DOJ: No Civil Rights Charges Warranted for Zimmerman

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:27:34 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Department of Justice has announced the closure of its civil rights investigation against George Zimmerman. No charges will be filed due to insufficient evidence.

After a thorough and independent investigation into the facts surrounding the shooting, federal investigators determined that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of these statutes. Accordingly, the investigation into this incident has been closed. This decision is limited strictly to the department’s inability to meet the high legal standard required to prosecute the case under the federal civil rights statutes; it does not reflect an assessment of any other aspect of the shooting.

[More...}

Federal investigators reviewed all of the material and evidence generated by the state of Florida in connection with its investigation and prosecution of Zimmerman, including witness statements, crime scene evidence, cell phone data, ballistics reports, reconstruction analysis, medical and autopsy reports, depositions, and the trial record. Federal investigators also independently conducted 75 witness interviews and obtained and reviewed the contents of relevant electronic devices. The investigation included an examination of police reports and additional evidence that was generated related to encounters Zimmerman has had with law enforcement in Florida since the state trial acquittal. In addition, federal authorities retained an independent biomechanical expert who assessed Zimmerman’s descriptions of the struggle and the shooting.

...The federal investigation examined whether Zimmerman violated civil rights statutes at any point during his interaction with Martin, from their initial encounter through the fatal shooting. This included investigating whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 by approaching Martin in a threatening manner before the fatal shooting because of Martin’s race and because he was using the residential neighborhood. Investigators also looked at whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 or Section 249, by using force against Martin either during their struggle or when shooting Martin, because of Martin’s race.

Hopefully, this case is now officially closed.

< Bali Ticket Sales Decline from #BoycottBali Campaign | Marijuana Possession Now Legal in Alaska >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

DOJ: No Civil Rights Charges Warranted for Zimmerman | 114 comments (114 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Right decision... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:00:16 PM EST

never a good idea to warp and sully the law just to get a scalp. Too much "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" as it is.

The case is closed, but I fear we haven't heard the last from this guy...I hope he gets help and for god's sake gives up guns voluntarily.

We probably haven't heard the last from GZ (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Jack203 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:57:54 PM EST

I'm glad you care about his well being. His life is already ruined. Many still want him destroyed. It can't be easy being one of the hated person in the country.


No it can't... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:11:26 AM EST

and I'd imagine it must be even harder to carry the weight of killing a human being, and triggering the chain of events that made it happen, on your conscience. I would hope that's the worst part, but I don't know the depth of his conscience.


New hated persons (none / 0) (#20)
by jondee on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:22:56 AM EST

appear on the scene to displace the Zimmermans the world all the time here..

He can always move to Texas and run for office - and probably win - running on some sort of open carry, zero tolerance platform..


Well, that would depend (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by NYShooter on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:32:59 PM EST

on your definition of "zero tolerance," wouldn't it.

Here, in Tennessee, they've got it all figured out:

A kid in our local high school was caught with a double-barreled Derringer in his possession after having bragged to friends he was "out to get someone at this school." Thankfully, one of the friends had the smarts to inform the authorities. However, this is Tennessee, one of the most liberal "carry law" states in the union.

Thus, they announced they probably wouldn't prosecute the kid on any serious charges because he hadn't shown the "proper intent" to hurt anyone. You see, they claimed the gun wasn't loaded, so how could he hurt anyone with an unloaded gun? The simple fact that he carried the bullets for the gun in a pocket other than the one the gun was carried in was enough of a mitigating factor to go "lenient on the child."


Good story Shooter. (none / 0) (#79)
by fishcamp on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 07:55:25 AM EST

Kinda makes you wonder about the word united in the United States of America.


Could you link us to this story? (none / 0) (#80)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 10:48:46 AM EST

It's interesting as a Double Barrel Derringer is a pretty unusual gun, but I've googled around and had no luck finding it.


Get a different browser: (none / 0) (#83)
by NYShooter on Sat Feb 28, 2015 at 02:04:18 AM EST

Double Barrel Derringer 45/410 Leinad DD White
First one up when I "googled" it.

In any case, I'll try to find a link to the actual story, which is, I think, what you're really interested in. I caught the story on the TV news, so it may take a little while.


Yes, the actual story is what I'm interested in, (none / 0) (#84)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 12:14:27 AM EST

sorry for my confusing question.


