Mas Ayoob - ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 2: THE “UNARMED TEEN”

This is a good read from a man who has been at this sort of thing for awhile.  I know it will not sway those who "know the truth" as they see it, but it is, nonetheless, an informative read for those who acre to think.

ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 2: THE “UNARMED TEEN”

Tuesday, July 16th, 2013

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.

Why are we talking about "Stand Your Ground"?

The Tampa Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) has had a thing for SYG for a while now.

What one has to ask is why the Zimmerman case, which had nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”, has brought that law back into their headlines?   First, Zimmerman, through his attorneys, declined to even present a case based on that law.  Why?  The reason was obvious; Zimmerman's report and the available evidence presented in that case showed that retreat was not an option for Zimmerman, being pummeled by Martin from a full mount position. Anyone who has watched mixed martial arts (MMA) knows how difficult it is to escape such a position; in fact, once one fighter assumes that dominant position, it usually spells the end of the fight in their favor.  And the fact that Zimmerman was supposedly training in "martial arts"?  Well, most who are trained in combatives or MMA will tell you that traditional martial arts training may do little to prepare one for real, street-level violence. (Sorry - that's just the way it is - even MMA training may not be adequate preparation for the street).

 

So, why is SYG now in the Times headlines?  It is clear that the Times has had a thing for “Stand Your Ground” (as do many others) that seems to have been exacerbated by this tragedy when it happened 18 months ago.  They have, in the absence of data to show that it has increased crime in Florida, chosen to focus on the most egregious cases where it was applied.  Has it been misapplied?  Probably, as are many other laws.  But that is a matter of case law, judicial interpretation or a need to clarify the law.  For instance, some of the examples seem to include drug deals gone bad, yet Florida Statues, when discussing justifiable use of force (of which SYG is a part) note that the presumptions of reasonable fear do not apply if the "The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity."

Note that self-defense and the absence of a duty to retreat are defined in Fl 776.012: 

"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

 

Note this refers to the circumstances permitted under 776.013 - one of which asserts as above: 

 

"The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

.

.

.

The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity"

One cannot stand their ground in an act that is not justifiable self-defense.

It appears that, as with so many other outlets, the Times has chosen to go with via guilt by association, to link SYG to this tragic case even though it was judged a case of justifiable self-defense and is not relevant; to damn it by association with this tragic affair.  What is puzzling is why other, less biased or partisan outlets do not seem to suffer this ignorance.  If an outlet like the Times is going to purport to cover “news” and cloak itself in the guise of being a “newspaper”, then perhaps some knowledge of the law, the data, and how the law applies to the data would be in order.  A headline that says it is not an issue (July 16) which is followed by a long treatise on how it is to blame is disingenuous at best.

With all due respect...

...which isn't much - what the hell does Eric Holder know about it.  He is just another in a long line of people who should know better, mistating the law and facts.  This is such a dog and pony show, with each mouthpiece having to stand up and get its time in the spotlight and profess their ignorance.  Since when did being the top law enforcement officer in this country become a political partisian operation. 



The end of law and order as we know it - our law enforcement and legal system commandeered by policy and politics.

That good ol' liberal bias - round 2

UPDATE: Of course, Huffington Post is back this morning using that same, years old picture of a "child" Martin (the point being that this is nothing more than manipulation - why isn't a recent picture shown?) in an article suggesting 6 "decisions" that could have averted this tragedy.  Sadly, if not unexpectedly, all ignore any possibility that Martin could have avoided it and exclusively prescribe actions Zimmerman could have taken. Then, in a kind of a throw away final sentence, they acknowledge their bias by noting that "Trayvon Martin could have chosen to not defend himself" which was, apparently, not worthy of mention in the top 6.


Looking at this picture of a 12 year-old Martin it is hard to imagine him acting violently. 
Is that why the liberal media use it so much - to fit their narrative?

