Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

How Zimmerman Myth Became Academic Truth

How Zimmerman Myth Became Academic Truth

Academic paper by law professor perpetuates untrue claims that Zimmerman followed Martin contrary to police instructions

Well, this is interesting.

I came across the University of Miami Law School Summer 2014 edition of their law review, and noted that it had a particular focus on Stand-Your-Ground.

Awesome! I dug right into the Foreword, “Stand Your Ground” in Context: Race, Gender, and Politics,” by University of Miami School of Law Professor Donna Coker.

As you might expect, it was chock full of the race, gender, and political facets of Stand-Your-Ground, none of which is really in my wheelhouse.  It did, of course, talk about several of the recent (and upcoming) self-defense cases, including Zimmerman, Dunn, and Alexander–none of which, of course, actually are Stand-Your-Ground cases, but whatever.

Here’s a sample of prose to give you a taste of things, for those of you who daren’t click on the link above for the entirety of it:

If the phenomenon of violent crime is “classed,” surely the social construction of criminality is more so. Professor Jones calls attention to the intersections of gender, race, class, and youth in the popular imagination of the “thug,” which he argues is evidenced in George Zimmerman’s assessment of Trayvon Martin and is perpetuated by Zimmerman’s supporters.  Jones deftly demonstrates that the identity ascribed to young Trayvon Martin by Zimmerman’s supporters–and Zimmerman–is an intersectional identity defined by race (black), age (youth), gender (male), and class (poor): “[t]he same moral panic, which once targeted all blacks, has refocused on black males in urban areas with saggy pants and hoodies,” images that are “deeply associated with criminals and crime.”  The references in the blogosphere to Trayvon as a “thug, vandal, burglar, pothead and/or drug dealer” illustrate this widely held association.

(internal footnote references removed)

So, there’s 17 pages of that kind of stuff, if you’re interested.

I have to confess I didn’t make it all the way through myself, as I bumped up across an interesting factual claim with regard to the Zimmerman trial.

The Sunny Hostin Syndrome

You all will recall that last April I was invited to debate “Stand-Your-Ground” at UC Berkeley Law School. (Did I mention I won?)  I was on the pro-SYG side of things, of course.  A law professor on the anti-SYG side asked me how Zimmerman’s conduct could have been defensible given that he got out of his car and pursued Trayvon Martin after being ordered by the 911 dispatcher not to do so.

I immediately offered her a $100 wager that her statement of fact was incorrect.  She fell silent, but her debate partner, CNN Legal Analyst Sunny Hosting, fairly lunged at the opportunity:  “I’ll take that bet.”

I was, of course, correct on the facts, and the next day promptly sent Ms. Hostin definitive proof of these facts in the form of the relevant 911 recording that captured the entirety of the conversation between the police dispatcher and Zimmerman.

As an aside, Ms. Hostin has never made good on her wager. For those interested in more detailed facts and follow-up on the wager and her welshing on same, I direct you to:

The Wager Sunny Hostin Refuses to Honor

CNN analyst welches on bet after Andrew Branca wins “Stand-Your-Ground” Debate

Now, I’ve previously dealt in great detail with this issue of whether Zimmerman got out of his car contrary to police instructions.  He did not.  Anyone saying that he did is either lying (if doing so with knowledge of the actual facts) or ignorant.

The odd thing is that I keep running into people–law professors and CNN legal analysis and such–who really ought to know better, but who prove to be utterly ignorant of the relevant facts of the case–so much so that they get the facts backwards and therefore arrive at astonishingly incorrect conclusions.

This is especially notable given that they are speaking of the case in their professional capacity.

As mentioned, both of my debate opponents, Professor Tamara Rice Lave (also, I note, from the University of Miami School of Law) and Ms. Hostin mistakenly believed that George Zimmerman exited his car and followed Trayvon Martin contrary to police instructions not to do so.  Indeed, I must presume that Ms. Hostin still believes this to be the case, remaining voluntarily and eager ignorant of the actual facts of the case provided her, or she surely would have paid on her wager.

 

r-TRAYVON-MARTIN-CRIME-large570 2

And now I see that Professor Coker has somehow fallen victim to the same state of ignorance (favoring the benefit of the doubt).

Mistakes happen, of course, so I promptly sent off an email to Professor Coker alerting her to the error in the certainty that she would wish to issue a correction.  That email follows below.  I only sent it an hour or so ago, which is far to little time to expect a response of any kind, but should I receive a response I will naturally share it.

Dear Professor Coker,

I recently came across your Foreword for the University of Miami Law Review Summer 2014 edition, dealing with issues around Stand-Your-Ground law and other aspects of self-defense law. I myself am an attorney with a particularized interest in self-defense law, and found your article very interesting.

I did note one substantive factual error, however, that I know you would want me to bring to your attention for purposes of correction. It particularly references the Zimmerman trial.

On page 955 you write:

“The dispatcher advised him not to pursue the teenager, but Zimmerman disregarded this warning and set out on foot to follow the youth.82”

Your footnote #82 comments:

82. See id. Alafair Burke argues that had the court granted the prosecution’s request for a first
aggressor instruction, the trial outcome might have been different. See Alafair Burke, What You
May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction, HUFFINGTON
POST (July 15, 2013, 11:19 AM), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/
george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html. See also FLA. STAT. § 776.041 (2013)
(“The justification described in the preceding sections . . . is not available to a person who . . . (2)
[i]nitially provokes the use of force against himself . . . .”).

The primary substantive error in your text is the mistaken order. You have the sequence as:

(1) The dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to pursue the teenager.
(2) Zimmerman disregarded this warning and set out on foot to follow the youth.

Self-defense cases are always exquisitely fact sensitive, and the sequence of events is of course critical. In fact, you’ve placed the sequence of events backwards, and stripped them of context that likely played a critical role in the jury’s conception of that night’s events.

In fact, the sequence of events as they actually occurred is:

(1) Zimmerman informed the dispatcher that Martin had fled from sight around the corner of a building.
(2) The dispatcher asked Zimmerman where Martin was running to.
(3) Unable to observe Martin from his vehicle, Zimmerman exited the vehicle and set out on foot to look around the corner of the building.
(4) The dispatcher, sensing that Zimmerman had exited his vehicle, asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.
(5) Zimmerman affirmed that he was.
(6) The dispatcher advised Zimmerman, “We don’t need you to do that.”
(7) Zimmerman responded, “OK,” and began returning back to his vehicle.

On the way back to his vehicle Zimmerman concluded his call with 911. It was then that Zimmerman and Martin had their fateful encounter.

That my recounting of events is accurate is readily confirmable by listening to the 911 recording of Zimmerman speaking with the dispatcher. It is available from many sources, but for your convenience you can also listen to it here:

Zimmerman Trial: Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman disobey police orders to stay in car?

That post also has a transcript of the relevant portion of the recording.

As you can see, there’s a very good explanation for why the court did not grant the prosecution’s request for a first aggressor instruction. There is zero evidence–literally, none–to support a claim that Zimmerman was a first aggressor. He did not disregard dispatcher advice to not pursue the teenager, quite the contrary–he immediately complied. Indeed, it seems likely that the only reason Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to follow Martin in the first place was in the reasonable belief that the dispatcher was asking him to do so in order to ascertain Martin’s direction of travel.

Even if, however, Zimmerman HAD followed Martin in disregard of police instructions I am unaware of any state’s law that holds that merely following someone, absent malice (of which there was also no evidence) is sufficient to qualify as a first aggressor.

Frankly, the notion that a “first aggressor instruction would have saved the day” is just silly, once the actual facts of the case are known.

In any case, clients call. Again, I enjoyed your article, and I’m confident you’ll wish to make that correction.

Of course, it goes without saying that if you have actual evidence in support of your statement, I’ll adjust my understanding of the case accordingly.

Best regards,

Andrew

Andrew F. Branca
Attorney at Law (MA)
www.lawofselfdefense.com
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

I guess we’ll have to see what, if anything, happens.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Lies are simply the “Swiss knife” of the Collective in establishing and propagating the “narrative”.

They are never loath to use it, and feel no guilt when caught in a lie. Part of serving “the greater good”, no doubt.

After the North Carolina Attorney General had declared that the accused Duke lacrosse players were innocent, at least one instructor continued to use a text which held the case up as a typical example of white men exploiting black women.

It was too good an example to drop. Truth means nothing.

Andrew, you are BAD.

But it’s OK.
She asked for it.

I think it is also relevant to point out, if I remember correctly, the 911 operator testified in court that he had no authority to order a citizen to do anything and that they were not “Law Enforcement Officers”.

So even if Zimmerman had ignored an instruction from the 911 operator he still would have been perfectly within his rights.

    Good catch, ’74.

    Also, another inconvenient fact was that Trayvon was almost at his dad’s girlfriend’s townhome, quite a safe distance from the menacing Zimmerman, talking on the phone, when he reversed field, went back up the sidewalk to confront the pudgy cracker.

      “Good catch, ’74.

      Also, another inconvenient fact was that Trayvon was almost at his dad’s girlfriend’s townhome, quite a safe distance from the menacing Zimmerman, talking on the phone, when he reversed field, went back up the sidewalk to confront the pudgy cracker

      I thought the reason why Trayvon called Zimmerman a “creepy asscracker” was because Zimmerman was right behind him. Now you’re saying that Martin never saw Zimmerman, and automatically had supernatural powers to pinpoint where Zimmerman was, but didn’t know Zimmerman was armed with a loaded gun, a raging attitude, two years of training, a forty pound weight advantage, a violent and aggressive history which included an arrest for assaulting a police officer, and a reputation as a nutcase?
      And Zimmerman just liked the way the rain felt on his bald head that he just stood there feeling good?

        Yawn.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        Ragspierre in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 5:51 pm

        After he was ACQUITTED…

        how’d that whole Federal civil rights investigation go…???

        I bet life is a constant series of disappointment to you, huh?

        Gremlin1974 in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 6:49 pm

        Wow, that little screed was proof positive that you realize you are losing this argument badly. Let me explain to you why so that maybe you can use it to help you process your disappointment.

        The reason you lost is that we use these things called “Facts” here. We don’t use meme’s, talking points, wild accusations, or delusional suppositions. “Facts” are what they are.

        Secondly, we tend not to ignore the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty”, which is the opposite of how folks like you treated Zimmerman. So we don’t just assume that Zimmerman had some kind of malice we need proof of that malice and there simply isn’t any.

        Thirdly, you are arguing against a guy who is one of the recognized experts in self defense law in the country, who did exhaustive research on this case.

        So the words “destined to lose” come to mind.

Coker can read minds and determine intention. Awesome. We need more pretenders to god-hood. It’s ironic that her perceptions exceed her observations.

And now a lyrical interlude…

Pants on the Ground

JusticeDelivered | October 12, 2014 at 6:46 pm

About 30 or so years ago I had a lady of color working for me ask for three hours off to go a doctor. My response was that could but perhaps she should find a doctor who would not keep her waiting so long. She explained that the doctor was on the other side of town. The business was located in an industrial area. I asked why she didn’t use a nearby doctor. Her response was that she did not want to go any doctor who got their degree under affirmative action.

I mention this because I cannot help but wonder if Jones is a product of affirmative action.

Frankly, up until a few years ago I was somewhat sympathetic to black causes, that is no longer the case. My change of heart is a consequence of high profile bald faced black racism, much of which seems directed towards insurance and other shakedowns.

I think it is time to give those responsible some tough love.

Remind me, please, I’m getting a little fuzzy on the details.

(7) Zimmerman responded, “OK,” and began returning back to his vehicle.

On the way back to his vehicle Zimmerman concluded his call with 911.

As I recall, Zimmerman’s “OK” is verified by the tape, but we actually have no idea what he did immediately after saying that. There is no evidence that he pursued or followed Martin, but that doesn’t establish that he was heading back to his truck.

And again according to memory, Zimmerman’s call to the police was not a 911 call.

    Surely, your kidding. None of your points change anything of substance.

    We DO have evidence that Zimmerman complied with the suggestion–SUGGESTION–not to follow Martin, in that he responded affirmatively to the suggestion–SUGGESTION–not to do so.

    That IS evidence.

    There is NO evidence–ZERO–that he did NOT comply.

    And if you think the fact that Zimmerman called the non-emergency neighborhood watch provided POLICE phone number instead of the 911 POLICE phone number–both of which, by the way, ended up at the SAME dispatcher (he was equally likely to have answered a call to EITHER number)–is somehow relevant, well, then, whatever. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      tom swift in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 12, 2014 at 11:01 pm

      None of your points change anything of substance.

      So what? The people you’re criticizing will certainly pounce on them. You know perfectly well how lefties argue – they’re not stupid, but they have the brains of teenagers. They latch onto trivial misstatements and chew at them as if they’re actually important. And if they’re right, even if trivial, you’ve just handed them free ammunition.

      In a case like this, if you’re criticizing someone for lack of accuracy, meticulous accuracy is the one thing you yourself can’t neglect.

        I don’t write for THEM. THEY are already LOST.

        You think anything I write, or ANYBODY writes, is going to change the minds of the Ferguson protestors? The Al Sharpton’? The Eric Holders? The Barack Obamas?

        Huffington Post? Gawker? Vox?

        Of course not. Why would I bother?

        The lost are lost.

        I write for the living.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          MikadoCat in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 14, 2014 at 12:07 am

          Singing for the choir? Seems pointless, I write in the hopes that some are in the middle, going by headlines and gossip, and that they might be swayed by a few carefully placed totally accurate points.

          1) Nothing supports Zimmerman going south of the area where he talked with dispatch near the T junction in the paths behind the condos.

          2) The crime scene is near the T, not 100 yards to the south near Brandy Greens condo.

          3) All testimony has Trayvon confronting Zimmerman.

      There is NO evidence- ZERO- that Zimmerman did comply. And who would get off the phone with the dispatcher right then instead of staying on the phone until he was back in his vehicle?

      If you can believe that Trayvon called Zimmerman a “creepy asscracker”, which doesn’t seem far from the truth since his own damn family member accused him of sexual abuse before the case gained attention, you can also believe that Trayvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him, and that Zimmerman grabbed him in order for him to tell Zimmerman to get off him.

        “There is NO evidence- ZERO- that Zimmerman did comply. ”

        Surely you can’t be so stupid as to not understand that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

        If there’s no evidence either way, presumably even someone with the intellect of a frier chicken would understand that the presumption of innocence remains with the defendant.

        Do YOU not understand this?

        Really?

        Of course, in this case there IS evidence of Zimmerman complying with the SUGGESTION–dispatcher testified in court it was not, could not be, an “order”–the SUGGESTION that he need not follow Martin: Zimmerman was recorded live on 911 assenting “OK.”

        Any evidence to contradict that apparent compliance? Nope. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

        They skipped the civics and logic classes in your school, didn’t they? Didn’t they?

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        moonstone716 in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 7:48 am

        The evidence is the scene of the incident. It was clearly established (by witnesses, by the location of the body (and blood on the sidewalk) and it was on the path that Zimmerman had indicated — on a path between the place where he was asked to not follow Martin and his truck. Not further toward where he had seen Martin. Duh.

          “It was clearly established (by witnesses, by the location of the body (and blood on the sidewalk)”

          What “witnesses”, Zimmerman, who refused to testify and was never cross-examined? John Goode, who crumbled just like the other witnesses on the stand?

          “by the location of the body” The body was found yards away from the sidewalk in the grass.

          “blood on the sidewalk” Now you’re really imagining things. There was no blood found on the sidewalk from either Martin or Zimmerman.

          Hahaha! 🙂

          Acquitted.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Gremlin1974 in reply to moonstone716. | October 14, 2014 at 6:15 pm

          @rj

          You seem to imply that John Goode “crumbled” on the stand, which would seem to imply that the prosecution managed to make him “crumble”. (I actually watched this entire trial in real time and didn’t notice the “crumble” that you speak of, but for the purposes of good fiction I will go with it.) However, Mr. Goode was a witness called by the prosecution, (I know it was hard to tell the difference since most of the prosecution witnesses seemed to be testifying for the defense.) so if he did “crumble” it would have been under cross by the defense. (Not that it actually happened anyway.)

