Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

From seeking justice to obstruction of justice

From seeking justice to obstruction of justice

I will grant the Martin family enormous deference in the way they interact with the media.  They lost a child.  Whatever the facts of this case end up being, they lost a child.  Whatever the legal outcome ends ups being, they lost a child.  They are doing what parents are supposed to do, fighting for their child.

I will not grant such deference to the Martin family attorneys.

Early on, the focus was on obtaining an independent state investigation because of lack of faith in the local police and the state attorney assigned to the case.  Whether such lack of confidence was justified or not is not currently known, because neither the public nor the Martin family attorneys have access to all the evidence.

Regardless, given the failure to charge in a potential homicide, it was reasonable to request a special prosecutor.  That request was granted, and a very experienced special prosecutor, who specializes in cases involving alleged justifiable use of force, was appointed.

There is nothing to suggest that the special prosecutor is not committed to an unbiased investigation, and the Martin family attorneys admitted as much in television interviews.

At some point after the appointment of a special prosecutor, the Martin family attorneys passed a line from seeking justice through an independent state investigation to inflammatory rhetoric on the guilt or innocence of the accused which runs the risk of obstructing justice.

There are many examples, but I’ll focus on two.

When ABC News released the original grainy video of Zimmerman at a police station, the Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump called it the “icing on the cake” proving that Zimmerman (and the police report that Zimmerman was bleeding) was untruthful:

 Police surveillance video that appears to conflict with a Florida neighborhood watch volunteer’s account of a confrontation with the teenager he eventually gunned down, Trayvon Martin, was called “the icing on the cake” by the Martin family’s attorney on “CBS This Morning” Thursday.

Attorney Ben Crump told Erica Hill and Charlie Rose that the video refutes George Zimmerman’s claims of shooting Martin in self-defense. The video, obtained by ABC News, shows Zimmerman, without any obvious injuries, being led into police headquarters in Sanford, Fla., after the shooting. Zimmerman’s father and lawyer have said Martin attacked Zimmerman in his gated community, breaking his nose with a punch to the face and slamming the back of his head against the sidewalk.

It turns out, of course, that the video does appear to show injuries.

Another good example is the release a few days ago of 911 ambulance dispatch recordings indicating that a second ambulance for Zimmerman was called back.  The audio says nothing about Zimmerman’s condition, other than that he was not a gun shot victim.  Yet the attorneys opined that such tape contradicted Zimmerman’s claim to have been attacked:

A spokesman for the attorneys working for the Martin family told Local 6 that if Zimmerman really had his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk during a life and death struggle with Martin, there’s “not a chance” the ambulance would have been cancelled.

The spokesman said this, along with other new information coming out, keeps confirming that the Martin family is justified in demanding Zimmerman’s arrest.

“Now it’s embarrassing,” the spokesperson said, that Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested.

It is bad enough when various bloggers, pundits and the media reach conclusions based on incomplete or misleading evidence.  There is no reason for the Martin family attorneys to be doing the same thing, as their words take on special meaning in a heated case like this as they represent the family.

The Martin family attorneys also are creating a distraction which could interfere with the state investigation by demanding that the U.S. Justice Department investigate the original state attorney assigned to the case based on allegations of some sort of improper interference by him.

For what purpose is such a federal investigation warranted at a time when a special prosecutor is handling the case?  The state attorney is pushing back:

An “outraged” Florida prosecutor fired back on Monday at the family of Trayvon Martin, describing as “outright lies” their account that he and a local police chief met and decided not to follow a detective’s advice and arrest the teenager’s killer.

Earlier in the day, the Martin family delivered a letter to the U.S. Justice Department through attorney Benjamin Crump’s office requesting a federal investigation of the decision not to arrest George Zimmerman after the fatal February 26 shooting.

At a critical time in the investigation the Martin family attorneys have created a distraction.  If the original prosecutor did something wrong (and there is no public evidence of that) there will be plenty of time to deal with that.  But now state time and resources should be devoted to investigating the fact, not dealing with a federal investigation of a side issue.

The Martin family attorneys did a very good job of putting the case on a track that there would be a credible, detailed, and trustworthy investigation of the shooting.