It would be great if someone would point out the data (not the speculation or wishful thinking) that show that Zimmerman was physically aggressive toward Martin, as pre-supposed in saying that Martin "could have chosen not to defend himself".  The evidence the jury saw suggested that Martin initiated the physical altercation, which is never justified to "defend" against verbal provocation.  Martin was not "defending himself".  For some reason (I shan't speculate), people with a certain agenda must believe that it could not have happened that way, that Zimmerman must be lying and that no teenager, black or white, would ever commit felonious and deadly assault on another human being with no more than verbal provocation (ever watch the news?).  They seem invested, beyond all reason, in Martin being an angel and Zimmerman being evil.

Why, in all the possible scenarios one can imagine, is it out of bounds to consider the possibility that Martin had a chip on his shoulder, did not like getting challenged by a pudgy "white" guy, and decided, in an act that contributed to his own death, to sucker punch him when he turned his back, leap on top of him and beat his face in?  Why is that considered impossible?  He would not be the first teenager, white or black, to act in such a way.  Again, it seems that all would be well to these people if Zimmerman had allowed himself to be killed.  It is a certainty that we would never have watched this trial on TV had that happened.  Move along, nothing to see here.

The article begins by noting that: "It's impossible to know whether it was Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman who threw the first punch in the confrontation that ended Martin’s life. The jury apparently relied on that ambiguity to acquit Zimmerman of murdering Martin, because he said he killed the 17-year-old in self defense."   No agenda there! Start with an assumption - because one party is a teen and black and the other is armed, adult and Hispanic it must be that the young black male was profiled and assaulted for "walking while being black".  With that assumption faithfully and unswervingly held, it is easy to ignore anything that does not agree with it.  They jury relied on the evidence available, not on ambiguity.

Once upon a time, liberals at least tried to make a pretense of being intellectuals - even to the point of calling Obama a "smart president".   It was one of their more endearing qualities - as an intellectual I even thought so.  But they, including Obama, have sadly turned into nothing more than emotional crazies with an agenda who happen to live at the other end of the political spectrum from another group of emotion-focused crazies.  Obama's suggestion that this is a "gun violence" issue and not simply a "violence" issue - and an issue of violence that potentially started with an aggressive teenager - is more than enough evidence of this.  Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

It is illuminating (and demoralizing) to see all of their assumptions in action.

The misdirection of liberal media

I am white and male, so perhaps anything I have to say on this matter will be automatically tainted by my observable characteristics.  It seems there is no way to discuss issues these days without being labeled a racist.  This is especially true in the liberal media - a source of information I can no longer tolerate.

As the gun control debate has gone on and the Zimmerman/Martin case progressed and came to the valid conclusion based on available evidence and the law, the liberal media has put its stupidity on parade.  Take, for example, the Huffington Post's "outrage" at a comment by Zimmerman's brother:  "I want to know what makes people angry enough to attack someone the way Trayvon Martin did."

Then follow that with this sentence from the President's statement on the Zimmerman verdict:   "We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis."  Pardon me for noting, sir, but this was not a simple case of gun violence and it was precipitated by non-gun violence.  Whether you like it or not, a man may have saved his life by using a firearm - from an assault by someone who looks like your son would look if you had a son.  Perhaps you should also ponder whether this is how your son would behave and if it would be a better outcome if Zimmerman had been killed.  That, in essence, is what the critics are saying.

So I think we need to do that question better - let's ask ourselves if we - as a nation - and he - as a President - are doing all we can to understand and stem a tide of VIOLENCE (not just gun violence) in our society - one that is most especially evident in the proclivity for violence that we see in many young Americans.  Quite clearly some of the answer to that can be seen in a culture of violent video games and music that glorifies crime, violence against women and any one else who challenges us or has expectations of us, that fails to teach better ways of responding to others, and passes on the symbols of that violence to new generations.  And, just as clearly, we are doing nothing about that because we are focusing on guns for selfish political reasons.  If all you see when you look at this incident is gun violence, then you are willfully blind.

