Posted on 04/13/2012 2:57:34 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I strongly disagree with David French’s analysis. I’m inclined, instead, to agree with commentators ranging from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz that the affidavit is stunningly weak — “unethical,” as Prof. Dershowitz puts it. In fact, I go further (which, after nearly 20 years of writing and supervising the writing of complaint affidavits, I think I’m qualified to do). This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term “profiled” but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
McCarthy is far closer to right than is David French. What French and SO MANY commentators forget, or do not address, is this: Even if the affidavit may provide “probable cause,” IT IS STILL AN ETHICAL VIOLATION TO FILE CHARGES unless the prosecutor reasonably believes that a conviction can be won with the known evidence that’s believed to be admissible.
There is no effing way that the known (at least publicly known) information could win a “beyond reasonable doubt” Murder Two conviction from any reasonable jury.
WHo is this French person? When an unarmed man is killed by an armed man charges are expected, huh French?
Well if the unarmed man is almost a head taller and is smashing someone’s head on the ground expect to be laid out flat if the person who’s brains you’re trying to bash in as a weapon.
Same strategy as the Rodney King police officer’s trials then. That certainly worked out well when the jury couldn’t convict them of attampted murder.
From everything I’ve seen, this incident could be a case of a tragic misunderstanding. Zimmerman thought that Martin did not belong in the neighborhood, and got nervous. Martin thought someone was stalking him in a suspicious way. Things went downhill from there.
I’m not sure what would be proper justice if that scenario happened. Certainly not murder, but letting Zimmerman go scot-free may not be justice, either.
Personally, if this is the underlying objective for this procedure, it would be kindness to George in a Machiavellian move, thus protecting him from further harm.
But I'm not a lawyer or politician -- just an interested observer. Obama and Holder will have fits in both areas, eh?
Why? Martin confronted Zimmerman first, and last time I checked you’re allowed to ask someone what they’re doing around the neighborhood with having them use concrete side walk to try and bash your brains out. Martin was also a good six inches taller than Zimmerman and thought he’d just take the lil’ nosy man out for “disrespecting” him by daring to question what he was up too walking around the gated community.
Its a matter of law not how one feels.
If you think Zimmerman shouldn’t go “scot-free” then he needs to have broken the law and in doing so someone died as a result.
Exactly where did he break the law?
It isn’t a crime to follow someone. It isn’t even a crime to ask the person being following what they are doing there. This was all on private property.
A hasty and egregiously flawed case could be expedited and concluded finding Zimmerman guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
This would allow Obama the opportunity to crow, revel in self-adulation and preen as the "protector-of-the-poor-and-minority classes" right before an election.
Shortly thereafter, the conviction would be vacated.
But then, I am a cynic.
Sorry...
That was supposed to be “It isn’t even a crime to ask the person being followed what they are doing there.”
you are on target.
I think she is counting on no judge having the fortitude to throw the case out being as the judge will be subjected to death threats, mobs and possible race riots as a result of doing the right thing.
It's a certainty that a trial will clarify many of the things that are still being vigorously debated in all circles, completely eliminate some others, and make public many details that haven't even been guessed at yet.
____________________________
Please provide a link to an eyewitness sttement that says so.
2) Martin was also a good six inches taller than Zimmerman and thought he’d just take the lil’ nosy man out for “disrespecting” him by daring to question what he was up too walking around the gated community".
____________________
Oh, you know what Martin was thinking? Now guess what I'm thinking...
The charges will be dismissed. This will happen near the election. The charges were filed knowing full well they will be dismissed.
Zimmerman's not going to plead to a lesser charge - there's no reason to, because it's obvious theres no way to make M2 stick.
But it should be thrown out at the evidenciary hearing. That way civil process is blocked as well - and it's not just civil process against Zimmerman. Punk Trayvon's parents and lawyers are looking at the deep pockets of the HOA and the City and whomever else they can dig up - and these corporate entities currently employ their own law teams that are very busy informing the State that they will legally retaliate against the State if it exposes them to suit through the abuse of its powers.
I believe the military aviation term for what is going on is a "furball."