But the victim’s family are not the only ones entitled to a credible, detailed, and trustworthy investigation, so is Zimmerman or any other person accused of or under investigation for a crime.

Seeking justice does not mean making baseless inflammatory statements prejudging the evidence and tainting the jury pool.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

not sure if this is on topic, been wondering what sort of law you teach Professor.
how the family attorneys have been acting has bugged me since day one and I was wondering if you had insight into why they are acting like this.

    Ragspierre in reply to dmacleo. | April 3, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Without pretending to speak with Prof. Jacobson’s authority here, I can provide a little insight.

    Listen to Mr. Crump in the video. He is barely articulate.

    In my experience as a trial attorney, the VERY WORST opponent is a stupid lawyer. A good, smart lawyer can be dealt with, and will hove to the law and rules. A stupid, inept lawyer will cheat and lie…often to the court…to stay in the game.

    And, in my experience, judges are terrible at actually making decisions, which is a frightful irony to me. They have to work hard to get their butts on a bench, and it is their job to know the law and apply it rigorously (I think).

    And, just FYI, I have never seen a person…lawyer or not…punished for lying in court (except by a jury via their verdict).

    Being a trial attorney can be a very discouraging profession.

    dmacleo in reply to dmacleo. | April 3, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    thanks Guys

Seeking justice does not mean making baseless inflammatory statements prejudging the evidence and tainting the jury pool.

Amen … and I might add that the fact that Mr. Crump is licensed to practice law in Florida certainly does not speak well as to the efficacy of that state’s bar exam.

Seeking justice does not mean making baseless inflammatory statements prejudging the evidence and tainting the jury pool.

Like Breitbart said all the time, it’s all about the narrative. These actions are not intended to facilitate justice.

Crump has known since the shooting exactly what evidence is available to the family with which to sway justice to make George Zimmerman into a killer. However, as it becomes more and more apparent to authorities that the evidence favors Zimmerman’s self-defense case, Crump cannot have that happen because there simply is no profit in it for himself and his firm.

I suspect, however, that Mr. Holder and his boss have taken control of the events now playing out. Zero needs all the distractions he can find to help him win the election. A federal investigation will ensue that will occupy page one above the fold from now until the election. Poor George!

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to gad-fly. | April 3, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    They’re not going to be able to sustain this long enough to help obathturd in any way, no matter what the special prosecutor decides. As more information comes out, the worse it looks for the family and their lawyers. Jesse pulled the plug in the Duke lacrosse case the instant the narrative began to collapse, even though Nifong and the locals kept the fire burning.

    Now, if the special prosecutor does not seek an indictment, there will be a firestorm and possibly some rioting, but it will be short-lived because the information coming out now, which will be fuller and re-visited often should there be riots, does not support it in any rational way except to the stupidest and most easily manipulated among our population.

    There is some fire-power left for some bursts of flame, but there just isn’t enough fuel to sustain the cauldron long enough to help obama seven months from now. There is no “there” there, and there won’t be in this case.

The Florida bar should be investigating Mr. Crump, his firm, and his co-counsel in this for what I consider to be apparent ethics violations.

Repeated, blatant, egregious ethics violations.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Yep. Do you know if the FL AG can initiate a complaint against Crump? I know lawyers are generally loathe to do this, but this isn’t the first time Crump has done this.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Rule 4-3.6 Trial Publicity

    (a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited.

    A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

    (b) Statements of Third Parties.

    A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

    That is the Florida ethical rule. Seems likely Crump violated both clauses amply. But that’s me…

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 3:15 pm

      Thank you.

      It seems to me the question will become one of anybody having the huevos to actually file a complaint.

I will grant the Martin family enormous deference in the way they interact with the media. They lost a child. Whatever the facts of this case end up being, they lost a child. Whatever the legal outcome ends ups being, they lost a child. They are doing what parents are supposed to do, fighting for their child.”