Two acts of violence occurred in Sanford that night; one, the first one, when a 17 year-old who was verbally challenged as to his activities by an older male decided that the best response was to sucker punch and take to the ground the person who would dare challenge him.  So - why is it that youth today are so ready to respond to anything with violence?  Is it a lack of consequences?  That act of violence by Martin precipitated the second act of violence that occurred that night.  All the evidence presented at trial and evaluations of it by experts agree that Martin was pummeling Zimmerman from a full mount position.  Zimmerman fired his pistol defending himself from that beating.  A jury decided was a justifiable act of self-defense.  You may wish and speculate that it was otherwise, but there is no evidence to support the idea that an innocent Martin was shot.  Sadly, the ensuing debate has little basis in logic and fact.  In fact, some seem to simply wish (and I will not speculate outloud on their motivations) that Zimmerman had allowed himself to be killed.

Thus, there are at least a couple of different steps along the way that may have kept this sad trail of events from unfolding as it did.  If Zimmerman had shown wisdom and called in his report and remained in his vehicle to let LE do its job, this would not have happened.  Still, he did not break any law by being foolish (and Lord knows what would happen if we outlawed stupidity - they'd be executing Nancy Grace).  If Martin had not been so ready, so primed to react with violence, had not decided that the best response to being asked what he was doing was to assault his questioner, then this would not have happened.

The verdict as delivered was the only possible verdict under Florida (and most other state's) self-defense laws.  These laws have their precedent in history in English common law.  The available evidence suggests that violence was initiated by Martin as the aggressor and that it was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger.  Perhaps Zimmerman is simply a nerd who was unprepared to defend himself - again unwise.  Perhaps Martin got the jump on him with a sucker punch from behind as Zimmerman walked away.  Perhaps Zimmerman lives a cushy lifestyle and does not get into fights on a regular basis and has not lived a life of violence.  In any case, he was being beaten that night and in fear of his life. Hence, he was not guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.  While it is clear that this does not satisfy the emotional need for revenge, it is, after all, the data and the law.

In the aftermath of what, in truth, was the only possible verdict, there are many questions to ask.  If we can, but for a moment, put away the need to infantilize Martin as a child victim in this case (Yes, he was someone's child, but he was not "a child", not that cherubic 12 year-old we keep seeing), it is clear that one of them among many is the question that Zimmerman's brother suggests; what is it that makes people angry enough to attack people who merely question them?  Such youth violence is, sadly, not a rare occurrence.  We hear it on the news every day.  Fortunately, deaths associated with it are rare.

In that light, perhaps we need to consider whether the likes of Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and others - whose actions can clearly be seen as stoking and justifying that anger and violence and, thus, placing many young men at risk - have some stake in creating and fomenting unrest and must take some responsibility for such outcomes.  They desperately want and need this to be about race, about an innocent child (of course, Al, we all remember the Tawanna Brawley affair); they seem to think that acting in anti-social ways will somehow change the perceptions of a society.  Sharpton is  a huckster. 

We need to ask why some people want to foment such violence and why some young people are so ready to act in such violence, why are they infected with so much anger?  We might also ask how this is a response that will be helpful (as opposed to potentially getting you shot by a shopkeeper and being the next media trial)?



Asking such questions - in the words of the President's statement - is "...the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

So...Crooks and Liars...

If you want to make this case,  then shouldn't you also be noting this:

Ah, Nancy, some things never change...and some Zimmerman/Martin stuff

During an interview last night Nancy Grace (ever a font of foolishness - remembering back to the Chris Benoit case and how ignorant she was), after cutting the microphone of someone who did not agree with her, asserted that: 

 

"Yes, everyone has a right to carry a gun but it it's still extraordinary that you think it's so normal that [Zimmerman] carries a loaded gun—with ammo, no safety—to walk his dog."

 

So:  It is one's right, it was Zimmerman's right, but she reserves her right to consider it extraordinary that one might exercise that right.  With ammo! (Oh, so he should carry it without ammunition?).  With no safety? (As if it will go off all on its own?).

 

I do not think I have said much, if anything, about this case.  But I would not have done what Zimmerman did - followed someone who was not a direct threat to me, to my life or the life of a loved one, personally.  I would have, as he did, call 911, reporting what I saw and being a good witness.  But I would not have followed the potential criminal, the suspicious person.  I know that some people think that not doing so, not defending one's neighborhood from potential crime is an abdication of responsibility, whether neighborhood watch or just everyday citizen resident.

