The Case to Be Made
Against George Zimmerman
ByMar 28, 2012
It will not be an easy one. I received the following note from a former homicide prosecutor in Florida. He is responding to the latest account given, in which Trayvon Martin, evidently for kicks, decks Zimmerman with one punch and starts ramming his head into the concrete:
A couple of thoughts:
1.) I don't believe Mr. Zimmerman's story (presuming that what is in the report is truly what he told the police), but more importantly,
2.) What prosecutors believe is not nearly as important as what they can prove. I can not stress this enough, and my mind is about to explode with all of nonsense being written about what the government can and cannot do. It is up to the government, not anyone else, to prove that Zimmerman is lying.
The "self-defense" defense is one of the most difficult defenses for prosecutors to overcome, and the Florida statutes actually give immunity to individuals who believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent what they believed was imminent death or great bodily harm. I know you've seen the actual statute (Fla. Stat. 776.013) but here is the relevant section
(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. (emphasis mine).Note, whether the use of force is reasonable rests in the mind of the accused, and the accused need not fear that death is imminent, only great bodily harm. This is a critical detail that almost all of MSNBC is overlooking.
What Zimmerman did was bullshit, and he should be held accountable. But under the events he allegedly described to the police, the prosecution is going to need some strong evidence that Zimmerman is lying, not about small details but about the essence of the fatal encounter, if they wish to charge him. That could come from forensic evidence or the 911 calls, but short of that, Zimmerman will be presumed innocent.We are now hearing reports that the police originally wanted to charge Zimmerman, but was waived off. This account is really at odds with everything Bill Lee said, and with his demeanor throughout the investigation.
Nevertheless, I think it's worth understanding how difficult it is going to be to prosecute Zimmerman. The point about reasonable use of force resting "in the mind of the accused" is really key.
But with that said I'm left with still more questions. For instance:
(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;I presume this to mean one's home, or one's vehicle, not a public street. But does a "gated community" qualify as a "dwelling?" I don't know. But whatever one thinks of the investigation, this is a really, really bad law which essentially incentivizes the Wild West. Again, had Trayvon Martin been older and armed this case could look a lot different.
TA-NEHISI COATES - Ta-Nehisi Coates is a senior editor for The Atlantic, where he writes about culture, politics, and social issues for TheAtlantic.com and the magazine. He is the author of the memoir The Beautiful Struggle.
<p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy</p>
A Furious
Lawrence O’Donnell
Interrogates Empty Chair
After George Zimmerman’s
Lawyer Cancels
George Zimmerman‘s attorney, one Craig Sonner, seemed a bit out of his league when he tried to answer such difficult questions fromAnderson Cooper on Friday as “where is your client?” and “did he tell you what happened that night?” So it may not be that big of a shock that he canceled his appearance with Lawrence O’Donnell last-minute tonight. What may come as a surprise is that O’Donnell went on and did the segment anyway, interrogating an empty chair about who was paying its legal fees and what it feared it would have to argue to keep his client out of trouble.
RELATED: Hoodie-Clad Goldie Taylor And Mark Thompson Talk Trayvon Martin With Lawrence O’Donnell
The segment began with O’Donnell reporting first on some of the new developments of the Trayvon Martin story, including Zimmerman’s new claims of self-defense. He then noted that Sonner was meant to appear at the top of the hour, and not only canceled, but just “walked out of the studio”– a point that led O’Donnell into a five minute or so lecture consisting of reasons why, perhaps, Sonner wouldn’t want to appear, of assurances that he could not imagine Sonner rescheduling with O’Donnell, and O’Donnell’s assertions that Sonner could not feel particularly comfortable about his client’s chances if he wouldn’t go on the show. “He literally run away,” O’Donnell railed, “he is in our car right now taking him away from the studio.” Accusing him of “getting away with the craziest stuff any lawyer has attempted to get away with,” he warned his audience to watch him if he resurfaces anywhere else.
O’Donnell then turned to the segment his show planned with Sonner, showing the chair from which Sonner should have reported in Orlando. He did not, of course, but that did not stop O’Donnell from actually conducting his interview. He began asking questions passionately– “Who is paying you?,” “Did you represent Zimmerman in the domestic violence case in 2007?,” “Do you have photographs of your client’s broken nose that night?”– until he exhausted his list of questions, raising his voice dramatically at the empty wooden chair staring back at him helplessly from Orlando, bearing no answers.
The “interview” via MSNBC below:
Lawrence O’Donnell
And Charles Blow
Give George Zimmerman Pal
Joe Oliver Epic Grilling
On Tuesday night’s The Last Word, George Zimmerman friend and former news anchor Joe Oliver finally ran into an interviewer who has beenwatching the game films, and the result was an epic two segments of television that left Oliver’s premise, that he knows Zimmerman well enough to know he couldn’t have killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood, in tatters.
This interview, with host Lawrence O’Donnell(possibly still steaming from last night’s walkout by Zimmerman’s lawyer) and The New York Times‘ Charles Blow, is amazing on many levels, and covers many of the points I’ve raised about themisleading, nonsensical things Oliver has been saying, and challenging the closeness of his relationship with Zimmerman. By the second segment, when WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart tagged in, Oliver began to actually dispute the characterization of him as a “close friend,” and told all three that “My role in this just doesn’t make sense.”
Some highlights include Oliver’s weird evasion of O’Donnell’s questions about whether Oliver and Zimmerman were ever co-workers. By the end of the second segment, Oliver acknowledged that “we’re co-workers.” He also made several stunning admissions, including volunteering that “George may have been drinking” the night he was arrested in 2005, then quickly adding that he’s never, ever known Zimmerman to drink.
Aside from the blistering barrage of questions, there were a few unrelated, priceless moments, like when O’Donnell is quizzing Oliver about anger management counseling, and looks like he’s about to slug some guy at the bar. Then, toward the end of the first segment, some of the lights go out in Oliver’s studio, leaving him in a sinister half-light. That should have been a clue to Oliver that things were not going to get better.
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with a friend trying to help out a friend by attesting to his fine character, but what Oliver was doing went well beyond that.
I can’t figure out, for the life of me, why Oliver hung in there for two whole segments of this, but the result was as compelling as anything I’ve seen on cable news. I’ve seen O’Donnell do the pit bull thing before, with varying results, but tonight, he got a subject he could really sink his teeth into.
Here’s the interview, in two parts:
Part One:
Part Two:
__________________________
The killing of
Trayvon Martin:
More questions
Nothing makes sense in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Nothing. Last week, I posed 16 questions that should be answered. Today, I have more. Yesterday’s leaked report of George Zimmerman’s account from police of what happened on Feb. 26 only raises more questions for me. Again, they range from the mundane to the technical. We might not get answers to some of them. We might not like the answers we are given to some of them. And some of them might have simple explanations. But the questions must be asked.
It wasn’t until Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, called to file a missing-persons report on Feb. 27 that police went to his fiancee’s house with pictures of his son’s dead body. News reports have said that Trayvon’s body was tagged as a John Doe. But the “Partial Report Only” that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number. How did police get that information? Was Trayvon carrying identification? Did police try to contact that home number?
Trayvon’s father called his cell phone several times. Why didn’t police answer Trayvon’s cell phone?
Zimmerman reportedly had a bloody nose, lacerations on the back of his head and was given first aid by a Sanford Fire Department rescue unit. Where is their report of his injuries? Were any photographs taken of Zimmerman’s injuries?
Did the officer who arrived on the scene and placed Zimmerman in handcuffs read him his Miranda rights?
That same officer who put Zimmerman in handcuffs reported, “While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard him state ‘I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.’ At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place.” Why not?
Zimmerman was then taken to the Sanford Police Department and interviewed by an investigator. Was that interview recorded?
Was there blood splatter from Trayvon on Zimmerman’s clothing? Were any tests done on Zimmerman’s clothing? DNA? Gunpowder?
Were any photographs taken of Zimmerman’s clothing? Was the clothing taken into evidence.
Were there any signs of a struggle on Trayvon? Scratches, bruises? Were there any traces of Zimmerman’s hair or skin on Trayvon’s clothing or under his fingernails?
A drug and alcohol test was performed on Trayvon’s body. Were drugs and/or alcohol found in his system? There are reports that a similar test wasn’t done on Zimmerman? If not, why not?
You don’t have to be a devotee of “Law and Order” or “CSI” to come up with these questions. They’re pretty basic and common-sense. That they have to be asked one month and one day after the killing of Trayvon Martin is alarming.
By 10:43 AM ET, 03/27/2012
|
>via: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-killing-of-trayvon...