You are a good and wise man, Mr Jacobson.

    caambers in reply to s_dog. | April 3, 2012 at 11:18 am

    I think they are being horribly used and manipulated by all these attorneys and race baiters. Grieving people usually aren’t in a position to make the best decisions initially and their situation is being used by those to make money, get face time, power, or whatever. There’s a place in hell for these people.
    All that being said, now’s the time for the family to regain control of the situation and issue a statement saying they are going to wait for the grand jury to make their decision and request to be left alone to grieve. No more rallies, marches, or threats. Those serve no useful purpose and I’d say haven’t served any purpose since this mess started.

@dmacleo…If I can respond. That’s something that bothered me from the start too. Why did they come out of the gate swinging with some rapidity? Yes…the loss of a loved one under such circumstances warrants grief, but it seemed weird the way they immediately moved to paint Martin as a saint while vilifying Zimmerman. As this moves on and more information comes to light, we’re getting a glimpse of why that is. We now know that Martin wasn’t the angel and Zimmerman isn’t the bigot the narrative originally pushed. Suspensions aside, Martin didn’t just take a wrong turn in February. He was here because of a 10 day suspension–that’s about as serious as it gets prior to expulsion. We know that even though he was up here under that context, that his father and girlfriend decided to go out for the evening. And that there was a lapse of time between when the incident occurred and when the family was notified/found out. Reasonable parents, if their kid has been in trouble, aren’t just going to go on as if it’s business as usual. And if their child is not home when they get home, aren’t they going to start calling friends, other family, especially seeing how he was not supposed to leave the house? If that doesn’t produce results and more time elapses, wouldn’t they notify authorities?
So back to your question and mine…I think there is a lot of guilt on the part of the family over this tragedy and they are lashing out at whoever and whatever they can to allay some of their guilt. Right or wrong, that’s how it appears.

    tsrblke in reply to caambers. | April 3, 2012 at 11:43 am

    I’d grant the family a fair amount of deference in that area as well honestly. Having lost family members of about the same age to less than “accidental” circumstances, I recognize the desire to paint things in in stark contrast. You tend to believe that your relative (child, sister, cousin) was blameless in the actions and project the guilt entirely onto the other party regardless of the specific circumstances at play. I personally think this is part of the natural grieving process. The heighten attention to this case, and the rhetoric by 3rd parties, amplifies that even if it wasn’t the intent of the family (and I’m not ascribing intent in either direction to them.)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to caambers. | April 3, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    “Reasonable parents, if their kid has been in trouble, aren’t just going to go on as if it’s business as usual. And if their child is not home when they get home, aren’t they going to start calling friends, other family, especially seeing how he was not supposed to leave the house? If that doesn’t produce results and more time elapses, wouldn’t they notify authorities?”

    Not if they went out for the evening, got hammered or high, got home and didn’t even bother to check on the kids. I don’t know that they did. I’m just speculating as to why they didn’t seem to know Trayvon wasn’t home. And remember, there was an 11 or 12 yr.old step brother (or half-brother? I’m not sure) to Trayvon left home alone during all this. Maybe they were afraid they’d get in trouble for that so they didn’t call, that being more important to them than Trayvon’s whereabouts.

    “So back to your question and mine…I think there is a lot of guilt on the part of the family over this tragedy and they are lashing out at whoever and whatever they can to allay some of their guilt. Right or wrong, that’s how it appears.”

    I disagree. I think you give them too much credit. They wouldn’t have hired Crump if they weren’t all about getting the money by ginning up a stink to manufacture a case. Money, not guilt.

      The 14 year old I believe is the girlfriend’s son. Like so much about this case there are different stories as to what his specific relationship is. However I certainly didn’t mean to imply the family is the one seeking money over this. It’s Sharpton and these lawyers who see in this an opportunity for lucre–imagine the recognition that comes with face time for Crump, whether or not he actually does anything of benefit to this family. So back to my first point, I do think the family, in their grief, are trying to point the finger of blame on GZ, police, the courts, the HOA, the town of Sanford, etc when it was ultimately their lack of parenting which set the wheels in motion. From what I’ve found out about the case it doesn’t seem there were egregious errors committed by the police and prosecutors but they have been and continue to be vilified by the lawyers.
      Many families lose relatives every day to various forms of violence, but your rarely see such finger pointing as erupted in this case. I am actually looking forward to the release of the actual documents at some point so that there can be some sort of resolution as to what happened.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to caambers. | April 3, 2012 at 2:49 pm

        Don’t you think the Martin family has signed a contract with Crump? If so, to what end? Do you think he’s operating without their approval?