I personally would not have done so simply because I would have known it might end up just where Zimmerman has found himself.  Even an innocent man - one who seemingly committed a justified act of self-defense homicide - can be punished for it by being dragged over the coals and having to defend himself in court.  Stopping a potential thief in my neighborhood - one who has yet to commit a crime I know of or present a lethal threat - would simply not be worth that possible outcome.  It is unfortunate that our society has created a situation where citizens will not challenge others' behavior (and where those who might be asked what they are doing feel it necessary for ego purposes, to respond with violence) because even if innocent they will be punished.  Had Zimmerman not followed, he could have avoided this - even if he did not break any laws in doing so.  Had Martin not "bowed up" and decided to fight, he could have avoided his own tragic death.

 

There is seemingly no evidence available to convict Zimmerman.  The only "evidence" is the emotional evidence, the racial animus, fear of race-based retribution, and the seeming assumption that Martin could not have been a bad actor and that when a white, Hispanic male kills a black teen aged male, it must be murder, it must be racially motivated.  It seems that any possible Zimmerman conviction will be based on emotion, based on race, not based on the data.  It is a tragedy that anyone died in this incident; sadly it seems clear that someone was going to once both initiated the event.  The available evidence seems to clearly suggest it happened as described by Zimmerman.  Again, would I have ever put myself in that situation?  No.  Was Zimmerman unwise to do so?  Yes, I think so.  Does that justify the beating he may have taken?  No.  Did he shoot in self-defense, in fear for his life?  Likely so.  Would any reasonable person in his position have done so?  Yes, if they could - if they valued their own life.

So I might not ever have decided to do as he did, but if I somehow found myself in his predicament, being beaten down, fearing for my life, I would act in similar fashion.  There is a well-known, if seemingly crass, saying in the armed citizen community; "It is better to be judged by 12 (6 in this case), than carried by 6".  In the end, it is clear both outcomes suck, but Zimmerman seemingly did as any reasonable person would; it seems definitional of a lack of reason if one is willing to allow themselves to be beaten into unconsciousness and potential death rather than defend themselves.

Both men made foolish decisions that lead to this tragedy - I have detailed what I see as Zimmerman's mistake; Martin's was to think he was invulnerable, too tough, too much a gangster.  Too much ego, too much "bad ass".  He was too ready to go to blows and assume that he was facing someone who could not defend themselves against him.  He, too, made a decision I would never make; "I am going to kick the MFs ass".  It is good to remember - all you young men out there - that you never know who you are facing and what they can or will do if you put them in a corner, if you threaten their life.  Think twice.

Speaking of which:

 

Sadly, as shown above, there have been numerous race-based threats posted on the internet, twitter and so on about retribution that will be attempted if Zimmerman is found innocent (I do not normally read The Blaze, but have no reason to doubt the veracity of these statements).  Of course, Nancy is implicitly supporting this - as are so many others - by suggesting that Zimmerman and any one else who carries a firearm (exercising their right) is doing something "extraordinary" and abnormal.  The state has proved nothing of the charges, but their approach has inadvertently (I hope) justified this anger and any misbehavior that follows.  Sharpton, Crump, Herbert and others have also used this case to justify racial animus. 

Sure, some of these threats are bravado, but here's a group of young people who seem to be thinking of making the same mistake that Martin made - "I am impervious to harm, I can do what I want, I'm bad, blah, blah, blah".  It cannot end well, no matter how it goes.

When (I wish I could say "if") something does happen, the next big trial will emerge.  If it is a case wherein an innocent "cracka" is killed, I am sure some will justify it by talking about this trial, the injustice done, the long history of racial injustice.  Foolish!  If it is a case where the young revenge-seeking "gangsta" is killed, then Nancy Grace will further indict those who wish to defend themselves, but it will be, as this case appears to be, a lawful case of self-defense.  Sad!

And, thus, the sad saga will continue.