        MikadoCat in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 1:09 am

        When Trayvon ran there was no reason to think he was a danger, that he was not running out the rear entrance as all previous people had done. Physically there was no way Zimmerman could catch Trayvon, no corners to trap anyone, and no reason to think if Trayvon was still in the complex that he would not immediately run out the rear entrance if he saw someone looking for him.

        “Creepy asscracker” or snitch, both are given a beating in Trayvon’s culture with no other provocation needed.

        How close do you need to get to a stranger at night to ask them why they are following you, maybe twenty feet?

      stabwound in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 14, 2014 at 4:25 pm

      Here is why I believe Rachael is lying. She claims on her phone call that she heard Trayvon was relentlessly being followed by a man(George Zimmerman) who Trayvon could not get away from. She claims that both her and Trayvon concluded that Zimmerman may have been a potential rapist. Finally, after Trayvon finally gets away, she shortly later hears a ‘hard-breathing man’ approach trayvon and ask Trayvon ‘what are you doing here’. She then claims to hear Trayvon say ‘get off me’, and then the phone immediately shuts off. She then calls back ONCE, and then when Trayvon doesn’t answer she concludes it was no big deal and that it was just a fight and let the situation go. It is extraordinarily hard to believe that if Rachael heard what she claims she heard that she would simply chalk it up to a simple fight. I don’t find this believable coming from someone even as young as 18-even 12 for that matter. Her friend is relentlessly being followed by someone they both think might be a rapist, she hears her friend say ‘get off of me’, and she then concludes after all that it was only a fight. I believe almost everyone in her position that heard what she claimed to hear would have either called the police, sent their friend multiple texts to see if they were alright, called back multiple times, send them numerous messages on facebook, told a friend, or told a family member. She didn’t do any of those things. She called back ONCE. I can understand some people have an aversion to calling the cops. Fine. But, she didn’t do any of the things I wrote. This tells me she most likely had a very different conversation than the one she claims to have had with Trayvon.

        I wonder if you believe Jeantel was lying about the “creepy asscracker” comment as well?

          stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm

          Notice I claimed a very different conversation. Not a completely different conversation. It would make sense for Trayvon to call Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker” when he is being watched by Zimmerman, and followed for a short period of time. This seems believable. It doesn’t seem believable that she would think that Trayvon had simply gotten into a fight after claiming to hear Trayvon being relentlessly followed and then approached by the person they both considered a potential rapist, and then hear Trayvon shouting out “get off me, get off me”, and then the phone hangs up. Rachael Jeantel probably did what most liars do, they mix some truth into their lies. My friends cousin is a master at this. Just because someone didn’t lie about one thing in their story, doesn’t mean they didn’t lie about other things. So, the answer to your question is yes, I do believe(although I don’t know) that trayvon called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”.

          rj in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 7:04 pm

          but because that’s also how fights generally happen. There’s an escalation with pushing/grabbing before punching.

          I also believe that “creepy asscracker” would not have been said if Zimmerman was just standing and looking at Martin. It was said because Zimmerman kept following him, which is a hell of a lot more creepy than just standing and looking at him.

          I definitely believe that “creepy asscracker” was not far from the truth. Since you mention “cousin”, your hero Zimmerman’s own damn cousin accused him of sexual abuse. And she is but one person among the many who have personally known or met Zimmerman and have had very negative experiences with him.

          Martin was called a “thug” as backlash from the right after the case got attention and Obama dared to respond to a questioner about it. Martin was no choir boy, but I can’t find anything provable about Martin that I myself had not done as a teenager and many other people, including Martin detractors had done as teenagers. I also don’t see how Martin could not have done like most other people, including myself, and straighten up and be like his older brother, who likely also experimented with pot, talked trash to his friends, and may have gotten into trouble in school. If Martin had not have been there and some other black kid had have been,especially if they were by themselves and preoccupied with gabbing on the phone not paying attention, and Zimmerman didn’t want them to “get away”, the same thing probably would have occurred.

          Zimmerman, on the other hand, seemed to be such a big failure as an adult that it is beyond pitiful. Even if Zimmerman had just left Martin alone and never shot anyone, Zimmerman would have been a complete failure, abuser, bully, psycho, and deviant. Any time your own family member accuses you of sexual abuse, anytime your bully people around anywhere and anytime like on your own damn job, anytime you get arrested for assaulting a cop, anytime you beat up women, anytime you threaten to kill people, you need your ass beaten.

          Zimmerman is the real thug, and you wingnuts are just so damn stupid that you still support him as if the trial wasn’t over. I hope one of you idiots run into Zimmerman and he threatens to kill your asses, just like he did that most recent person a month ago.

          stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 9:45 pm

          Nobody would call smoeone creepy for just watching them. What planet are you living in? go out in public and start watching strangers. See how many of them call you a creep. You don’t have to continuously follow someone to be considered a creep. As far as thinking Zimmerman is my hero, I don’t know where you got that from. You still haven’t responded to why Rachael would think Trayvon simply got into a fight and left it at that when she claims to have heard Trayvon being relentlessly followed by someone they both believed to be a potential rapist, and then heard Trayvon say to the potential rapist “get off me”. Who would not conclude that the situation was more serious than a simple fight after hearing that? Probably, nobody. Probably nobody would simply call back one, and that after not getting a response would leave it at that.

          stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm

          fights don’t always start off with pushing and shoving. many do and many don’t. I was a bouncer and I have seen plenty of fights where the fight was initiated by someone hauling off and punching someone without any previous physical contact. You seem to live in a bizzaro world where people won’t call people creepy simply for being watched-and yes it might be creepier to be continuously followed, but that doesn’t negate the very real possibility that someone would call someone creepy simply for being watched-, and fights always start with pushing and grabbing before punches are thrown. You are a very silly individual.

        “Notice I claimed a very different conversation. Not a completely different conversation. It would make sense for Trayvon to call Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker” when he is being watched by Zimmerman, and followed for a short period of time. This seems believable. It doesn’t seem believable that she would think that Trayvon had simply gotten into a fight after claiming to hear Trayvon being relentlessly followed and then approached by the person they both considered a potential rapist, and then hear Trayvon shouting out “get off me, get off me”, and then the phone hangs up. Rachael Jeantel probably did what most liars do, they mix some truth into their lies. My friends cousin is a master at this. Just because someone didn’t lie about one thing in their story, doesn’t mean they didn’t lie about other things. So, the answer to your question is yes, I do believe(although I don’t know) that trayvon called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”.”

        Oh I do believe that Martin was telling Zimmerman to get off of him. Not only was Martin’s drawstring yanked out all the way, which meant that Zimmerman was grabbing him (“THEY ALWAYS GET AWAY!”) and Martin was trying to pull away,

          Gremlin1974 in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 7:24 pm

          Or maybe Martin’s drawstring got pulled out because he was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was trying to get him off of him?

    Bruce Hayden in reply to tom swift. | October 12, 2014 at 7:21 pm

    The thing, I think, is that we do have evidence supporting AB’s contentions here – the video of Zimmerman’s reenactment for the police the next day. That is evidence. It was seen by the jury (and, interestingly apparently put on by the prosecution). And it was tied to the call to the police. Now one could claim that the testimony by Z was biased. But it was still evidence. And the problem for the prosecution, as well as all those claiming that things went down differently is that there really wasn’t any evidence to the contrary. Which I think is part of what AB is saying here – that none of the alternate scenarios are supported by any evidence, but rather mere conjecture. Which might work if the burdens of proof had been reversed – conjecture can sometimes overcome proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but is almost assured not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Except that it would have been irrelevant in any case, since there is no evidence whatever (or even serious conjecture) that Zimmerman ever went anywhere or was anywhere he wasn’t completely legally allowed to be, or did anything that he couldn’t legally do. Moreover, even if this prof had been correct that Zimmerman lost his right of self defense through following Martin (he didn’t), Martin was still not privileged to utilize deadly force, and, thus Zimmerman was legally entitled to use deadly force in self defense of deadly force being used against him.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to tom swift. | October 12, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    A couple more things.

    I think that the fact that Zimmerman called t

    MikadoCat in reply to tom swift. | October 13, 2014 at 11:54 pm

    I agree, when talking about the Zimmerman case it is crucial not to nail the known facts of the case, and to keep speculation, however well informed separate from solid facts.

    As I recall Bernie made the false claim during his closing argument that Zimmerman disobeyed orders and followed Zimmerman.

    I see this error, or that Zimmerman was ordered to stay in his truck, frequently.

    Refuting false information requires scrupulously accurate information, free of speculation or even minor errors.

    Zimmerman called the non emergency number, not 911. The difference is intent, for a suspected criminal you would call 911.

    The reason for Zimmerman getting out of his truck is NOT clear. The dispatch question might be part of the reason, but past history of previous Zimmerman calls shows him as unwilling to approach anyone suspicious. I would argue Zimmerman gets out because all previous suspicious people ran out the rear entrance just as it appeared Trayvon was doing. Getting out and running to an area where a silhouette would be visible if someone ran out the rear entrance might save the police a wasted trip and let Zimmerman continue on his way to the store.

    When Dispatch asks, “are you following”, Zimmerman says yeah. When dispatch says, ” we don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman says, “OK” and running sounds stop and his breathing returns to normal. Zimmerman does no go back to his truck at this point, he talks with dispatch for another minute or so about whether a car should still come back, his contact information and where cops should meet him.

    About two minutes have no hard evidence about what happens, only testimony from Zimmerman and Jeantel. Both accounts have Trayvon running away out of Zimmerman’s sight toward Brandy Greens condo and the rear entrance.

    Zimmerman says he walks east on the path to the next street to get a street address to give to the police when they arrive. This location also should have a direct view to the rear entrance 100 yards to the south. Zimmerman tries to get his flashlight working, then walks west toward his truck and is confronted by Trayvon near the T where he stopped while talking to dispatch.

    Jeantel says Trayvon runs out of Zimmerman’s sight to near Brandy Green’s condo, but does not go in, the speak for some time and Trayvon says that he sees Zimmerman. Unclear how much later it is Trayvon confronts Zimmerman.

      “Zimmerman called the non emergency number, not 911. The difference is intent, for a suspected criminal you would call 911.”

      This is utter nonsense. Testimony at trial was that neighborhood watch was trained that if they saw a crime being committed to call 911, if they merely saw someone suspicious to call the non-emergency number.

      Zimmerman observed Martin walking beside condo units, off the sidewalks, in the rain, peering through windows, in a community that had been ravaged by robberies committed by young black men. If Martin’s behavior doesn’t qualify as suspicious, it’s hard to image what would.

      The call to the non-emergency number and keeping eyes on Martin (neighborhood WATCH) while in communication with police was entirely consistent with Zimmerman’s neighborhood watch training by the police department.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        Andrew Branca: Zimmerman observed Martin walking beside condo units, off the sidewalks, in the rain, peering through windows, in a community that had been ravaged by robberies committed by young black men.

        That’s what it looks like when someone is talking on a cellphone hands-free; their eyes meander. At least when they are young and black.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 14, 2014 at 2:55 pm

          Wow. You are really a bigot.

          Well…and a liar.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | October 14, 2014 at 3:36 pm

          Where exactly is the connection between race and behavior while talking “handsfree” on a cell phone. (BTW, I have seen no evidence that Martin was using a hands free device, other than in your non-fact based narrative.) Also, before you make a more of an ass out of yourself let me go ahead and tell you that I am a psych-nurse with more than 10 years experience in behavior modification/management, including forensic psych (that means working with criminals just so you don’t have to look it up.) So I am pretty well versed in how humans act.

          “That’s what it looks like when someone is talking on a cellphone hands-free; their eyes meander. At least when they are young and black.”

          I would also point out that what you are basically saying that a young black man can’t use a hands free device without their eyes meandering. So is it impossible for a young black man to walk in a goal directed purposeful manner while using a hands free device?

          Also, I note that you use the term “our” when describing your beliefs. Who is “our” and can anyone but you see them?

          Gremlin1974: (BTW, I have seen no evidence that Martin was using a hands free device, other than in your non-fact based narrative.)

          http://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/trayvondead.jpg

          Gremlin1974: I would also point out that what you are basically saying that a young black man can’t use a hands free device without their eyes meandering.

          All young people using hands-free tend to look odd, but when they are young and black, there’s a tendency to think of them as threatening because they are acting opposed to the expectation. You’re a psych-nurse. Should we provide you studies which show that a black man with a hammer is considered more threatening than a white man with a hammer in blind tests?

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm

          …to Jesse Jackson…

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | October 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm

          @Zachriel

          I can’t actually access the photo you linked to, however I did examine crime scene photo’s at other locations and I can see a pair of ear buds laying next to his head, I can’t say for sure that its a hands free device but I am willing to say that it could be, so I will conceded that he may have been using a hands free device.

          Now as far as your follow up on the behavior, once again you imply that anyone who sees a black person on a hands free device is always going to see them as threatening and frankly that is bull crap. That is like saying all white people are racist, it isn’t true, provable, or very intelligent. You can’t paint with broad strokes, do you also believe that all blonds are less intelligent than other folks?

          As far as your “studies” I am probably more familiar with them than you are and one thing they tend to do is try to prove racism, so they ignore things like actual crime statistic from the FBI, but I guess they are just racist as well. The “studies” you would most likely point out are just more skewed pseudo science to try to give the race baiters something to point to.

          Personally, I wouldn’t look at someone an think anything based on their color, but then again black people don’t scare me, unlike they obviously do you.

          Remember not everyone see’s things though the lens of race, even if you do.

          Gremlin1974: Now as far as your follow up on the behavior, once again you imply that anyone who sees a black person on a hands free device is always going to see them as threatening and frankly that is bull crap.

          Kids look odd to many adults when talking handsfree. They often don’t walk in a straight line, but meander stop and turn in place, as do their eyes. When a black kid does it, people are more likely to see the strange behavior as threatening.

          Gremlin1974: The “studies” you would most likely point out are just more skewed pseudo science to try to give the race baiters something to point to.

          In order to show that, you would have to actually consider the methodology. A common experiment is to show people whites and blacks holding either tools or guns. Tools held by blacks are more likely to be misidentified as guns than tools held by whites.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | October 14, 2014 at 7:19 pm

          “Kids look odd to many adults when talking handsfree.”

          Considering the number of adults that use hands free these days that is just utter crap.

          “They often don’t walk in a straight line, but meander stop and turn in place,”

          Sure some do, I wouldn’t go so far as to say most or all.

          “as do their eyes.”

          Since it is doubtful that Zimmerman could see Martin’s eyes, this is a moot point.

          “When a black kid does it, people are more likely to see the strange behavior as threatening.”

          I will be as polite as I possibly can and say that is is nothing more than race baiting horse shit.

          “In order to show that, you would have to actually consider the methodology. A common experiment is to show people whites and blacks holding either tools or guns.”

          Yep, you do have to look at methodology. You also have to look at the sample used. In all of the studies I have seen the same reactions were shown regardless of the race of the person being asked the question. In other words even blacks had the same reactions as whites, which pretty much blows the whole racism thing out of the water.

          “Tools held by blacks are more likely to be misidentified as guns than tools held by whites.”

          And you would like to believe that this is due to racism, you are free to believe what you will. If I meet you in a dark alley and you point what looks like a gun at me, even if it is plastic you are gonna get shot. What race the person who is pointing the gun at me will never enter the equation, especially not before the first 2 rounds have gone down range.

          Gremlin1974: Considering the number of adults that use hands free these days that is just utter crap.

          Except that what Zimmerman considers suspicious behavior, “just staring” and “looking” around, is exactly the sort of behavior often seen among young people in hands-free conversation. In addition, Zimmerman notes that Martin has his hand in his waistband, something Zimmerman probably considered threatening, even though Martin didn’t have a weapon, and it was probably just Martin’s cell phone which was in his pocket. But you know, “these assholes they always get away”.

          Since it is doubtful that Zimmerman could see Martin’s eyes, this is a moot point.

          Gremlin1974: If I meet you in a dark alley and you point what looks like a gun at me, even if it is plastic you are gonna get shot.

          Which means you may very well kill an innocent person when it turns out to be a cell phone. And the fact is that people are more likely to misidentify an object as a weapon when held by a black.

        “This is utter nonsense. Testimony at trial was that neighborhood watch was trained that if they saw a crime being committed to call 911, if they merely saw someone suspicious to call the non-emergency number.

