Zimmartin

If you listened to the news, a grievous miscarriage of justice recently occurred in Florida.  As reported in the major news media, this is what happened:

On February 26, 2012, in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, Trayvon Martin was walking back from the convenience store with his Skittles.  A punk ass cracker neighborhood watch Nazi, George Zimmerman, spotted the black youth in his hoodie, assumed he was up to no good, and called for backup.  Backup was denied; he was told to ignore the youth.  Ignoring these instructions, Zimmerman got out of his car, walked up to Martin, and shot him once at point blank range, killing him instantly.  He then took the boy’s Skittles and munched them down.

After a lengthy trial, 5 Aryan Nation KKK women (and one minority) acquitted Zimmerman of the cold blooded murder of Trayvon Martin.  Naturally, everyone is upset with this outcome.

Of course, a review of the trial testimony reveals a more complex fact pattern.

On February 26, 2012, in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, Trayvon Martin was walking back from the convenience store with his Skittles.  A neighborhood watch busybody, George Zimmerman, spotted the black youth in his hoodie, assumed he was up to no good, and called for backup.  Backup was denied; he was told to ignore the youth.  Ignoring these instructions, Zimmerman got out of his car, walked up to Martin, and confronted him about his identity and purpose in being there.  Angered and offended by this obvious racial profiling by a non-black non-cop (“crazy ass cracker” were the exact words he used), Martin began beating the crap out of Zimmerman, ending up punching him on the ground.  Zimmerman, now on the losing end of the confrontation and fearing for his life, shot Martin once at point blank range from below. 

After a lengthy trial and 16 hours of deliberation, 6 women (including one minority) acquitted Zimmerman of the murder of Trayvon Martin, concluding that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  Naturally, many people are upset with this outcome.

Do you see a difference?

Since Martin clearly did not survive the incident, there was only one story told at trial, consistent with the common saying among gun owners, “better to be tried by twelve [in this case, six] than carried by six [pallbearers].”  Zimmerman’s own testimony would have been self-serving, but since he didn’t testify, that point is moot.  As the jurors indicated, the supporting testimony of Martin’s and Zimmerman’s parents cancelled each other out.  We’re left with a few independent witnesses who could describe what happened. 

Chris Serino, the police investigator, and a prosecution witness, testified that he believed that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he described what happened.  John Good, a neighbor in the community, another prosecution witness, testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.  The forensics expert, Vincent Di Maio, testified that powder residue was on Martin’s clothing, indicating that Martin was shot from below at point blank range, consistent with Good’s testimony. 

With prosecution witnesses like these, who needs defense witnesses?  Defense counsel O’Mara was correct in his assessment: in the end, the prosecution’s case – despite surviving a motion to strike – was insufficient to even meet the standard for manslaughter (does not require proof of malice aforethought), much less second degree murder.  Zimmerman himself could (and did) decline to testify and still be acquitted.  Remember, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the defendant to prove his innocence. 

Again, if you ignore the story consistently told by the media, and focus on the facts presented at trial, Zimmerman acted in self-defense and was rightfully acquitted. 

Was race a factor? Probably, when Zimmerman made the choice to ignore the advice given him by the dispatcher and confront Martin anyway.  But as O’Mara pointed out when interviewed by Piers Morgan, race ceased to be a factor when Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten by Martin.  Martin’s response to the confrontation was out of line, and when you’re getting your ass kicked, the color of the person trying to kill you isn’t particularly relevant to your decision to defend yourself.  Never mind “stand your ground”, to find against Zimmerman would be to rule that, “if you upset or offend a black person, he’s entitled to kill you.”  We can’t fault these 6 women on the jury for refusing to make that determination.  

Much is made of Florida’s “stand your ground law”.  Generally, a would-be victim is permitted to fight back with deadly force against an attack ONLY if he/she is either (A) at home or (B) in public but for some reason cannot retreat.  The “castle” doctrine absolves the defender of the duty to retreat if the defender is in his/her own home, but if attacked in public the defender must retreat.  The “stand your ground” law removed the duty to retreat if attacked in public.  I see online that this law has caused some confusion in Florida, as possibly being applied where the surviving assailant invoking the law may have been either the aggressor or no better than equally at fault with the victim: simply the winner of mortal combat, which is probably not what the legislature intended.  However, it has also been protecting quite a few defendants who were guilty of no more than standing their ground and surviving the encounter.  Perhaps it needs to be tweaked a little.

The law is ill-equipped to handle cases where two individuals interact without a third party witness.  In personal injury cases where one driver ran a red light and the other had the green light, the latter driver, who was not at fault, will probably lose the case without an independent witness.  In rape cases, the “he said/she said” dilemma arises: a guilty rapist might escape justice if the victim is not believed, but an innocent man might go to prison if the “victim” was simply lying but the court believed her (probably to shield her infidelity from her BF or husband).  Even if we had video surveillance cameras everywhere, this wouldn’t prevent the same problem from occurring behind closed doors.  And who wants a society where cameras are literally everywhere?

Notwithstanding the larger issues surrounding the “stand your ground” law, the facts here (testimony by Good) indicate that Zimmerman was trapped on the ground by Martin and could not retreat.  If you cannot retreat, you satisfy even a state which lacks a “stand your ground law”, thus in those circumstances “stand your ground” is irrelevant.  For this reason, Zimmerman was innocent and the law did not apply anyway.