The recent attempt on George Zimmerman’s life has reawakened interest in the case that made Zimmerman’s name so familiar. Unfortunately, a great many people still harbor false impressions about the case, impressions aided and abetted by social justice cracktivists and the mainstream media (yes, I repeat myself).
Those of us that followed the case from the beginning, and that labored to correct falsehoods, know better, as do regular readers of this scruffy little blog. My latest article at The Truth About Guns, “George Zimmerman: A Cautionary Tale,” is yet another attempt to help people understand not only the truth about that case, but the reality of using deadly force.
If you have a few minutes, it may be worth your time.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
My experiences with assault victims, is that they have at times, a substantial amount of bruising, beyond “Boo-Boo Nose”. Personally, I believe it was an imprudent use of deadly physical force, from a perspective of New York State laws, and in Florida, as things are better (i.e.: Stand Your Ground), justification for the use of deadly physical force, may, have been justified, though I maintain reservations on the matter. Maybe I am overly suspicious of Zimmerman (?).
Dear Brittius:
Hi there and thanks. I do think you’re a bit suspicious in this case. Trial testimony clearly established that Zimmerman’s injuries were far more extensive than was reported in the media, and that all of those injuries did, in fact, support his self-defense claim.
Thanks again!
Reblogged this on Brittius.
When some thug is smashing your skull into the pavement while saying
I’m going to kill you (or something to that effect,) I think deadly force
is appropriate. Something apart from the severity of the injuries is
that the reason the Sanford PD did not prosecute Zimmerman was
that his every statement was backed up by the existing physical
evidence.
These facts helped to establish a high degree of credibility in the
statements by Zimmerman, including his statement that Martin
Made vocal threats to kill him in the course of Martin’s unprovoked
attack of George Zimmerman.
Has this ordeal caused Zimmerman to go meshugana? I do not
know, but being driven to bankruptcy, having your entire life
ruined and living in constant fear of an assassin’s bullet is
hardly conducive to sanity. It might be nice to get to meet the
old GZ for purposes of comparison.
This story, as I told Mike some time ago, is far from beingg over.
“unprovoked”.
There is a certain degree of dishonesty in that. The bottom line of whom was a provocateur I think comes from Zimmerman’s revelation as to what he was doing over the course of a few minutes from having left his car. While its perfectly legal, no one really wants to say Zimmerman was behaving in a bit of a silly fashion: the guy who was acting all crazy and might have been on drugs or something, whom you claimed was menacing you and circling your car, is the guy you leave your vehicle to follow. Then dance around whether or not you were, in fact, following him. Why would you do that, were it not to avoid culpability in some fashion?
Dear Rule of Order:
Dishonesty? Zimmerman was specifically asked by the police dispatcher to keep reporting what Martin was doing so that could be relayed to the responding officers. When Martin ran away, Zimmerman did what any rational person so tasked would do: he tried to keep Martin in sight so he could report what he was doing and where he was. Zimmerman lost Martin almost immediately; he had no reason to believe he was in imminent danger. Zimmerman did not say that Martin was acting “crazy,” merely that he might have been on drugs and appeared to be acting suspiciously.
There was no “dance” about what Zimmerman was doing. He maintained from the beginning that he was just trying to keep Martin in sight and had no intention of confronting him. All of the evidence supported that contention.
Even the prosecution’s start witness–DeeDee–confirmed that it was Martin that approached and harangued Zimmerman before sucker punching him. All of the additional evidence confirmed that.
One can argue about tactics, but not only did Zimmerman do nothing wrong or illegal, it was necessary for the jury to find him innocent of any sort of provocation in order to reach a not guilty verdict based on self defense.
Dishonesty?
Yes, dishonesty.
He was asked specifically to let NEO know if he does anything, which is interesting, considering there was nothing specific he was doing in the first place. And no, he was not asked to perform a continuing surveillance. That particular request came when Zimmerman stated that Martin was coming toward him, which very soon turned into running away. He was specifically asked not to follow him 12 seconds after leaving the vehicle. Then for 2ish and some odd minutes, Zimmerman was not following him, he just happened to be going in the same direction as Martin went. Of course, if the inclination is to think that he was heading to the back entrance, why not drive there? It was literally in full view from around the corner.
“no intention of confronting him. All of the evidence supported that contention.” — minus leaving the vehicle.
Now, again, refresh my memory, how much of DeeDee’s words are we going to be allowing as evidence? I am specifically not mentioning her testimony at any time, knowing how easily it could be cherry picked.
And with all due respect, “harangued”? What do you call being followed by vehicle and foot for 4 blocks across the complex? That haranguing (according to Zimmerman) consisted of being asked “Do you have a problem?” Which, obvious question, Zimmerman clearly did. Point of note: he then lied, and proceeded to execute the exact movements that set Zimmerman himself ill at ease when Martin was earlier doing it. Does reaching for anything concealed strike you as the best idea after obviously following some one in vehicle, on foot, then lying to them about a pretty straight forward question?
Your last sentence echoed what I said. No, it was not illegal. Not it was not ‘wrong’ from a legal standpoint. But it was down right stupid; if the goal was to keep Martin in sight, from having lost him, that means he is indeed following Martin. The reason for such stems from “walking”, “looking around”, and “I don’t know”, and “staring”. This apparently, is looking “up to no good”.
Harangued.
Dear RuleofOrder:
If a police dispatcher tells someone to keep telling them what a suspicious person is doing, any rational person would believe that to mean to keep an eye on them and keep reporting what they’re doing, in other words, a continuing surveillance.
There is a substantial and substantive difference in trying to keep someone in sight, and in following them. Leaving a vehicle in the hope of keeping them in sight is not evidence of an intention to confront them. Nor did Zimmerman follow Martin by vehicle, but merely drove to where he could keep him in sight.
Zimmerman was under no legal or moral obligation to follow any advice given him by the dispatcher, yet he did, and was returning to his vehicle after very specifically saying that he had lost Martin and had no idea where he was. Shortly thereafter, Martin ambushed him.
As to DeeDee, we’ll allow her testimony as it appears on the trial record, which is what I’ve done here.
Any reasonable person aware of a rash of burglaries and thefts in their neighborhood, observing someone they don’t know, in the dark, in the rain, looking around and staring at homes, walking on their lawns, and particularly paying attention to a specific home that had recently been burglarized, would be more than justified in thinking their behavior suspicious, and potentially, “up to no good.”
As to Zimmerman lying, the prosecution could not prove a single lie on his part in court. Though they repeatedly claimed he was somehow lying, they produced not a shred of evidence to prove those assertions. You have additional evidence that would prove deception that they did not?
You have no proof that Zimmerman was on drugs… that claim is a total crock and you know it.
“There is a substantial and substantive difference in trying to keep someone in sight, and in following them” — yeah, and that difference is time. If the surveyed proceeds to break line of sight, following becomes a necessity, which is what happened.
” Nor did Zimmerman follow Martin by vehicle, but merely drove to where he could keep him in sight” — Not true. Zimmerman stated he first encountered Martin at the hole in the fence by Taffe’s house. As to how it would be possible to keep him visible without spotting him first, then following in his vehicle is an impossibility. The two locales, that being where Zimmerman parked his car, and states he first encountered Martin are 400+ yards apart. If you want to claim that it was dark enough for Zimmerman not to have seen Martin in the dog walk, the same most hold true for this first encounter.
“Any reasonable person aware of a rash of burglaries and thefts in their neighborhood, observing someone they don’t know, in the dark, in the rain, looking around and staring at homes, walking on their lawns, and particularly paying attention to a specific home that had recently been burglarized, would be more than justified in thinking their behavior suspicious, and potentially, “up to no good.” — Some one they don’t know at 7:30 PM, whom is also clearly going from cover to cover from the rain (I can’t invent motive, too!), and I need to ask “staring” at what? How can you be certain of that, when it was so flippin’ dark, Zimmerman couldn’t see Martin down a dog walk? That is what some of your reasoning was in previous threads, I would like to know how that jumps out the window in catching a sight line from some one wearing a hoodie.
” You have additional evidence that would prove deception that they did not?” — common sense? If you are 12 seconds from your vehicle, and you state “I am returning to my vehicle”, realistically, it should take 12 seconds to achieve the goal, right?