        Zimmerman observed Martin walking beside condo units, off the sidewalks, in the rain, peering through windows, in a community that had been ravaged by robberies committed by young black men. If Martin’s behavior doesn’t qualify as suspicious, it’s hard to image what would.”
        There were two breakins at most committed by two black males six months prior. They happened during the day (as residential burglaries typically happen) and involved the burglars ringing the doorbells to check if the residents were home (as what typically happens with residential burglaries) and when they received no answer, then they tried to open a sliding glass door.

        Trying to go around on foot in the evening ringing doorbells and knocking on doors while yacking on the phone at a time when residents are at home having supper and watching television is pretty unusual.

        Then there’s the race issue. Finding someone suspicious because they’re black is called RACIAL PROFILING. Just because two young black males six months prior attempted to break into a house in the day time doesn’t mean that another black male who’s going about his business talking on the phone at 7 pm is trying to break into a house.

        And “peering through windows” where were the witnesses who reported that someone was peering into their windows, since a lot more of the residents were present in their residences?

          Gremlin1974 in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 6:20 pm

          What “Race Issue”? Not even Eric Holder’s corrupt justice department could gather up even a single piece of evidence that Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin.

          From the 911 tape it is clear that Zimmerman wasn’t even sure if Martin was black.

          There was no racial profiling and there is no evidence that there was any profiling other than behavioral, except in the twisted minds of race baiting morons.

          rj in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 7:10 pm

          “What “Race Issue”? Not even Eric Holder’s corrupt justice department could gather up even a single piece of evidence that Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin.

          From the 911 tape it is clear that Zimmerman wasn’t even sure if Martin was black.

          There was no racial profiling and there is no evidence that there was any profiling other than behavioral, except in the twisted minds of race baiting morons.

          The justice department, which was not going to do anything to Zimmerman, said there was no evidence that Zimmerman murdered Martin because of his race, as opposed to murdering Martin because Zimmerman was a violent psycho who snapped while trying to save the day and prevent someone minding their own business from getting away.
          Zimmerman, per the NBC lawsuit, his friend Frank Taaffe, and his own defense team, still racially profiled Martin based on a team of two young black kids who attempted a break-in six months before in the daytime. That’s racial profiling, and that’s why Zimmerman’s frivolous NBC lawsuit was thrown out. That’s very different.
          “twisted minds of race baiting morons” like wingnuts?

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 15, 2014 at 5:18 pm

        @Zachriel |

        “Which means you may very well kill an innocent person when it turns out to be a cell phone.”

        How would someone who is threatening me be an “innocent”?

        “And the fact is that people are more likely to misidentify an object as a weapon when held by a black.”

        Complete fantasy.

          Gremlin1974: How would someone who is threatening me be an “innocent”?

          No one threatened you. You said you would shoot someone “in a dark alley” who you thought pointed what “looked like a gun” at you. As it is a dark alley, it’s easy to misidentify. It could be a kid with a toy, a teenager with a cellphone, a woman with a camera.

          Gremlin1974: Complete fantasy.

          Yes, those silly “scientists” proving “stuff” with their “experiments”. It’s much easier to wave your hands and pretend it isn’t there.

          Z’s become a typical boring Saturday Night Live character: “The Boring Zimmerman Conspiracy Guy.” 🙂

          Keep at it, Z. If not you, who? If not here, where? If not now . . . well, apparently FOREVER. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Andrew Branca: Zimmerman Conspiracy Guy

          We haven’t posed a conspiracy theory.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 15, 2014 at 7:30 pm

          Actually I was inarticulate in my description, I should have said if someone was threatening me in a dark alley and pointed what looked like a gun at me, I will take the hit on that one.

          “Yes, those silly “scientists” proving “stuff” with their “experiments”. It’s much easier to wave your hands and pretend it isn’t there.”

          Well I looked for your supposed “proven studies” and haven’t found anything credible yet.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 15, 2014 at 7:32 pm

          “We haven’t posed a conspiracy theory.”

          I am forced to agree that you haven’t posted any conspiracy theory, it was actually closer to delusional fantasy.

          And what is with this whole use of the Royal “We”, its kind of creepy.

          Gremlin1974: Well I looked for your supposed “proven studies” and haven’t found anything credible yet.

          Science doesn’t prove claims in the mathematical sense, but supports or contradicts them.

          Payne, Weapon Bias: Split-Second Decisions and Unintended Stereotyping, Current Directions in Psychological Science 2006.

          Correll et al., Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot: The role of threat perception and cognitive control, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2006.

          Jones & Fazio, Person categorization and automatic racial stereotyping effects on weapon identification, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2010.

          These studies, and others like them, have shown racial bias in perception, even for those who those actively trying to avoid it. If you have evidence to the contrary, perhaps you could cite the study.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 15, 2014 at 8:02 pm

          @Zachriel

          I will actually look at that study, thanks for the reference. I find them interesting. Once I have time to look it over I will post here with my thoughts.

          I don’t have any studies to post, I am not the one trying to prove a point, and asking for studies that contradict your point is asking me to prove a negative and I am not gonna go there.

I saw a wonderful metal sign for sale yesterday in a shop in Waynesville, NC.: Trespassers Will Be Shot. The Wounded Will Be Shot Again.

Me and The Queen are up here in The Great Smoky Mtns of western N.C. for 2-weeks and I’m thinking I’ll go back to Waynesville his week. ((-:

In Kalispell, MT for a couple of days, and you see signs like that around here. Dems pretty much have to show themselves with a gun somehow to get elected here. Did the trip up here today in just two hours. Tomorrow is supposed to be the one good day of the week, and the goal is to go into the park, and hopefully drive the Road to the Sun. She doesn’t travel we’ll so we shall see.

http://thefreedombulletin.com/2013/08/how-the-zimmerman-prosecution-blundered-and-lost/

“The next problem was that alleged “head banging”. This is not a common attack in a street fight for two reasons. First, even a beginner knows that the most effective attack from the mount is to punch down on their opponent. Trying to pick up someone’s head is like trying to lift a board that you’re sitting on. This is made even more improbable given that Zimmerman’s brother described his position as a “high mount” with Zimmerman’s arms being pinned to the pavement by Martin’s knees. The only necessary defense is to stiffen one’s neck, which appears to be exactly what Zimmerman claimed he did without knowing it, that he “crawled on his back” to get off the pavement, meaning that he had to arch his back, making “head banging” impossible. Then all Zimmerman had to do was arch his back with upward force and Martin would have gone flying off. (This isn’t some obscure and difficult martial arts trick. This is what 10 year olds are taught to do in martial arts classes.)

So why did Zimmerman cook up this questionable story about the head banging? –Because he had scratches on the back of his head that had to be explained. Outside his bloody nose, he didn’t have enough facial injuries to claim repeated punching.

My own analysis was made more secure in the fact that the defense seems to have accepted it. In their rebuttal, they put Martin, not seated on Zimmerman’s chest so that he couldn’t move, but in a ridiculous “low mount” with Martin sitting on Zimmerman’s thighs. Zimmerman could now get his gun, but the head banging or punching would be out of the question. To get out of that attack all Zimmerman would have to do is to roll over and the position would be broken. To save their scenario, the defense had Martin grab Zimmerman not by the head but by the shoulders, then body slamming him to the pavement. Anyone who thinks this is credible should try it with a live person, particularly one who’s bigger, while sitting on his thighs. The defense was lucky that proving this wrong was way over the heads of the prosecutors.

    Guess you should have testified at trial as an expert witness, given your incredible expertise.

    Wait, what? Not so much demonstrable expertise?

    Yeah.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Well, I guess you should have told Mark O’Mara that not even he could get Zimmerman’s story straight, either that or he knew that Zimmerman’s story was full of crap and had to change it on the fly with that mannequin, something that could never have been done with a live person.

      It doesn’t take an expert to see that it would be pretty damn hard and foolish looking if Mark O’Mara tried to reenact it the way Zimmerman claimed. Trying to grip a bald head and move it up and down without injuring your own fingers is real easy for someone who’s never tried it and doesn’t know a damn thing about reality.

        Man, I’ve got a 2-year-old who whines less than you.

        For God’s sake, go ask somebody for a pacifier and go to bed.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 13, 2014 at 10:00 am

          Well, hell.

          Despite the acquittal, Treyvon will become another “grassy knoll” or one of the myriad Lincoln assassination myths to people with no life, an agenda, and a passing knowledge of how things work…just enough never to get anything to work as they predict, but to sound like they know some damn thing.

          I guess this is to be expected of every killing of notoriety from now on.

          But, for the purposes of this subject, the academics just lied, and Treyvon…of whatever hue…was a thug and is dead.

          Yukio Ngaby in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 13, 2014 at 10:04 am

          LOL

        ConradCA in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 9:40 am

        The fact is that the injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head showed that his head was bashed into the concrete. The only rational explanation for this is that Trayvon did it to Zimmerman.

        However, the bashing of his head against the sidewalk wasn’t the only use of deadly force against Zimmerman. The fact that Trayvon had Zimmerman’s arms pinned and was unable to defend himself from the blows that Trayvon rained down on his head makes this another use of deadly force against Zimmerman by Trayvon. This by it’s self justifies Zimmerman shooting Trayvon in self defense.

          “The fact is that the injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head showed that his head was bashed into the concrete. The only rational explanation for this is that Trayvon did it to Zimmerman.

          However, the bashing of his head against the sidewalk wasn’t the only use of deadly force against Zimmerman. The fact that Trayvon had Zimmerman’s arms pinned and was unable to defend himself from the blows that Trayvon rained down on his head makes this another use of deadly force against Zimmerman by Trayvon. This by it’s self justifies Zimmerman shooting Trayvon in self defense.

          Oh, yeah, I like how the scratch on the left side is so much higher than the scratch on the right side, yeah, Zimmerman’s head must have shrank. Trayvon must have been really good not to damage his fingers, and Zimmerman must really possess superhuman powers to only have two uneven scratches on his fat bald head without getting a concussion, fractured skull, spinal injuries from having his head jerked, etc. Oh I know, the reason why Zimmerman didn’t have any of those was because Martin wasn’t manipulating his head, Martin was picking Zimmerman up by THE SHOULDERS JUST LIKE MARK O’MARA IS REENACTING IN THE PICTURE WITH THE MANNEQUIN!!!! Trayvon Martin was SOOO STRONG, that he was even doing this while sitting on Zimmerman’s THIGHS just like MARK O’MARA IS REENACTING IN THE PICTURE WITH THE MANNEQUIN!!!!

          Are you crying, rj?

          Oofah.

          Take a break, dude. I’m sure another white Hispanic will lawfully shoot another black attacker sometime soon, and you can get a fresh start.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Gremlin1974 in reply to ConradCA. | October 14, 2014 at 6:55 pm

          @rj

          I can make your whole argument go away just by pointing out that the level of injury to the back of Zimmerman’s doesn’t really matter, because the law doesn’t say that you actually have to be injured. It says that you must be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, not that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm. If you can’t understand the dynamic that having someone hit you in the face while the back of your head is against a solid surface could lead to grave bodily harm and therefore make that fear reasonable, well then either you are mentally deficient or willfully ignorant. I am betting on the second.

          “Take a break, dude. I’m sure another white Hispanic will lawfully shoot another black attacker sometime soon, and you can get a fresh start.” The “white Hispanic” hero of yours threatened to shoot a white “attacker” last month. I wonder why you haven’t gotten a start on that, hmmm?

          Zimmerman has a long history of people making accusations.

          And none of them–NONE–have stuck.

          Is the problem Zimmerman? Or is the problem the multiple failed accusers?

          🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          “I can make your whole argument go away just by pointing out that the level of injury to the back of Zimmerman’s doesn’t really matter, because the law doesn’t say that you actually have to be injured. It says that you must be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, not that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm. If you can’t understand the dynamic that having someone hit you in the face while the back of your head is against a solid surface could lead to grave bodily harm and therefore make that fear reasonable, well then either you are mentally deficient or willfully ignorant. I am betting on the second”

          You idiots put this article up which shows that you keep wanting to beat this dead horse. “reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm” does not mean losing your temper and going psycho in a wrestling match in the grass with someone YOU started with because you didn’t want them to “get away” is not “”reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm””, it’s called manslaughter.

          And if Andrew wanted to do one thing right concerning Zimmerman, it would be how the “white Hispanic” threatened an “attacker” who was white just last month. But Andrew doesn’t want to think that of his hero Zimmerman, who only has a record of violence, aggression and psychosis going back over a decade… Poor George, Andrew’s hero, everyone is always picking on him. That man he threatened last month only scared George. Poor George.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to ConradCA. | October 15, 2014 at 5:27 pm

          @rj

          “You idiots put this article up which shows that you keep wanting to beat this dead horse.”

          Seriously? You keep bringing up every Al Sharpton and Ben Crump false talking point, all of which were proven false at trial, and you claim others are beating a dead horse, LMAO.

          ‘“reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm” does not mean losing your temper and going psycho in a wrestling match in the grass with someone YOU started with because you didn’t want them to “get away” is not “”reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm””, it’s called manslaughter.’

          Well this entire screed is fantasy and/or delusion. There is no proof that Zimmerman lost his temper and there is no proof that he “started” anything. Also, it isn’t manslaughter as proven by the acquittal.

          “Zimmerman, who only has a record of violence, aggression and psychosis going back over a decade…”

          All of which is nothing more than pure delusion.

          Ragspierre in reply to ConradCA. | October 15, 2014 at 8:00 pm

          rj seems to have a real queer on for George Zimmerman.

          Which explains a lot…

        cazinger in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 5:47 pm

        I guess you didn’t see Mark O’Mara’s closing argument. He DID acknowledge discrepencies in George Zimmerman’s story and he addressed those. It would be hard to imagine someone getting 100% of every single detail correct when recounting a physical confrontation they were involved in, where that physical confrontation included them getting a broken nose and suffering wounds to the back of the head on a drizzly night down a poorly lit path and in which they felt they were in a fight for their lives, culminating in their shooting of a young man and taking his life. If Zimmerman HAD gotten every single detail correct, and if none of the details varied in any way from telling to telling, that would have seemed too rehearsed.

        Frankly, I think some of the hostility your experiencing in the posts responding to you is really just frustration from people who DID watch most of the trial – a trial in which almost every witness the prosecution called wound up being a better witness for the defense than the prosecution. A trial where you basically had the investigating detectives testifying that they believed George Zimmerman was, by and large, despite some MINOR discrepencies (which, like I said, would be expected from one telling to the next) telling the truth. The few prosecution witnesses that were unequivocally on the prosecution’s side (such as that medical examiner) wound up being completely discredited.

        Even if we gave your analysis 100% credibility, what would that even prove? It might prove, when giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt (which we all know is 180 degrees backwards from where the benefit of the doubt is to go in criminal cases) that George Zimmerman was shook up that night and that he got some of the details of the encounter wrong. At the very worst it might show he was dishonest about those details (though, considering the corroborating testimony, that he had no idea if it would be forthcoming, even that is a HUGE stretch) in the hopes of bolstering his self defense case. In no set of circumstances does it come close to showing that GZ was guilty of criminal homicide of any degree.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to cazinger. | October 13, 2014 at 7:02 pm

          Also just due to the vagaries of human recall there are always discrepancies in any retelling of a set of events, especially when coming down off of an adrenalin high vs in a nice safe environment.

          stabwound in reply to cazinger. | October 13, 2014 at 11:32 pm

          I replied to your comment below.

    “First, even a beginner knows that the most effective attack from the mount is to punch down on their opponent.”

    Hey, are you willing to do an empirical experiment?

    Let me “low mount” you with your head over a sidewalk and let’s see if I can’t bang your head on that sidewalk.

    You say it’s impossible, right? So what harm could possibly result?

    Sure, I’ll fly to you, my cost. Any state in which I can be legally armed.

    And, of course, you’ll have to sign a release. A very comprehensive release.

    When the phone doesn’t ring, I guess that’ll be you.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 13, 2014 at 3:17 am

      I am guessing the only Self Defense or Hand to Hand experience RJ actually has came from the poorly written article he used as his source.

      AB: “When the phone doesn’t ring, I guess that’ll be you.”

      Dang snort worthy.

      Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 13, 2014 at 10:44 am

      Be SURE to bring SEVERAL cameras for your video.

      It’ll be both instructive and a laugh riot…!!!