          Who can know but the bottom line is Crump can make suggestions but the Martin family has to be giving the go ahead on things. If they cared that much to get a copyright on their son’s image and name, it’s hard for me to believe they don’t have a say over what comes out of Crump’s piehole.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | April 3, 2012 at 7:55 pm

          Agreed, and that’s why I don’t cut them as much slack as others seem to want to do. They could shut this insanity down anytime they want to. It’s reasonable to conclude they don’t want to.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | April 3, 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Al n’ Jesse may have hired the lawyer for the Martins. (could have done a lot better)

      One report stated the parents did not know until the next day what had happened to Trayvon. They were on TV the next afternoon on FOX:
      http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

      In this day and age, it is possible the parents/step parents and grandparents may use drugs and/or alcohol. A family member worked at a local drug treatment center and was surprised how many people across all socio-economic groups in our community were addicted to drugs.

      ‘Tea and Skittles’ in the teen drug culture means Marijuana and pills. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/03/31/tea-and-skittles/
      They have parties after robbing their parents/grandparents medicine cabinet, pour all the pills in a bowl and down them like popcorn…along with whatever else is around to eat and drink.

      The more evidence comes to light, the more appalling we have found the truth to be – from the president on down.

      Hopefully, something good will come of this – Trayvon’s death may wake people up…force a facing of facts/truth about the black youth and the hip/hop and drug, gang culture. Maybe people across the race spectrum will join forces to work together to bring about positive changes. That is so better than fighting in court and denying the truth.

      In a speech at Marquette, Newt talks about traveling with Al Sharpton to look at one school that had been successful – On transforming kids in inner city schools (55.30-on ) http://electad.com/videos/newt-gingrich-campaign-rally-milwaukee-wisconsin-march-29-2012/

    dmacleo in reply to caambers. | April 3, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    the trademarking really bugs me, if all they cared about was the kid they should not care who does what with a name.
    the timing of that along with sharpton,jackson, et al going vocal REALLY bugs me.
    the changing of stories over the voice on the tape after the lawyer got involved seems very odd to me too.
    no one single item, just a bunch of little ones that add up ( IMO ) to a purposeful misrepresentation of the truth.

      caambers in reply to dmacleo. | April 3, 2012 at 2:43 pm

      I think she did it to keep others from profiting on her son’s name–there have been T-shirts and things being sold. It’s the society in which we live. Everything’s out there and people are having to think of things they never would have had to consider in years past.

Why would they want the involvement of the U.S. Justice Department?

One word: Holder

Also, see gad-fly (above).

Saul Alinsky … straight up. Rules for Radicals. Read them, spot them, call them out.

    Sadly enough, I don’t think Crump is clever enough to apply Saul Alinsky’s rules. What law school did he go to? Online? Mail-order?

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to McCoy2k. | April 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm

      This ain’t Crump’s first rodeo. He’s done this before, again with Jesse’s, Al’s and Barry’s help.

      The FL boot camp case.

      And I think an earlier John Edwards channeled them for the Salem Witch Trials, too. Exact same M. O..

I just want to make a point about the 2nd Ambulance being cancelled.

You always have the right to refuse treatment. Implied consent (probably varies by state) doesn’t kick in until someone is incoherent or unconscious.

It’s very easy to assume that the several cops (many who are EMTs now) or the guys on the ambu on scene were well within their capabilities of treating Zimmerman after/while they worked on Martin.

I know I’m speculating on top of speculation. I’m not trying to prove anything.

There’s just a barrel full of red herrings in dealing with the medical side of things in this case.

One can easily be in fear of their life without actually sustaining life threatening injuries.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Jay Jones. | April 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Of course.