The dispatcher did not “admonish” Zimmerman. He did not even “advise” Zimmerman; and he certainly did not “order” Zimmerman not to follow Martin.
The dispatcher said: “We do not need you to do that.” Taken literally (which is how everything spoken by a 911 dispatcher should be taken) — that is nothing more than a statement of what the dispatcher does or does not need. A perfectly reasonable response would have been: “that's okay, I don't mind continuing to follow him”.
911 dispatchers, like air traffic controllers, space ground controllers, etc. need to speak in clear, unambiguous language. Polite circumlocutions, and other ambiguities, can cause deaths.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote, in "Outliers: The Story of Success" about how polite, ambigious language has killed airline passengers and crew. Here's a link to one of many articles on the subject:
http://www.academicinfo.net/blog/patrick-woessner/2009/02/10/educations-power-distance-index
I know that when I feel I am being followed I do not attempt to confront the person. I get out of the area in the shadows. If the person confronts me and I have no choice but to respond, I would be very brief and ask who they are and why they are questioning me. If they punch me out, then game on, but...we know that Zimmerman did not punch and break his nose nor pound his head into the ground nor did he pull his gun. How do we know that? Zimmerman had grass on his back, a gash on his head, a witness heard screams. The man with the red shirt on the ground was Zimmerman yelling for help per the witness. It was Zimmerman with a gash on his head, a broken nose and grass on his shirt. Now could it be that Trayvon was held at gunpoint and jumped Zimmerman? Then why was Zimmerman beaten up so badly? Now were the screams Zimmermans? Gee. Since he is the one with the gashes and a broken nose, I would have to say yes. If Trayvon had similar injuries, we would know both people could have started the physical fight. Why on earth did a fight happen if Zimmerman had his gun and just wanted to blow Trayvon away? It happened because Trayvon jumped Zimmerman.
“I think she is counting on no judge having the fortitude to throw the case out being as the judge will be subjected to death threats, mobs and possible race riots as a result of doing the right thing.”
All that needs doing is going to the local VFW and American Legion and asking for volunteers to clean out the garbage.
We did it that in my community and ran crooked cops out of the area, indicted thieving politicians and sent them to jail and confronted “tough” guys late at night. It’s all about getting good folks involved in a spring clean-up in the neighborhood.
There might even be a federal grant you can apply for to buy “equipment.”
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around any kind of "murder". The best I can fathom is a low level manslaughter charge, and involuntary or reckless at that. Frankly, I think the whole case stinks.
I’ve never heard of third degree murder. Murder, at common law, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. In most US jurisdiction, it is “first degree” if it is also premeditated — but “premeditation” doesn’t mean it was planned for a long time; it can be a mere moment’s malicious planning. So even lawyers often have difficulty deciding whether a murder is 1st or 2d degree.
Manslaughter — perhaps that is what was meant by M3? — also comes in two flavors. Voluntary manslaughter typically is “what would otherwise be a murder,” but committed in a heat of passion caused by a provocation that would cause a reasonable person (and DID cause the defendant) to lose control. Involuntary is — again, speaking off the cuff here — when your incredibly stupid, reckless conduct accidentally kills someone.
From what has come out, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and headed back to his vehicle. Only an idiot would think that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with a larger young stud than himself while carrying a concealed weapon. His history of contacting authorities instead of initiating contact implies he wanted the LEOs to do their job in a neighborhood that had been victimized for some time.
Agree the other poster muffed it with presuming to know Martin's thoughts, but those condemning Zimmerman and insisting he initiated physical contact are conjuring that data from thin air too.
From what the public has been privy to, the odds that Zimmerman's story is the most factual are far greater than other "versions".
I agree with this portion of your comments and often discuss it in a similar manner.
I strongly disagree with your closing remark that it would be an injustice if Zimmerman went scot-free.
Much depends on exactly what happened when these two men came to resolve their suspicions of one another.
It wasn’t a 911 call or operator.
That’s probably true. But... if they don’t riot over this they will find something else to riot about. They will continue unchecked because of the DOJ’s marching orders.
Good for you!
Yep. You are right about that.
I decided to trust this woman's judgement based on her reputation as a Republican who was tough on crime. Stupid me. As one FReeper commented to me, "she's a hack."