      Andrew Branca: Let me “low mount” you with your head over a sidewalk and let’s see if I can’t bang your head on that sidewalk.

      Martin’s body was more than a body roll from the sidewalk.
      https://mysteryquest1.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg

        As usual, when called on one of your false claims–that when mounted on a victim it is physically impossible to pound that victim’s head on the ground–you change the subject to another of your false claims.

        No one claims that Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk at the moment he was shot and rolled off Zimmerman’s body. Having failed to beat out Zimmerman’s brains, Martin undoubtedly discovered that his still conscious victim was desperately screaming and trying to squirm away from the beating.

        Fights are not static, the people move around, even after the aggressor has struck his victim to the ground and mounted him.

        You’re simply growing tiresome now, after repeatedly making false statements of fact. This is not a forum for the propagation of disinformation.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Andrew Branca: You’re simply growing tiresome now, after repeatedly making false statements of fact.

          You haven’t pointed to any misstatement of fact. However, you did misrepresent our position.

          Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm

          This is Zachie’s MO. He lies. He is pinned. He goes to another lie.

          He also likes very careful word-games, often so ambiguous that NOBODY understands WTF his point is, and which allow him to slither away.

          “Fights are not static, the people move around, even after the aggressor has struck his victim to the ground and mounted him.”
          You’re right about that one thing, people move around, and that’s why it’s complete b.s. to believe that Trayvon Martin, with absolutely no training in grappling, could just hold Zimmerman who was multiple weight classes heavier than he was, and pick him up and body slam him on the pavement. It’s also a complete distortion of reality to believe that Martin to just freeze in mid air and allow Zimmerman to calmly reach in to his waistband, pull out his gun, methodically aim his gun in mid air, and pull one clean shot right in Martin’s heart underneath that photobutton Martin was wearing, without Martin trying to stop him.

          You’re talking about the angelic 12-year-old Trayvon?

          Or the pot smoking, thieving, illegal gun possessing, aggravated assaulting Trayvon?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      “Let me “low mount” you with your head over a sidewalk and let’s see if I can’t bang your head on that sidewalk.

      You say it’s impossible, right? So what harm could possibly result?

      Sure, I’ll fly to you, my cost. Any state in which I can be legally armed.

      And, of course, you’ll have to sign a release. A very comprehensive release.

      I think someone has to sign a release for you to get out of the psych ward, idiot. You’re very welcome to try that out on a live person in a live ground situation, and see how fast you, yourself, will get hurt. Try to do it just like Mark O’Mara is doing with that mannequin too. The SHOULDERS, Andrew. Not the head, the SHOULDERS!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!!

    TB in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 10:04 am

    RJ… from what I understand, Zimmerman’s head was bouncing off the sidewalk from the force of the blows being rained down on him. Not because his head was being lifted up by Martin and then slammed back into the sidewalk.

    I think you ARE informed of the facts of the case and you’re intentionally distorting and spreading misinformation.

    Nice play at being the MMQB though.

      rj in reply to TB. | October 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm

      “RJ… from what I understand, Zimmerman’s head was bouncing off the sidewalk from the force of the blows being rained down on him. Not because his head was being lifted up by Martin and then slammed back into the sidewalk.

      I think you ARE informed of the facts of the case and you’re intentionally distorting and spreading misinformation.

      Nice play at being the MMQB though.”

      Doesn’t look that way in the photograph or O’Mara, doesn’t it? It looks like O’Mara is neither picking up the mannequin by its head (and risking breaking his own fingers) or “bouncing off the sidewalk from the force of the blows being rained down on him.” (HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHHA ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT A VISUAL!!! HAHAHAHHAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!OH GOD HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ahem,) Not at all, it sure looks like O’Mara is picking the mannequin up by the FREAKING SHOULDERS, and body slamming it.

      Since you want to play idiot’s advocate (along with Andrew Branca and the other wingnuts), could you tell me how Martin was able to do this without breaking his own hands and wrists, and without leaving significant injuries to Zimmerman’s face?

        “could you tell me how Martin was able to do this without breaking his own hands and wrists, and without leaving significant injuries to Zimmerman’s face?”

        Sure. Exactly as O’Mara was doing it in the pic at the top of the post.

        You’re welcome. 🙂

        (Also, don’t forget those meds. The green fish will come out of the ceiling again.)

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        Ragspierre in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 6:16 pm

        I bet you’re a big noise among the other Kos-sacks (0’crap).

        You did know that Zimmerman is a Barracula supporter, right?

        O’Mara, too.

        Here, you’re just another idiot, trying to remake history.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 7:00 pm

        “Since you want to play idiot’s advocate (along with Andrew Branca and the other wingnuts),”

        Yep, typical response from a liberal, if you can’t win the argument then start calling people names and laughing at them as if they are the ones who aren’t making sense.

    Paul in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    That is a complete load of shit. I have had six years of martial arts training in various styles and wrestled. Additionally, when I was younger I was a ‘hot head’ and have been in my fair share of street fights.

    I can tell you from training and experience that ramming someone’s head into the ground is a VERY effective way to beat the shit out of them. If you’re in a mount position (on top of their torso with them pinned under you) and your hands are free you can strike to the head and cause their head to ram into the ground, multiplying the effect of your blow. If they lock up your hands to prevent straight out blows to the head, you can come down with your elbows, bashing their head into the ground.

    But more importantly, if you’ve mounted someone who knows how to grapple, he/she will try to get you in a ‘guard’ position where they lock their legs around you to gain some control of you… potentially moving you into some devastating joint locks or choke holds. If this happens and you are strong enough and there is not a major weight/strength disadvantage, you can raise your opponent off the ground and slam them back down, thus striking their head into the ground. I did this to a guy once and knocked him out cold.

      It’s the same-old, same-old Progressive playbook, Paul.

      If they didn’t have lies, they’d have nothing to say at all.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      stabwound in reply to Paul. | October 13, 2014 at 11:31 pm

      my reply is underneath yours.

      rj in reply to Paul. | October 14, 2014 at 6:16 pm

      “That is a complete load of shit. I have had six years of martial arts training in various styles and wrestled. Additionally, when I was younger I was a ‘hot head’ and have been in my fair share of street fights.

      I can tell you from training and experience that ramming someone’s head into the ground is a VERY effective way to beat the shit out of them. If you’re in a mount position (on top of their torso with them pinned under you) and your hands are free you can strike to the head and cause their head to ram into the ground, multiplying the effect of your blow. If they lock up your hands to prevent straight out blows to the head, you can come down with your elbows, bashing their head into the ground.” You’re talking about shit that had nothing to do with the case. Mark O’Mara did not say that Martin was sitting on ZImmerman’s chest, he claimed Martin was sitting on ZImmerman’s THIGHS. Zimmerman clearly claimed that Martin had grabbed hold of his bald head (hahahahahah in the rain too!!! Hahhahahah!!). Not only did Zimmerman not claim that Martin picked him up by the shoulders and body slam him repeatedly (HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAH) like O’Mara is doing with the mannequin in the picture, but Zimmerman CERTAINLY wasn’t quite creative enough to come up with a story that Martin was DRIBBLING his head by hitting him in the face and Zimmerman’s head coming up (HAHAHAHAHHAAA DO YOU IDIOTS REALIZE THAT IF YOU LAY DOWN ON THE GROUND AND MOVE YOUR HEAD UP, THERE’s ONLY A FEW INCHES OF RANGE OF MOTION?!!?) and Martin hitting in the face and Zimmerman bounces right back up, and Martin hitting him in the face and Zimmerman bounces right back up (AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAH OH MY GOD!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Zimmerman never even had the creativity to even claim that he ever even tried to grab Martin’s hands.

      But more importantly, if you’ve mounted someone who knows how to grapple, he/she will try to get you in a ‘guard’ position where they lock their legs around you to gain some control of you… potentially moving you into some devastating joint locks or choke holds. If this happens and you are strong enough and there is not a major weight/strength disadvantage, you can raise your opponent off the ground and slam them back down, thus striking their head into the ground. I did this to a guy once and knocked him out cold.
      ” Thanks for the tip, Royce, but Zimmerman never claimed that he tried to pull guard on Martin, he also never claimed, despite Mark O’Mara with the mannequin, that Martin PICKED HIM UP AND BODY SLAMMED HIM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

      Thanks for adding thing that not only never happened, but were never even claimed by Zimmerman. I would love to grapple you sometime, I would choke your ass out in seconds, and if you put guard on my, I wouldn’t pass it, I would hump you like a woman.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 7:06 pm

        I don’t know what if funnier your idle threat or the implication that you know how to “hump a woman”. I showed one of my female students your comment and she said she is willing to take your challenge because she is sure, and I quote, ” that she isn’t the one who would be crying like a girl when it was all over.” Btw, she is a 4th Dan Aikidoka, I really wouldn’t make her angry if I were you.

          “I don’t know what if funnier your idle threat or the implication that you know how to “hump a woman”. I showed one of my female students your comment and she said she is willing to take your challenge because she is sure, and I quote, ” that she isn’t the one who would be crying like a girl when it was all over.” Btw, she is a 4th Dan Aikidoka, I really wouldn’t make her angry if I were you.”

          Thanks for the tip,Royce, I’m sure your student, the 4th Dan Aikidoka, must really be angry like Zimmerman if she found out that she was duped into being “taught” by a charlatan like yourself.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 14, 2014 at 7:26 pm

          🙂

        Paul in reply to rj. | October 15, 2014 at 1:27 am

        I have never seen anyone beclown themself so thoroughly as you have on this thread…..anywhere, ever.

        Congratulations, you have won the Biggest Fucking Moron Liar of the entire internet award.

        And as far as your homoerotic fantasies go, all your imaginary grappling makes sense now. You were the nerd that cleaned the boys locker room and fantasized about humping dudes. Pathetic. Be careful who you try that stunt on there…. you’re likely to get your peanut-sized nads cut out and stuffed down your throat.

    stabwound in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    You, sir, do not know what you are talking about. I have a 2nd degree black belt in combat sambo, and I have never heard of someone being taught to simply buck off the person mounted on top. This may work with little children, but, not against a 160 pound atheletic 17 year old. It would be Physically impossible. A 200 pound, 5’7 man(even if he was built like Henry Rolling-which Zimmerman was not) could not simply buck a full 160 pound man through the air to get him off of him. Also, you said that in order to move back Zimmerman would have to arch his back. That is not how it works. One can move back while being mounted by using a maneuver called shrimping. Shrimping doesn’t utilize back arching, It requires one to lean on their side. Back arching is part of reversing someone mounted on top. Something that even experienced martial artists have a difficult time with; especially, when the person mounted on top is reigning down blows. I used to be a bar room bouncer and I have seen on numerous occasions someone mounted on top of a person banging the person on the bottoms head repeatedly against the ground. It happens all the time. You are simply talking out of your hat.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to stabwound. | October 14, 2014 at 12:20 am

      Sambo, Ouch you do like to roughhouse don’t ya, lol. 🙂

      “You, sir, do not know what you are talking about. I have a 2nd degree black belt in combat sambo, and I have never heard of someone being taught to simply buck off the person mounted on top. This may work with little children, but, not against a 160 pound atheletic 17 year old. It would be Physically impossible. A 200 pound, 5’7 man(even if he was built like Henry Rolling-which Zimmerman was not) could not simply buck a full 160 pound man through the air to get him off of him. Also, you said that in order to move back Zimmerman would have to arch his back. That is not how it works. One can move back while being mounted by using a maneuver called shrimping. Shrimping doesn’t utilize back arching, It requires one to lean on their side. Back arching is part of reversing someone mounted on top. Something that even experienced martial artists have a difficult time with; especially, when the person mounted on top is reigning down blows. I used to be a bar room bouncer and I have seen on numerous occasions someone mounted on top of a person banging the person on the bottoms head repeatedly against the ground. It happens all the time. You are simply talking out of your hat.”

      “2nd degree black belt in combat sambo” HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! STOP IT, YOU’RE MAKING ME LAUGH!! HAHAHAHAH!!!

      “I have never heard of someone being taught to simply buck off the person mounted on top. This may work with little children, but, not against a 160 pound atheletic 17 year old.” First of all, have you seen Martin’s body? I’m not talking about the Holister shirt picture of him where he’s 15 years old (yes, Martin was not 12 years old in that photo, he was fifteen years old), but the picture of him when he was murdered and the footage of him before at the convenience store? The kid was a string bean. And if Martin was “atheletic”, he had no grappling experience whatsoever and that wrestling match with Zimmerman was his first and only one, but unfortunately for him, he was dealing with am armed paranoid psycho who outweighed him by multiple weight classes and could teach him a thing or two about being a REAL thug since he assaulted a cop and abused women, among other things over the years.

      “A 200 pound, 5’7 man(even if he was built like Henry Rolling-which Zimmerman was not) could not simply buck a full 160 pound man through the air to get him off of him”
      You don’t think you can shake off someone with no grappling experience whatsoever that you outweigh by multiple weight classes, especially since Mark O’Mara said that Martin wasn’t even sitting on Zimmerman’s chest, but his THIGHS instead?? HAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

      “I used to be a bar room bouncer” Good, you have something in common with your hero, Zimmerman! YAY!!!

      “and I have seen on numerous occasions someone mounted on top of a person banging the person on the bottoms head repeatedly against the ground. It happens all the time.” Bullshit, if you were a bouncer, you wouldn’t have even let a fight go to that point. Yep, you have yet ANOTHER thing in common with your hero Zimmerman, you’re both liabilities! YAY!. I would agree that trying to manipulate someones head with your hands might be a little simpler if that had long hair to grab onto and they were already unconscious when you started putting your hands on their head, but otherwise, fights on the ground and standing up are dynamic and not static, no one is going to just lay their and let you put your hands on their head, regardless whether they had hair or if they were bald like Zimmerman was. Trying to grab their head would also be a waste of time, since they’re going to stiffening their neck and likely grabbing onto their hands, and you’re risking doing damage to your own hands and fingers (which Trayvon martin’s autopsy showed he had none) trying to move the head a few inches. A completely untrained kid with absolutely no clue whatsoever on the ground is definitely risking his balance by trying to do this to a man who outweighs him by forty pounds, regardless of how much or no training the man has (and Zimmerman did have a year and a half of training). So, as far as you go, you don’t have a damn clue of what you’re talking about. If you had me in the mount, I would damn sure want you to put yourself off balance trying to do something that no one with a shred of experience ever thinks about trying, your ass is going to get reversed easily.

        My family used to own a Chihuahua–the “yapper,” I called it.

        Thanks, rj, for bringing back some fond memories.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 10:11 pm

        No bouncer gets to all fights as soon as they start. Especially when they happen outside of the bar. Bouncers can’t be at all places at all time to stop fights as soon as they start. Also, I have had to be part of a team of bouncers breaking up brawls where it is impossible to break up all the fights immediately. You do your best to prevent fights, and you do your best to break up fights as soon as they happen. Unfortunately, It doesn’t always work that way. Every bouncer I know of has seen people get the crap kicked out of them on their watch. It sucks,but, it is true. Wether Trayvon was athelitic and trim, or a string bean, 160 pounds is to much weight for the person on the bottom to simply buck the person off. How do you know Trayvon has never wrestled or grappled before. Plenty of people who aren’t formally trained in wrestling have wrestled before.

    stabwound in reply to rj. | October 13, 2014 at 11:47 pm

    you sir no nothing about the mount. You can not simply rollover while the person is mounted on top of your thighs to remove the threat. What are you talking about.

      “stabwound” AHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! says:
      “you sir no nothing about the mount. You can not simply rollover while the person is mounted on top of your thighs to remove the threat. What are you talking about.”