Yeah, no problem, SUO, (none / 0) (#85)
by NYShooter on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 03:13:00 AM EST

I, actually did spend a considerable chunk of time yesterday looking to see if I could find a written story about that incident. Unfortunately, no luck so far. Like I mentioned, I didn't read about this incident in a newspaper, or a periodical; I just caught a fleeting verbal story, like, you know, just before going to a "hard advertising break," they rip off a half dozen, attention grabbing thought provokers.

For this reason I didn't want to state what Town it happened in (I do know where it happened) for the very reason you're asking about it; not enough specific details. But, I'm sure you'll agree that mentioning a name, without the back-up detail, would just be unfair.

But, worry not, this IS Tennessee, after all, and, as I've come to expect, this type of woah-ful-weirdo wackiness is not a rarity here.

Stay tuned, my friend....."I hear the train, a'coming it's coming 'round the bend....."

In the mean time, from the, "you can't make this stuff up file,".......enjoy.



: Derringer at high school (none / 0) (#86)
by Howard on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 01:05:02 PM EST

I think this may be the story of the "unloaded" derringer. Location: Port Barre, Louisiana, not quite Tenn. but in TV broadcast range.
www.dailyworld.com/story/news/local/2015/02/11/port-barre-high-student-arrested-fake-gun/23262623/
Wonder what the law is regarding a replica gun, out of sight in a pocket and remaining un-brandished?

There was never enough evidence (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by McBain on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:53:20 PM EST

to warrant a criminal trial in the first place. The two judges who presided over that case should be investigated, sanctioned or disbarred. Public outrage and political pressure are not reasons to force a case into trial.

The fact that there hasn't been a civil suit against Zimmerman speaks volumes. The federal case nonsense was a complete waste of time.

I disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:21:22 AM EST

a unarmed teenager's body in the street and Zim's smoking gun warrants a criminal trial...just because reasonable doubt existed doesn't mean there was no grounds for a criminal trial. The state failed to prove the charges beyond the reasonable doubt, he was acquitted, that's how our system works.


Not every homicide deserves a trial (none / 0) (#21)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:33:26 AM EST

There wasn't any evidence Zimmerman broke the law. The evidence either pointed to self defense or that no one would be able to prove it wasn't self defense.


However (none / 0) (#22)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:09:56 PM EST

there was evidence that Zimmerman acted in a reckless manner by ignoring the dispatcher.

that no one would be able to prove it wasn't self defense.

It's very hard to prove a negative, so another fool with a gun walks free....


Not true (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:57:11 PM EST

This is one of the many myths that lives on. The dispatcher never told GZ to stay in his car or not to follow Martin. This was proven in court.

There's nothing reckless about trying to help the police locate someone you think might be up to no good.


As far as I know (none / 0) (#25)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:07:33 PM EST

Neighborhood watch are specifically told NOT to engage in anyway with possible suspects. There is a word for civilians trying to do police work and it starts with a V, maybe he was not "told" to stay put, but it seems like he was "advised" to do so. In my book vigilantism is reckless behavior in all but the most dire circumstances.


no evidence (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by CityLife on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 06:34:23 PM EST

There is no evidence Zimmerman "engaged" Martin. Zimmerman was in his own neighborhood and it is obvious he went to look to see if Martin was exiting by the back gate. 4 minutes elapsed and Martin returned and punched Zimmerman. Even the girl that he was talking to thinks Martin threw the first punch. The media did a horrible job with this case. I honestly don't understand why Matt Gutman still has a job after tweeting this: "Sanford FL neighborhood watch captain who shot 17 yr old teen bc he was black, wore hoodie walking slowly, likely not 2 be arrested.#Trayvon"


It's funny how no one wanted to touch (none / 0) (#38)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:04:36 PM EST

Rachael Jeantel's comment that TM probably threw the first punch. It didn't fit the narrative so it was ignored. I remember when Mark Lamont Hill asked her that question and when she said TM probably threw the fist punch he paused then changed the subject. If ever a follow up question was needed, that was the time.


It's also funny how ... (none / 0) (#39)
by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:00:51 PM EST

... people chose to disbelieve every other part of her actual testimony about what she actually heard that night and label her a liar suddenly think this piece of speculation is credible. Not to mention how they choose to ignore the reason she gives as to why she thinks he threw the first punch.