I now think he was right.
______________________________________
My point exactly...both variations are based on pure speculation.
For every theory in one direction, such as....
" From what has come out, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and headed back to his vehicle. Only an idiot would think that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with a larger young stud than himself while carrying a concealed weapon."...
There is one that says...
We know that Martin ran away from a grown stranger, an act of avoidance, why would he change his mind and attack? - and - How do we know that Zimmerman was going back to his truck? He had already told the dispatcher where it was and then modified his directions to request that the cops call him when they got there so he could tell them where he was...
I could come up with multiple plausible scenarios, all based on what we know, that have Zimmerman still looking for Martin. It wouldn't make me popular here but they would all be as valid as any of the 'Martin turned attacker' scenarios that people swear are true.
What ?
The witness stated the 6 foot 1 football player was slamming
George’s head into the cement !
Would you allow yourself to be beaten to death just to not upset the riled youth !
Have you ever been MUGGED !
Everyone is forgetting that GOP Gov Rick Scott appointed this media whore arorney based On GOP AG Pam Bondi recommendation !
Bondi is a moron .
She is doing her job.
Well, it speaks well of you to admit you were wrong. It is understandable that you stood up for her after all the glowing reports. We all live and learn, ha?
What has he done wrong?
If he's telling the truth (as it has been reported by his father and brother), he was attacked by someone who was threatening to kill him--and might have done so if the other guy had managed to get ahold of his gun. It's possible that he did not intend to fire the gun but it went off as Trayvon was trying to get it from him. I don't know that for sure but it is a possibility.
Why, if he was really defending himself from imminent danger of death, should he spend many years in prison just because Al Sharpton and Barack Obama decided to turn this event into a national news story?
As someone else has pointed out, since February 26, over 1,000 black Americans have been killed--by other black Americans. No one is making a lot of noise over them, and many of them probably have grieving relatives.
There you go. Making assumptions and predisposed without hearing all the facts empanelled. No jury duty on this for you, friend.
Why, without any evidence or witness statements to prove your speculation, are you so certain that Martin (who we do know ran away and was unarmed) suddenly changed his attitude and attacked Zimmerman (who we do know had followed him and was armed)?
Your scenario can only be true if both of them did a 180 from the behavior that we know the displayed, even though there is absolutely no evidence that they did.
Why are you all so positive, without any evidence, that the only possibility is that they both did in fact change their action?
When did proven truth stop being important? Nevermind ---- we know the answer.
__________________________________
Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was trying to disarm the stranger who had been following him? Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was fighting to keep the stranger from shooting him?
Do you know at what exact moment Trayvon saw the gun? Was it already in Zimmerman's hand? Was Zimmerman about to pull it? Did Zimmerman move his jacket aside to let Trayvon see it? Did he reach?
If any of these possibilities were to be true, wouldn't Trayvon have had the right to defend himself under SYG?
Tell me please why none of this can be possible
__________________________________
Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was trying to disarm the stranger who had been following him? Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was fighting to keep the stranger from shooting him?
Do you know at what exact moment Trayvon saw the gun? Was it already in Zimmerman's hand? Was Zimmerman about to pull it? Did Zimmerman move his jacket aside to let Trayvon see it? Did he reach?
If any of these possibilities were to be true, wouldn't Trayvon have had the right to defend himself under SYG?
Tell me please why none of this can be possible
What right does a prosecutor have, without proper evidence, to cause the arrest and detention of an innocent man? When a judge throws out this charge the prosecutor should be forced to spend the same amount of time in lock-up then FIRED.
The alternative I suggested is based partly on the recording of the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher a few minutes before the shooting, and partly on repports of what Zimmerman told family and friends (some of whom have appeared on Hannity's program). To follow Zimmerman's version, it appears that Zimmerman did not pull the gun out on his own but after Trayvon had knocked him down and was on top of him, he caught sight of the gun and tried to grab it.
A new piece of evidence yesterday was that Trayvon was at the store where he bought the skittles between 6 and 6:30. He had a 16-minute walk back to his father's place, so he had 20 or more minutes to spare either dawdling on the way or walking around the neighborhood in the rain looking at the houses--which is what he was doing when Zimmerman first saw him and reported him as someone behaving in a suspicious way.
Absent a new mystery eye-witness who is absolutely reliable we will never know the facts.
I am not willing to accept Zimmerman's version as anything but CYA. I would feel the same if the roles were reversed.
bttt
The emergency medical people and the police who saw him minutes after the shooting should be able to testify to what they saw, I imagine. There were two or more witnesses who heard and perhaps saw the fight--maybe not all of it but at least some of it. The police should know who they are and Zimmerman can compel them to testify (at least the sixth amendment says he can--but maybe that doesn't apply since it is the state of Florida bringing the charges rather than the federal government).
Fortunately, I've never been a plaintiff or defendant in any criminal or civil trial, and I've never gone to law school, but I think the defense is supposed to have access to any exculpatory evidence. Of course if the prosecution hides it and they don't know about it, tough luck for Zimmerman.
I don't know what happened, who confronted whom, or anything other than the (probably inaccurate) accounts that have been in the news. And neither do you. Until it is proven otherwise, I have no reason to think this is a result of anything other than a tragic misunderstanding on both sides.
If you think Zimmerman shouldn’t go “scot-free” then he needs to have broken the law and in doing so someone died as a result.
Exactly where did he break the law?
It isn’t a crime to follow someone. It isn’t even a crime to ask the person being following what they are doing there. This was all on private property.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what laws could be applied here. Laws aren't firm cut-and-dry rules; there are always interpretations and applications, necessitating much discussion over whether a particular act is or is not legal.
I do not know anything about this case other than what has been publicized and opined. I *do* know that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stay away, which he did not do (and which would have been prudent).
I'm afraid that if Zimmerman is not punished (even by a slap on the wrist), we'll see a deluge of similar incidents, all pointing at the Zimmerman case for their defense.
I do not know whether it is criminal to follow someone. But, having been in the position of being followed without knowing why, I can attest that it is *very* scary. If Zimmerman was, in fact, following Martin, then it would have been very reasonable for Martin to suspect that Zimmerman had criminal intent. Martin may have attacked out of fear for his safety.
I say that because I have these nightmare visions of vigilante squads out there taking justice into their own hands. I have the impression that Zimmerman was straying into vigilante territory when this incident occurred.
“I *do* know that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stay away, which he did not do (and which would have been prudent).”
Sorry, but you do not know that.
The operator told Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that” after asking if Zimmerman was following Martin. Zimmerman agreed not to follow him. But... The operator also asked where Martin went so that the police who were in route could follow up on the call. Zimmerman said he didn’t know where Martin was and stepped into an open area between houses so he could see down the row of houses in an attempt to tell the operator where Martin went. That’s where Zimmerman says he was attacked.
If Martin was “afraid” he simply would have gone back to the home where he staying nearby and had plenty of time to do so. In addition that home was in the opposite direction of where Zimmerman was. Instead he came back and confronted Zimmerman, apparently by a punch to the face knocking Zimmerman to the ground and then beating him while on the ground.
Facts do matter.
When I think I'm being followed, I do my best to get to a safe place. But then, I am a small woman, and I don't have the aggressive tendencies of young men.
I can very well envision a scenario in which intentions were misread on both sides, and the situation went from bad to worse as a result. Martin may very well have attacked Zimmerman because he felt threatened by the way Zimmerman was following; noting that Zimmerman was on the phone, he might have thought that Zimmerman was calling friends for back-up for some nefarious purpose, and decided that attacking was his only option.
Despite the politicization of this story, there is not necessarily a "bad guy" involved.
Have you ever been MUGGED !
Just maybe, the 6'1 football player thought Zimmerman was planning to mug him, and was going back for reinforcements. Maybe he thought that his best chance would be to attack Zimmerman before those reinforcements arrived. We don't know the whole story here, and, sadly, we will never know Martin's side of it.
Have we become such sheep that only the “authorities” can follow and question someone on private property as to what they are doing there?
If someone is on your property and you confront them about their presence without the blessings of the “authorities” are you being a vigilante?
Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain... There’s no indication whatsoever that Zimmerman was waving a gun around or otherwise looking for a fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.