    Suppose A decides to throw B off a bridge they are walking across. They both struggle mightily, holding one another’s arms and pushing, trying to lift the other over the railing. B wins, and A loses his life in the fall to the rocks far below. The most I would expect to see on B is some eventual bruising in the areas where he was grabbed on his arms and and maybe where his body was pressed hard against the railing. The same can be true in a struggle for a gun, hammer, etc. – minor, if any, markings on the intended victim who defended himself and had the audacity ti prevail. I would not expect him to be a semi-conscious, bloody mess. The fact that he is not, and that he won the struggle for his own life after being set upon, in no way suggests he was the aggressor and was not justified.

    It’s a ridiculous contention devised only to garner an emotional, active response from the stupidest and most willingly manipulated.

    The agressor lost and now his family wants to get paid for that loss via an attorney who sees a chance to get fat and make a big name for himself. He should be hauled up on ethics charges for what he’s doing.

    The Martin’s lawyer doesn’t have a real case so he’s trying to manufacture one by bringing pressure for a formal accusation. The Martin’s attorney no doubt has many victims intended for his gambit.

      I can’t assert that either one was the aggressor. Zimmerman could be totally at fault, this could be a huge Greek tragedy-style mix up or Martin could be the aggressor.

      The one thing that I want to hear is how close to the SUV was Martin’s body. (and if there’s a blood trail/splatter near the SUV if the corpse was a ways away).

      If the altercation was at the SUV, Zimmerman probably shouldn’t be convicted. If it was some distance away, it seems like it could go either way.

      Just more speculation though in the absence of all the facts.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Jay Jones. | April 3, 2012 at 2:05 pm

        f you listen to the 911 tape, Zimmerman was heading toward the bank of mailboxes which is where the dispatcher told Zimmerman to meet the officers who were on their way. Zimmerman had passed the bank of mailboxes while on foot following Trayvon from Zimmerman’s parked vehicle. So, Zimmerman was back-tracking over the path he’d taken from his vehicle but had agreed to stop at the mailboxes to await the officers. It was at some point, after Zimmerman was walking back toward the mailboxes, that Martin confronted him. Since Martin had been moving away from Zimmerman while Zimmerman was talking to dispatch, Martin would have been the one who turned around and began pursuing or moving toward Zimmerman who contends that Martin verbally confronted him, then assaulted him.

          I haven’t seen any diagrams of the area, or how it may have gone down. The logic between your Mailboxes and my SUV assertions seem to be the same.

          But, even if Martin turned around and followed Zimmerman back, that just makes the burden of proof much higher for a conviction. Zimmerman could still have been the aggressor, it just seems unlikely. And Stand Your Ground would seem (not an expert) more applicable.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | April 3, 2012 at 3:12 pm

          Yes, but my point about the 911 call is that, yes, Zimmerman was moving back toward the direction of his vehicle, but was specifically going to the mailboxes. Therefore, the proximity between his vehicle and the shooting location would not be very immediate, inasmuch as the mailboxes were Zimmerman’s temporary destination, not his vehicle. You had stated that Zimmerman should not be convicted if the shooting took place at or near the SUV. I was sinply pointing out that that aspect alone should not be the deciding piece of info for anyone because the SUV was not Zimmerman’s immediate destination.

          Zimmerman complains on the 911 tape about the criminals always seeming to get away in conjunction with stating he’d meet the officers at the mailboxes AFTER he says “Okay” in reply to the dispatcher telling him they don’t need for him to keep following Martin. What I take from that is that Zimmerman was bemoaning the idea that this guy was going to get away, which strongly suggests he gave up following Martin and was indeed back-tracking to the mailboxes just as he said he would do. Further, Zimmerman is heard trying to help the dispatcher pin down his exact location as there weren’t addresses on all the condo-townhouse buildings where he was walking through. Would he do that if he was planning to confront and attack the person he was following? (rhetorical question) That would be a very stupid thing to do if he had something nefarious in mind.

          I think this has more to do with a straightforward self-defense question than SYG, if I understand SYG correctly.

        Jack Long in reply to Jay Jones. | April 3, 2012 at 2:20 pm

        how close to the SUV was Martin’s body

        The distance was about 30 yards.

        Just One Minute / Trayvon Martin – Basic Geography … has an interesting description and analysis of the geography.