I guess this piece of speculation fit their narrative, but reason for her speculation and her actual testimony didn't.


I didn't think she was credible (none / 0) (#40)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:30:08 PM EST

If I was on the jury I wouldn't have believed anything she said. I think Jeralyn wrote a pretty good analysis of her time on the stand.

The problem the prosecution had, and why she should have never been called as a witness, was even if she was telling the truth, her testimony didn't hurt GZ. In some ways, it helped him.

What did she say was the reason TM threw the first punch? In the interview I saw, she didn't clarify that.


Not surprising (none / 0) (#41)
by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:49:55 PM EST

After all, her actual testimony didn't "fit the narrative".

Not sure why you would believe it was so important ask follow up questions to her entirely speculative "first punch" interview answer if you didn't believe anything she said.


I wanted to see if you were just making it up (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:06:19 PM EST

I got my answer


"Making it up" - heh (none / 0) (#49)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:15:33 AM EST

The only answer you "got" was the one you were imagining in your own mind.

If you really want an "answer", Google is your friend. As I said, not sure why some would be so desirous of an answer from someone they've repeatedly deemed as entirely incredible.

Not really ... I got my answer.


Yep they miss this part (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by FlJoe on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:09:14 AM EST

She went on to describe how she believed that Trayvon throwing the first punch was likely caused by Zimmerman attempting to grab and detain Martin.

The jury saw the possibility of GZ "fearing for his life" in the "last few seconds" and that was enough to cast a reasonable doubt on his guilt, I understand that, the prosecution could not prove that he wasn't. However many people discount the possibility that at some point Trayvon was in fear for his. I would ask for someone to prove that he wasn't. I don't think any one can. It is amazing to me that some can believe that Zimmerman was absolutely justified in killing TM out of fear while totally dismissing the possibility that Trayvon was acting in his own defense. The reasonable doubt standards applied to GZ are ignored by all of you who have tried and convicted Trayvon in your own mind.


Maybe because...? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:57:44 AM EST

As you point out, TM was not on trial? Maybe because, as such, legally, he has no presumption of innocence and his state of mind has no bearing on the case? Maybe because what RJ "felt" happened is not evidence? Maybe because, had TM lived, he possibly could've faced charges for assault? Maybe because believing there was no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account (and thereby agreeing the verdict was correct) is NOT the same thing as advocating that he was, as you say, "absolutely justified?"


Exactly (none / 0) (#54)
by FlJoe on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:37:22 AM EST

because TM was not on trial.

Maybe because believing there was no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account (and thereby agreeing the verdict was correct) is NOT the same thing as advocating that he was, as you say, "absolutely justified?"

and it is also not the same as proving that TM was a felon.


Who is trying to PROVE that? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:03:42 PM EST

Zimmerman's account (and the evidence is consistent with) the fact that, at the time of the shooting, TM was physically assaulting GZ. That COULD have been a felony - or a misdemeanor. The FACT is, at the time of his death, TM was probably engaging in a crime. The issues for the jury were: 1) Was GZ in fear for his life. Douch that he felt his only course of action was to kill, 3) Was this fear reasonable? 3) Could GZ retreat from this danger (since SYG was not invoked)? and 4) Did GZ put himself in such a position that he couldn't claim self-defense?

TM's state of mind is irrelevant.


The person to whom he was responding ... (none / 0) (#59)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:21:19 PM EST

... (and others) were making that claim, among other things.

Zimmerman's account (and the evidence is consistent with) the fact that, at the time of the shooting, TM was physically assaulting GZ. That COULD have been a felony - or a misdemeanor.

Or, ... neither.

The FACT is, at the time of his death, TM was probably engaging in a crime.

Not a "fact", although it's funny how the standard to what is a "fact" suddenly drops to one's interpretation of "probably".


Yes. FACTS (none / 0) (#62)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:10:19 PM EST

It is a FACT that GZ suffered defensive injuries. It is a FACT that TM was on top of GZ and hitting him. Since TM did not live, it is not a fact that he would have been charged with assault, but there's a very good chance he would have, hence the word "probably". Beating someone up IS a chargeable offense aka a crime. And since the jury has ruled, then yes, all that evidence are now THE FACTS.


