I am apparently a member of a really small minority – people who thought George Zimmerman would be acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Not that I thought he should be acquitted. It’s nearly unbelievable that a neighborhood busybody with no legal authority could stalk an unarmed teenager and finally kill him when the teen found the courage to confront his stalker. Note, though, that it was nearly unbelievable. Despite the outrage, a few things led me to expect an acquittal:
- Flickr (Creative Commons)
1. Miserable prosecutors. The state presented a sloppy, almost lackadaisical case that featured key witnesses who obviously had not been properly prepared, particularly the medical examiner, Dr. Shiping Bao, whose bewilderment was almost laughable – not what you want from the one person who could have presented a story that contradicted Zimmerman’s. According to experts for the New York Times, the poor showing by Bao doomed the state’s case all by itself. Prosecutors also overreached by charging Zimmerman with second degree murder when they had very little evidence to back it up. For a second degree murder conviction, the state has to prove that the killer was “full of ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent.” All the state presented to back up that claim was Zimmerman’s call to the police – the call in which police told Zimmerman he shouldn’t follow Martin – but in which Zimmerman never mentioned Martin’s race until he was asked.
2. Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, which allows people who are afraid they will suffer great harm or death not to retreat, even when they could do so safely. Although defense lawyers did not refer to “Stand your ground” during the trial, the judge invoked the law while instructing the jury. It’s easy to see why critics have lambasted the law, since it can result in, say, the following scenario: a busybody with too much time on his hands sees a young black man in his neighborhood and starts to follow him, which scares hell out of the young guy being followed. When the young guy confronts the cop-wanna-be, and if the busybody is scared, it’s perfectly OK for him to shoot to kill. This is the kind of law that only makes sense to paranoids, which evidently describes many residents of. . .Reason No. 3 . . .
3. It’s Florida. It’s been a long time since the country’s former sunny playground of choice lost its luster and turned into a second-rate, overpopulated circus of fear, heat stroke and reptile farms. When your state is dysfunctional enough to elect a governor whose hospital chain was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare and Medicaid fraud, you know it’s basically hopeless. And so it was, in the end, for Trayvon Martin’s family and friends, and anyone expecting a straightforward, well argued case against George Zimmerman – and a jury of clear-headed thinkers and experienced judges of character. But that’s a whole other issue.
Related Stories
Jonathan Ferrell, me and the Geico pig
This article appears in Jul 10-16, 2013.
John Grooms your opinion / position is based on a narrow view of the world where facts always line up neatly with your political agenda. The use of the terms stalking or stalker or pursued have been favorites among those in the media and by those who really don’t know anything about the case. The fact is that Zimmerman admitted to following Martin, but the state was unable to prove that Zimmerman continued to follow and then confront Martin.
There was a FOUR MINUTE time period that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. After being told by dispatch that they didn’t need him to follow Martin…Zimmerman STOPPED. During that FOUR MINUTE period, Zimmerman WAITED for Law Enforcement…he did NOT pursue Martin. During that time, Martin was absolutely capable of going to his father’s house. (This was quite effectively demonstrated by defense counsel, during their closing argument. One of the attorneys stood quietly, for four very long minutes.) He CHOSE not to…..instead, he circled back around to confront the “creepy ass cracker”. Again, Martin had lost Zimmerman…..then CHOSE to circle back around, confront, then attack Zimmerman.
Stand Your Ground dictates that a person being attacked does not need to retreat. That law is not applicable in this case. Zimmerman could not retreat. He had a large, muscular man pinning him down, using force against him.
Another journalist completely ignoring the facts of the case and making up ones that fit what he wants to believe. It is simply amazing.
The vast majority of black people are mad about the verdict.
The vast majority of people happy with the verdict are white.
The lack of objective consensus shows:
1. Racism in all people is alive and well.
2. There were a lot of facts that cut both ways, making the case hard to definitively decide.
3. Some combination of the two.
The vast majority of black people are mad about the verdict.
The vast majority of people happy with the verdict are white.
– Posted by joe on 07/16/2013 at 4:43 PM
You oversimplified things way too much.
I will not try to express things from a black perspective. However, in regards to whites:
– The extreme, left, socialist, and uneducated whites are mad
– The extreme, right-wing, hate-filled, and uneducated whites are happy
– Educated whites who have common sense have been able to see what the media, our Administration, race organizations, and others have been doing all along with their misrepresentation and omission of facts, politicizing and race baiting. They also understand the reasoning behind the verdict. Overall sentiment or feeling is that the whole situation is unfortunate, no side has won, race relations will be set back about 30 years, and Zimmerman will now go onto make millions, media outlets will start trying to hire journalists with some integrity.
Only a racist can look at an incident where an armed white man sees an unarmed black teenager, immediately assumes he is up to no good, calls 911 then stalks him until a confrontation ensues, and sees the armed white adult as the victim.
It sounds like many of the racist jokes I heard as a child.
FYI I am white
Only a racist can look at an incident where an armed white man sees an unarmed black teenager, immediately assumes he is up to no good, calls 911 then stalks him until a confrontation ensues, and sees the armed white adult as the victim.
– Posted by DLP on 07/17/2013 at 7:41 AM
First of all, George Zimmerman is not white, he is biracial. Next, he was not “stalking” Trayvon Martin. It was already mentioned previously that the state was unable to prove Zimmerman continued to follow and then confront Martin. Furthermore, there were eight prior burglaries in the 15 months prior to the shooting and all of the perpetrators were young black males. Therefore, most who are neighborhood watch representatives would be making assumptions or be suspicious of a young, black male who they don’t recognize as being from the neighborhood or community. Finally, you are only lying to us and most importantly, to yourself (a white individual) by stating you wouldn’t be suspicious in a similar situation.
The reference to Stand Your Ground in the jury instructions is part of a boilerplate jury instruction template that includes other irrelevant circumstances such as “attacks on dwellings”.
The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN), “had nothing to do with Florida’s controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ law” because “from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense.” And as The New York Times explained last month, “Florida’s Stand Your Ground law…has not been invoked in this case.” The only context in which “stand your ground” was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution’s attempt to undermine Zimmerman’s credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, “This case is not about standing your ground.”
Char77:
Your post: “Therefore, most who are neighborhood watch representatives would be making assumptions or be suspicious of a young, black male who they don’t recognize as being from the neighborhood or community. Finally, you are only lying to us and most importantly, to yourself (a white individual) by stating you wouldn’t be suspicious in a similar situation.” Demonstrates my point. You, too, are immediately suspicious of a young black male walking in your neighborhood. Look in the mirror.
Yes—we are suspicious of a young black male walking in our neighborhoods. It’s because they commit the majority of crimes in this country! Quit committing crimes and we’ll stop being so suspicious!