        They linked back to Professor Jacobson so we can return the favor.

        caambers in reply to Jay Jones. | April 3, 2012 at 2:45 pm

        This is a very long blog post but it is perhaps the most detailed I’ve found thus far. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/03/update-5-trayvon-martin-the-latest-installments/

“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??

That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.”

JackRussellTerrierist | April 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm

One would think such people would have learned their lesson about such tactics when the Duke lacrosse boys were declared innocent by the AG who found no crime had even occurred.

I contend that the Martin attorny’s action and rhetoric are all about a payday for the Martins. It will be easier to settle a case when there is pressure applied through the manufactured appearance of wrongdoing by Zimmerman. The Martin attorney’s demand to the justice department also is intended to threaten the special prosecutor with a similar fate if she doesn’t seek an indictment, in my opinion.

I doubt that the Martin attorney will encounter much resistance from Eric “My people” Holder’s justice department.

    From whence cometh a payday?

    The only Zimmerman pool of money would be Zimmerman’s (assumed) home-owner’s policy. Zimmerman likely has very little by way of assets.

    Sanford could be sued for a conspiracy to violate civil rights or some damn thing…BUT…

    that is a VERY high bar to reach, and there are MANY legal doctrines you’d have to overcome BEFORE you got to the merits of the case.

    AND you NEXT have to show damages. How was Poor Trayvon(tm) damaged? Mommy and Daddy? Sanford did what to them?

    So… Unless Crump is a complete idiot…. This is a PR campaign.

      dmacleo in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      been wondering about this too and I am wondering if they were thinking they could use his prior arrest and still having CWP to sue city for wrongful death.
      pure speculation on my part though, zero facts to base it on.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      How about the HOA? I lived in an HOA (thank GOD we escaped). We had a liability policy. If they participated formally in the neighborhood watch program, it seems to me the martin lawyer could conjure a case against them.

      I don’t have to tell you that many suits are filed for the purpose of reaching a settlement without trial in order to bring defendants with some but not unlimited resources to their knees.

      I expect the (first) prosecutor has immunity, but if some convoluted case can be made against Sanford PD, no matter how unjustified, that could be another revenue resource.

      And Zimmerman may have a homeowner’s policy and/or home that could be another resource, although not as large as that of other potential target$.

      I think Crump is driving the bus but the Martins are willing passengers.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm

      Oh, forgot to mention…..I’m talking about a wrongful death suit.

        My reading says that Zimmerman was not “on watch” on the night.

        Dunno.

        Premises liability would be the ambit for any HOA liability, and that is (in Texas) a steep hill to climb.

          caambers in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm

          He was going to Target when he saw Martin by the clubhouse.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 4:39 pm

          That’s what I read, BUT… I take everything with a heavy grain of salt.

          Dunno.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | April 4, 2012 at 2:17 am

          I’m not convinced it would matter if Zimmerman was on watch that particular night or spotted Martin while on his way to Target. If Zimmerman is a bona fide member of the watch patrol, which is an informal type of organization in the first place, it doesn’t seem to me that it would matter whether he was officially on duty at that moment or not.

From Day 1 the Martin family and their attorney’s have never cared about the facts. They want Zimmerman dead and nothing else.

    Valerie in reply to Zaggs. | April 3, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    I’d grant the family some slack.

    The lawyers, however, essentially have an obligation to both the family and the community to keep their heads. Their duty is represent their clients vigorously, ably, and truthfully, and also to protect the community.

Mr. Ben Crump can’t even keep his buzzwords straight.

While I am a big believer in using the language familiar to the audience, I would expect a person doing that to avoid the kind of mistakes and inconsistencies I hear in this video. Further, churchgoing blacks are used to hearing polished black speakers, so I have difficulty understanding what audience this person is trying to reach with this style of speech.

If this person has been in front of any judges, criminal or civil with any kind of frequency, he’s notorious among the local lawyers.

“My name is Benjamin Crump. You can call me Benjamin Crump.”

“Making false allegations is like a box of chocolates….”