      Guess what, sitting on someone’s thighs, is not an optimal way to control them, especially since Martin was completely inexperienced, and was outweighed by Multiple weight classes. If someone “mounted” you, you would much rather have them do it like that (in addition to their being much lighter than you) so you can have a lot less to worry about and have it much easier to stalemate or escape them.
      Your words “you sir no nothing about the mount” apply to yourself.

        stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 10:51 pm

        If Zimmerman was shrimping Trayvon would have been moved below zimmermans waist for whatever period of time. Nobody is claiming that Trayvon was mounted on Zimmermans thighs the whole time. He would have been mounted at different places on top of Zimmerman at different times. YOU, Sir, ARE A LIAR. You know nothing about fighting. I would like to know what your supposed background in MMA is. YOU ARE A LIAR. I have showed your writings to my bouncer friends and they concurred that you are talking out your behind. YOU ARE A LIAR

    stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 10:44 pm

    YOu, sir, are a liar. you know nothing about fighting. Their is no such thing as the person on the bottom being mounted having a weight advantage because they weigh more than the person mounting them. The weight advantage is with the person on top because of gravity. Trayvon would have had a 160 pound weight advantage, while George Zimmerman would have no weight advantage while being mounted by trayvon. George Zimmerman had 10 months of MMA training mostly focused on weight loss, not a year in a half. Zimmerman’s trainer said zimmerman was fat, weak, soft, unatheletic, a rank beginner, and a 1 on a scale of 1 through ten. Hardly the tesimony that would back the assertion that Zimmermans MMA training would have helped him in a street fight. You are a bold faced liar. I have showed you writings to my friends who have MMA training and they all agree that you are full of it. YOU ARE A LIAR. YOU ARE A LIAR.

amatuerwrangler | October 13, 2014 at 1:44 am

You flushed out a couple of winners tonight, Andrew. Wow.

And if this law prof is a representative sample, I can see why newly minted lawyers have such a time getting jobs. Instructors like her will have those “heads full of mush” leaving the institution even mushier. Sheeesh.

Listen up folks (you know who you are): a long time ago a person much wiser than myself noted that it is better to sit silently and be thought a fool than to speak up and erase all doubt.

I’m afraid to hit that link rj offered but I will be happy to suggest that the blunder the Zimmerman prosecution committed was the filing of the case when there existed no evidence to convict him. It went down hill from there.

    Everyone including the prosecution knew that GZ was innocent and would be found innocent. The trial was an attempt to placate the ignorant mobs that wanted GZ’s head on a spike to gain political points. Obviously, a lot of damage was done as a result of this gratuitous show trial.

    “I’m afraid to hit that link rj offered but I will be happy to suggest that the blunder the Zimmerman prosecution committed was the filing of the case when there existed no evidence to convict him. It went down hill from there.”

    Well, you are afraid. That’s the only thing you have right.
    So many lawyers have commented on the laundry list of screw-ups that the prosecution (conservatives, just like you wingnuts) made in that trial, but it would not have taken a lawyer to see that if you actually watched the trial.

    Zimmerman supporters really believed that the sky is green instead of blue and that Zimmerman, who was never cross-examined, faced the greatest prosecution team in trial history and won because ” there existed no evidence to convict him”. That’s farther from the truth than Zimmerman’s stories.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 7:23 pm

      I did watch the entire trial and frankly I felt sorry for the prosecution. It isn’t that they “screwed up”, they just never had a case.

      Also, you keep bringing up that Zimmerman was never cross examined, like it is an uncommon thing, when it isn’t.

      stabwound in reply to rj. | October 14, 2014 at 11:05 pm

      rj is a liar. he writes authouratatively about fighting when he clearly knows nothing about fighting.

“[t]he same moral panic, which once targeted all blacks, has refocused on black males in urban areas with saggy pants and hoodies,” images that are “deeply associated with criminals and crime.” The references in the blogosphere to Trayvon as a “thug, vandal, burglar, pothead and/or drug dealer” illustrate this widely held association.
_______________________________

LOL. The references in the blogosphere to Trayvon as a thug, burglar, pothead, etc., did not happen because of Trayvon’s skin color, or because of Trayvon’s sartorial choices. The references to Trayvon as a thug, burglar, pothead, etc., were made because there was abundant EVIDENCE (most of which was excluded in court) that showed that Trayvon was indeed a thug, burglar, pothead, etc.

Trayvon had been caught with burglary tools and multiple pieces of women’s jewelry in his school locker — jewelry he couldn’t account for. Local police suspected him of burglarizing homes near his school. Trayvon had been involved in several fights, and his online accounts were full of his own references to his street fighting and drug use. On his phone were photos of him posing with guns and money.

On the night he died, Trayvon was at a local convenience store buying cigars to hollow out and fill with marijuana (to make “blunts”). Trayvon’s death happened after Trayvon decided he didn’t like the way Zimmerman was looking at him, so he punched Zimmerman in the face and jumped on him, pinning him to the ground while assaulting him “MMA style” (according to a witness and Zimmerman).

It wasn’t Trayvon’s black skin, or his saggy pants or hoodie, that made people think Trayvon was a thug or a drug user. It was Trayvon’s BEHAVING like a thug and a drug user that did that.

Andrew

I’ve listened to a couple of your podcasts. Very good. Thanks for doing that, and for free !!!

You are correct that the amount of misinformation still floating around after the GZ trial is amazing. It’s like the trial never took place, and no one saw the actual evidence come out. You are also correct that it is worse for “professionals” to misinform.

The above argument about not being able to headbang – LOL. God, people are idiots.

    platypus in reply to Tank. | October 13, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    And thank God for those idiots so we normal people don’t have to do anything special to be seen as superior.

They prosecuted the case irresponsibly, race baited the public, stacked the case with a sympathetic judge and tried to influence the jury through the liberal media by controlling the narrative for 14 months prior to the trial.

AND THEY STILL LOST.

Now they are trying to re-write the narrative of the trial after the fact. Re-write history.

Libtards are out of control in this country.

It was less than 20 seconds between when Zimmerman left the truck and he was advised not to follow (7:12). It was nearly four minutes before the confrontation (7:16). Zimmerman was not near his truck when the confrontation occurred. It’s clear Zimmerman did not return to his truck and stay there.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 13, 2014 at 11:51 am

    What’s MORE clear…and a great deal more relevant…is that Martin was not in his father’s home by then, safe and sound behind a locked door.

    RIGHT…????

    Haha, so what if he wasn’t back at his truck? Where’s the crime in standing where he was? Where’s the act of aggression on Zimmerman’s part that would justify Martin’s aggravated assault upon him?

    Oofah. At least the lie was POTENTIALLY relevant. .

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Andrew Branca: Where’s the crime in standing where he was?

      That wasn’t the issue raised in the original post. Both Zimmerman and Martin had a right to be there. Zimmerman was apparently following Martin. Martin was talking to his friend on his phone.

      They were mutually suspicious. It’s the story of race in America.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 13, 2014 at 12:50 pm

        You are, as usual, full of crap.

        Trayvon was full of aggression, not “suspicion”. He gave that expression aggression by cold-cocking Zimmerman from concealment.

        “Suspicion” would have be dissipated by Trayvon saying, “Hi! My name is Trayvon Martin, I live right over there with my Dad. Is there a problem?”

        This is what you would do (don’t lie) regardless of the “other’s” race. Unless you are a racist.

          Ragspierre: He gave that expression aggression by cold-cocking Zimmerman from concealment.

          According to testimony, Martin and Zimmerman spoke before the altercation.

          Ragspierre: Trayvon was full of aggression, not “suspicion”.

          Testimony also indicated that Martin thought he was being followed.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm

          What did they say, liar?

          You just LOVES you some word games, huh?

          According to Rachel Jeantel, who was talking to Martin by cell phone, this is the approximate exchange:

          Martin: “Why are you following me for?”

          Zimmerman: “What are you doing around here?”

          Martin: “Get off, get off.”

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm

          “Approximately”…???

          Was Jeantele credible?

          What did the jury find?

          Ragspierre: Was Jeantele credible?

          Sure, just not very precise.

          Ragspierre: What did the jury find?

          Not guilty. The only minority on the jury felt that Zimmerman had “gotten away with murder”, but the law wouldn’t support a guilty verdict due to reasonable doubt about Zimmerman’s intention.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 4:36 pm

          So, again, you’ve showed up to blow crap out your butt.

          Just wanted that clear on the record.

    Twanger in reply to Zachriel. | October 13, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Zachriel “It was less than 20 seconds between when Zimmerman left the truck and he was advised not to follow (7:12).”

    This is a lie that continues to be perpetuated.
    What the 911 operator said was “we don’t need you to do that.”

    This is a commonly used phrase because it keeps the operator out of hot water. What if they told him to do something and he got hurt… then they would be liable. So they came up with this innocuous phrase “we don’t need you to do that” to absolve themselves of any culpability if something goes sideways.

    Oofa indeed.

      Twanger: What the 911 operator said was “we don’t need you to do that.”

      Again, that wasn’t the issue raised in the original post.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 13, 2014 at 3:47 pm

        Which was…???

          Ragspierre: Which was..

          Whether Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher’s warning and set out on foot to follow the youth.

          Jeantel testified that Martin thought he was being followed, and the altercation occurred several minutes after Zimmerman left his truck in a place removed from his truck.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 4:37 pm

          You mean “maintain visual contact” with the person the police were in route to check out.

          Liar.

          So, the original question, as YOU phrase it is: “Whether Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher’s warning and set out on foot to follow the youth.”

          And your reply is: “Jeantel testified that Martin thought he was being followed, and the altercation occurred several minutes after Zimmerman left his truck in a place removed from his truck.”

          Utterly unresponsive to the original question.

          But of course, it would have to be. If you stuck the actual facts, you’d be compelled to come to the same decision of acquittal as did the jury.

          As an side, if Jeantel is the anchor of your position, you really ARE in sorry shape. She’d already been caught in numerous falsehoods before she ever took the witness stand. She couldn’t read “her own” note–cursive, and all. She was passive-aggressively (mostly aggressively) non-cooperative on cross. She muttered most of her replies, often sequentially when asked to repeat herself, she couldn’t sit still in her seat.

          Awesome credibility there.

          Frankly, I felt sorry for her, the poor thing. A 100% product of the Progressive left. Good job, guys. Good. Job.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm

          “…and the altercation occurred several minutes after Zimmerman left his truck in a place removed from his truck.”

          AND several minutes AFTER Trayvon could have been safe at home…

          if he had not gone hunting.

          cazinger in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 6:11 pm

          “Whether Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher’s warning …”

          What “warning”? There was no “warning”. The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that.” That is not a “warning”, it is a statement.

          “… and set out on foot to follow the youth.” Zimmerman had already set out on foot. As AB has pointed out, we have zero evidence that he continued to try to follow Martin after the dispatcher made the statement that they didn’t need Zimmerman to do that. Zimmerman seems to acknowledge that he can stop trying to follow the youth and then seems to be trying to arrange a rendezvous point with the responding police, perhaps trying to find the nearest easily identifiable spot to meet the police.

          Which brings me to one of the points that I have never heard one of the “Zimmerman is a racist” crowd even try to explain – Zimmerman now knows that the police are on their way, but he has no way of knowing when they will get there (could be in 10 seconds, could be in 10 minutes) and he has no way of knowing from which direction they will be coming. If he had malice in his heart and was now out to kill this young “punk”, isn’t he taking a HUGE risk that the police will show up sooner rather than later and catch him on top of Trayvon just as he shoots him (that is how the “Zimmerman is a racist murderer” crowd thinks it went down)? And that is on top of the fact that Martin had a good 2:00 minutes to cover 80 yards to get to the safety of his dad’s girlfriend’s townhouse. You know, I am a fat, old, out of shape white guy who was never very fast to begin with, but I think even I could cover 80 yards in less than two minutes.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 13, 2014 at 7:06 pm

          “And that is on top of the fact that Martin had a good 2:00 minutes to cover 80 yards to get to the safety of his dad’s girlfriend’s townhouse. You know, I am a fat, old, out of shape white guy who was never very fast to begin with, but I think even I could cover 80 yards in less than two minutes.”

          While he is decidedly not fat nor “old”, if I remember correctly Andrew checked the distances and managed to cover them in plenty of time with a stroller. 🙂

          Ragspierre: You mean “maintain visual contact” with the person the police were in route to check out.

          Q

          Ragspierre: You mean “maintain visual contact” with the person the police were in route to check out.

          Quite possibly, which someone on the receiving end would thinking as following, a.k.a. tailing.

          Andrew Branca: Utterly unresponsive to the original question.

          Of course it’s responsive. It indicates that Zimmerman did follow Martin. Combined with testimony that Martin thought he was being followed, it provides reasonable evidence that Zimmerman contributed to the tension in their situation.

          Andrew Branca: Jeantel is the anchor of your position, you really ARE in sorry shape. She’d already been caught in numerous falsehoods before she ever took the witness stand.

          It’s reasonable to believe she was telling the truth. We understand it is necessary to your narrative to destroy the persons.

          cazinger: What “warning”?

          Advice, if you prefer.

          cazinger: seems to be trying to arrange a rendezvous point with the responding police

          The obvious place to meet the police would be on the road near his truck, not behind the house.

          cazinger: And that is on top of the fact that Martin had a good 2:00 minutes to cover 80 yards to get to the safety of his dad’s girlfriend’s townhouse.

          He was a kid talking to a friend on the phone.

          “Of course it’s responsive. It indicates that Zimmerman did follow Martin. Combined with testimony that Martin thought he was being followed, it provides reasonable evidence that Zimmerman contributed to the tension in their situation.”

          OF COURSE Zimmerman followed Martin–WHILE ZIMMERMAN WAS IN HIS CAR he followed him for a considerable distance WHILE TALKING WITH POLICE ON HIS CELL PHONE. That’s the murderous stalking behavior to which you’re referring?

          There is zero evidence–none–that Zimmerman sought to close distance with Martin after saying “OK” to the dispatcher. Zilch. In any case, TO WHERE would he have followed Martin? Martin was right there, by the T, in hiding, until the moment he ambushed Zimmerman.

          Haha, and OF COURSE Zimmerman contributed to the tension of their situation. 🙂

          He was on the phone with the police getting the heat on Martin’s ass. As Martin well knew, having walked around Zimmerman’s car eye-balling him while Zimmerman was visibly speaking on his cell phone. It’s all on the 911 tape.

          This is, after all, Martin who already had a blooming relationship with law enforcement. All the more motive for him to attack Zimmerman, and thus further circumstantial evidence that it was Martin who was the initial physical aggressor.

          You really need to up your game.

          –Andrew, @LawselfDefense

          Andrew Branca: That’s the murderous stalking behavior to which you’re referring?

          That’s your strawman. Our position is two people mutually suspicious, a common story of race in America.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 14, 2014 at 2:23 pm

          Note you’re own racial obsession.

          Remove any information regarding race and you have the same situation.

          Too bad Trayvon didn’t go home on the SEVERAL occasions when he could, and instead went out hunting.

          A tragically stupid mistake. For anyone. Of any race. You lying SOS.

Is it common practice to cite the Huffington Post as a source in a Law Review article???

    I guess if a law Professor is comfortable just fabricating facts, they’d be willing to cite most anything as an “authoritative source.”

    Who knows, maybe Gawker and Vox are cited later in the article–I didn’t make it through the whole thing.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Ragspierre in reply to David Jay. | October 13, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Law review articles use popular press sources as tertiary or quaternary sources.

    Every legally trained reader takes them with that understanding.

Henry Hawkins | October 13, 2014 at 3:56 pm

Enough of Trayvon & Zimmerman. I know! Let’s retry OJ!

The actual language used by the dispatcher is sufficient to demonstrate that Zimmerman was not “ordered” to stay in his car and to not pursue Martin.

And if I recall correctly, the dispatcher testified that she was not authorized to giver orders, not being a commissioned LEO. So even if she had given Zimmerman an unmistakable instruction to remain in his car and to not pursue Martin, it could not have been an actual order even if she had couched the instruction in such terms.

Though I fully agree that GZ did not disobey the dispatcher’s statement by getting out of the car or, most probably (though not quite so certainly), by not breaking off the pursuit/reconnaissance, there was (and probably still is) an equal falsehood floating around, from the other side, that he was “ordered” or “instructed” or “asked” by the dispatcher to determine where TM was going. The dispatcher only asked “Which way is he running?” not “Please determine which way the suspect is running.” or “See if you can find out where he went?” GZ took it entirely upon himself to get out of his truck and did so without asking the dispatcher whether or not he should do so. Whether that makes him a concerned citizen hero who almost paid the ultimate price for his courage or a fool who put both his life and the lives of other at unreasonable and unnecessary risk is in the eye of the beholder.

    mochajava in reply to jcarter50. | October 13, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    “Whether that makes him a concerned citizen hero who almost paid the ultimate price for his courage or a fool who put both his life and the lives of other at unreasonable and unnecessary risk is in the eye of the beholder.”

