The travesty of the George Zimmerman Case

People have asked me why I oppose the death penalty. I don't think it's cruel and unusual punishment or unconstitutional. I do have a major problem with executing innocent people. There are also too many glory hound prosecutors out there who will do anything to make a name for themselves in high profile cases. Mike Nifong is the posterboy for that. He's not the only Mike Nifong out there. Angela Corey is another. How many prosecutors out there are of that ilk? Not all are, but there's enough out there to be alarmed.

This was not a fair trial, and still the verdict was not guilty.  Luckily Zimmerman had two very good attorneys in Mark O'Mara and Don West. O'Mara especially.

The jury made the proper verdict in the George Zimmerman case. There was no case for the prosecution. The George Zimmerman case should not have gone to trial. It went to trial because the media pushed a narrative. The narrative was that a racist white dude stalked and shot and killed Trayvon Martin because he was black and the supposedly evil "stand your ground" law allowed it. That was bullshit for several reasons.

1. Zimmerman wasn't white. The media assumed he was because his last name is German or sometimes Jewish. Zimmerman was mixed and part Peruvian. That lead to the agenda driven media then calling him "white-Hispanic." If his name was Jorge Lopez, this case would have not gone to a special prosecutor.

2. By all accounts, Zimmerman didn't have a racist bone in his body. He mentored blacks. He and his wife took two black kids in his home who had no place to go. He took a black girl to prom. That doesn't fit the media created narrative. Some media outlets and Nancy (Dis)Grace said that he said "F'ing coons." Outside of actual raccoons, I haven't heard that term in 25+ years, and that was on an old 50's era TV show. Who the hell says that anymore? The prosecution then said that he said "punks" instead. Punks were referring to those who were breaking into the homes. NBC also altered the 9/11 tape making it sound like Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious because he was black. They are now facing a defamation lawsuit. The media did everything in their power for a conviction and can't handle the fact that they didn't get their way. TS.

3. This was not a stand your ground case. This was a strictly self-defense case. Zimmerman waived the stand your ground hearing. Those that blame Stand Your Ground are those who are following the media narrative and divorced from reality. Zimmerman was already on the ground when he fired.

4. The evidence showed that Martin threw the first punch and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head on the concrete sidewalk for 45 seconds before he was shot. The evidence also showed a 4 minute gap where Martin could have gotten out of there. He didn't go home. He had a lot of time to avoid a confrontation. It didn't happen. I can speculate to reasons, but I'm not going to do that here because they aren't proven, much like the prosecutions case (which wasn't just not proven but disproven).

You now have the police, original state attorney (Wolfinger), and now a jury all agree that no crime was committed.


Was Zimmerman guilty of anything? I'd say bad judgment, but certainly not criminal conduct. He probably should not have gotten out of his car. There's also nothing illegal about getting out of his car, nor following Martin (unless he chased him down and attacked - and the evidence did not show that).  This wasn't murder, or even close to murder II (Depraved heart). There was certainly reasonable doubt for manslaughter as well. The prosecution even tried to sneak in murder III/Child abuse as a kitchen sink attempt at the end. Even the prosecution friendly judge said no to that.

The prosecution hid evidence and did not cooperate in discovery. O'Mara said that he's never filed motions to sanction the prosecution teams in his career. He's filed six of them. It took 6 months to get Zimmerman's injuries. He didn't have enough time to get the evidence on the cell phone which he got right before trial. This was the type of stuff Nifong did. After the trial, Corey still called Zimmerman a murderer, which is unprofessional as an attorney to say the least (and actionable). The evidence hiding and disrespect for the verdict by the state attorney is absolutely reprehensible and is the worst part of this whole case. This wasn't about justice. This was about a politician as state attorney trying to make a name for herself.

Some are trying to make this a "Republican" vs "democrat" thing. This ain't it. While Holder and Obama suck, they just ran their mouths. I'll turn my attention on them if Holder announces BS Civil Rights charges and puts on another thinly disguised "double jeopardy" show trial. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are who they are, but only have power because guilty white people cave into them.  The real powers were AG Pam Bondi, who appointed Angela Corey, and Corey herself who decided to bring the overcharges.


I also find it "coincidental" that Angela Corey filed this charges (without a grand jury) about a week before her election. What timing...... Corey needs to be removed from office by any legal means necessary. I don't know Florida law, but if she can be recalled by the people in her Jacksonville based district, she needs to be gone. At worst, she needs to lose re-election and then be disciplined by the Florida Bar. How many people got the same treatment Zimmerman did with less media attention? If these supposed "civil rights" activists want to find some real wrongs, they need to look and see other cases brought forth from Corey's office.

In order to restore faith in the justice system, there needs to be repercussions against the agenda drivers behind this. NBC needs a defamation lawsuit as does Nancy (dis)Grace. Angela Corey needs to be fired at minimum.


If that doesn't happen, then the lesson is that the justice system - at least in Florida - can not be counted on when needed. If the justice system becomes solely a "politically correct" justice system, then people will start going around the system with the return of frontier justice. That will lead to a Pandora's box of trouble.

Not guilty. Don West said that prevents this tragedy from being a travesty, but the travesty is that this railroading was attempted in the first place. 

George Zimmerman charged with 2nd Degree Murder

This is an update to my old post here. Real quick while I'm taking a break from work.

Based on the facts I've seen, and the speculation I've heard so far, I don't see the case for 2nd Degree murder. Where's the mens rea? I expected a manslaughter charge. I hope this isn't a glory hound or political move. The prosecutors always have evidence and information that is not leaked to the public, so maybe there's something there. I hope they have a good reason for the 2nd degree charge. They might have it and we don't know about it.

Also, George Zimmerman has a new attorney. I was quite disturbed at the IMO lack of professionalism given in the interview to the press by the two attorneys "advising" him before this point. Even if there wasn't a retainer, that wasn't right, and the new attorney wasn't impressed by that. I hope Mark O'Mara does a good job and makes sure he has a fair trial. From what little I've heard, he's an experienced criminal law defense attorney who has dealt in homicide cases in the past.

This still in the beginning stages. He was charged today. Formal arraignment is on May 29th. Zimmerman is in protective custody without bail for now. He pleaded not guilty. It's a long process, and we'll see what happens with the pre-trial hearings.

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Stand your ground, self-defense, and manslaughter

Everyone knows about the George Zimmerman case in Florida, or at least all of the speculation with it. The speculation has taken a life of its own. The reality is that few actual facts are known. They are as follows.

1. George Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch volunteer.
2. Zimmerman saw someone he thought was suspicious and followed him. This was Martin.
3. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed him when Martin tried to avoid him. Dispatch said he did not need to do that. That wasn't a lawful order, but is relevant to state of mind.
4. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not.
5. At some point, there was a physical confrontation. There is speculation as to how it occurred and who initiated the physical confrontation.
6. Somebody was yelling for help. Speculation has conflicting sides to who it was.
7. Zimmerman had some sort of bleeding wound on the back of his head and nose, as well as grass standing showing that he was on the ground at some point.
8. As some point Zimmerman fired his weapon, killing Martin.
9. Police arrived and initiated a manslaughter investigation, detained Zimmerman and took him to the station.
10. Zimmerman was later released without charges. There is speculation as to whose decision it was for released. Zimmerman was not arrested. That means either there was no probable cause for an arrest or the prosecutor did not think there would be a conviction.
11. There is going to be further investigation, so this case is not closed.
12. Zimmerman has no convictions. Yes, he was arrested, but not convicted so that's irrelevant. Martin has no convictions. Yes he was suspended from school, but that's irrelevant. Those have no bearing on what happened in this individual case.

That's it. The rest is speculation, or irrelevant unless you have the inside information, and we don't outside of what has been released. Most of the rest is 'go team' bullshit going on between those who love the race card and limelight and those who want Zimmerman to win just so the Jesse Jacksons of the world lose. I like to see them lose too, but other things are more important here. You have politicians running their mouths on this when there's an ongoing case. Obama didn't help matters, but Santorum was actually worse with his comments, and I say that as a Santorum voter. Both of them are attorneys, should know better, and should let the system play out. The media at first, largely based on George Zimmerman's German or Jewish last name, played this up as a white on black shooting, stirring stuff up, even though Zimmerman's half Peruvian and does not look white. They made this a racial issue. Political correctness at its worst.

You have ABC likely doctoring a video so it fits their politically correct narrative. You have the New Black Panthers taking out a $10,000 bounty. You have Al Sharpton of Crown Heights infamy running his mouth. Jesse Jackson doing his thing. This is an ongoing case. State attorneys are still looking at this. Zimmerman deserves a fair investigation and if probable cause is found, a fair trial, and a chance to be either convicted or acquitted based on facts and the evidence, no more, no less.

You also have gun grabbers using this to attack the "stand your ground" law. Stand your ground has nothing to do with this. Michigan has a "stand your ground" law as does Florida. Here's Michigan's law. It sounds very controversial, right. Jennifer Granholm signed it, and she wore a hoodie in protest of this case and made comments on these laws. Does she know what she actually signed?

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

This wasn't that controversial and passed easily.

Senate vote:
Roll Call No.463 Yeas--27

Allen Cropsey Jelinek Schauer

Barcia Garcia Kuipers Sikkema

Basham George McManus Stamas

Birkholz Gilbert Olshove Switalski

Bishop Goschka Patterson Toy

Cassis Hammerstrom Prusi Van Woerkom

Cherry Hardiman Sanborn

Nays--10

Brater Emerson Leland Thomas

Clark-Coleman Jacobs Scott Whitmer

Clarke Johnson

Excused--1

Brown

House Vote 1:
Roll Call No. 371 Yeas--91

Accavitti Elsenheimer Law, David Sak

Acciavatti Emmons Law, Kathleen Schuitmaker

Adamini Espinoza Marleau Shaffer

Amos Farhat Mayes Sheen

Anderson Farrah McDowell Sheltrown

Angerer Gaffney Meyer Smith, Virgil

Ball Garfield Miller Spade

Baxter Gillard Moolenaar Stahl

Bennett Gleason Moore Stakoe

Bieda Gonzales Mortimer Steil

Booher Gosselin Newell Stewart

Brandenburg Green Nitz Taub

Brown Hansen Nofs Vagnozzi

Byrnes Hildenbrand Palmer Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Palsrok Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Pastor Walker

Caswell Huizenga Pavlov Ward

Caul Hummel Pearce Waters

Clemente Hune Plakas Wenke

DeRoche Jones Polidori Williams

Dillon Kahn Proos Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Robertson Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Rocca

Nays--15

Cheeks Hood Lemmons, Jr. Murphy

Clack Hunter Lipsey Smith, Alma

Condino Kolb McConico Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Meisner


House Vote 2:

Brandenburg Green Mortimer Stewart

Brown Hansen Newell Taub

Byrnes Hildenbrand Nitz Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Nofs Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Palmer Walker

Caswell Huizenga Palsrok Ward

Caul Hummel Pastor Waters

Clemente Hune Pavlov Wenke

DeRoche Jones Pearce Williams

Dillon Kahn Plakas Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Polidori Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Proos

Nays--16

Cheeks Hood Lipsey Smith, Alma

Clack Hunter McConico Smith, Virgil

Condino Kolb Meisner Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Murphy Vagnozzi

--------

These passed with super-majorities. These passed easily nationwide, including Florida. Florida's version is quite similar.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

776.012 covers stand your ground.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013's circumstances are:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

What's a forcible felony under Florida law? It's what you'd think it would be.

776.08 Forcible felony. —“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Just to cover all the bases, here's aggravated assault and aggravated battery as defined under Florida law.

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

And:

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The stand your ground law there is very similar to ours, although Florida's more detailed. It doesn't cover this case at all any more than normal self defense.

Reasonable is a key word here. Reasonable not as viewed by George Zimmerman, his dad, those who don't like race baiting assholes and want to teach them a lesson, those who are race baiting assholes who want to teach cracker and whatever is derogatory for Peruvians a lesson, Al Sharpton, or anyone else except the jury or police/prosecutors when they decide to charge/not charge.

The questions that need to be answered are this as the process unfolds.
1. Is there probable cause to charge George Zimmerman with Manslaughter?
2. If yes, can he be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial?

No more, no less. The best thing the general public and media can do is let the system play out and quit poisoning the case.