I’ve seen the letter quoted from by Neo. As was said by the revealing source I read yesterday, if it proves to be authentic, both the Martins and their lawyers owe many humble apologies for their behavior, even yielding to the Martin’s loss and need to grieve, their behavior/statements are crossing lines. We used to be a country governed by the rule of law, not mob rule opinion and rhetoric. Mr. Zimmerman is still innocent until proven guilty. For the time being, this is STILL America…

You keep referring to him as ‘the Martin family attorney’ but do we know who actually hired him and who is paying his bills?

Because I don’t see his actions, as laid out by you, being in the best interests of Trayvon’s parents.

Tom Maguire at “Just One Minute” tracks down the many varying numbers for the weight of the two.

Martin comes in at 140, 150, 160

Zimmerman comes in at 170 (and an old 2005 weight of 250)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Neo. | April 4, 2012 at 2:19 am

    Weight? Then let’s measure their arms. Who had the longer reach to throw a surprise punch?

Here’s my big question…why can’t there be a warrant for the arrest of the NBPP thug (Mohammed sp?) for violations of two Florida statutes?
Florida Code 788.01.
a felony to “…by threat, confining or abducting, or imprisoning another person against his will…”

Florida Code 777.04.
“A person who solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offence of criminal solicitation.”

I think that about covers his wanted dead or alive statement.

    Ragspierre in reply to caambers. | April 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Somewhere I saw a fat half-dozen Florida criminal statutes that fool violated.

    Why no indictment…yet?

    Somebody may want to let things simmer down a bit.

      caambers in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      They ma want to let them simmer but the time to arrest someone isn’t weeks after the fact. He should have been arrested the minute he uttered those threats to send a message that we still are a nation of laws and no man is above it. My guess is it will slide which will just embolden this creep. Sooner or later someone is going to get hurt because of this rhetoric and we can all look back to the way this situation was handled, among others (the failure to prosecute the NBPP for a clear cut voter intimidation case) for a view of how we got to a mob rule society. chip chip chip

        Ragspierre in reply to caambers. | April 3, 2012 at 4:42 pm

        Wasn’t he busted for having a firearm as a felon?

        I kind of disagree. If I were a public servant, I might very well NOT pour gasoline on this situation by indicting this idiot just now.

        But, again, that’s me…

          caambers in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 4:52 pm

          That was one of Mo’s henchmen who was also down here yapping. How can a system of laws work if LE is afraid to charge offenders for blatant violations? The offenders win. Which seems to have worked well for the NBPP and others. If you don’t enforce the problems escalate. That’s what’s going to happen here. The longer it takes to put a legal kibosh on their inflammatory rhetoric and threats, the more they will do it. It sets a precedent. Someone needs to put on the daddy (or mommy) pants with these bullies.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | April 4, 2012 at 2:21 am

          If I were a public servant, the NBPP guy would be behind bars on charges scrounging to make bail.

      dmacleo in reply to Ragspierre. | April 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      JC ANdersen on PJ Media posted a bit on it, maybe thats where you saw it.

I read an article in London’s Daily Mail last week about this case. It reported that both the (divorced) mother and father of Trayvon Martin had quit their jobs shortly after his death. Don’t know if it’s true or not (the Daily Mail isn’t always 100% accurate), but if true it raises some questions about how much money the family believes they can make from this tragedy, and what exactly their lawyers have been telling them.

    Estragon in reply to Observer. | April 4, 2012 at 2:15 am

    The reason there was no furor and outcry in the first few weeks after it happened is that it was a clear case of self-defense based on the available evidence. The only way that could change was if Zimmerman threw the first punch, but there is no evidence he did and no witness says he did.

    It wasn’t until Ben Crump showed up with an idea to cash in on the young man’s death that the protests began. Shortly thereafter, Trayvon’s mom filed to trademark his name and image for merchandising purposes.

    Nothing comforts grief like a few extra coins, y’all.

[…] On the other hand, the hearing may reveal the startling, new information that led the case from no charge to a murder charge. UPDATE: » Special Prosecutor Press Conference – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion We learned nothing new about the facts of the case.  What irked me was to hear the prosecutor thank the Martin family attorneys — that seems a little close for my liking in a prosecutor, and in fact the Martin family attorneys have acted irresponsibly in the media as I have addressed before. […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend