Yahoo News with video
One of the most anticipated murder trials in recent
memory began with a torrent of profanity from the prosecution and a
knock-knock joke from the defense.
The state of Florida’s case against George Zimmerman began on Monday
with the expected debate about whether the man who shot and fatally
wounded 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in February 2012 committed murder or
acted in self-defense. What was not expected was a bit of forced humor,
which fell jarringly flat.
The lead defense attorney, Don West, declared early in his remarks
that “sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying” and then ventured
a joke. He confessed it was “a little bit weird” to do so and asked the
jury to avoid holding the joke against the defendant.
Then he went ahead.
“Knock, knock,” West said, stunning both the jury and the assembled onlookers.
“Who’s there?” he answered himself.
“George Zimmerman.”
“George Zimmerman who?”
“All right. Good. You're on the jury.”
There was barely a reaction.
“Nothing?” West said, in genuine surprise.
This was met with some nervous laughter.
It was a deeply strange way to open a trial about a killing that has
rattled and vexed an entire nation. The death of Martin, on his way home
from buying candy at a local convenience store, has touched a national
third rail, launching arguments and protests about race, gun laws and
civil rights.
Later, after a lunch recess, West apologized. “I really thought it was funny,” he said. “Sorry if I offended anyone.”
A clunky start struggled to find footing as West slogged through a
long trail of evidence that lasted more than two-and-a-half hours. The
argument meandered, and West admitted as much.
“I don’t know if you follow what I mean,” he told the jury at one point.
This is going to be an explosive and riveting trial. By happenstance, I happened to be watching it live as the State of Florida examined their key witness, a neighbor, a lovely young black woman who was at home with her niece, niece's friend and I think her sister. She testified that she heard one or more persons or animals (lawyer's words) running along a pathway behind her townhouse in a particular direction, (left to right.) She was asked to describe what noise she heard behind her house. She replied, "It was not clearly distinguishable." It was either "No," or "Uhh." She then walked from her kitchen to her sliding glass door which opened to a common backyard. She said that she observed two individuals with their arms flailing while both were in a standing position. When she went back into her kitchen to turn off her stove, that's when she heard a shot. When she returned to the sliding glass door to see what had happened she testified that Martin was already lying on the ground face down and one other neighbor was peeking out of a window and a second had walked outside to ask Zimmerman if he needed him to call the police. This all happened in the space of less than one minute.
ReplyDeleteRight now, Zimmerman's dickhead lawyer is attempting to discredit her testimony.
This is surrealistic. Defense is now trying to prove a bias against this witness. (I apologize for not knowing her name at this time.) Apparently she has "liked" Trayvon Martin's facebook page while she has not taken the time to "like" Zimmerman's page. (She is acquainted with Zimmerman. Everyone in the neighborhood knows exactly who he is.) She is wonderfully serene, poised and eloquent. I don't see the efforts of the defense winning any major points with the jury. One might move for a mistrial based upon their incompetence.
ReplyDeleteJunior,
DeleteYou may be right about how the jury will perceive this, but you're not going to get a mistrial based on a poorly chosen tactic.
As for whether the guy's a dickhead or not for trying to impeach her testimony, that's a pretty common tactic, and it's not unreasonable to think that someone's perception of time might be off in a situation like this. Same for the recall of the exact events of a year and a half ago.
As for the facebook liking, regardless of which side you think is right in the case, expressing support for one side's cause is something valid for the jury to consider. I doubt you'd have a problem if the situation was reversed and a neighbor called by the defense was asked about liking a Zimmerman support page rather than a Martin one. The potential for bias would be just as valid to question in either circumstance.
Each side is going to try to implicate the other's witnesses as biased--liking the page of one side or the other is like putting up a billboard with neon lights saying: impeach my testimony this way! Please!
Sure, start off a tragic and totally avoidable murder case with a sick joke. No problem there.
ReplyDeleteKnock, knock... Who's there?.. No chance... No chance, who? Exactly what Zimmerman has to win this case.
Total loser, with a loser lawyer.
Tragic case? Yes.
DeleteTotally avoidable? Sounds like you think you know everything there is to know about exactly how the events occurred on the night in question. Omniscience must be nice.
As for your comments regarding Zimmerman having no chance in this case, most of the attorneys, both defense attorneys and former prosecutors, that I've seen interviewed have said that the prosecution is fighting an uphill battle and that Zimmerman has a decent chance based on the law and the facts that have been discussed in the media.
But what do they know, they're not gun control advocates and Norse gods worshiped by violent raiders.
(And in case you're going to say something about me getting my sample from "Faux News" you should know that I almost never watch Fox because they sicken me.)
The one thing I'll agree with you on is that the joke was inappropriate. I honestly can't figure out WHAT point the guy was trying to make, or why he tried this. We all have bad days and make bad calls, but damn--that's just too painful to watch.
On the basis of the evidence so far, Zimmerman's chances look good. You just can't stand the idea of self-defense, which makes me wonder whose side you're on.
DeleteBaldr's right. Zimmerman violated protocol by exiting his vehicle. That action alone goes a long way in painting him the vigilante type the prosecution says he is.
DeleteProtocol? What protocol? He was in his own neighborhood.
DeleteProtocol? There's an established protocol for a concerned citizen?
DeleteZimmerman didn't violate any established protocol. He did get out against the advice--not order, but advice--of the 911 dispatcher. Someone who's advice was 1: based on second hand information rather than being on scene, and 2: concerned with Zimmerman's safety, not with reining in "vigilante" behavior.
It's completely plausible that Zimmerman got out to try to keep an eye on Martin, in the distance, to tell the police where he was, and that Martin attacked him on the way back to his vehicle--which seems to be what Zimmerman is saying happened.
With multiple plausible explanations, there needs to be evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman started a fight--we can't base a conviction on a misrepresentation of his actions potentially painting him in a bad light.
There is a protocol. It's to do what the police say to do. Exiting the car goes a long way towards the vigilante image, which, will hang him if it sticks.
DeletePolice don't have absolute power to tell you to do anything that they want to, and as for the protocol issue, I don't see how Zimmerman getting out falls under some issue where we'd say he did something wrong: he didn't obstruct an investigation--according to him, he was trying to help by keeping an eye on Martin so that he could tell the police, "He went that-a-way."
DeleteSure, it can be used to paint a vigilante image, but if you look at the actual transcript, it's the 911 dispatcher, not a cop on the scene, and Zimmerman is told, "We don't need you to do that" or something to that effect, which can equally be used to paint his getting out as taking on some danger, going beyond what's required, to try and get better information for the police. A civic mindedness rather than vigilante obsession.
Which interpretation the jury buys will guide their final decision. Which one you buy shows your opinion, but it's not a hard, verifiable fact. You see it that way, I see either as possible.
Quick point of correction: he didn't get out of the car against the advice of the dispatcher. He was already out of the car and following Martin when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that". His answer was "ok", and the defense can make a strong case that Zimmerman followed that advice. The wind sounds die down and his breathing pattern returns to normal, and he stays on the phone for another 90 seconds or so where it is very clear there is no "chase" going on. In light of anything new, this to me is the exculpatory evidence that crushes the narrative of an innocent boy being chased down. You have to actually listen to the whole tape, rather than pass judgement at the best moment that suits your agenda.
DeleteIt's a new twist on self-defense. If one guy with no right whatsoever attempts a citizen's arrest and then finds himself in too deep as far as a fight, can he still claim self-defense? Maybe he should have just accepted a good, old-fashioned ass-whupping.
ReplyDeleteThere hasn't been any indication that he attempted to detain Martin in any way. So far, all I've heard is that Trayvon's female friend says that Trayvon yelled, "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing here?" Which goes against the Zimmerman confronted Trayvon narrative, having Trayvon start the verbal confrontation. No evidence so far suggests that Zimmerman attempted any physical confrontation. In fact, given this narrative, it would seem Zimmerman might have been keeping his distance and just trying to keep Trayvon in sight, which would fit at least as well with the idea that Trayvon instigated the physical stuff.
DeleteAs for the suggestion that he just accept a good, old-fashioned ass-whupping, when you're slamming someone's head on the pavement repeatedly as Zimmerman said happened (and as the lacerations we see on the back of Zimmerman's head may indicate happened) you're doing something that could kill them.
Maybe you're trying to kill them, maybe you've just lost it and are heedless of the fact you're about to kill them. Either way, at that point you have introduce lethal force and should not be surprised if they use such against you, meeting your escalation.
The outcome, legally, is going to depend on who started the fight. If ass whooper started it, then escalated to potentially lethal force, it's a good shoot. If shooter started the fight by threatening with a gun, thus being the one to first initiate lethal force, ass whooper is in the clear for using lethal force in response, and shooter can't use the use of lethal force against him as a defense. Finally, if shooter started a fistfight, ass whooper escalated to deadly force, and shooter shoots, then he's in a troublesome area that, depending on the criminal statutes in the jurisdiction and how they interact with the exact circumstances, will fall somewhere along the continuum from voluntary manslaughter on up.
With the legal analysis out of the way, I'm going to come back to the issue of "he shoulda just let Trayvon beat on him." This is a nice, self righteous thing to say, and it goes over so long as you assume that an ass-whooping was the worst that could happen under that plan.
If you're getting beat up, it's hard enough to restrain your response and hope that a lucky blow won't accidentally cripple or kill you. When your head is being slammed into concrete, you're a bit beyond trusting the opponent not to kill you, and a suggestion otherwise is Pollyannaish to the extreme.
And how does the legal analysis affect us if we look at things realistically: Well, if you're potential shooter and Ass whupper attacked you, your options are to risk death and not shoot back, or to protect your life and shoot back.
If you started the fight with lethal force, however, you deserve to have you brains bashed in. If you can extricate yourself with non-lethal force, you can go to jail for aggravated assault; otherwise you can use lethal force and go for murder, hopefully in the first degree, with a death penalty.
If you started a stupid fistfight over whose was longer, Ass Whupper escalated things, and is now using lethal force, you can try to endure the beating and extricate yourself with non-lethal force, be prosecuted for assault, press charges for the excessive use of counter force, and maybe recover some small fraction of your medical bills that result from the excessive force--maybe...long shot. Otherwise, if you shoot your way out, you can rest assured that you will live, but you'll be spending some amount of time in prison because you are the one that kicked off the chain of events that led to Ass Whupper's death.
We don't know if there was lethal force on Martin's part. There might have been but whenever the unarmed guy who supposedly was doing the lethal force ends up dead, we can't know for sure.
DeleteOn the other hand, Zimmerman used lethal force. That much we know for sure.
This is true, Mike. Which is why you will not my careful phrasing: "As Zimmerman said happened (and as the lacerations we see on the back of Zimmerman's head may indicate happened)."
DeleteI'm interested to hear what the evidence is. How else did he get the lacerations on the back of his head? Is there a believable theory? Did the neighbors see that part of the fight, just not who started it? Etc.
We know so little. That's why I did the analysis of three possible set-ups. I don't know what happened, and neither did you.
I did the above analysis assuming there was a use of potentially lethal force by Trayvon.
If there is no such escalation of force or other reason presented to say that Zimmerman had a "reasonable fear for his life" then he is and should be toast--voluntary manslaughter at the least, even if Trayvon started it.
In this case, you and your side keep pointing out things that would raise doubt and make the defense case hard to prove if the burden was on Zimmerman, but the burden here is on the state. Simmilarly, we're pointing out things that introduce doubt into the state's case or make it harder to prove.
Yes, we can't know for sure what happened, at least not with the current evidence. We'll see as the trial goes on. If we can't figure out one way or another, beyond a reasonable doubt, then we have to let Zimmerman go. You'll think he's guilty; I may or may not think he is, but unless the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he goes free because of that old saying about a 100 guilty men.
If he hunted Trayvon down for being black and killed him, and then gets away with it, then that would be a tragedy, but we can still hope for such a deed to catch up to him. We've decided to take the risk of this because it would be more horrifying for his version of the story to be true, him to be innocent, and us to toss him into prison and ruin his life more than has already happened.
I'm hoping and praying for justice either way Mike. If he truly is guilty, I pray the prosecution pulls their rutting game together, has the evidence, and gets the conviction. If he's not guilty, then I pray he doesn't go to jail because of negative public opinion and perceptions.
I'm not the cartoon character you make all of us out to be, always jumping to the defense of anyone who says self defense. None of us are. We are just saying, "OK, he's claimed self defense; let's hear him out, look at the evidence, and see whether he's guilty or not.
Flying Junior, I have the right to go about my business without being attacked physically. I don't go around provoking fights, so if someone starts hitting me, there won't be a good reason for it, and I'll have no way of knowing how far such an attack will go.
DeleteMikeb, under your notion here, no case of self-defense is legitimate.
Oh, I see. It would have been justified for Zimmerman to defend himself only after he was dead.
DeleteGreg, I've posted some legitimate DGU stories, yet you say:
Delete"Mikeb, under your notion here, no case of self-defense is legitimate."
Explain.
Yes, you have. In most cases, you express your doubts or criticisms. But I should have said, almost no case.
Delete