into the concrete after executing a full mount. Despite the cunning trap Martin lays, and despite the flawless execution, and having his legs wrapped across Zimmerman’s torso, and beating Zimmerman so much he felt his head would “explode” (medical treatment declined), Trayvon Martin is not able to wrest a firearm from Zimmerman, or much less produce it before Zimmerman does during this veritable manhandling. All while saying the magic words “You’re gonna die tonight” (later lines were found to be plagarized from a Louis L’amour novel).
Maybe, JUST maybe, as TM and GZ were shouting at eachother, and started walking to one another, both egos and male bravados were in full force, and when GZ reached for his ::cough:: “cell phone” (at least, that is what he says he was reaching for), TM thought he was going for a gun, or possibly even saw his gun, and struck him.
Easy. Succinct. A lot of the evidence points to that. But… that would also mean GZ is culpable. No witnesses… dead men tell no tales, but living ones spin quite the yarn. And here we are.
To RuleofOrder: Bravo! Your comments have restored my faith in the mentality and awareness of those of us who side with Team Martin. Your interjection above was, by far, the most succinct rebuttal I have ever seen in a comment feed for this case. I salute you, sir.
To each of your “why didn’t TM do so and so” my best answer is, he wasn’t very smart; perhaps he was street smart but ghetto dumb. You never give any reason to explain why TM put a cold can of watermelon cocktail in his inside shirt pocket. I must say, I have never carried a cold drink in my shirt pocket. Nor would I consider doing so, especially if it was cold outside. Have you ever carried watermelon juice in your shirt pocket, inside of a hoodie? That was one of the main items in the analysis to which you replied but ignored. But, your “most succinct rebuttal” still allows GZ to walk. You described nothing that GZ MIGHT have done that was illegal. At worse, I assume you are trying to suggest that GZ was the aggressor or that he provoked the initial use of force. He still walks as his screams for help were, in your world, proof of his attempt to disengage, which according to the law quoted above, re-establishes the provoker’s right to immunity.
Your point 3, is flat out wrong. GZs account is exactly consistent with witness testimony. The sneak attack was the sucker punch that came after the hollering and before the 14 screams for help.
I must say I’m not sure what your point was regarding the gun somehow being the source of provocation. If George was holding it, I can’t imagine him taking a beating while holding a gun. GZ waited a lot longer to pull the gun than I would have. Unless of course the punch knocked me to the ground and I was immediately straddled, preventing my hand from reaching the gun. Also, don’t you think that if GZ had thought he was about to encounter TM, and that he was either armed or MMA dangerous, that he would have had his gun in hand and perhaps concealed in his pocket, ready for action?
ItsMichaelNotMike.
There are a number of issues with the “Martin planned to assault Zimmerman” theory.
The most obvious is in
——————————
“1. Vanishing act: George saw Trayvon Martin vanish. (He said this to the dispatcher as he observed Trayvon Martin walking away at a brisk pace.)
2. Brisk pace: (or “skipping” as Zimmerman said on Hannity). I submit this is additional circumstantial evidence of Trayvon Martin’s intent to confront Zimmerman. He did NOT want to run so as not to put Zimmerman on the defensive or report that to the police, whom Trayvon assumed Zimmerman was talking to on the phone).”
—————————–
Zimmerman reported “He’s running”, “He ran” at the time. It’s on the NEN recording.
What he says on Hannity isn’t evidence. It’s a revision with an agenda that I referred to above.
So you would have it that
– Martin passes Zimmerman’s truck
– He decides to assault him
– He sees Zimmerman on the phone and assumes that Zimmerman is talking to the police
– He sort of skips out of sight in order to entice Zimmerman to follow him into the dark
– He measures his pace so that Zimmerman will be suspicious enough to follow into the dark, but not suspicious enough to have Zimmerman mention his disappearance to the police.
– He waits around the corner for Zimmerman to follow.
Martin’s dastardly plan falls down on two counts:
a) Zimmerman interpreted Martin’s carefully ‘not running, or not moving in a greatly suspicious way’ as “He’s running”, “He ran” – and reports this in his NEN call. What he says on Hannity isn’t evidence. It’s a revision with an agenda that I referred to above.
b) Zimmerman does not follow. Zimmerman only gets out to look for a house number. Zimmerman could have walked 100 feet North for a RVC house number, but by sheer coincidence heads 250 feet East – which direction only just happens to be “in the same direction” as the spot where Martin disappeared.
No matter. Even though this is due to sheer chance, and not to his plan, Martin sees Zimmerman heading his way. His lip curls into a sneer. He thinks “Yo gonna die 2-nite Homie”
– He prepares to attack, but on seeing that Zimmerman is still on the phone, he delays.
– He hears Zimmerman talking to the dispatcher. He already knew that Zimmerman was talking to the police and that police might have been on their way. The conversation would tell him that the police were definitely on the way, and that Zimmerman can not describe his location to them.
– He still delays- probably because he does not want the police to know that Zimmerman has been attacked. It would not have been out of politeness.
– Zimmerman ends his call.
– Martin then moves quickly. Every second of delay brings the police closer. He pounces!!!!
– No, not immediately. He waits “less than 30 seconds” – according to Zimmerman.
– He punches Zimmerman to the ground, straddles him and starts a rain of MMA-style punches, all the time hammering Zimmerman’s head on the concrete.
Just over two minutes later, the first 911 call connects.
Hello?
Two minutes? What the hell kind of people live there? Right outside that first caller’s open porch door, Martin is beating the crap out of Zimmerman and it takes 2 minutes before she rings 911? The other neighbours are no better.
Unless, when Zimmerman said “Less than 30 seconds” (before he saw Martin again) – he misspoke and intended to say “Less than 2 minutes and 30 seconds”
That would be more reasonable for the 911 callers reaction time.
That would also mean that Martin, knowing that the police were on their way, just hung around for over two minutes before attacking.
My goodness, but he’s not good at planning stuff. He only had Zimmerman out the the truck *and* going in the same direction by the merest chance. Now he hangs around for over two minutes. Does he intend to beat up the cops as well?
Alternative:
– He decided to assault Zimmerman
– He walked way down South to Brandi’s
– He transferred stuff from the 7-11 bag to his pockets. He didn’t put the bag down in a back porch near the corner because you just can’t trust anyone these days. You can’t even leave stuff on *your own* back porch.
– All this takes time – getting on for two minutes
– The last time he saw Zimmerman, the guy was sitting in a truck
– He goes up to the T-junction just to see if Zimmerman has for some reason come following him and is still up there after two minutes of having no sight of him.
Somehow, this alternative is not working for me. I should have thought that that any plan to assault Zimmerman would involve keeping view of him.
Any decent plan would also involve attacking as soon as possible. The guy was on the phone to the police. Time is of the essence here.
.
.
As to what was in pockets:
There are problems with the handling and custody of items found at the scene. Too many cooks may have spoiled the broth.
The Photo button, for example, was noted by Serino to be pinned on, but was recorded in evidence as being in a pocket along with other items.
The latest release indicates that Martin’s blood was on the skittle packet.
It is entirely possible that the button was removed during the CPR process. It is possible that the pockets were emptied of more than the can, then items in the immediate vicinity of the body placed in the pocket as they were tidying. That would explain the blood on the skittles pack.
Only items that were a number of feet distant from the body got logged into evidence separately.
Crime scene control appears to have been a mess. Police, neighbours and meds milling about.
That 7-11 bag would have been good to plug the bullet hole with, but maybe it got blown away. Dark bag in a dark place. Easier to ask if anyone has a bag.
Sling… sorry I have not commented earlier. I did not have my comments in here set to e-mail me notice of replies or responses, and I don’t check this site too often since the blog talks about other issues and controversies besides George Zimmerman’s circumstance.
That’s too bad because IMO Stately’s blog is in the top five on the Net, that is, those blogs intelligently and accurately commenting on frictions and controversies related to the the case.
Anyway, your comment provides excellent analysis and well-thought-out theories. I agree with most of what you speculate
What’s important for people happening upon this page is to understand that what you and I theorize, opine, or speculate about what Trayvon Martin was thinking or intended BEFORE he confronted George Zimmerman, are simply that. None of us know exactly what he did, although common sense and street smarts permit us to paint a fairly accurate picture.
While at the end of the day our comments are classed as UNFOUNDED speculation, George Zimmerman, IMO State Attorney Wolfinger, and the SPD had it right. There is absolutely no evidence showing, nor even hinting, that George Zimmerman committed ANY crime that night. In fact, evidence establishes that Zimmerman was the victim of a felonious assault and he can sue Trayvon Martin’s parents in tort.
(IMO that’s exactly what George Zimmerman should do, but until his criminal case has concluded, of course. I digress.
The “hard evidence” that does exist (circumstantial and direct on elements of what transpired that night) corroborates George’s version of events. Eyewitness statements also confirm George’s account accurate.
That is what matters in the courtroom, not our attempts to fill in the gaps. And especially notwithstanding Crump and crew manufacturing purported material facts to support their fraudulent narrative.
IMO Crump, Tracy Martin, and Ryan Julison have been shown to be the biggest of the liars out there. If you follow their actions since February 26 one would need a ream of paper to discuss the lies they have been telling.
This business with Judge Lester points to something in California law (with which I am professionally familiar) that I think other states might do well to emulate: Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, when a motion to disqualify a judge is filed, the judge is OBLIGATED to recuse himself or herself and assign the case to a new judge, and failure to do so is reversible error on appeal. (To be more precise, it’s reversible through a vehicle called a “petition for writ of mandate”, a sort of accelerated appeal). In order to prevent abuses, a CCP 170.6 motion may ordinarily only be filed once by each side in any given case, but once it’s filed the judge does not have the discretion to refuse to recuse himself, and does not have the discretion to hold a hearing on the matter.
It is a shame Florida has no analogous provision.
Tammy, this is the second set of defense attorneys, and the second judge that already stepped aside. Should we line up a second jury while we are at it?
Sorry, let me clarify, this IS the second judge.
To RuleofOrder: Bravo! Your comments have restored my faith in the mentality and awareness of those of us who side with Team Martin. Your interjection above was, by far, the most succinct rebuttal I have ever seen in a comment feed for this case. I salute you, sir.
The trial will come some day (or some stand your ground hearing or merely a self d hearing), so be prepared. Get your t-shirts made (I have two currently)…..
.
I wasnt sure where the tag line came from (ItsMichaelNotMike?), but the one I had made for the trial has a pic of GZ’s head (the back) with blood dripping from open wounds and the caption says, “If the head is split” (….written above the pic)…..”ACQUIT” (written below the pic)……
.
Mostly it is very unsafe to wear such a shirt. I have worn it out in public very few times since i had it made (it brings out some very nasty looks from persons of certain ethnic backgrounds), but it will come in handy as this comes closer to trial (or dropping of the case and the disbarrment of angela Nifong).
.
As a matter of fact, I am considering having shirt made that says either “Angela Nifong” or “Disbar Angela Nifong”.
.
The trayvonites, even those who cannot read are upset that anyone even looks at the actual evidence (which is why the people were so upset at my t-shirt even without reading the caption).
.
I want the angela nifong t-shirt as a daily wearer……Since this shirt requires actual thinking capacity to understand the message, most trayvonites wont get it until I am long out of their chance to victimize me.
My other shirt says “RIP Trayvon” on the front and conservative treehosue.com on the back…….
.
This case has not been resolved in a court of law, as of yet. There is a lot that has not been proven (and most exonerating evidence hasnt been shown yet to the public). GZ may have had some culpability (I dont think so, but that is for a court to decide), though I am fairly certain that Trayvon Martin was no saint.
.
To me, RIP Trayvon is in support of the youth. I think he made some terrible decisions, but I still also recognize his youth and poor role models (absentee parents). Much of the tradegy is how these absentee parents could presnt themselves to the world as some intact family that was constantly involved in this kids life.
.
I can hold trayvon responsible for his actions that night (and for other actions), but I cannot blame him for the inaction of hsi parents and other adults who had responsibility for him, but were not themselves in the least bit responsible.
.
Rest In Peace Trayvon (you are not responsible for glorifying gang culutre in popular culture). You are not responsible for the liability of your parents. His parents need to be sued for the irresponsible way they raised their son.
.
Just as with the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, there will be a lense placed on his siblings (and others close to him) for the rest of their lives (and for good reason). The lovely lady who lied and said she was raped by the Duke Lacrosse boys, was not a bad person, she was just misunderstood. One of her boyfriends misunderstood her (so she lit him on FIRE). Another of her boyfriends was stabbed (he didnt understand her either, apparently). I forget which of her two boyfriends she killed and which one she merely tried to kill (life is so hard when you are a misunderstood minority with a mean streak and some anti-social tendencies).
.
With any luck, Angela Nifong can go hide under the same rock that mr nifong currently hides under
Dear Black Racism:
Thanks for your comments! Indeed, the loss of a life, particularly one so young, is always tragic and to be mourned.