It seems that the verdict of a sworn jury in our criminal justice system means little to the haters, who are still screaming that George Zimmerman killed “an unarmed seventeen-year-old.”  Given that seventeen is old enough to enlist in the Marine Corps and to be tried as an adult – the Gainesville Sun recently headlined that a “sixteen-year-old man” was to be charged with murder in the selfsame Florida criminal justice system – the age issue doesn’t hold a lot of water when seen through a clear glass.

“Unarmed?” Actually, NO.  The history of adjudicating deadly force actions shows that Trayvon Martin was “armed” two or three times over.

First, the haters (like the prosecution) assiduously ignored George Zimmerman’s statement that while Martin was “ground-and-pounding” him, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster, told Zimmerman that he was going to die tonight, and reached for his victim’s pistol.

If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand. If I announce my intent to murder you and reach for a gun, I’m bought and paid for right there.  And it doesn’t matter whether the gun I’m reaching for is in my holster, or yours. That’s why every year in America, when thugs try to grab a policeman’s gun and are shot, the shootings are ruled justifiable.

Even before Martin’s reach for Zimmerman’s still-holstered pistol, the circumstances that were proven to the satisfaction of the jury showed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting his attacker.  Remember when defense attorney Don West said in the defense’s opening statement that Martin was armed with the sidewalk?  That sounded ludicrous to lay people, and I would have phrased it differently myself, but professionals understood exactly what he was talking about.

The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.

Position of disadvantage means that the opponent has full range and freedom of movement, and you don’t.  You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…or you are down and helpless in a martial arts “mount” while your opponent pounds you at will.

Finally, we have the clearly proven element of Martin smashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. If I picked up a chunk of concrete or cement and tried to smash your skull with it, you would certainly realize that you were about to die or be horribly brain-damaged if you didn’t stop me. It would be what the statutes call “a deadly weapon, to wit a bludgeon.” There just isn’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between cement being smashed into head, and head being smashed into cement.

Clearly, Trayvon Martin possessed the power to kill or cripple Zimmerman. That is why, under law, Zimmerman was justified in defending himself with a per se deadly weapon.

The jury got it. Too bad the haters didn’t understand…or didn’t want to understand.

1 COMMENT

  1. Thanks, Mas. No one else told me that Trayvon was going for George’s gun. Obviously the government-media complex wants to divide us, and conquer us. Maybe stir up some riots so they can declare martial law. Readers, keep in mind that while America is fixated on this story, other things are going on. I heard Russia is going on alert because Israel did something. The media wants us distracted so we don’t see what the government is doing to us.

  2. Mas, Thank You for this post.

    How do you respond to the allegation that Martin being on top of Zimmerman prevented Zimmerman from accessing his gun?

  3. As soon as the news broke that the obama Administration’s ‘Justice’ Department was going to investigate possible civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman I shot off letters to my Congressman and both Senators telling them that if the ‘Justice’ Department takes Mr. Zimmerman to trial I fully expect the House of Representatives to introduce articles of impeachment against obama for bringing the full weight of the United States Government down on an innocent man.
    Yes, I know that the Senate can only stand by and wait their turn after the House but they still have a powerful voice.

  4. Mas, I have been singing this same song to the uninitiated in my daily circle of acquaintances, who simply refuse to acknowledge that they have no clue about what they are talking about. I got accused of being able to quote the law and legal justification of the use of deadly force, but not actually understanding what it means. Thanks to you (MAG40), and many other factual sources over many years, I know I’m dead nuts right on. Simply astounding that folks are so clueless over the legal justifications which have brought welcome justice (for a change!) in this case. I hope the politicization of this misguided attempt at social engineering continues to fail miserably. It’s clearly driven by an agenda of more of the same progressive hogwash. I wish I could think of a way to seize the moment and make it teachable for the thousands of ignorant sheeples out there. We all need to keep beating the drum and hold the line on truth and law.

  5. On another website, I saw that the drink martin had, Arizona Iced Tea Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, when mixed with skittles and cough syrup that contains dextromethorphan, or codeine, creates “lean” or “purple lean”, a concocted high that causes psychosis and aggression. Martin’s liver at autopsy showed damage that is consistent with DM, or dextromethorphan, use. If he was already drinking that mix when he left the convenience store, his aggression would be easily explained. Not that the prosecution, or the race baiters would ever mention that. I wonder why the defense did not, or if they did, why it was never mentioned online in any news report I read. I have since read the same thing about Skittles and the DM mixed with the Az. Iced tea cocktail. I have to wonder why the police didn’t bring it up. Any ideas on this, Mas?

  6. I’ll start by saying that your, and GZ’s version of events may be exactly how it happened. I don’t know because we have only heard one side, but as I read your position I noticed that most of your arguments could be used by either side as justification.

    You wrote, “If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand.”

    It could just as easily be said that TM was being stalked by a man armed two or three times over. GZ was older (and training as a fighter), larger (by 60 lbs?), and had a side arm. At the onset of the altercation, I would call this “disparity of force” in GZ’s favor. TM did not need to wait for GZ to draw his weapon in order to defend himself.

    Even after arming himself with the sidewalk and creating a position of disadvantage for his opponent, the disparity of force was still on GZ’s side, as is evidenced by the fact that TM lost his life, and GZ walked away.

    To paraphrase your own words; Clearly GZ possessed the power to kill TM. That is why, under law, TM was justified in attempting to defend himself with a per se deadly sidewalk.

    I’m not saying that is what happened. I’m saying that your arguments work both ways. We don’t know what happened between the time GZ was following TM, and the time later when GZ’s head was hitting the sidewalk. We don’t know who got physical first, who said what, or who felt most threatened.

    Given that we have only heard one side of the “story”, that of a defendant on trial for murder, maybe your position should be presented as such, using your expertise to shed light on both sides of the equation?

  7. Martin “told Zimmerman that he was going to die tonight”. The only evidence we have for this is Zimmerman’s testimony. This doesn’t mean that he was necessarily lying, but this is a very weak point to make. The following observations are good though, and I think that the verdict sounds as though it was inevitable. However, if Zimmerman created the situation where Martin lost his temper, which it seems that he did, then I think he bears some blame for the outcome. He shouldn’t have been prowling round looking for trouble with a loaded weapon, or at least he should not have approached close enough to be grabbed. This acquital should not be the end.

  8. I never cease to be amazed and wonder about the intelligence of those that STILL want to make Zimmerman guilty for killing the large teenage THUG that was attacking him. martin was a KNOWN user of a drug made with the “watermelon” drink Skittles and Robitussin cough syrup that damages the liver AND the brain and can cause psychotic episodes of violence.
    The thug was at the place he was staying, why didn’t he just go in and lock the door. Why call his “girl friend” that suggested that Zimmerman was a child molester. Why didn’t the 17 year old thug call 911 IF he was afraid?
    Trayvon got what he deserved.

  9. Is there any question that Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman? Aside from the single gun shot wound did Martin have any injuries? Does anybody think that Zimmerman was thinking about anything other than survival while he was getting his head pounded against the sidewalk? Put yourself on the ground after receiving blows to the head with someone kneeling on your chest hitting you and then tell me what’s going through YOUR mind.

    Oh! I shouldn’t have gotten out of the car! I deserve to die! This is what so many seem to think Zimmerman should have done.

  10. The verdict was the correct one, but ‘Z’ never should have gotten out of his vehicle. The first lesson I was taught in every self-defense class was conflict avoidance. This is Self Defense 101 and is taught at every level, armed and unarmed.

    Z now gets to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. He has to come to terms with the fact that he ended a human life. He may lose the pending civil suit and have a bankruptcy-proof judgment entered against him.

    I’d bet money Z goes to bed every night wishing he had listened to the 911 dispatcher.

  11. A large percentage of Americans are in sympathy or are outright defending Martin, the rosy checked little boy gunned down by the huge, cage fighter and cannon carrying ogre.
    To defend the actions of a young man who it was proven attacked Mr. Zimmerman is to accept the insanity that is the political left in our country.
    If a defender of Martin needs clarification they need to be given a toy gun, lay on the sidewalk, have a teenager sit on their chest and pound the puddin’ out of them. When they believe Mr. Zimmerman may have had the right to preserve his life they could take the toy gun out and say “bang”, MAYBE the teenager will stop the beating, maybe.
    In a fight the person on the bottom usually has lost the fight (personal experience, ouch!)

  12. Mas, I have never been more concerned or frightened about society than I am now. The incredible reaction and mob mentality calling for “justice for Trayvon” is astounding. Far-fetched claims comparing him to true victims of past racism insult the memories of those real victims such as Emmett Till.

    Thank goodness the jury was so courageous. Can you imagine the fear they must feel for themselves now?!?!

    And to top it all off, we now have the country’s “top cop”, the Attorney General of the United States claiming we should “reexamine” our nations attitude toward Self Defense and in particular to the concept of the Stand Your Ground law. He is either evil or stupid. It could be both. It must be at least one.

    Sincerely,

    .45StayAlive

  13. When a wannabe cop and a wannabe gangster collide, bad things are bound to happen. There were any number of opportunities for either party to de-escalate, but neither one chose that course. Both paid a high price, and George will continue to pay for years to come. Situations unfold quickly, but if you carry concealed, you have to consider what is worth ruining your life over. Some are obvious, and some (like the Zimmerman story) are not. The collision, in this case, was avoidable.

  14. As tragic as this situation is nobody seems to mention that when confronted by George Zimmerman, what if TM had just turned around and walked or ran away instead of being a bad ass and fighting with GZ and ultimately losing his life in the confrontation.

    If he had walked or ran away most likely he would be alive today and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If he had ran and GZ shot him in the back then GZ would have been guilty of murder and rightly so.

    So tired of race being an excuse for bad behavior. People need to be responsible for their actions and stop blaming others.

    All the TM supporters, where were you when he was doing his best to get kicked out of school for drugs, or kicked out of his Mothers house because she couldn’t handle his behavior anymore and working at being a bad ass gang banger headed down a dead end path? Oh yea. That just doesn’t sell, his bad behavior got him killed and that’s on one person and one person only. Trayvon Martin. He made the choice and the choice was final and fatal.

    Based on the evidence, GZ was rightly acquitted. People need to move on.

  15. LtheC,

    What you say is true; we don’t really know exactly what happened on that night. However, what you fail to realize is that if we don’t know what happened, the correct verdict is for acquittal. It is up to the prosecution to prove that their story is correct. The defense need not offer any proof of their version of events. All the defense needs to do is offer a story of events that is not contradicted by the evidence of the case. I’m sure you agree that, not knowing what happened, GZ’s account of the events is a reasonable one that is not contradicted by the evidence.

    In short: it might have been GZ’s fault, it might not have been. Given that, there’s no choice but to acquit him of any criminal charges. We don’t convict based on “might haves”.

  16. Just think,

    If TMs father had driven him to the store this could not of happened. If TM had continued to walk to his fathers house, this could not of happened. If TM had continued to evade GZ this could not of happened. If the Sanford PD had any interest in policing these gated communities this might not of happened. Yeah, it is all George Zimmermans fault.

    The horrible irony of this is the fact that TMs father lived in a gated community with an active neighborhood watch sponsored by the HOA (TMs father was a member of the HOA) to protect his property from thugs and burglary.

  17. To everyone using “stalking” rhetoric, please study the map of the area, including GZ’s truck, TM’s destination, and the location of the incident. Note the location of the incident vs. TM’s destination, and the scale of the map. Note how long GZ stayed on the phone with the dispatcher after losing sight of TM.

    Human walking speed is about 256 feet per minute. With that in mind and the scale of the map, could TM have reached his destination by merely walking from the time GZ lost sight of him and before GZ got off the phone with the dispatcher? How much time elapsed between the time GZ’s 311 call ended and the first 911 call from witnesses?

    Also cross-reference Zimmerman’s full 311 call recording with the map and timeline, note the two questions the dispatcher asks Zimmerman immediately before the heavily quoted “OK we don’t need you to do that” line. Note the ambient noise following those two questions, and following the “OK we don’t need you to do that” contrasted with the ambient noise in the remainder of the call.

    This may help:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmermans-911-call-played-in-court-19473559
    http://www.miamiherald.com/trayvon/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#February_26

  18. “Zman shouldn’t have got out of his vehicle”

    Well what would have happened if this THUG WANNA BE came up to the car, broke the window and dragged Zman out of it? Then gave him a beating?

    What if Zman drove away and the THUG WANNA BE trailed him to his house? Later to break in and rape his wife? Or invite his THUG FRIENDS over for an ass whooping party on Zman while he slept?

    What if Zman drove away, and the THUG WANNA BE handled his pent up rage at being LOOKED AT by a CRACKA, by finding some old lady to rape and beat?

    You can fill the world with “what if’s”. We can all speculate what if Reno had come to Custers assistance. It doesn’t change the reality of the world one bit. THE THUG WANNA BE attacked Zman and gave him a savage beating as his final act on this planet. What a miserable way to be remembered.

  20. SIGH. What happens, when the rule of law works as intended, and because some people don’t like the result, the govt begins looking for ways to punish the acquitted, anyway?

    A mob in the mall of America may be the least of our problems.

  21. I have nothing against Zimmerman. I agree with the right to defend myself and my family.

    n this case everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Zimmerman was asked by the cops not to follow Trayvon but chose to ignore that, He created the situation that escalated to a murder.

    I think the gun owners think that Zimmerman’s acquittal was a win for us – No – this is only going to make things harder for legitimate gun owners.

  22. We don’t actually know that TM saw GZ’s gun or told him that he was going to die. We know only that GZ SAID that TM saw his gun and told him that he was going to die.

  23. Mas, I agree that the jury got the verdict right. But I also think Mr. Zimmerman was foolish to get out of his vehicle & follow Mr. Martin. Had he stayed in his vehicle & let the police handle it, there wouldn’t have been a homicide.

  24. “n this case everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Zimmerman was asked by the cops not to follow Trayvon but chose to ignore that, He created the situation that escalated to a murder. ”

    Please listen to the full recording of Zimmerman’s 311 call: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmermans-911-call-played-in-court-19473559

    Note the two questions the dispatcher asks Zimmerman immediately before the heavily quoted “OK we don’t need you to do that” line. Note the ambient noise following those two questions, and the ambient noise following the “OK we don’t need you to do that”. Compare with the ambient noise in the remainder of the call.

    If you need even more clarification, listen to the dispatcher give his own testimony in the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKeP9xFT7eU

  25. CrimsonAvenger – Good point and perfectly correct. Hmmm . . . perhaps better to say: what “hard” evidence supported Zimmerman’s ( the defence’s ) version of events and refuted the prosecution’s case.

    Z – Thank you for the links.

  26. I see several points reiterated again and again in the comments above. What the dispatcher told Zimmerman, following Martin provoked the fight, Zimmerman was foolish, etc. What you need to bear in mind is what are the legally relevant facts–that is why the objection exists on relevance–irrelevant facts muddy the water and make resolution of the legal matter more difficult.

    First, what the dispatched told or did not tell Zimmerman to do is NOT A LEGAL ORDER that Zimmerman had to obey. In other words, it is not relevant to self defense. Zimmerman was committing no crime as at this point neither was Martin. 311 Dispatchers and well as 911 dispatchers are not present at the scene and have often given foolish or even wrong information to callers. For example, see Chris Bird’s Book for a controversy in Arizona where an elderly grandmother was holding a suspect breaking into her house at gun point until the police arrived. They advised her to put the gun down right then. The dispatching office then denied that they said it. This is of the lines that police routinely say citizens do not need to handle catching criminals and that is a job for the police. These comments are advisory. Now, I have not taken the time to go through 50 states of caselaw but in Florida the 311 dispatcher’s advice is not legally binding on anyone. Thus, it is not a legally relevant fact except as goes to Zimmerman’s actions and motive.

    Second, provoking someone is not a crime. If I call you a nasty name and you hit me, guess what you have committed battery and you will go to jail. Depending on the circumstances, I may even be able to kill you if you cut off my retreat and cause what a reasonable person would believe as a threat to severe bodily harm and/or death. What is more critical is who threw the first punch or engaged in assault (threatening injury such as I am going to kick your butt) followed by a reasonable belief that would occur at that moment. That person is the aggressor. Other than Zimmerman, no one else could testify about who did that in this case. Forensics indicated at the very least that Martin had wounds consistent with offensive action against Zimmerman and Zimmerman suffered several injuries. Furthermore, it appears that Zimmerman was unable to retreat as Martin was on top according to an eyewitness and most forensic evidence such as the clothes of Martin and the angle of the gunshot entering Martin’s body indicate at least at the time of shooting, the evidence is solidly consistent with Martin cutting off Zimmerman’s retreat. At that point, Martin would be the aggressor unless evidence existed that Zimmerman had pulled a gun (brandishing) at Martin and/or otherwise assaulted him. Thus, Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was judged by the self defense laws of Florida which require the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman’s affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The state failed to provide this evidence to jurors in the minds of many good criminal lawyers, Andrew Branca, Ken White, Larry Handfield, Jeff Weiner (last two are Florida criminal defense lawyers), etc.
    If the state has given evidence that Zimmerman had brandished the gun, tried to prevent Martin from getting to a place of safety by holding a gun on him or trying to physically restrain him, then I would bet that the jury would have found Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter (2nd Degree Murder was never in the cards with any evidence that I have seen in this case–I believe it was used solely to get Zimmerman to plead guilty to a lesser charge and/or give the state a fallback compromise verdict at trial that had basically the same penalty. )

    Regarding the last point, I personally believe that Zimmerman was foolish in not waiting for the police. Chris Serino said Zimmerman had a bit of a hero complex. I agree and think that Zimmerman was tactically foolish for not waiting for backup. He was not a sworn law enforcement officer, did not have backup, and had lost where Martin was. Tactically, playing hide and seek with a possibly violent person is not wise. However, it is not legally relevant whether Zimmerman’s actions were foolish, merely whether they were illegal. Following someone in public, not illegal, asking what someone is doing on the property which was a gated community, not illegal, being in a neighborhood watch, not illegal, getting out of the car to check out someone, not illegal, even verbally confronting someone like saying What the heck do you think that you are doing here? (not using fighting words–breach of the peace charges and all)-not illegal. Being tactically foolish when no one’s life or liberty was at issue, I feel that Zimmerman should have simply been a good witness for when police arrived ( I can see his frustration given the high number of burglaries, a nasty home invasion, etc. in the complex about the punks getting away) but if it is only property involved–let the police handle it. Nevertheless, none of these instances justifies Martin (unless new evidence appears that Zimmerman started the fight (not provoked) ) of apparently assaulting and battering George Zimmerman. IMHO the jury’s verdict was justified with the evidence presented at the trial by the prosecution and defense. My suspicion is that the additional evidence from T. Martin’s phone which was not presented at the trial, nor the apparently burglary of a home nearby in Miami area, supports the trial evidence that Martin was not scared of physical confrontations and had considerable experience in fighting. Corey’s IT director who was fired, noted that Corey had hid possibly exculpatory evidence from the defense team regarding Martin.

    One thing to take away from this is that everyone carrying for self defense should know the statutory and caselaw of their state regarding firearms and their use. Most reports in the media of such laws are dangerously inaccurate and not to be relied upon.

  27. Mas:
    Thanks for stating clearly what I have been saying all along in regard to this case. As a former Use of Force instructor in the private security industry I am well familiar with the plethora of ways in which it is possible to cause someone “grievous bodily harm” as defined by law. There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman’s life was in danger at the moment he used he weapon, or that he had every right to use it. Throughout my security career, I found myself many times in a position similar to that of Zimmerman that night, following a potentially dangerous suspect on foot, often in contravention of the advice of a Police dispatcher. I could easily have found myself in his situation… except for one little detail: being Canadian, there is a very high probability that it would have been the bad guy who was on trial for murder, rather than me. Because up here, we don’t HAVE the right to armed self-defense. Only the cops and the criminals have guns. And when seconds count, the police are only minutes away………
    D.

  28. “The verdict was the correct one, but ‘Z’ never should have gotten out of his vehicle.”

    I keep hearing this. Apparently we’re supposed to live in our cars now.

  29. “Had he stayed in his vehicle & let the police handle it, there wouldn’t have been a homicide.”

    Had Trayvon not committed felony assault, there wouldn’t have been a homicide.

    Getting out of your car is not a crime. Following someone is not a crime. Asking someone what they’re doing is not a crime.

    Cold-cocking someone, jumping on them, and pummeling them so their head slams into concrete is a crime.

    So… who was responsible?

  30. It is very funny to me how even after our National Expert on Lethal Force explains the pin-point aspects of Zimmerman’s acquittal, they still do not get it. Well done Mr. Ayoob !

  31. Jess – you are right about one thing. Zimmerman is a wimp. This is how I know that he was jumped by TM because there is no way a supposed threat would have gotten close enough and the gun be still in the holster.

    And let me bang your head off the concrete twice – hard enough to cut, I’m still on top of you – not knowing how you were going to STOP the attack. Zimmerman wasn’t hurt worse because he decided to not get hurt worse.

    If this is how you really think – you should turn in your conceal permit as you are not thinking critically enough to possess the responsibility.

  32. Another thing too, and it’s very obvious, is that Zimmerman didn’t know Martin personally (like the media spins it) and Zimmerman didn’t know the age of Martin (not like it matters), but Zimmerman also didn’t know if Martin was or wasn’t armed with a weapon. Of course fists and being in a dominant position and the use of concrete were indeed weapons utilized by Martin, how was Zimmerman to know that this person attacking him wasn’t about to pull out a knife and stick him? Or if his aggressor was about to pull out a gun and shoot him after beating him?

    The govt. (DOJ) was caught red handed setting up these protests as well as funding them and even busing in protestors. Now the govt. with the help of the media and scumbags like Sharpton and Jackson are trying to make this into a gun rights and self defense rights issue. Remember what they told us, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

  33. ” be ignoring the fact that Zimmerman was asked by the cops not to follow Trayvon but chose to ignore that”

    Or we could be following the evidence which showed the 911 operator [not the cops] told Zimmerman “you don’t need to do that”.

    If you are going to talk about something, at least get your facts right.

  34. I’m disgusted and not all that surprised at the level of misinformation going on out there about this case. At my job, one of the other managers believed Zimmerman initiated the fight. He was surprised by this fact alone and mentioned that it forced him to re-evaluate what he believed had happened in this case. In light of that revelation he admitted he could see how things would go as they did resulting in an affirmative self defense acquittal.

    I sincerely hope GZ wins his cases against NBC, CNN and Sharpton / Jackson.

  35. Rob:

    You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. Did Z have the right to get out of his car? Yep. Did he have the right to follow M? Yep. Was it a good choice? Absolutely not!

    Talk to someone who has ended a human life to save their own. Ask them what it did to them emotionally and spiritually. Then ask yourself if you truly want to experience that and carry it around with you for the rest of your days.

    In that moment Z had no choice, it was kill or be killed. The point is simply that he didn’t have to be in that moment if he had remained in his automobile. Nobody was in immediate danger. What was to be gained by leaving the comparative safety of his automobile?

    I carry a firearm everywhere it is legal to do so. I still practice conflict avoidance. It beats the hell out of the massive legal bills, emotional trauma, and public notoriety that Z gets to look forward to for the rest of his life.

  36. So, an Expert with a vested commercial interest in selling Personal Defense, in a magazine selling Personal Reliance, comes to the TERRIFYING conclusion that every teenaged male can rightfully be viewed to be armed with a deadly weapon because they have ground beneath their feet.

    Clutch the pearls!

    I fully agree “unarmed” does not mean “impotent”. But I find the irony a little hard to swallow.

    I think that Tim is the only person here talking any sense.

  37. David Oakes, are you seriously unable to tell the difference between “ground beneath their feet” and pounding a man’s head into the sidewalk?

  38. The people who hang their hat on the fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle as evidence that Z was somehow responsible for this tragedy are totally missing the point. The post by wg summarizes the relevant facts very well. I would just add that the dispatcher (a civilian, btw) said during his testimony on the witness stand that their department policy requires that dispatchers never give a direct order to callers because that would make to police department legally liable for any actions resulting from the caller following their orders. They are told to make ‘suggestions’ to callers instead.

    I agree that, in hindsight, Z was foolish to leave his vehicle but to say that this would never have happened if Z stayed in his truck is just pure speculation. We can’t know that to a certainty. We don’t know that Trayvon wouldn’t have come back to confront Z in his truck.

    There were many opportunities on both sides to avoid the confrontation but what might have been doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is what ACTUALLY occurred. Up to the point that Trayvon struck Z, (and there is overwhelming evidence that he did), neither party was doing anything illegal and both had a right to be there. As soon as Trayvon swung on Z, the whole situation changed from a legal perspective.

    Trayvon was committing an assault on Z and that gave Z the right to defend himself. While some people may not like it, that’s the law. What a person thinks the law should be doesn’t mean squat, it’s what the law says that matters.

  39. Mas,
    One of the things I try to bring up to people who bring race into the argument is the Roderick Scott case. For those not familiar with the case, Scott was a black man that heard noises outside his house one night. He looked outside and saw three men breaking into a neighbors car. Scott grabbed his gun and went to confront them while his girlfriend called 911. 17 year old Christopher Cervini, charged at Scott, whom shot him twice and killed. This happened in Greece, New York, whose gun laws are way more stringent than Florida. Scott was immediately charged with murder, which was later reduced to manslaughter by a Grand Jury. He was found not-guilty, justified as self defense.

    Any time I try to bring this case up as an example to the Martin supporters I get “it’s okay for Scott to shoot because he saw them committing a crime, Martin was just walking home!”

    I should learn not to argue with these illogical idiots in comments sections, but it grinds my goat.

  40. “Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster” means there must have been enough light out to see a gun. Do we know for sure there was that much light on a dark, rainy night? (I am not saying the outcome of the trial was not correct by the way.). I also remember mention of Zimmerman having a flashlight. Anyone know?”

    Gated community, good quality lighting on the street, only an hour after sunset.

  41. Err. My bad, a few minutes after sunset. Sunset on the 27th was just before 7pm He shot him at 7:16

  42. 7 months after Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, another “unarmed” 17 year old got into a confrontation. This one killed a police officer. How? He sucker punched him, knocked him to the ground, mounted him, and punched him in the face while his head bounced off of the concrete. He broke the police officer’s skull.

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21843760/teen-accused-el-paso-officers-fatal-beating-indicted

    This is exactly what Zimmerman says was happening, and what Mr. Ayoob has said about the superior position.

  43. BTW, how crazy is this? The police officer was off duty, observed the teen keying his car, then followed the teen in his car, and got out of his car to confront him before being assaulted and killed.

    It’s EXACTLY what was happening with Zimmerman, 7 months later.

  44. You are a very sorry group of people to be able to find a man justified in stalking and killing a 17 year old kid. You sorry people find it very easy to selectively disconnect your feelings of empathy for a family and a dead boy. This case is blatantly infested with prejudice and biases against a young black teen. Neither of those two people involved in the encounter were angels or saints but nobody deserved to lose life that night. We so called haters find it disturbing that the true perpetrator is not being held in any way accountable for anything he did wrong in what lead to the slaughtering of a innocent young man. The fact that the jurors (and you guys) can dehumanize a person to find justification in the wrongful killing of another person is sick to me. I know full well that if the races were reversed, the entire handling of this case would be polar opposite.

  46. The haters are beyond control here. This is why us gun-carriers need to be vigilant and aware.

  47. Dear Mr. Ayoob,

    I always read your articles with interest and attention. But this one dissapoints me. The Zimmerman/Martin-Case is complex and so, naturally, people have different oppinions about it. Not everybody is seeing black or white, but some people see the different shades of grey – there was not one good and one bad guy, but two people with good and bad sides, that made some good and some bad decisions.

    You took a position and everybody who isn’t sharing it, is a “hater”.
    On the other hand you state the things martin did and said during the brawl as facts. They are not. Since only one guy survived the situation they are not more then the testimonies of the survior.

    This is nothing more than a biased, one-sided article. You have done better.

  48. Felix, the position I took is on the side of what evidence and testimony show. If it doesn’t favor the side you favor, well, I can’t help that.

  49. Daniel in Brooklyn pointed out the problem that is really simmering underneath this case, though he was trying to make the opposite point. Actually, I thoroughly believe that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white then Zimmerman would be in jail for the rest of his life right now, and actually he would have already been in jail for six months. To think otherwise is to ignore statistics.

    I’m not arguing that the verdict was wrong. The jurors made their decision based on the evidence in front of them. But jurors make decisions all the time, and when it comes to self defence they are much more likely to decide a non-black person had to defend themselves from a black person than they are to decide that a black person had to defend themselves from a non-black person.

    I am not questioning the objectivity of the opinion given here. I don’t doubt that if the races were reversed then the same piece would be here saying that it was self defence. What I doubt is that it would be a piece saying the jury got it right – I think it would instead be a piece about how the jury got it wrong. The statistics that demonstrate this point are what are lying beneath the anger, even if most people can’t articulate that (and even if vilifying Zimmerman is wrong).

  50. James, I hear ya — spent two and a half hours today discussing the matter on Tracy and Friends, a radio show out of Ohio with an African-American host and a largely African-American audience. I understand the perceptions and concerns there.

    At the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with one of your conclusions. Study of Stand Your Ground outcomes in Florida by the Tampa Bay Times showed a slightly greater advantage to black defendants than white: 55% of black people who claimed self-defense exonerated, against 53% of whites. There is a case from a few years ago in Rochester NY which mirrors the one under discussion here, black defendant shot unarmed white 17 year old attacking him, and was acquitted by the jury.

    Every black defendant I’ve spoken for in court who shot a white attacker in self-defense has prevailed in the criminal justice system. When race-baiting politicians and such don’t turn things into a show-trial circus, the system works.

« Older Comments Newer Comments »