Wrong, wrong, wrong (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by FlJoe on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:50:27 PM EST

And since the jury has ruled, then yes, all that evidence are now THE FACTS.

crimnal juries are not finders of fact. They view evidence as presented and decide if the prosecution has proven their case. A jury verdict cannot certify "all that evidence" as fact. It is possible for a jury to believe none of the defense's case and come back NG if the prosecution fails to make the case.


Oh, I guess I missed the part ... (none / 0) (#63)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:35:14 PM EST

... where the jury ruled that all of those claims were "facts", as opposed to simply not having enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict GZ of the offense with which he was charged. Could you provide a link?

That's the funny thing about how subjective the "probably" or "very good chance" (in an alternate reality) standards are, and how quickly the "presumed innocent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards of the real world become forgotten when imagining what "probably" would have happened if ...

BTW - "Beating up someone" is not a chargeable offense. "Assault", "battery", etc. are criminal offenses, to which there are several defenses, such as self defense (even pre-emptive use of force). Thought you would have known that.


Yman is not a lawyer (none / 0) (#67)
by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:57:21 PM EST

unlike yourself, jb

maybe you can tell


Seriously? (none / 0) (#73)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:39:37 PM EST

Uh, yes ... in fact, I am a lawyer.

Unlike yourself.


then i wonder why jb (none / 0) (#74)
by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:50:06 PM EST

has to keep explaining the most basic points & principles of our US legal system to you


He doesn't (none / 0) (#75)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:52:05 PM EST

Particularly when he gets it wrong.

But nice try at saving yourself from yet another embarrassing claim.


she (none / 0) (#76)
by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:59:15 PM EST

& yes, she does have to keep spelling it out for you - the evidence (so to speak) is right here in this thread


: Wow - YOU think so? (none / 0) (#77)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:02:33 PM EST

Well now I'm upset.
(snicker)

You forgot the part (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by IrishGerard on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:52:14 AM EST

where trayvon comes at zimmerman and circles his car with 'his hand in his waistband'; an obviously threatening manner. Whoops! That's not consistent with trayvon being 'in fear', scared or intimidated by zimmerman'. quite the contrary. Check one

Rachel Jenteal was so afraid that trayvon was being accosted/ detained by zimmerman that she immediately called the Police and when she found out she was the last one to talk to trayvon alive she came forward to tell her story to Sanford Police......Oh Wait! She NEVER came forward or told the police or told ANYONE what happened that night until Crump caught up to her Three weeks later. check two

Yeah let's put someone in prison for 15-30 years based on her testimony that she thought she heard a Lil' Get Off' or "wet grass'. Geezus.

Jeantel also puts Trayvon 'right by his fathers house, a couple houses away' so I'm sure you can explain how he was so scared of zimmerman that he ended up back at the 'T' to confront him on HIS pathway back to HIS vehicle. Jeantel was an excellent witness alright but not for the prosecution.

go ahead and keep arguing against facts, logic and law to support the assailant, Trayvon. you're winning!


Or the other part (none / 0) (#56)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:23:03 PM EST

You forgot the part where trayvon comes at zimmerman and circles his car with 'his hand in his waistband'; an obviously threatening manner. Whoops! That's not consistent with trayvon being 'in fear', scared or intimidated by zimmerman'. quite the contrary. Check one

Well, that does sound pretty scary. So "threatening", in fact, that it's probably something you would mention to a police dispatcher if you were on the phone describing someone who's behavior you found suspicious, as opposed to say, ... only after-the-fact.

Uncheck.

Jeantel also puts Trayvon 'right by his fathers house, a couple houses away' so I'm sure you can explain how he was so scared of zimmerman that he ended up back at the 'T' to confront him on HIS pathway back to HIS vehicle.

"Right by his father's house" is relative, and even the intersection where the shooting occurred could easily be described as "right by his father's house", particularly in the context of a much longer walk to the 7-11. I don't recall the latest detail of "a couple houses away", but even if this is a true quote (as opposed to yet another exaggeration), you'd have to assume she meant it in the literal sense ("two") as opposed to the common use of the term to describe an indefinite, small number. Do you have a link for that "quote" from her testimony?


For phuk sake (none / 0) (#60)
by IrishGerard on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:24:22 PM EST

Please tell me you are aware that was part of zimmerman's NEN call?

Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok
zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

again, check one

in the real world 'a couple of houses away' means a couple houses away.(video @ 18:20) nice try, though.
Again, check two

Now that you've been schooled you will be better equipped to opine on the zimmerman case.

class dismissed


If you think that's "schooled" ... (none / 0) (#61)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:38:42 PM EST

... I hope there's a summer session for you.

You forgot the part where trayvon comes at zimmerman and circles his car with 'his hand in his waistband'; an obviously threatening manner. Whoops!

Walking with your hand in your waistband is not threatening. I do it all the time. Neither is walking past someone. But I would be interested to hear where he told the dispatcher that TM "circled his car", as you claimed previously. Because that little bit of added detail would be suspicious and something you would mention to a dispatcher.

Does it, now? What were the words she said right after "right by his father's house" and immediately before "a couple houses away"? - because you ommitted them from your "quote". And in the "real world", a "couple" means two OR an indefinitely small number, as in "You'll need a couple more years of schooling before you're ready to "school" anyone."


hilarious (none / 0) (#65)
by IrishGerard on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:21:45 PM EST

You're the king on strawman arguments. when you get schooled then you move the goalposts. playing games with semantics isnt going to cut it. You must think people posting here are stupid. A couple houses away means two or three not 100 yards from his fathers house at the T where he ended up confronting zimmerman He was home and he went back for zimmerman. You loose!~

How trayvon left zimmermans car is irrelevant. what's germane is that trayvon came at zimmerman while he was in his car on the phone to dispatch. That negates any notion that trayvon was scared or intimidated by zimmerman. Also,when you walk up on someone you know is eyeballing you and you have your hand in your waistband, you are not only intimating that you have a weapon but you are also threatening force. It also makes trayvon the first aggressor.

I understand you might be able to walk around your lilly white suburb with your hand in your waistband (sounds kinda strange) but since you have no concept of crime or violence let me give you some advice; If you're ever in a bad neighborhood don't ever walk-up on someone with your hand in your waistband.

you're welcome!

lunch time in cali....


: No answers, huh? (none / 0) (#66)
by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:36:24 PM EST

Glad we dispensed with the silly "circled the car" fairy tale. And no answer for what the part of the "quote" you omitted between "right by his father's house" and "a couple houses away"?. Well, some progress, at least. Now if only we could get you to read simple definitions.
Hope you enjoy that school lunch! Happy to provide another anytime you're hungry ...

: Considering the way many boys... (none / 0) (#89)
by unitron on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 07:00:41 PM EST

...and young men wear their pants these days, that "hand in his waistband" might have been nothing more than dealing with the effects of gravity and (apparently) the lack of a belt.

Wow (none / 0) (#58)
by FlJoe on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:14:54 PM EST

you were there and witnessed this "obviously threatening manner" displayed by Trayvon. Judging by the call to dispatch this encounter seemed to be a few seconds of a stare off between two mutually suspicious individuals. Trayvon takes off running shortly after this so called threatening behavior takes place, quite the opposite of fearlessness there. Obviously GZ did not feel that threatened as he immediately followed. Who really knows what happened after that, maybe what started as a macho stare down, escalated into a situation where both parties had ramped up fear levels, not to mention testosterone levels.

Look I am not trying to relitigate the case against GZ, especially with testimony of RJ. I am just trying to point out that there are some alternative narratives besides the obviously self-serving one put forth by Zimmerman's defense team.

Go ahead and take GZ's account as gospel, I would prefer to take them with a huge grain of salt. Other then Zimmerman's "accounts", which were not subjected to cross, there is no evidence that TM initiated the final fatal encounter. Sure GZ had some injuries, but have you never heard of someone starting a fight and getting there ass handed to them?


I don't take GZ's account as gospel (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by McBain on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:41:53 PM EST

Although he did pass two lie detector tests and gave two compelling police interviews, he could have exaggerated some things, been wrong about others, maybe even lied. What I chose to do was to look at the evidence.

GZ called the police before the shooting and requested their presence (this is the most ignored fact)
TM had plenty of time to avoid a confrontation with GZ.
GZ had injuries consistent with a violent assault.
Witness John Good saw TM on top of GZ and believed he was throwing punches while GZ was screaming.
GZ didn't just walk up to TM and pull the trigger. He shot after screaming for help for over 30 seconds.

At some point, common sense needs to be applied. GZ wasn't a vigilante. He was acting in self defense.


: I have never disputed (none / 0) (#81)
by FlJoe on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 10:51:08 AM EST

that there was an altercation with GZ get by far the worst of it. I question how and why the final fatal physical encounter started. There was absolutely no evidence showing that TM jumped out of the bushes and launched an unprovoked attack. I just find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that GZ went from a brave neighborhood watchman to a seemingly lost (looking for street signs?) and almost helpless victim of a smaller younger aggressor.
Sure
TM had plenty of time to avoid a confrontation with GZ
just as GZ had plenty of time to wait for the, I would assign equal blame on that point.
Zimmerman's words and actions DO show that he considered Trayvon some kind of "suspect", some kind of thug that "always gets away". By his getting out of the truck and following TM , GZ, at least in his own mind, was trying to prevent a crime(dangerous but often commendable),track a suspect (dangerous and often foolish), or detain a suspect (very dangerous and possibly illegal)all of which I consider vigilante like actions.
The bottom line is GZ embarked on a course of action that put himself in a situation that he was mentally and physically unable to handle. I sincerely believe that GZ is a weak and troubled person who gains his courage by carrying a firearm. Yes, after all is said and done, GZ was probably in fear for his life, pathetically un able do defend himself against a 158 pound teenager with out resorting to a gun. May God save us all from fools with guns.

Martin could have been acting in self defense... (none / 0) (#90)
by unitron on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 07:02:53 PM EST

...and Zimmerman could still have been justified in the use of force, depending on the circumstances.

Florida 776 has a lot of "if"s and "unless"s.


: Yes, but it would have been harder to sell that (none / 0) (#91)
by McBain on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 07:35:28 PM EST

to the jury. Maybe they could have focused on the screaming.
Had the media done a more honest job with the screaming and injuries, I don't think public perception would have been as anti Zimmerman as it was.

That's even more ridiculous (none / 0) (#26)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:19:48 PM EST

If he was a vigilante who wanted to engage TM, he wouldn't have called the police in the first place. All evidence points toward GZ wanting the police to handle the situation.

If you have a problem with civilians carrying guns, I can respect that opinion. But don't ignore the facts of this case. GZ's lawyers put the dispatcher on the witness stand and got him to admit GZ did nothing wrong by getting out of his car.


Whatever (none / 0) (#27)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:26:28 PM EST

he was a fool with a gun whose actions caused the death of an innocent teenager. Even if he was legitimately acting as a neighborhood watchmen, as he claims, he still broke the rules, I call that reckless.


We're never going to agree on this (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:52:42 PM EST

but you keep ignoring the facts. The evidence points toward TM committing a violent felony on GZ. On that night, TM was the bad guy. What difference does it make that he was a teenager? He was clearly capable of causing great bodily harm.

Is there a rule against neighborhood watchmen carrying guns? GZ wasn't on duty that night, so it doesn't really matter. I don't see any rule that he broke.


Those aren't "facts" (none / 0) (#29)
by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:01:03 PM EST

you keep ignoring the facts. The evidence points toward TM committing a violent felony on GZ. On that night, TM was the bad guy.

Those are your own conclusions/opinions, based on what you believe the evidence "points toward".


You can ignore everything that was presented (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:17:35 PM EST

at the trial if you want. You can bury your head in the sand. You have the right to be ignorant.

GZ had injuries that were consistent with an assault. The only eye witness with a good view saw TM on top of GZ and believed he was punching him. That's evidence pointing towards TM committing a felony, not my opinion.


: Wow - really? (none / 0) (#31)
by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:32:19 PM EST

Thanks for your permission to do something I wasn't doing, but your conclusions still aren't facts.

You are assuming (none / 0) (#32)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:08:35 PM EST

facts not in evidence. I will agree the facts were mostly inconclusive, that combined with an "unenthusiastic" prosecution made the not-guilty verdict understandable..

The evidence points toward TM committing a violent felony on GZ. On that night, TM was the bad guy.

This sounds exactly like Zimmerman's story, funny I don't remember his testimony.

There was undoubtedly a physical confrontation that night, but the who, what and why of it is unknown. Only two people really know what happened and one of them is dead. It is possible your scenario of TM is the aggressor, but it is just as possible GZ initiated the conflict and Trayvon was just standing his ground. I lean towards the latter seeing that GZ started the whole chain of events.


Speaking of facts not in evidence.... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 05:03:35 PM EST

'unenthusiastic prosecution' (none / 0) (#46)
by IrishGerard on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:34:42 AM EST

If by unenthusiastic you mean putting someone you know to be innocent on trial for murder. Or attempting to admit expert testimony that the defendant wasn't the one screaming for help knowing full well that it was the defendant. Or risking your Law licence to conceal exculpatory evidence from the defense/ court, then sure. But I would prefer to call this prosecution mafia-esque - cunning, corrupt and criminal


: I Am Having A Good Laugh (none / 0) (#69)
by RickyJim on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:43:23 PM EST

at this nostalgia for trivia about a dead case. Well, I didn't get over debating OJ for several years after. Some of you seem to want to prove TM guilty of assault with intent to kill or something like that. Why?
For me, Zimmerman/Martin was another poster child for the weakness of American criminal justice. The case was brought, without any judicial review of the worthiness of the evidence, by an elected prosecutor who had control of the police investigation and was in cahoots with an outside lawyer that had a financial interest in the outcome. Then the defense spent a year and a half suing the prosecution to get a hold of evidence that they had in their possession. Then they had a trial which at least one juror stated afterwards was a waste of time. All of these things don't happen in the rest of the world.

: But nothing will happen to them (none / 0) (#70)
by McBain on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:44:39 PM EST

The prosecution, the judge, Crump and co. will all get off scott free. They knew they could pretty much do anything they wanted and no one would hold them accountable.

Unenthusiastic? (none / 0) (#88)
by unitron on Sun Mar 01, 2015 at 06:55:35 PM EST

Did you miss the prosecution's opening where they cursed loudly at the jury?

Now, granted, there wasn't much to their case other than enthusiasm, but, referring back to the saying about pounding either the law or the facts, or, if neither are on your side, the table, there wasn't a table in that courthouse that wasn't in mortal danger.


So What is the Alternative? (none / 0) (#51)
by RickyJim on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:36:22 AM EST

Convict Zimmerman for being a reckless jerk for getting out of the car and trying to spot Martin?
Require that a self defense claimant prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it really was self defense?
Ban civilians from owning hand guns unless they can prove a need, like being a licensed security guard?

Alas (none / 0) (#52)
by FlJoe on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:09:42 AM EST

I see no realistic alternative at this time. Gun control has become the third rail of American politics. All I know there are too many guns and too many fools and no good way to keep them separated.

As to your specific questions;

How I wish there was a "fool with a gun law", reckless endangerment ?
It seems that right now the burden is proof is on the prosecution to show that the defendant was not in "fear for their lives". In other words the uphill task of proving a negative, especially to the slippery concept of "state of mind". Definitely getting rid of the absurd SYG laws would help and maybe better jury instructions. Maybe better tactics by prosecutors to counter self D claims
That would be a reasonable goal to move towards, dream on.

This one did imo... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:50:30 PM EST

If the victim was in the process of breaking into the accused's house, that would be a different story.

I'd hope and expect every case with circumstances such as this one would result in a criminal trial...stand your ground state or no stand your ground state.


Unsurprising. (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:23:26 PM EST

Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#2)
by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:32:43 PM EST

Not necessarily for the same reason(s).


My reasons are related to the law, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:48:25 PM EST

summed up pretty well in J's post.

Are yours different?


Not sure what ... (none / 0) (#5)
by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:12:49 PM EST

... "related to the law" means, but mine have to do with the intent difficulty in establishing intent in these kinds of cases, particularly when you have only one party's version of the events.


The only version of events that mattered (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by McBain on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 07:05:30 PM EST

was that of the evidence. Even if we somehow could hear Martin's version, why would you assume he's telling the truth? Did you assume Zimmerman was telling the truth or did you look at the evidence?


: I looked at the evidence (none / 0) (#9)
by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:03:46 PM EST

But then again, hearing only one side of the events can make it difficult.

reasons "related to the law" (none / 0) (#6)
by The Addams Family on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:40:14 PM EST

just a guess, but i think SUO may be referring to the Department of Justice's process of finding no reason to bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman regardless of your own or anyone else's personal preferences in the matter


: You think so? (none / 0) (#10)
by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:04:28 PM EST

wow

Grand jury involved? (none / 0) (#12)
by unitron on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:13:47 AM EST

Was there a federal grand jury that they ran this past or did they just investigate and decide they didn't even have enough to try that?

Reason I ask is I saw where someone is convinced a federal grand jury ruled against Zimmerman and it's being c