    False alternative here. Nice try at slurring him.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to jcarter50. | October 13, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    “Which way is he running”

    Remember it was a dark and rainy night and the area is not well lighted. I would have taken that question as a reason to get out of my vehicle and try to determine his direction of travel, since he was moving away from me the danger would be minimal. Also, remember that Zimmerman thought he looked “suspicious”, not looked like an aggressive felon.

    cazinger in reply to jcarter50. | October 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    The thumbs down was from me, but it was in error – I was really just trying to hit “reply”.

    FWIW, I agree with you that there does seem to be some reliance from the “Not Guilty” camp on the idea that the Police dispatcher’s question prompted GZ to follow TM to see where he was going. “Where is he going?” is no more an order to get out of the vehicle and follow the person than “We don’t need you to do that” is an order to stop following the person. What’s more, I don’t think GZ ever said that the dispatcher’s question is what prompted him to follow on foot. While I think that it would not be unreasonable for GZ to have said that, nor is it at all necessary to reach a conclusion of not guilty. Whether GZ got out to follow on the dispatcher’s suggestion or not is completely irrelevant since GZ was perfectly within his legal rights to be where he was even absent any direction from a police dispatcher (as was Martin).

      The point is that the Progressive left is fixated on Zimmerman getting out of his car–even to the point of falsely claiming that he did so contrary to explicit police order–because they are desperate for ANY hook on which they can hang malice.

      There is no factual evidence–NONE–from which malice can be found, so they fabricate.

      As you say, whether Zimmerman may have followed Martin or not is entirely besides the point. If he did follow, he was entirely within the law to do so.

      THAT’S why they throw in the lie about “contrary to police orders.”

      There exist perfectly reasonable explanations for why Zimmerman got out of the car, none of which require malice.

      The defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

      There is not a scintilla of evidence to prove malice (and therefore guilt) in this case.

      That’s WHY the jury took mere hours–after 14 MONTHS of investigation and WEEKS of trial testimony–to acquit Zimmerman.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      amatuerwrangler in reply to cazinger. | October 14, 2014 at 12:33 am

      I believe that the sequence has been muddled. As the exchange between GZ and dispatch hit the subject of TM running away and the “which way” queston came in, the dispatcher got the idea that GZ was out of the truck (vehicle) and moving. I don’t recall how that came into the testimony, if it did, but that “sensing” of GZ being on the move prompted the “are you following” which got an affirmative answer and THEN we get the “don’t need you to do that..” statement from dispatch.

      So GZ did not get out of the truck contrary to orders/advice/instructions, he was already out. This makes that somewhat open-ended as to just how long GZ was out of the truck; he may have stopped and hovered in the area waiting for the police…. and that becoming the location at which he was attacked.

      Maybe one of these brain-donors could enlighten us about the wisdom of one spotting a young black teen walking along and deciding that that teen should be stalked and killed, just because, and then calling the police… essentially on themselves. Most killers in those circumstances tend to dislike having the police around, let alone invite them. I’m just wondering about that.

I just finished reading Coker’s paper, or Foreword, and I could not believe how badly this is written. It is totally off-base as it pertains to the main subject of SYG law. For a law professor, she seems out of touch with what constitutes self-defense. Coker tries to discredit SYG by saying it was made into law by a small group of lobbyists, the NRA, who are basically paranoid white suburban macho males who consider most young black males are thugs and white males must have an edge to protect themselves. Then she uses three Florida cases, which none are SYG applicable, to show how the law “backfired” on itself. The paper never goes into true self-defense standards and SYG vs. Duty to Retreat rules.

I know professors need to write so many papers during their tenure. But this one should not count. Disgraceful.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to 11rufus11. | October 13, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    Yea, well there is about as much chance of a retraction as there is of this supposed “educator” actually replying to Andrew’s e-mail.

    The next thing will be when some anti-gun moron tries to site this paper as a source.

Here’s a case of someone who would have done well to disobey the dispatcher’s “order”

911 Dispatcher Fired After Sending Victim To Shooting Scene
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/911-dispatcher-fired-after-sending-victim-to-shooting-scene

As an aside, some of you might be interested to know that I’m running the first Law of Self Defense WEBINAR this weekend. All the love and state-specificity of the seminar, but accessible from the comfort of your own computer, tablet, smart phone.

Look here for more info: http://is.gd/D3EZgO 🙂

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

rj, here is your problem – you seem to desperately want people to convict GZ for the murder of TM. But to do that, our society asks that you provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that your “theory of the case” (i.e. how you think things went down) is actually true. There are some facts, undisputed facts, that really make your theory of the case pretty difficult to accept.

The first fact that makes your theory difficult to accept is the mere fact that GZ called the police prior to any confrontation between himself and TM. Not only does this show a lack of malice at the time of the call (people who are about to attack someone physically typically don’t helpfully call the police beforehand to let them know where they are going to be so that the police can come pick them up right away), it also tells us that even if he developed some malice between the time of the call and the confrontation, he, being aware that the police were on their way and could arrive at any second to witness anything he might do wrong, would more likely than not be on his best behavior. So this is a pretty strong fact that counter-indicates your theory of the case.

But perhaps GZ is just that cunning. Perhaps GZ was willing to take the HUGE risk of actually being caught in the act by police that showed up quicker than he anticipated. Perhaps GZ is a criminal mastermind who thought “If I call the police first, then they won’t suspect I was the one who initiated a confrontation”.

Given that explanation, are there any other facts that might counter your theory of the case? Well, there are the injuries to the face and the back of the head of GZ. How does the prosecution explain these injuries? I mean, if there were just injuries to the face, perhaps they might have been caused by TM fighting back in his own self-defense. But to have injuries to both the face and the back of the head? According to you, those injuries were self-inflicted in order to bolster GZ’s claim of self-defense. GZ, again taking an enormous risk of being caught in the act, punched himself in the face hard enough to break his own nose AND gave himself some random bloody scratches on the back of his own head – scratches that do NOT resemble scratches from human fingernails, but rather the type of scratches one might get from having one’s head banged against the ground. And apparently GZ gave himself these wounds … when? In the few seconds between the firing of his gun and the arrival of the first witnesses? Or, did he anticipate what was going to happen and give himself these wounds prior to even confronting TM (believe it or not, I have actually seen comments on this case from some who do suggest that scenario). It seems unlikely that he could anticipate there being enough time AFTER the gun going off to allow him to give himself these wounds. But it also seems highly unlikely that anyone but a criminal mastermind would have the time and forethought to give themselves the wounds before the confrontation (after all, how can you predict exactly HOW the confrontation will play out?).

So for your “theory of the case” to be true, GZ would have to be one of the most diabolical criminal masterminds to have ever walked the planet earth – taking huge risks every step of the way and anticipating and planning out his own legal defense and even going so far as to seriously injure himself in a very convincing fashion in order to pull off the killing of some random stranger for no personal gain whatsoever.

Can you possibly see why some of us might have a hard time believing your scenario?

Or perhaps you think I am oversimplifying things. Perhaps you have alternate explanations for why GZ called the police to have them come to the scene at a time and from a direction that he could not anticipate. Perhaps you have some alternate theory of how GZ received his injuries – a scenario that doesn’t just dispute GZ’s account of how he received the injuries (we all get that you think they don’t look like they were made the way GZ claims), but actually provide a reasonable explanation for how he DID receive them – when and how. Or perhaps you have evidence that GZ IS some kind of criminal mastermind that could anticipate all of the different possible scenarios that might have taken place and fouled up his getting away with his dastardly act. And, if you have evidence of GZ being some kind of criminal mastermind, you would also have to provide some kind of evidence of MOTIVE for GZ to go out and want to KILL this random somebody that GZ had no prior relationship with and no plausible reason to desire to kill.

So far, you have provided zero such evidence – just mere speculation that things didn’t go down in the exact, precise manner that was described by GZ.

    cazinger: So for your “theory of the case” to be true, GZ would have to be one of the most diabolical criminal masterminds to have ever walked the planet eart

    No, it may just mean Zimmerman thought “these assholes they always get away” and took precipitous action based on that preconception.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm

      …and then stage-managed a situation where Treyvon…who had MANY chances to simply return home, but decided to go hunting…wound up atop Zimmerman so he could shoot him.

      Shear fantasy, driven by race-obsessed dementia.

      And utterly vacant. As both the acquittal and empty Federal attention demonstrates.

      cazinger in reply to Zachriel. | October 16, 2014 at 7:31 pm

      If your scenario were to be played out, Zimmerman would still have had to have thought ahead and given himself the broken and bloody nose and the wounds to the back of his head (or given them to himself right after the confrontation, before any witnesses could have possibly appeared). That would require INCREDIBLY quick planning and execution skills on the part of GZ.

      Not to mention the fact that, as Ragspierre pointed out, TM had PLENTY of time to get safely back to his residence of that evening. In fact, if GZ WAS so thoughtful as to have planned out the wounds to his face and the back of his head, then, considering the fact that GZ did not know that TM was staying in the complex, and further considering the fact that GZ knew that vandals had previously made quick use of the southern exit to escape, one would surely have expected a GZ who was thinking so far ahead as to have planned out these wounds to have also figured that his best chance for cutting off such an escape would be to drive down to the southern exit – which he did not do.

      I’m afraid you’re kind of stuck. If GZ does have the foresight to plan this thing out, then he is taking the worst possible angle of pursuit to catch his “victim”. If he does NOT have the foresight to plan this thing out, there is no way he could have known to give himself the broken/bloody nose and wounds to the back of the head.

      cazinger: If your scenario were to be played out

      That’s not even close to our position. One of the witnesses is dead, but the evidence suggests that Zimmerman and Martin were mutually suspicious, that they had a confrontation, the confrontation escalated, then Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman was the adult with the gun.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | October 16, 2014 at 9:05 pm

        “Zimmerman was the adult with the gun.”

        And? So what? Does someone’s age have something to do with whether they can become a deadly threat?

        Yes, Zimmerman had a gun, which he had every right to have and was legally licensed to carry.

        Yes, Zimmerman was older than Martin.

        Zimmerman was also innocent until proven guilty, which means his testimony was the testimony of an innocent man. Yes, his testimony is self serving, but he is the accused so it will always be looked at that way.

        So what is your point? Just because Zimmerman was “the adult” (btw, he had no way of knowing that Martin was a minor, Martin’s age could have been anything from late teens to mid 20’s just from looking at him) Zimmerman should have some special power to stop a deadly attack?

        Your not making any sense.

          Gremlin1974: So what is your point?

          One of the witnesses is dead, but the evidence suggests that Zimmerman and Martin were mutually suspicious, that they had a confrontation, the confrontation escalated, then Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman was the adult with the gun.

          Gremlin1974: Zimmerman was also innocent until proven guilty

          Under the law, but not necessarily in fact.

          Gremlin1974: Zimmerman should have some special power to stop a deadly attack?

          You position relies on assumptions that may be contrary to fact. Martin was not available to testify, however, there is evidence that Zimmerman considered Martin dangerous, and that Martin considered Zimmerman dangerous. The difference is that Zimmerman was an adult and armed. Despite the hyperventilation about Martin’s “deadly attack”, both would probably still be alive except for the gun.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 17, 2014 at 5:43 pm

          @Zachriel

          “One of the witnesses is dead, but the evidence suggests that Zimmerman and Martin were mutually suspicious, that they had a confrontation, the confrontation escalated, then Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman was the adult with the gun.”

          Ok, you can keep repeating it over and over it still doesn’t make any difference or sense.

          “Under the law, but not necessarily in fact.”

          Uhhhh, since he was acquitted it is fact, proven in a court of law. Under the law is the only thing that matters.

          “You position relies on assumptions that may be contrary to fact.”

          As does yours, but my position has been upheld by a jury. 🙂

          “Martin considered Zimmerman dangerous.”

          Complete falsehood, there is no evidence that Martin considered Zimmerman to be dangerous, if he thought that why go back and confront Zimmerman?

          “The difference is that Zimmerman was an adult and armed.”

          Yep, Armed, which was completely legal. As far as him being an adult it pretty much irrelevant since as far as he knew he was facing an adult.

          “Despite the hyperventilation about Martin’s “deadly attack””

          You mean the one that Zimmerman’s wounds prove happened?

          “both would probably still be alive”

          Not so sure of that, if Martin had kept beating Zimmerman like witnesses have testified, considering he showed no signs of stopping in the 40 seconds (a lifetime in a fight) that Zimmerman took the beating before shooting Martin, it is more probable that Zimmerman would have experienced some sort of brain trauma.

          “except for the gun.”

          So what now its the guns fault?

          Gremlin1974: Under the law is the only thing that matters.

          If so, this thread wouldn’t exist. Not guilty under the law is not the same as innocent in fact.

          Gremlin1974: Complete falsehood, there is no evidence that Martin considered Zimmerman to be dangerous

          Of course he did. He assumed Martin was a burglar, and was concerned when he reached for his waistband.

          Gremlin1974: Armed, which was completely legal.

          Lots of things are legal, but not wise.

          Gremlin1974: You mean the one that Zimmerman’s wounds prove happened?

          The wounds were not even close to fatal. From the evidence, it’s clear that Zimmerman wanted to catch what he perceived to be a criminal, Martin thought he was being stalked, and it led to a violent confrontation.

          “The wounds were not even close to fatal. From the evidence, it’s clear that Zimmerman wanted to catch what he perceived to be a criminal, Martin thought he was being stalked, and it led to a violent confrontation.”

          Oofah. Simply not very bright.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Andrew Branca: Simply not very bright.

          Yes, we understand you can no longer support your position, so you are left with nothing but ad hominem.

          Good luck with that.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 18, 2014 at 1:02 pm

          @Zachriel

          “Of course he did. He assumed Martin was a burglar, and was concerned when he reached for his waistband.”

          I think you should read more carefully, I said there is no evidence that MARTIN considered ZIMMERMAN dangerous. There is certainly no evidence that Martin thought Zimmerman was a burglar, lol.

          “Lots of things are legal, but not wise.”

          Ahh, so you are against citizens being armed and therefor against the second amendment? I have a CCW and am wearing a gun right now, please explain how that makes me “unwise”?

          “The wounds were not even close to fatal.”

          I am going to go with the thought that you have no medical training. While the exterior wounds may have been minor the potential for serious injury existed and if that potential for serious bodily harm existed then that is all that is needed to make Zimmerman’s reaction reasonable. Once again the law does not require you to actually experience grave bodily harm, nor does it actually require the actual potential to exist, it only requires a reasonable fear, which would have been more than justified in Zimmerman’s case.

          “From the evidence, it’s clear that Zimmerman wanted to catch what he perceived to be a criminal,”

          Actually from the evidence he wanted to police to check out what he perceived as a suspicious person. If he just wanted to catch him himself, why call the police?

          “Martin thought he was being stalked”

          Psychic now are we?

          “and it led to a violent confrontation.”

          Yes, it did and from all evidence it was a confrontation completely of Martin’s own making.

          Gremlin1974: I said there is no evidence that MARTIN considered ZIMMERMAN dangerous.

          Martin called him “creepy”. Jeantel warned Martin, the man following him might be a rapist.

          Gremlin1974: Ahh, so you are against citizens being armed and therefor against the second amendment?

          Didn’t say that, but certainly some people shouldn’t have guns.

          Gremlin1974: Actually from the evidence he wanted to police to check out what he perceived as a suspicious person. If he just wanted to catch him himself, why call the police?

          Zimmerman started to follow Martin, and apparently was shadowing him, after having said, “these assholes they always get away”.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 18, 2014 at 11:15 pm

          @Zachriel

          “Martin called him “creepy”. Jeantel warned Martin, the man following him might be a rapist.”

          If Martin had been afraid he would have used his more than ample time to go home where it was safe, not stayed in the area where the “creepy ass cracker” was, you contend, making his scared.

          “Didn’t say that”

          No you didn’t but that is how anti-gunners usually work, its all about safety you know.

          “but certainly some people shouldn’t have guns.”

          Who gets to decide that?

          “Zimmerman started to follow Martin”

          Yep, and from all evidence stopped when the dispatcher told him that he didn’t need to follow the guy.

          “and apparently was shadowing him”

          blatant falsehood, there is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin, considering he had lost sight of him. Also there is no evidence he was “shadowing” (nice try to make it sound like Zimmerman had nefarious intentions though) Martin.

          Gremlin1974: If Martin had been afraid he would have used his more than ample time to go home where it was safe, not stayed in the area where the “creepy ass cracker” was, you contend, making his scared.

          We didn’t say Martin was scared. We said he viewed Zimmerman as dangerous. Martin was in his own gated neighborhood, that is, his home.

          Gremlin1974: No you didn’t

          Then don’t misrepresent our position.

          Gremlin1974: Yep, and from all evidence stopped when the dispatcher told him that he didn’t need to follow the guy.

          There was about 10-20 seconds between when Zimmerman left the truck and the dispatcher advised him not to follow. There were an additional 3-4 minutes before the altercation, which did not occur near the his truck, but in a backyard area. Zimmerman was almost certainly attempting to find Martin in the dark.

          Gremlin1974: (nice try to make it sound like Zimmerman had nefarious intentions though)

          We don’t see Zimmerman’s intentions as nefarious, but misdirected. From his view, he was trying to keep an eye on a criminal. From Martin’s view, he was being followed.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm

          @Zachriel

          “We didn’t say Martin was scared. We said he viewed Zimmerman as dangerous.”

          Very well, yet how you can view someone as “dangerous” and not be afraid is a mystery to me. Also, if you believe someone is dangerous to you generally you don’t search them out. Unless you are determined to let this “Creepy ass cracker” know who is boss.

          “Martin was in his own gated neighborhood, that is, his home.”

          Factually incorrect. Martin was visiting his father but it was not his home. Did he have every right to be there, yes, but it was not his “home”.

          “Then don’t misrepresent our position.”

          I don’t believe I did.

          “There were an additional 3-4 minutes before the altercation”

          Yep, an amount of time that Zimmerman gave a completely reasonable explanation of what he was doing, trying to identify the street at the other end of the “T” section and waiting on police. You also are ignoring that since he had requested police Zimmerman had to wait on them and there was no not to wait there since he believed Martin had run away.

          “which did not occur near the his truck, but in a backyard area.”

          It occurred near the top of a “T” intersection of sidewalks that did go behind buildings. Zimmerman’s truck was on the left side of the top of the “T” and the altercation happened where the 2 lines of the “T” meet, Martin’s Fathers home was nearer the bottom of the “T”. So if Zimmerman had walked to the right side of the “T” looking for a street name and police, then decided to return to his vehicle the most direct route would be through the “T”. I know it is a simple and reasonable explanation and doesn’t fit the “hunter of young black men” narrative, but it is the simplest explanation which is usually the correct one.

          “Zimmerman was almost certainly attempting to find Martin in the dark.”

          Complete speculation with no evidence to support it and yet another attempt to make Zimmerman sound like the had nefarious intent.

          “We don’t see Zimmerman’s intentions as nefarious”

          Then why would you use such negative descriptive terms?

          “but misdirected.”

          That I can agree with and it is not how I would have handled the situation. I would have just rolled down my window and asked politely if Martin needed help, but that is me. Just because Zimmerman’s actions were “misdirected” doesn’t make them criminal, evil, or even negligent.

          “From his view, he was trying to keep an eye on a criminal.”

          Probably, but that is also not illegal, evil, or negligent.

          “From Martin’s view, he was being followed.”

          Yep, I agree. But I get “followed” all the time.

          What it comes down to is this. Could they both have made different decisions. Yes, but they didn’t. However, that doesn’t make the final outcome all Zimmerman’s fault whether you want it to or not.

          Let’s look at simple behavioral queue’s before the altercation.

          Zimmerman, near his home sees a suspicious person, whom he does not recognize. Calls authorities. Attempts to gather information for authorities and attempts to keep suspicious person in site. Contrary to narrative he dose actually take the suggestion not to follow the suspicious person as evidenced by the recorded police call. Has a very minor criminal background (i.e. no “domestic abuse” because if he had he would not have been allowed to have a CCW) and a record of being a good member of the community. Is understandably frustrated at unsolved burglaries in his community.

          Martin, “visiting” his father because his mother has basically had it with his behavior and multiple suspensions. Has a documented history of fighting and has been caught with stolen property.(So not a particularly “minor” background, basically his age is all that kept him from charges.) Does have 2 of the ingredients of a common street concoction to get high, which he in his own online statements admits to using before. Has a history of drug use. Notices someone “dangerous” following him. Makes the only racial slur uttered in the entire incident; “Creepy ass cracker”. Does not vacate the area and instead decides to confront the “dangerous” person.

          I don’t know about you, but I know which one looks like the aggressive racist to me.

          Gremlin: Very well, yet how you can view someone as “dangerous” and not be afraid is a mystery to me.

          Not everyone is “scared” of any suspicion of danger.

          Gremlin: Also, if you believe someone is dangerous to you generally you don’t search them out.

          Sure you do, especially if you are unsure, or if you are defending what you consider your neighborhood. See Zimmerman 2012.

          Gremlin: Yep, an amount of time that Zimmerman gave a completely reasonable explanation of what he was doing, trying to identify the street at the other end of the “T” section and waiting on police.

          The altercation didn’t occur on the main street or in the line of sight from the street.

          Gremlin: Complete speculation with no evidence to support it and yet another attempt to make Zimmerman sound like the had nefarious intent.

          Zimmerman’s intent was presumably to find out where the suspect had gone to help the police catch a criminal.

          Gremlin: I would have just rolled down my window and asked politely if Martin needed help, but that is me.

          So would most people.

          Gremlin: Just because Zimmerman’s actions were “misdirected” doesn’t make them criminal, evil, or even negligent.

          No, they don’t. However, Zimmerman helped create a situation that led to Martin’s death.

          Gremlin: Is understandably frustrated at unsolved burglaries in his community.

          That’s right. Zimmerman was apparently trying to assist police apprehend a criminal.

          Gremlin: Does not vacate the area and instead decides to confront the “dangerous” person.

          Yes, according to testimony, Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm

          @Zachriel

          “Sure you do, especially if you are unsure, or if you are defending what you consider your neighborhood. See Zimmerman 2012.”

          Except that Zimmerman didn’t search Martin out, from all the evidence and testimony, it was Martin who searched out Zimmerman.

          “The altercation didn’t occur on the main street or in the line of sight from the street.”

          Maybe, we really don’t know, we know where Martin’s body ended up which is a bit down the perpendicular line of the “T”, but not far from the intersection. The altercation could have started closer to the intersection, but oh well, its not a very relevant point.

          “No, they don’t. However, Zimmerman helped create a situation that led to Martin’s death.”

          This is one of the goofiest most pointless statements, it is an attempt to accuse Zimmerman of negligence because he “helped create the situation”, well so did Martin, who was apparently the aggressor. I cooked dinner for myself and a close friend tonight, so I helped create the situation that lead to dinner. My father helped create the situation that lead to my birth, lol.

          “Yes, according to testimony, Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.”

          Yes, testimony from the 2nd least credible witness in the entire trial. (The woman who testified on the stand that Zimmerman shot Martin in the back while he was face down on the ground was the least credible considering she was apparently in her own little world.)

          Gremlin1974: Except that Zimmerman didn’t search Martin out, from all the evidence and testimony, it was Martin who searched out Zimmerman.

          Except that Zimmerman wasn’t at the road or even in sight of the road when the altercation occurred.

          Gremlin1974: This is one of the goofiest most pointless statements, it is an attempt to accuse Zimmerman of negligence because he “helped create the situation”, well so did Martin, who was apparently the aggressor.

          The difference being that Martin was an unarmed juvenile, while Zimmerman was an adult with a gun.

          Gremlin1974: testimony from the 2nd least credible witness in the entire trial.

          Handwaving. There’s no reasonable doubt that Jeantel was the last person to talk to Martin.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 20, 2014 at 3:50 pm

          @Zachriel

          “Except that Zimmerman wasn’t at the road or even in sight of the road when the altercation occurred.”

          And? This is meaningless unless you are trying to say that Zimmerman had some obligation to remain next to his vehicle and/or remain in the same spot, both of which are just not true.

          “The difference being that Martin was an unarmed juvenile, while Zimmerman was an adult with a gun.”

          Yes and? This is a simple statement of fact, but it does not imply any responsibility to either party, yet you state it like it makes Zimmerman more responsible or implies that since Martin was a juvenile he is less responsible than Zimmerman, both of which are complete crap.

          “Handwaving. There’s no reasonable doubt that Jeantel was the last person to talk to Martin.”

          Except that I didn’t question if she was the last person to talk to Martin, we know from phone records that she was the last person to talk to Martin we don’t need her testimony for that point. I question her credibility and therefore the truthfulness of her testimony. Just to make it clear I don’t believe a word that came from her mouth, except her complaints about the inconvenience of having to testify.

          Gremlin1974: This is meaningless unless you are trying to say that Zimmerman had some obligation to remain next to his vehicle and/or remain in the same spot, both of which are just not true.

          It argues against Zimmerman waiting for the police, and supports that he was trailing Martin.

          Gremlin1974: yet you state it like it makes Zimmerman more responsible

          Adults generally have more responsibility than juveniles. Adults with guns have an even greater level of responsibility.

          Gremlin1974: I question her credibility and therefore the truthfulness of her testimony.

          Of course you do, because it contradicts your preconceptions.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 20, 2014 at 11:16 pm

          @Zachriel

          “It argues against Zimmerman waiting for the police, and supports that he was trailing Martin.”

          It might argue that he was trailing Martin, if there were no other reasonable explanation, which Zimmerman gave a very reasonable explanation. To be honest it really doesn’t matter even if he was looking for Martin, there is nothing illegal about that either.

          “Adults generally have more responsibility than juveniles. Adults with guns have an even greater level of responsibility.”

          But we aren’t talking about general responsibility your implication is that Zimmerman is more responsible for the encounter than Martin. The fact that he was armed is only relevant if he was being irresponsible with his firearm, which he wasn’t, he was carrying responsibility and in the end he employed his firearm responsibly in self defense.

          “Of course you do, because it contradicts your preconceptions.”

          Now you are speculating. You don’t know me nor how I think. I find the young lady non-credible because of her attitude and the disrespect it showed not only for the people involved in the case but also for this disrespect it showed for Martin. If someone I had feeling for, since she was apparently his “girlfriend” was killed and I had to testify I can assure you that I wouldn’t see it as an inconvenience nor would I act in such a disgraceful manner as she did in court. That is when she lost credibility to me. Also her testimony doesn’t really contradict Zimmerman’s story every word she said could have been absolutely true and Martin still have attacked Zimmerman from ambush. Like it or not how you comport yourself on the stand matters and will affect how people see your testimony, she only has herself to blame.

          Gremlin1974: To be honest it really doesn’t matter even if he was looking for Martin, there is nothing illegal about that either.

          An armed man following a juvenile in the dark is not necessarily illegal.

          Gremlin1974: If someone I had feeling for, since she was apparently his “girlfriend” was killed and I had to testify I can assure you that I wouldn’t see it as an inconvenience nor would I act in such a disgraceful manner as she did in court.

          One reason why juries should be of diverse backgrounds. Just because you don’t understand why a young black woman would be averse to involvement in the legal system doesn’t mean she wasn’t.

          Gremlin1974: That is when she lost credibility to me. Also her testimony doesn’t really contradict Zimmerman’s story every word she said could have been absolutely true and Martin still have attacked Zimmerman from ambush.

          Possibly, which is called reasonable doubt. That’s why the only minority on the jury said Zimmerman probably got away with murder.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm

          @Zachriel

          “An armed man following a juvenile in the dark is not necessarily illegal.”

          Nope, not even a little bit illegal.

          “One reason why juries should be of diverse backgrounds. Just because you don’t understand why a young black woman would be averse to involvement in the legal system doesn’t mean she wasn’t.”

          LOL, yea because all blacks are afraid of the legal system and no white person could make and objective judgement cause of course all whites are racist.

          “Possibly, which is called reasonable doubt. That’s why the only minority on the jury said Zimmerman probably got away with murder.”

          That’s not how reasonable doubt works its innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Also, that jury member probably said that to shield themselves from reprisal more than anything else because they didn’t want to be set upon by the race bating animals that tried to get an innocent man convicted in a political show trial. If that person felt it was murder then they should have had the courage of their conviction and voted that way, what they say after the fact is just ass covering.

          Also, there is no question that Zimmerman killed Martin, but it was only illegal if it wasn’t self defense. All of the evidence points to self defense and when you look at the evidence that was excluded it is even more clear that it was self defense. Anyone who looks objectively at the evidence and trial would come to that conclusion, as the jury did.

          Your problem is that you only see things through the lens of race and I don’t.

          I have enjoyed our discussion and wish you the best, but I am tired of beating this dead horse.

          Gremlin1974: all blacks are afraid of the legal system and no white person could make and objective judgement cause of course all whites are racist.

          It’s a fact that blacks, as a group, have a different experience with law enforcement than whites. They also would be less likely to discount Jeantel’s testimony due to her dialect.

          Gremlin1974: That’s not how reasonable doubt works its innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

          That’s the legal position devised to limit the power of government. However, unless you argue that the system is perfect, people who are guilty in fact are sometimes found not guilty by law. Further, not everything wrong is against the law.

          Gremlin1974: that jury member probably said that to shield themselves from reprisal more than anything else…

          Sure. When the facts don’t comport with your preconceptions, say they’re lying.

          Gremlin1974: … because they didn’t want to be set upon by the race bating animals that tried to get an innocent man convicted in a political show trial.

          Sure. African Americans concerned about the shooting death of an unarmed black juvenile makes them “animals”.

          Gremlin1974: All of the evidence points to self defense …

          The evidence suggests that both parties were defending themselves.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 22, 2014 at 6:24 pm

          “It’s a fact that blacks, as a group, have a different experience with law enforcement than whites.”

          Which of course is all the the fault of racist cops, right?

          “They also would be less likely to discount Jeantel’s testimony due to her dialect.”

          I never said I discounted her testimony due to her dialect or what she said, I discounted her testimony due to her attitude and behavior.

          “That’s the legal position devised to limit the power of government.”

          Yep, which is the only one that really matters.

          “However, unless you argue that the system is perfect, people who are guilty in fact are sometimes found not guilty by law.”

          Nope not perfect, no system is, and yes sometimes guilty people are found innocent and innocents found guilty. That is not what appears to have happened here, I challenge you to point to a better more fair system.

          “Further, not everything wrong is against the law.”

          So what did Zimmerman do that you feel should be against the law?

          “Sure. When the facts don’t comport with your preconceptions, say they’re lying.”

          I never said the person was lying, I said that they probably said what they said out of fear of reprisal. However, if that person really did feel that it was murder, according to you there is plenty of evidence to support that belief, but then voted for acquittal then they are a coward and cowards are never trustworthy.

          “Sure. African Americans concerned about the shooting death of an unarmed black juvenile makes them “animals”.”

          When they make preconceived judgement without the benefit of evidence or information and push a narrative that is false, yes they are animals. Also, not all African Americans actually felt that Zimmerman was guilty, in fact most of my African American friends felt like the trial was a complete sham. But then again they actually waited until they saw and heard the evidence instead of just hearing that a white guy had shot a black kid and making their judgement then. Also, be careful when you speak for an entire racial group, it is generally ill advised, even if you are a member of that group.

          “The evidence suggests that both parties were defending themselves.”

          What exactly was Martin “defending” himself from, since his only wound was the gunshot wound?

          Also, for someone to defend themselves there must be an attack. From all evidence Martin was the aggressor, if you initiate the physical encounter, well that precludes you from being the victim, especially when you are the one who raised the encounter to the level of lethal force.

          Gremlin1974: Which of course is all the the fault of racist cops

          Studies have shown that people will mistake a tool for a gun more often when associated with a black person.

          Gremlin1974: I never said I discounted her testimony due to her dialect or what she said, I discounted her testimony due to her attitude and behavior.

          We were talking about jurors. Her dialect, as well as her attitude and behavior, were interpreted quite differently by whites and blacks.

          Gremlin1974: which is the only one that really matters.

          Apparently not, as the existence of this thread demonstrates.

          Gremlin1974: That is not what appears to have happened here, I challenge you to point to a better more fair system.

          We support the legal presumption of innocence, but don’t confuse legal innocence with factual innocence. “Truth doesn’t count in law, but that which can be proven.”

          Gremlin1974: So what did Zimmerman do that you feel should be against the law?

          Not sure there’s a legal solution when you have armed men roaming the streets.

          Gremlin1974: However, if that person really did feel that it was murder, according to you there is plenty of evidence to support that belief, but then voted for acquittal then they are a coward and cowards are never trustworthy.

          The juror stated that the burden of proof wasn’t met under state law. In other words, legally not guilty, and got away with murder. Unless you think the law is perfect, and with the legal presumption of innocence, then this is inevitable some of the time.

          Gremlin1974: When they make preconceived judgement without the benefit of evidence or information and push a narrative that is false, yes they are animals.

          They don’t think it’s false. Are you an animal because you push a “false” narrative?

          Gremlin1974: not all African Americans actually felt that Zimmerman was guilty, in fact most of my African American friends felt like the trial was a complete sham.

          Not all, but there was a stark racial divide. It much more frequent for unarmed blacks to be shot than unarmed whites.

          Gremlin1974: What exactly was Martin “defending” himself from, since his only wound was the gunshot wound?

          He was being followed in the dark by a “creep”.

          Gremlin1974: From all evidence Martin was the aggressor

          Jeantel testified that she thought that Zimmerman had started it.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 22, 2014 at 7:12 pm

          @Zachriel

          “Studies have shown that people will mistake a tool for a gun more often when associated with a black person.”

          Yes, yes, I told you I would address the studies when I had time to look at them, they are in my pile.

          “We were talking about jurors.”

          Since the jurors voted to aquit I really don’t see the difference.

          “Apparently not, as the existence of this thread demonstrates.”

          This thread was about a supposed legal professional continuing to push a demonstrability incorrect narrative.

          “Not sure there’s a legal solution when you have armed men roaming the streets.”

          So I was correct you are anti-gun. You also didn’t answer my question, what actions of Zimmerman’s do you think should have been illegal?

          “They don’t think it’s false. Are you an animal because you push a “false” narrative?”

          I haven’t pushed a false narrative, my narrative is supported by evidence and credible testimony.

          “Not all, but there was a stark racial divide.”

          Yes, made worse by race baiting publicity hounds who were pushing a narrative that was false and trying to convict him in the court of public opinion. LOL, they couldn’t even take the time to get his race correct.

          “It much more frequent for unarmed blacks to be shot than unarmed whites.”

          And I am sure you have some way of proving this statement?

          “He was being followed in the dark by a “creep”.”

          Actually the phrase was a racial slur “Creepy ass cracker”, and being followed is not a justification to attack someone, either legally or morally and if you do then you are guilty of assault, which is what Martin apparently did.

          “Jeantel testified that she thought that Zimmerman had started it.”

          LOL, So since Jeantel thought that Zimmerman started it we should ignore all the evidence to the contrary?

          Also, you do realize that even if Zimmerman did start the physical altercation, which there is zero credible evidence to suspect, that the moment that Martin escalated the encounter to a deadly force level by straddling Zimmerman, which is supported by eye witness testimony, and pounding him repeatedly in the head and face that Zimmerman most likely would have “regained his innocence” and still been completely justified in shooting Martin anyway? Both morally and legally.

          As much as you want it to be, following someone is not illegal nor immoral. Being armed is not illegal or immoral. Defending yourself from a deadly attack is neither illegal or immoral. You have no evidence or proof that Zimmerman was doing anything that he shouldn’t have been doing and therefore was the innocent party. Martin has already disengaged and could have been home, he returned to engage which says that most likely he was the initial aggressor.

          Gremlin1974: Since the jurors voted to aquit I really don’t see the difference.

          We were talking about potential black jurors, and how they would have brought a different perspective to the case. Indeed, blacks, as a group, were much more likely to think Zimmerman guilty.

          Gremlin1974: This thread was about a supposed legal professional continuing to push a demonstrability incorrect narrative.

          There is evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin. Not only where the altercation occurred, but testimony by Jeantel. Martin wasn’t available to tell his side of the story.

          Zachriel: They don’t think it’s false. Are you an animal because you push a “false” narrative?

          Gremlin1974: I haven’t pushed a false narrative, my narrative is supported by evidence and credible testimony.

          That’s what you said. You’re the salt of the earth, and blacks who have a different point of view, no matter how thoughtful and well-informed, are “animals”.

          Zachriel: there was a stark racial divide.

          Gremlin1974: Yes

          Which is why many blacks don’t trust a jury which didn’t include blacks.

          Gremlin1974: So since Jeantel thought that Zimmerman started it we should ignore all the evidence to the contrary?

          No, but your statement concerned “all the evidence”. Clearly, there is evidence to the contrary. There were two witnesses to the start of the confrontation; Zimmerman and Jeantel.

          Gremlin1974: As much as you want it to be, following someone is not illegal nor immoral.

          Two people defend themselves from perceived aggression in the dark. One is an armed adult, the other an unarmed juvenile. As for whether it was moral, the results speak for themselves.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm

          @Zachriel

          “We were talking about potential black jurors, and how they would have brought a different perspective to the case. Indeed, blacks, as a group, were much more likely to think Zimmerman guilty.”

          This is probably one of the most racist and bigoted things you have said to date. You imply that just because someone is black they would not be able to be objective and actually look at the evidence.

          “There is evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin. Not only where the altercation occurred, but testimony by Jeantel.”

          So? Once again not illegal, immoral, or even aggressive for that matter. If you don’t believe me, next time you are walking down the street turn around and confront someone who is walking the same direction as you and see who the cops side with.

          “Martin wasn’t available to tell his side of the story.”

          Correct, but for no reason other than his own actions and choices.

          “That’s what you said. You’re the salt of the earth, and blacks who have a different point of view, no matter how thoughtful and well-informed, are “animals”.”

          Actually you brought race into it not me. I said “race baiting animals”, which any reasonable person would realize that I was referring to Sharpton and his ilk, not “blacks”as a whole, but you are to blinded by your own racism and bigotry to see that.

          “Which is why many blacks don’t trust a jury which didn’t include blacks.”

          Well then blacks that feel that way are bigots and racists. Justice is blind even to color and if you don’t think that one group is as fair as another group and can’t be objective, that makes you the racist not the other way around.

          “There were two witnesses to the start of the confrontation; Zimmerman and Jeantel.”

          Actually no, there was only one actual witness to the start of the confrontation and that was Zimmerman. Jeantel was on the other end of a cell phone and heard sounds that were unclear as well as a couple of comments, she can’t infer any physical actions. For all she knows Martin might have said “Why are you following me” as he attacked Zimmerman.

          “Two people defend themselves from perceived aggression in the dark.”

          There are only two parts to play here, Aggressor and defender/victim, from all the evidence and eye witness testimony Martin was the aggressor.

          “One is an armed adult”

          So? He was legally armed, it doesn’t make him more responsible for the outcome, especially if he was attacked.

          “the other an unarmed juvenile.”

          Yep, who apparently attacked someone.

          “As for whether it was moral, the results speak for themselves.”

          What is immoral about someone defending themselves from a deadly attack?

          Yes, Martin died, it is tragic the death of any of our youth is tragic, but that doesn’t make it immoral. Also, Martin was old enough to understand the possible consequences of his actions regardless of his legal status.

          Gremlin1974: You imply that just because someone is black they would not be able to be objective and actually look at the evidence.

          The jury’s verdict must be be based on on the evidence and the law. While juries need to be impartial, everyone brings their personal experiences and perspective to the jury room when judging that evidence.

          As a group, blacks were more likely to follow the Zimmerman case closely, and more likely to think he was guilty. These are people you called animals previously.

          Gremlin1974: Once again not illegal …

          It’s the topic of the thread.

          Gremlin1974: immoral, or even aggressive for that matter.

          An adult with a gun shadowing a juvenile in the dark can be seen by the person being followed as aggression, which the evidence supports.

          Gremlin1974: Well then blacks that feel that way are bigots and racists.

          Sure, and “animals”.

          Gremlin1974: Justice is blind even to color and if you don’t think that one group is as fair as another group and can’t be objective, that makes you the racist not the other way around.

          Do we really have to point out that juries in Florida have a less than stellar reputation historically.

          Gremlin1974: Jeantel was on the other end of a cell phone

          That’s right. That makes her a witness.

          Gremlin1974: There are only two parts to play here, Aggressor and defender/victim

          That’s required to maintain your position, but isn’t required by the evidence. More likely is that both parties felt threatened, then reacted.

          Gremlin1974: He was legally armed, it doesn’t make him more responsible for the outcome

          Of course he is more responsible to exercise good judgment. He’s the adult.

          Gremlin1974: Yep, who apparently attacked someone.

          It isn’t clear who started the altercation. Jeantel thought it was Zimmerman. Zimmerman, of course, says it was the dead guy.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 24, 2014 at 1:19 pm

          @Zachriel

          “blacks were more likely to follow the Zimmerman case closely, and more likely to think he was guilty.”

          Bigoted stereo typing speculation.

          “These are people you called animals previously.”

          This is an outright lie, I never refereed to blacks as animals, if your argument is on thin that you have to lie to attempt to win it, well that’s just sad.

          “It’s the topic of the thread.”

          So, its still not illegal.

          “An adult with a gun shadowing a juvenile in the dark can be seen by the person being followed as aggression, which the evidence supports.”

          There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman was “shadowing” Martin.

          Also, no “shadowing” and/or following someone is not and can not be seen as aggression, whether the person is armed or not is irrelevant unless they have threatened you with the gun. If following someone, even while armed was illegal pretty much ever P.I. in existence would be in jail.

          Also, saying that Zimmerman was “shadowing” Martin with a gun is a dishonest argument because there is no way that Martin could have known that Zimmerman had a gun therefore it could not have added to his fear because he didn’t know about it.

          “Sure, and “animals”.”

          Just because you keep telling a lie doesn’t make it true.

          “Do we really have to point out that juries in Florida have a less than stellar reputation historically.”

          Oh, so now the while state is racist?

          “That’s right. That makes her a witness.”

          Yes, but it is not the same as someone who was actually there and her opinion of who “started” the altercation is just that her opinion, not credible evidence.

          “That’s required to maintain your position”

          No, that is simple basic human behavior.

          “but isn’t required by the evidence. More likely is that both parties felt threatened, then reacted.”

          Well of course any situation requires 2 people. I can even go with both of them felt threatened, its just that one of them had a more appropriate response to feeling threatened and the other did not, unfortunately that inappropriate response by Martin lead to him loosing his life.

          “Of course he is more responsible to exercise good judgment. He’s the adult.”

          So in your opinion letting someone beat your brains out is “good judgement”? Whether you like it or not, eye witnesses have testified to the nature of Martin attacking Zimmerman in a manner that could reasonably, especially from Zimmerman’s view, lead to a fear of death or great bodily harm and he did exercise good judgement in response to that deadly attack.

          “It isn’t clear who started the altercation. Jeantel thought it was Zimmerman. Zimmerman, of course, says it was the dead guy.”

          Yep, however, that makes it the word of an man who is innocent until PROVEN guilty, so the word of an innocent man vs someone who wasn’t there.

          I have tried to be patient with you, but you are to blinded by your own hatred and bigotry to actually look at anything objectively. I would even speculate that you decided Zimmerman was guilty before he ever went to trial. But now your argument is in such tatters that you have to resort to outright lies about what I have said to try to make it look like you still have a leg to stand on. You are the one who brought race into our discussion, you are the one flinging stereo types and claiming to speak for blacks as a race. I have been very careful to not be offensive to you directly throughout this conversation, yet you resort to accusing me of calling black people “animals”. The only racist that has been in our discussion so far is you and I have given you far more time than a bigot deserves. I hope one day you let the hatred in your heart die before it consumes you, but for now I am done. God Bless and good bye my friend.

        “That’s not even close to our position. One of the witnesses is dead, but the evidence suggests that Zimmerman and Martin were mutually suspicious, that they had a confrontation, the confrontation escalated, then Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman was the adult with the gun.”

        Awesome. Let me know how that works for you at trial.

        Wait, what?

        Oh.

        Never mind.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Andrew Branca: Let me know how that works for you at trial.

          We weren’t discussing whether Zimmerman was guilty under the law. He was found not guilty by a jury with no blacks.

          We pointed out that Zimmerman drew conclusions about Martin that were based on stereotypes of young blacks, hooded and hands-free, and that Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him. That, and the presence of the gun, led to tragedy.

          Zachriel: We weren’t discussing whether Zimmerman was guilty under the law.

          Actually, I was. Not sure what relevance there is otherwise, as it all becomes mere speculation. Is it possible that Zimmerman actually IS guilty? Sure it’s POSSIBLE. But it is also possible that we are all really living in cocoons while our minds are fed experiences like in the Matrix movies.

          Zachriel: He was found not guilty by a jury with no blacks.

          Are you suggesting that a black person on the jury could not have delivered an unbiased verdict? Or are you suggesting that every single one of the actual jury members were somehow biased in favor of Zimmerman? Its unclear which ludicrous claim you’re making, so please clarify so we can all evaluate and discredit your claim appropriately.

          Zachriel: We pointed out that Zimmerman drew conclusions about Martin that were based on stereotypes of young blacks,

          False – you ASSERTED this claim, which has zero evidence to support it. In fact, when I listen to the recorded call between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher, and the police dispatcher asks Zimmerman “Is he white, black, or Hispanic?” and Zimmerman responds “He LOOKS black” Zimmerman sounds unsure of that statement. If he were sure, he probably would have simply said “He’s black” without the necessity of the qualifying word, “looks”.

          Zachriel: … hooded and hands free, …

          Again, we have zero evidence that GZ knew TM was talking on a hands free device at the time. In fact, since TM was hooded, and it was at night and raining, how COULD GZ have seen that Martin was talking on a hands free device?

          Zachriel: That, and the presence of the gun, led to tragedy.

          While the loss of a young life is certainly a tragedy, we cannot know how things would have gone down without the gun. There might have been different tragic consequences then. GZ might have been beaten to death and TM might be going to jail for his murder. We’ll never know. But I am guessing that won’t stop you from blaming the gun.

          cazinger: Not sure what relevance there is otherwise

          Um, Zimmerman is the subject of the original post. Legal guilt was not the issue raised.

          cazinger: Are you suggesting that a black person on the jury could not have delivered an unbiased verdict?

          Everyone has biases, which is why juries have more than one person. There is little doubt that blacks saw this case quite differently than whites due to their own experiences with walking while black. While a mixed race jury may have also acquitted, at least one juror thought Zimmerman got away with murder, but that a guilty verdict couldn’t be reached under the law.

          cazinger: Again, we have zero evidence that GZ knew TM was talking on a hands free device at the time.

          He probably didn’t know. Did you even read our comment before reaching your conclusions concerning our position?

Gremlin1974: Bigoted stereo typing speculation.

So, you invoke racism for pointing out that there is a distinct divide between blacks and whites on this issue.

A Gallup poll found that blacks were paying much closer attention to the case, and were much more likely to think Zimmerman was guilty compared to non-blacks. A Washington Post poll found that 87% of blacks said that the shooting not justified.

Gremlin1974: There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman was “shadowing” Martin.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was following. The altercation occurred out of sight of the road several minutes after he was advised not to follow.

Gremlin1974: her opinion of who “started” the altercation is just that her opinion, not credible evidence.

Her opinion isn’t the issue, but what she heard.

Gremlin1974: , however, that makes it the word of an man who is innocent until PROVEN guilty, so the word of an innocent man vs someone who wasn’t there.

We’re not discussing legal guilt, which was determined at trial.

Gremlin: I never refereed to blacks as animals

Gremlin: Also, that jury member probably said that to shield themselves from reprisal more than anything else because they didn’t want to be set upon by the race bating animals that tried to get an innocent man convicted in a political show trial.

No, just those who hold a different view than yourself who are calling for what they believe to be justice — and that just happens to be the vast majority of blacks. You also said this:

Gremlin1974: If I meet you in a dark alley and you point what looks like a gun at me, even if it is plastic you are gonna get shot.

So just meeting you in a dark alley, much less following you, will be met with deadly force, even if the “looks like a gun to you” turns out to be a kid with a cell phone. It’s not reasonable to then argue that an armed person following another person in the dark is not also threatening. That doesn’t mean that Zimmerman struck the first blow. Jeantel was sure it was Zimmerman, but she may have been mistaken, and there’s no way to know that with certainty.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend