Welcome to the new commentators here, many of whom seem to feel that Zimmerman started the encounter, a concept that concerns many of our regulars as well. Whenever there’s a fight, no matter the degree of consequences, the first question is always “who started it?”

Zimmerman took the first action, calling police when he observed Martin. He said that he was concerned because the man in the hoodie appeared to be wandering slowly and aimlessly in heavy rain. This is more consistent with what might be called “casing the joint” than with someone in a hurry to get somewhere dry.  He didn’t mention Martin’s skin color until expressly asked about it by the call center operator.

The evidence indicates that Zimmerman didn’t get out of his car until the operator asked where the suspicious person was, and where the police should meet Zimmerman, the complainant.  Taking that as a request for information, Zimmerman obligingly got out of the car to gather the intelligence that seemed to have been implicitly requested of him.  He was, after all, the elected (not self-appointed) captain of Neighborhood Watch, and his function as Eyes and Ears of the Police had been drilled into him and the other Watch members through the Police Department itself. When the call-taker asked if he was following the man, Zimmerman replied in the affirmative. He was then told, “You don’t have to do that.”

The evidence indicates that he stopped following Martin at that moment. His former rapid breathing returned to normal and wind noise from his phone stopped, consistent with his testimony that he stopped following and had lost sight of Martin. The dispatcher did not “order” him to stop following, and later admitted in court that he had no authority to do so. Nonetheless, it was clear that Zimmerman was simply following Martin to keep him in sight and report his whereabouts, not “pursuing” with any intent to “confront.”

Putting together the timelines of the calls – hard evidence – and the testimony of the prosecution’s “star witness” Rachel Jeantel.  When Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, the latter was a very short distance from home. Yet in the four minutes thereafter, he had to have left that location and gone toward Zimmerman’s. Even Jeantel admits that the first words of the confrontation she heard were from Martin, before the phone went dead.

Keeping an eye on someone from a distance is not against the law. Leaving the safety and mobility of your vehicle when suspicious unknown people are around may not be the best tactical move, but is no evidence of wrongdoing or intent to confront.

Who struck the first blow? Virtually all the evidence supports Zimmerman’s account; no evidence contradicts it, and no evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, in any way.  If as some conjecture Zimmerman had drawn the gun at the first, why did he wait until his scalp had been split open on the sidewalk and his nose smashed before he pulled the trigger? And if Martin really believed he was in danger from the man watching him, why didn’t he simply call the police from the phone he was already speaking on?

Within the totality of the circumstances presented in court by the prosecution itself, it would seem that saying “Zimmerman started it” is like saying that a woman was raped “because she asked for it.”

It’s about evidence, not about “what-ifs.” The simple fact is, no matter what some want to believe and no matter how much the brainwashers of the media have twisted the facts, there is no solid evidence to support any theory other than that Martin didn’t like being watched, attacked Zimmerman violently, and was shot in self-defense by the man whose head he had been smashing against the sidewalk with potentially lethal effect.

There are more issues, of course, and we’ll explore them here shortly.

1 COMMENT

  1. Mas got it, if only crime reporters were ex-cops like they used to sometimes be, instead of J-school grads who are ideological clones of their hippie professors.

    When I was in college, the engineering school would not accept J school credits towards the total credit hour requirement. It makes sense, really, would you want an engineer to design a bridge if they learned “critical thinking” skills from the J school hippies? On the flip side, infiltrating and reforming the media is, at this point, a much higher calling than a young man or woman joining the Marines. The stakes are higher.

  2. The idiots saying it’s still wrong and want laws changed don’t know what they are asking for.
    Or do they?

  3. Zimmermans’ lawyers forgot the most important thing, yet they won. A gated community is PRIVATE PROPERTY. A homeowner certainly has the right to question anyone who walks into their yard. Instead having 250 people stop a person from walking through their community, they appoint or someone volunteers to be the crime watch coordinator. Zimmerman had every right to stop Martin. When questioned, all Martin had to say he was going to visit his father. All Zimmerman would do is look up the name and address to confirm Martin was truthful. Case closed, Zimmerman goes back to finish his supper.

  4. I work a fulltime job and a part time job an had little opportunity to watch the trial. Thank you for sharing these vital insights. I admit I was concerned that Zimmerman had left his vehicle while the events unfolded. I’m now able to articulate to my friends and family that Zimmerman was totally in the right.
    I only took interest in guns back in December. I’ve been reading ,studying all I can concerning conceal carry, gun safety, and gun laws. I truly believe in the law abiding citizen carrying a defensive firearm responsibly and lawfully.
    Soon after receiving my Weapon’s Carry License, along with my wife, she and I joined the Armed Citizens legal Defense Network. I have learned so much in a short period of time, joyfully. I feel as though I, like Zimmerman, am so much better prepared to defend myself and love ones for any unforeseen dilemma.

  6. I’m no trial watcher, but I’ve been all over this case since it happened.
    Fortunately, I knew a lot of what to expect AFA the law, as I bought a copy of your In The Gravest Extreme around 30 years ago.

    I don’t think I learned anything about this case that I didn’t know 16 months ago – all the pertinent info was available way back then if one just paid attention.

    BTW- when are you going to update In The Gravest Extreme!

  8. My question from the start has been whether following detracts from the “mantle of innocence” required for a self-defense argument. To me, keeping an eye out from a couple of blocks away does not; breathing down someone’s neck even without touching or threatening them maybe does. From your article and others I’ve heard, Zimmerman was not close or threatening. But in general, where does the law stand on that kind of issue?

  9. Thanks Mass, I’ts so refreashing to hear about the true facts of this case,
    from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, instead of
    people

  10. That was an excellent summation, the best I have read yet; and one the the large majority agree with. Only the uninformed and the vast majority of blacks disagree with your views and the evidence submitted at the trial.

    Sadly, they are more interested in vengence than in justice.
    If these people are truly interested in preventing black chilren and young men from being shot, may I suggest they start in Chicago.
    Chicago, obamas home town, the city where more children and young adults are murdered with firearms every month than the servicemen and women who lost their lives fighting for our country.

    Ken Weaver

  11. And now you hit on my main point of suspicion of the whole dang affair.

    TM had every opportunity to avoid a confrontation if he wanted. He could have called 911. He could have gone to any door and yelled for help. He could have easily made it to his father’s GF’s house. There is no doubt that he could have continued to evade and outrun Zimmerman indefinitely. A man who, by all evidence, never pursued past the point of keeping the suspicious person in sight while reporting to the police call center.

    But TM did none of these things. Why is that?

  12. — armed only with an opinion, and assumptions, as to what happend.

    —Anxiously awaiting more of your commentary!

  13. I haven’t heard the evidence so my comment is based on personal opinion. In my opinion, Zimmerman should have left it to law enforcement officers — period.

    I don’t understand why a neighborhood watch person is carrying concealed … I carry and I know it’s something that’s important to a lot of people. But neighborhood watch is not law enforcement. It’s concerned citizens protecting their own neighborhood turf — which is a good thing. Citizens protecting themselves personally is different.

    What crime was Martin committing at the time Zimmerman began tailing him? It’s not clear to me … but what is clear is that a citizen took the life of another citizen in an unwarranted way. I must be missing something here.

  14. Mas, a point made during the trial was that Zimmerman was not “on duty” that night but rather was making his normal weekly trip to the grocery store when he noticed Martin. Some still believe, erroneously, that GZ was “scouting for trouble” or “tracking” Martin. Not so.

  15. You are right again, Mas. That is why Zimmerman was not charged in the beginning. He should have never been charged under Florida law.

  16. I didn’t find out a lot of the information on the case until this past Thursday before the verdict. I’m not going to say that the information on Trayvon, and about the night of the shooting was intentionally held back by the mass media networks, but there certainly seems to be a distinct lack of journalism.

    I had been told, very convincingly, that there was no neighborhood watch in the area, and Zimmerman had declared himself neighborhood watchman all on his own. That he was ELECTED captain, of an actual neighborhood watch, is brand new to me right now.

  17. To Jim, who says he must be missing something here…Yes, Jim, you are. Please carefully reread the last three blog entries here, and then feel free to get back to us all.

  18. O’Mara should have had you instead of the laser avatar suit guy.

    Actually, if I ever go to court I’d like you for to do my closing statement.

  19. Even after Mas’ fine clarification there are still those who think Mr. Zimmerman was playing policeman and why was he armed and why did he not “leave it to law enforcement officers”?
    Sorry pardner but there are some out there that will never understand and think Martin’s death was a tragedy. It was a tragedy for his loved ones but for people who had never heard of him and never would have had it not been for the race baiting news, calling it a tragedy is trying to own something that is not theirs.

  20. I appreciate your discussion of the legal points. I know many are trying to argue the legality of what took place and of Self Defense, but I don’t think those are necessarily in question so much as the series of events that led to Zimmerman requiring self defense.

    Fear is a strong motivator. Both people had a defensive posture, which led to aggression. It happens every day. If Martin had responded more calmly, would this have happened? Probably not. If Zimmerman had responded more calmly, would this have happened? Probably not. But the difference is that Zimmerman is an Adult and was trained. He bore the bigger responsibility to protect himself AND the residents. He failed to do by by putting himself in a situation that required a gun to be fired.

    It’s not unreasonable that Martin struck the first blow; It’s not unreasonable to believe that Zimmerman would’ve died if he hadn’t fired his gun. If Zimmerman died, I believe Martin would have been put in jail, even if only for Manslaughter, though I believe the actual convictions would have been much more severe. I don’t like heresay, but do you truly believe that that Martin would’ve gotten off completely innocent had he killed Zimmerman instead? A similar Self Defense argument could be made by a living Martin and a dead Zimmerman. Without the conflicting version of the story, it’s pretty easy to argue Self Defense.

    But Zimmerman didn’t die, and instead an untrained teenager was killed by a trained adult in a situation that could have been fully avoided if Zimmerman had acted more professionally and waited for support. To me, at a minimum, a Manslaughter charge makes sense.

    RE: “Asking for Rape” – Rapists are acquitted frequently under just such an argument. I think it’s a horrible truth, but a truth nonetheless. Look at how much pressure it took from the public before the city even pressed charges in Steubenville, Ohio! I’m not arguing that that’s what we should be doing, but the point is a lot of weight is placed on women to avoid potential rape situations; If Zimmerman was trained, he should’ve also been trained on dealing with a potentially dangerous situation, and he broke several guidelines in that regard. Besides that, there’s obviously some major differences in what happened here vs. a “she asked for it” case. I think a better analogy might be chasing a Racoon into a corner, staring it down, getting too close and then being surprised when it attacked you. Yes, you would argue self defense, but anyone with half a brain would say it’s OBVIOUS that you shouldn’t have cornered an animal, and that the killing the animal could’ve been avoided if it was approached differently. Am I saying Martin was an animal? No. Am I saying he was probably terrified of a man pursuing him in the middle of the night with a gun? Yes.

  22. JIM,if you don’t understand why GZ was carrying or would deny him that right I don’t think you should carry until you truly understand the concept of self defense. You exhibit muddled thinking on SD.

  23. Having been an active member that helped to set up a neighborhood watch program I can say, “I wear my pistol when I go for daily walks in my community. Why wouldn’t I want to wear it when providing services for the watch program?”

    Many folks don’t understand that a weapon is just a tool like a spare tire on a car. It is carried like a flashlite. You never know when you may have to use it to get you safely on your way, but you plan ahead for the circumstances that might present themselves anyway.

  24. Mas, I believe there is one piece of evidence that may, and I repeat, “may” support the idea of George Zimmerman as the initial assaulter. Rachel Jeantel testified that she heard the voice of Trayvon Martin, “get off me, get off me” just before the phone went dead. Add this to the statement of GZ, “these punks always get away”, and you could have a scenario of GZ grabbing or assaulting TM in some manner, as the initial physical contact.
    Now bear in mind, I only said it was evidence, not good or great evidence.

    Also, on another point, GZ originally told police he was struck, fell down, and was mounted, at the top of the T of the sidewalk. The body of TM was found some 40 feet down the T. This could indicate that GZ had actually walked in a direction contrary to the direction of his truck and contrary to what he told police, but had gone toward TM, or at least met him half way.

    Finally, it is pure speculation, and there was no evidence supporting your assumption that, ” because he didn’t like being watched” as a motive to attack.

  25. At Jim,
    “In my opinion, Zimmerman should have left it to law enforcement officers — period.”

    He did. Zimmerman didn’t go after Martin; he saw him and called the police. Per the 911 call, he stopped and got out of his truck to better answer the dispatcher’s questions. Following that, based on the evidence and his account of events, when the dispatcher told him he didn’t need to keep tabs on Martin, Zimmerman then went back towards his truck with the intention of meeting police at the back of his community. Your statement reflects a misperception that the media has fostered over and over again in an attempt to paint Zimmerman as a predator rather than a concerned citizen.

    “I don’t understand why a neighborhood watch person is carrying concealed … I carry and I know it’s something that’s important to a lot of people. But neighborhood watch is not law enforcement. It’s concerned citizens protecting their own neighborhood turf — which is a good thing. Citizens protecting themselves personally is different.”

    I see what you’re saying here. Two points to consider:
    • At the time of the incident, Zimmerman was just a concerned citizen. He wasn’t on patrol representing the neighborhood watch; he was driving to the store and noticed a suspicious person.
    • Neighborhood watches are composed of citizens just like you and me. I submit that if you are in a community that needs a neighborhood watch in the first place, that you have just as much if not more need of a means of self defense as anyone else. I would be a lot more critical if the watch required their members to be armed, but Zimmerman just happened to be a concealed carry holder—the fact that he was also a neighborhood watch captain is unrelated. To play devil’s advocate, are you saying that all neighborhood watch members should be required to be unarmed even if they have a permit to carry?

    “What crime was Martin committing at the time Zimmerman began tailing him?”

    None, that’s why Zimmerman called him suspicious and not a criminal, as for “tailing” I’m not happy with the use of this word in this context. Zimmerman saw a suspicious person, got out of his car to better answer the questions of the dispatcher and per the available evidence then turned around intending to get back in his vehicle and meet police. Tailing implies some ulterior motive—malicious, which under the circumstances puts certain assumptions into play that I’m not willing to accept as given.

    “What is clear is that a citizen took the life of another citizen in an unwarranted way.”

    Maybe so. It was a dark and rainy night as the saying goes. Of the two people who were present one is dead and the other says that he was needlessly attacked and beaten to the point where he feared for his life. The forensic evidence backs up that account as do several witnesses. If Zimmerman truly stalked martin, provoked a confrontation, and escalated hostilities all with the intent of getting him one that day than martin’s death was certainly “unwarranted.”
    The issue is that Zimmerman’s account of events, supported by evidence, and corroborated by witnesses says that he was assaulted, knocked down, punched, and at the time of the shooting had his head repeatedly slammed into solid concrete. Under those circumstances it’s perfectly “warranted” for a man to fear for his life and take action to defend same.
    In the end, only Zimmerman truly knows what happened that night. The public has dissected his actions and motives to an absurd degree. What I can say with certainty, having watched most of the trial live, is that I’ve seen no credible or compelling evidence to date that contradicts Zimmerman’s account of events.

    Hope that helps.

  26. Mas can correct me if I get this wrong but to me one of the biggest pieces of evidence that shows this was NOT about race lies in the fact that George shot only once. A man with the malice in his heart that the haters claim he had would have shot two, three or more times. Many of us would have done so out of panic alone. Yet George fired only once to stop the assault.

    If you take all of the color adjectives out of this story and then told it any reasonable person would have done the same thing;

    Head of a neighborhood watch in a burglary plagued private community sees suspicious man wandering through the backyards of the property he has taken the responsibility to watch over. It is raining heavily and man sees suspicious person looking into windows as he wanders.

    Man calls the police and reports the activity. Man follows suspicious person so man can identify suspicious person to police when they arrive. If there had been a burglary that night man may have just caught the person responsible.

    Suspicious person attacks man. Man has a little training in self defense but now finds himself on the ground being beaten, unable to do much more than scream for help. Suspicious person sees man’s gun and tells man that man is going to die that night as he reaches for man’s gun.

    Show me a single concealed carry person who wouldn’t have drawn their weapon at that instance and fired and I will show you the news headline about a concealed carry person who was killed with their own weapon.

  27. Mr. Ayoob, please be more careful with your quotes. You state that the police told GZ, “You don’t have to do that,” when they asked him if he was following TM. what they actually told him was this, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.” It my seem like a small thing, but it’s not. The little ‘cracks’ like this in our writings and observations are the things our opposition are looking to turn into ‘huge crevasse’ to use against us. I ask you to please edit your comments to reflect the correct quote. Thanks you.

  28. Thank you Mr. Ayoob! Why can’t we have credible, authoritative adults like you on our cable news shows?

    Oh that’s right, the one thing perpetual adolescents absolutely can’t tolerate is an authoritative adult.

  29. It seems to me that there were two encounters here, and the stories from both sides agree on what happened until the end of the first encounter, and then they differ.

    In the first encounter, Zimmerman spotted Martin and got out of car and started to follow him. But then he lost him — and both sides agree on this. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he had lost him, and Rachel Jeantel said that Martin told her that he thought he had lost the guy who was following him. The first encounter (which Zimmerman had initiated) had ended, and nobody had been killed yet.

    Then Zimmerman ended his call, and he claimed that he started to walk back to his car when Martin popped up, seemingly from nowhere, and challenged him, and then cold-cocked him and started the fight that ended fatally. If Zimmerman’s story is true — if that’s what really happened — then he is Not Guilty.

    The other story, perhaps not clearly explained by the prosecutors, was that Zimmerman continued to to follow Martin, reacquired him, and then Martin turned and confronted his pursuer, and then there was the fight that ended fatally. In that story it was Martin who was “standing his ground” and legitimately defending himself.

    If it was Martin who backtracked and started the second confrontation, then Zimmerman is Not Guilty — he was just defending himself. If it was Zimmerman who started the second confrontation, then he’s Guilty of manslaughter, at least. You can’t stalk somebody and then when he turns on you and you start losing the fight, you kill him. That’s not legitimate self-defense.

    It reminds me of that case that Mas once described where two armed men walked into a store to rob it, and the clerk drew his gun and shot one of the robbers, killing him. The second robber, seeing his friend shot down, ran out the door, and the clerk ran out after him. The robber, seeing that he was being pursued, turned and fired at the clerk, but missed. The clerk then returned fire, killing the second robber.

    Killing the first robber was obvious self-defense, and the clerk wasn’t even charged. But he was charged with murder for the second killing — and he was convicted. Once the second robber ran out the door the threat to the clerk ended, and it was the clerk who started the second confrontation that ended fatally.

    So, which story is true in the Zimmerman case? The evidence is consistent with Zimmerman’s account. and the state was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened some other way. So Zimmerman was found Not Guilty.

  30. Mas,
    Thank you for your clarification of the events leading up to the physical encounter. I accept your understanding of the events (since I have not followed the minutia of the case) and agree with your assessment. I do hope in part 4, you will address the take away that gun owners should have about this case. This thing has been so high profile and polarizing that people have retreated to their various political camps. This case has only further distorted an already distorted national conversation on self defense, crime and firearms.

    As I said in my comment from Part 2, a lot of the fellow gun carriers I have encountered do not fully understand the legalities surrounding their concealed carry. To me the legal questions about the case are answered. I’d like to now get your take on the general prudence of the whole situation. For example, should the community had established or had they established some guidelines for neighborhood watch? Could/should Zimmerman have behaved differently, while still doing his “Job?” Should we be having a national conversation about plain common sense when people notice something they deem suspicious?

    I come from a family of cops, firefighters and Paramedics. I know that for one, in general most police officers are not real keen on wannabes, and believe it or not, there are firefighter/medic wannabes too. I’ve seen in both cases where these enthusiasts have endangered themselves and others. I also saw regular people do some amazingly stupid things in the face of novel circumstances . In my experience people behave irrationally when faced with situations that diverge from their routine, often with disastrous results. On several occasions, while responding to a medical call, my partner and I had the police called on us. Neighbors noticed two men wearing dark clothes standing on someones porch in the middle of the night, but they failed to noticed the flashing red and white lights in the background, reflecting off of us and the house we were standing in front of. Was is lack of common sense? Was it tunnel vision? Or were they blinded by excitement of getting to participate? I think the effect of the latter cannot be underestimated. Another common occurrence was for people to report auto accidents to 911 when the fire department and state police where already there. This happens all the time, and I’m talking about 20 or 30 calls for the same accident. Again I think people want to help and are blinded by their enthusiasm. There are also those out there who are chomping at the bit to get involved in Police or EMS business. All of this is why we have trained professionals, and protocols for those professionals.

    I think that while Zimmerman was legitimately concerned about his community and behaving within his legal right, he was also one of those overly enthusiastic amateur crime fighters. He also probably felt fairly confident with that gun strapped to his hip. I know, because I have felt the same way when carrying. My firearms instructors told me something during training though that has stayed with me. “If you are choosing to go somewhere or do something, where you feel you need a gun (more than normal circumstances), maybe you should reconsider going to that place or doing that thing in the first place.”

    The point is that citizens are not police officers. Its also true that the police are not their to protected people proactively, other than to do routine patrols. They do act as body guards or private security, so there is a legitimate need for citizens to be able to protect themselves. This is the fundamental conflict. I’d like to hear your thoughts on how we go from here. How do we balance the right and the need to protect ourselves, without untrained, inexperienced private citizens with no legal authority causing problems themselves?

  31. “I think a better analogy might be chasing a Racoon into a corner, staring it down, getting too close and then being surprised when it attacked you.”

    A raccoon is your analogy? Really? Maybe you should test out that analogy with people of color and get back with us on your findings.

    Despite your objections, Mr. Ayoob’s analogy is spot on.

  32. Correction To Previous Comment.
    I mean to say:
    Police DONT act as private body guards or private security.

  33. Ayoob, you’re the first person I’ve seen publish the question of whether it’s significant that Martin chose not to call the police himself, other than me. I suspect it’s been asked in places I haven’t seen, but I’m surprised it hasn’t been all over. I’ve been involved in several discussions now where I’ve had to stress over and over that “Calling the police is not vigilantism” on Zimmerman’s part. I would have expected to hear Zimmerman defenders in the mass media suggesting (wrongly, I think) that since Martin didn’t call the cops, we should take it as proven that he was up to no good, while Martin defenders explained all the reasons why a troubled young black man in Florida might not trust the police to help resolve a dangerous situation.

    I wouldn’t want to suggest that Martin had an absolute duty to call the police if he felt threatened. There are reasons–albeit not very good ones, from my shoes–not to do so. It could be that, with Martin’s experiences with police/authority/teachers, he didn’t trust the police to treat him fairly. I know some of my students would react the same way. However, he had the means and the time to make his own call to the police, and even if it’s understandable why he might not want to do so even if he felt he was doing nothing wrong, it’s still a tantalizing thought that perhaps the whole thing could have been resolved that way. Then again, it might not have resolved anything.

    I was in your MAG-20 class in Wisconsin the weekend before the jury was selected, by the way, and was extremely impressed. It definitely changed the way I watched this trial. I’m going back to take the range portion from David Maglio in August, but I think the classroom will probably end up being the most valuable. Certainly the thing that changes my life the most as we figure out how to implement shall-issue CCW in Illinois.

  34. Or why a grand jury was avoided, because it would have prevented a political show trial. Chris in Va, they know what they are asking, but want to cloak thier motives.

  35. MA has a keen insight to this whole affair. Z was having his head smashed into the sidewalk. I and most of us here would have shot TM.

  36. tm had plenty of time to make it to his dads gf house,i beleive he was looking to beat “creepy ass cracker”. How can people not see that? Why wasn’t that reported?

  37. Jim, in response to why is he carrying then you dont support concealed carry laws. He has the right to carry that gun whenever he wants. Also, mind you, he was on his way to target not out hunting kids as the media has displayed it. He is ALOUD by the CONSTITUTION to carry that gun whenever he feels like it. To hold that against him is you saying you honestly do NOT support gun rights and his absolutely ridiculous.

  38. Thanks Mas for being willing to speak publicly and openly about this. Professionals who understand the dynamics of these types of situations aren’t the ones who seem to be questioning the verdict. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s only professionals who have the ability to view the dynamics of the circumstance.

    We all know that this entire circumstance could have been avoided had George stayed in his car but he shouldn’t have to. The point that many seem to be missing here is that the entire circumstance could have been avoided if parents would instill respect for one’s elders in their kids. If the young man had chosen to act civil and respond respectfully to Mr. Zimmerman as opposed to getting an attitude and acting violently, he would still be alive. If anyone should be on trial, it’s the parent’s of Mr. Martin.

  39. JIM, try reading the article before commenting. Mas is the real deal, pay attention. He isn’t a random guy with a political blog speculating at whatever speculations and guess the media let through, he is a policeman and has been an expert witness longer than some people commenting here have been alive.

    I’m confused by the training comment. Training in what? Martin was clearly more adept at beating people up than Zimmerman was at defending himself from blows. The training Zimmerman would have had for a CCW would be to only fire if that was required to prevent serious injury or death, which a jury just said he did; but how that training is relevant in terms of disparity of force eludes me.

    It is worth pointing out that Zimmerman is not a poster child for the NRA. Owning 10+ guns, reloading ammo, tricking out guns with accessories, reading the gun magazines, etc., doesn’t incriminate oneself, but this guy was just average Joe who incidently owned a working man’s gun. He had no behavior of one seeking out a fight. He voted for Democrats and had one gun, and not one that most serious shooters would use. The guy wasn’t a gun nut. But he did think it reasonable to be able defend himself.

    I was wondering how it would go at a civil trial, and I suspect, given a competent legal team, after reading Mas’s recounting of the real evidence, that Zimmerman would prevail.

  40. EVEN IF Zimmerman verbally started the confrontation with Martin and Martin slugged him in the face, he’s committed an assault and Zimmerman is NOT justified in shooting.

    However, when Martin went for the mount, he went from assault to aggravated assault and the shoot was justified.

    Now let’s give a hypothetical to the haters: Say Zimmerman walked up to Martin and grabbed him or even punched him in the face. Martin was then fully justified in laying Zimmerman out in self-defense.

    However, when Martin went for the mount, he went from self-defense to aggravated assault and the shoot was justified.

    I personally don’t believe everything that came out of Zimmerman’s mouth. However, if I were put in the same situation, I would have felt justified in firing long before he reached for the firearm.

  41. The real goal of the far left, is to eventually make self defense by white people ilegal. This administration is a thug administration populated by racist tyrants. When Eric Holder mentioned “my people” he was not talking about blacks in general, he was specifically referring to the inner city hip-hop rap thugs, those are his people, and obama’s, and they want the thugs to rule. Unless the cowardly republicans suddenly find a backbone and stop obama, soon we are going to see the thugs hanging out at all polling places on election intimidating people into not voting or voting for the dem. Remember what the President of the AFL-CIO said right after the 2008 election in answer to a question about how they were going to go about a fundamental change in America if the majority of the people do not want fundamental change, he answered that first they would try to use the power of persuasion and if that didn’t work then they would move on to the persuasion of power. Which is basically where we are at now.

  42. Everyone who continues to think that GZ has some criminal culpability in this situation are apparently still viewing TM as the innocent, fresh-faced child the media portrayed him as. As an elected neighborhood watch captain, GZ was acting in good faith in that position. Had he not been doing so, he would never have called police and stayed on the line while observing TM. From the callS it appears that GZ had lost sight of TM and began to return to his vehicle when TM confronted GZ. The only poor judgement I can see here is on the part of TM. TM was very close to his destination, but allowed the prompting of Rachel Jeantel to override his better judgment. Jeantel admitted in court that she told TM that he should confront the “creepy-ass cracker” that was following him. That ultimately is the decision that led to TM’s death.

  43. “Am I saying he was probably terrified of a man pursuing him in the middle of the night with a gun? Yes.”

    So much fail here. 1st. How would he have known Zimmerman had a gun? Your saying he knew he had a gun and he went back and assaulted him anyway? OK.

    2nd. If he was so “terrified” then why didn’t he just go home?

  44. Thanks for the excellent summary. I bellieve all the facts support the verdict, and I also know that the FL “stand your ground” law played no part in Zimmerman’s defense.

    That law does, however, raise a concern for me and I wonder if Mr. Ayoob has ever written about it. In the common law (and in his book, In the Gravest Extreme) you have a responsibility to “stay out of trouble”. If you are in a place where you have “a right to be”, but the only reason you are exercising that right is because you are carrying, have you surrendered your mantle of innocence? Does the Florida SYG law immunize conduct that would othrewise be judged as reckless?

    If someone can point me to an Ayoob column on this issue (or if he would care to answer), I’d be grateful.

  45. Mas’ assertion doesn’t wash that, “The evidence indicates that Zimmerman didn’t get out of his car until the operator asked where the suspicious person was, and where the police should meet Zimmerman, the complainant. Taking that as a request for information, Zimmerman obligingly got out of the car to gather the intelligence that seemed to have been implicitly requested of him.” The recording of the dispatcher’s call is available at YouTube and transcripts (of varying accuracy) are available in a number of places. The dispatcher never asked Zimmerman where the suspicious person was, not once. Twice at the beginning of the call the dispatcher asked what the suspect was doing and after Zimmerman says, “He’s running.” The dispatcher immediately asks “Which way is he running” and Z immediately responds “Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood” Dispatcher: “OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?” Z:”The back entrance” Immediately after that Z mutters something under his breath and the dispatcher asks if he’s following the suspect and when Z says yes tells him “We don’t need you to do that.”

    Mas says, “The evidence indicates that he stopped following Martin at that moment.” That, too, is not correct. The noise that had alerted the dispatcher continues without change for at least another 10-12 seconds after that point, then ceases, having followed Martin for some 30-32 seconds, apparently at a jog or a run based on the sound of his breathing.

    None of that suggests that the dispatcher had any intent for Z to do anything other than stay in his car and then, when he didn’t, to return to it. That is further confirmed by the dispatcher’s subsequent question of whether Z wanted to meet with the officers when they arrived and, when Z said that he did, asking Z what address he was parked in front of.

    I do not mean by this to suggest that Z followed Martin with the intent of physically or verbally confronting him. Perhaps it is true that all he ever intended to do was to keep him in sight. Except for Z’s statements, we’ll never know that any more than we’ll know for sure who made the first threat or use of force which justified a physical response.

    But it’s very clear that regardless of why he did it, Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed Martin entirely on his own initiative and that the notion that he did it at police request or in a mistaken belief that he was doing it by police request just does not wash. That leaves this question: Was (a) that a reasonable thing to do at all and (b) was it a reasonable thing to do while armed?

  46. @Justin Says,

    “I mean to say:
    Police DONT act as private body guards or private security.”

    I’d suggest you got it right the first time. Police do act as private body guards in many municipalities. They guard politicians, other cops (chiefs of police etc) VIPs etc. They also hire out as private security off duty to malls, concerts etc, often wearing their duty uniforms. In some instances it is actually the muncipality renting out the taxpayer paid for police officers.

  47. i admit to have followed the trial loosely, thru general media chunks here and there. i was surprised at the verdict because i was sold the myth that he was a self-appointed vigilante patrolling the neighborhood looking for trouble and he shot an unarmed teenager.. and then i read the facts on legalinsurrection.com as suggested by Mas in part 1.

    the evidence paints an entirely different picture. the state had no case to begin with. the police investigator had suggested self-defense and the original prosecution team had chosen not to charge zimmerman based on the facts. a new prosecution team was brought in and police officers have lost their jobs and been demoted. it all seems highly politically motivated.

    the state lost its case and it is no surprise to me now. but it has surprised a lot of people because no one spends 2-3 days wading thru the evidence. a good example is Jim, whose comment says: “I haven’t heard the evidence … I must be missing something here”. yes you are: the evidence!

    thank you Massad for separating fact from fiction.

  49. It seems too many people keep using the word confront. This word has no meaning in the charges presented. The correct term is forcible felony which include the following charges at issue in the case: aggravated assault and aggravated battery. I am taking as unproven that Zimmerman’s life was directly threatened by Martin (which involves the use fr threat of physical force or violence against any individual) FSA 776.08 Smashing someone’s head against the concrete is aggravated battery and not a reasonable response unless Zimmerman had committed a forcible felony under FSA 776.08 against Martin period.

    Another thing that is annoying is that many people misuse reasonable. Reasonable is an objective standard using the totality of the circumstances that would lead a prudent person to make a conclusion based on those circumstances. This objective standard is defined by caselaw of the state of Florida and by statute. It is not whether any single individual or even a group of individuals would consider the conduct reasonable. A reasonable person complies with the law. With the evidence presented, Zimmerman did so.

    Much of the confusion stems from the different between civil and criminal. What many commentators seem to be focusing upon was forseeability. Didn’t Zimmerman understand that his actions could lead to a violent confrontation. Wouldn’t a prudent person leave their weapon in the car/ Shouldn’t a reasonable CCW carrier with training quit following/return to the car/ etc. as the 311 dispatcher (not LEO or police BTW) requested? In a civil suit, these would be legally relevant as to who was a fault for T. Martin’s death. In a criminal trial, all criminal laws are strictly construed, that which is not illegal is not chargeable. It may affect the totality of circumstances that a prudent person would consider before using deadly force, By themselves, they have little weight. Thus, who threw the first punch is far more important than whether someone is in or out of the car in the totality of circumstances surrounding the reasonable use of force. Would I have acted the way that Zimmerman did, no because I believe that it was tactically unsound and foolish to go into the dark after losing sight of a suspect? However, what I would have done if at the moment on confrontation after having my nose broken, and being pinned to the ground with no possibility of retreat with my head slammed into the concrete is draw a weapon and shoot to stop the aggravated battery of Martin. Given the burden of the proof that the prosecution had to show unreasonableness of Zimmerman at that penultimate moment, the jurors concluded the preponderance of the evidence indicated that a reasonable person would have acted at that moment as Zimmerman did. Thus, manslaughter is no longer a viable verdict. It seems what some people seek is that Zimmerman be jailed because they do not believe it justified to shoot an unarmed attacker so carrying a gun is equivalent to intent to kill someone with it. That is not reasonable period. As I believe Clint Smith said, paraphrasing, I wouldn’t shoot to kill, I would shoot to continue living. Once Martin moved into the forcible felony stage and cut off Zimmerman’s retreat, he was acting unreasonably given the evidence presented at the trial. Only Zimmerman knows whether Zimmerman started the fight and threatened Martin with a forcible felony action. Absent that evidence, must legally acquit of criminal charge.

    If Martin’s family files a civil lawsuit, it may create precedent over the civil immunity sections of the Florida SYG law over what that means apart from the State v. Dennis criminal case. However, Martin’s family would risk, if they lost, paying Zimmerman’s attorney and court case fees. Plus, additional information about T. Martin’s past would probably come into evidence as well to provide Martin’s state of mind which can affect how much blame to apportion to Martin.

    Just hope that if you are in that defendant chair, that you have the money sufficient to conduct a legal defense such as hiring the dean of morgue DiMiao to testify on your own behalf and getting a legal team with the talent of West and O’Mara.

  50. For those who keep saying TM was afraid of a man in the dark with a gun. Folks the weapon was concealed, TM never knew GZ had a weapon until he saw it when he was fighting on the ground. What part of concealed do people not understand? Concealed = Hidden = not seen. Unbelievable. Come on folks think.

Newer Comments »