4/30/13 Press Release From Benjamin Crump

There is no doubt that the legislature intended that a Stand Your Ground Immunity Hearing should be decided before trial.  Because ultimately, the Stand Your Ground Statute grants immunity from civil lawsuits, arrests, and trials, if a defendant prevails.

 

Therefore, while it may be theoretically possible for George Zimmerman to merge his Stand Your Ground Hearing into the trial, there is really no advantage to a defendant with a strong defense to do so.

 

The fact that George Zimmerman has decided to now waive his right to a stand your ground hearing before trial is very telling of his defense or lack there of.  We believe the Defense’s decision to waive a pre-trial hearing and to merge the Stand Your Ground Hearing into the trial is to prevent putting George Zimmerman on the stand and to preclude the public and the potential jury pool from previewing the many inconsistences in George Zimmerman’s story.

 

It has and continues to be our position that the Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute does not apply to the actions of George Zimmerman on the night that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.  Further, the decision made by the defense to waive a pretrial hearing and to solely continue on to trial vindicates the many thousands of protesters who demanded George Zimmerman be arrested for the killing of Trayvon Martin. After all, to have a felony criminal trial an arrest must first be made.

 

Advertisements

20 responses to “4/30/13 Press Release From Benjamin Crump”

  1. bangazcracka says :

    I’m so mad. Look at this hate filled thing my boy friend just showed me some racist wrote about sweet little Trayvon:

    “For someone, especially a youth, to climb on another person and then begin to slam their head into concrete is an act that takes a special willingness to do. Those willing to do it know that such an act WILL cause severe injuries up to and including death.”

    There is nothing but racism and hatred in that language. So what if Zimmerman was going to die he deserved it; that was not Trayvon’s issue. A sweet innocent little child was only just protecting his honor because he had been dissed by some old white cracker.

    Zimmerman deserved the punishment he was getting, and had no right to murder a sweet little innocent child. If Zimmerman could not manage to get loose from a child, it was not legally the child’s problem. There is no law that says a child has to let Zimmerman up, and there is certainly no law that gives Zimmerman the right to murder an innocent child.

    By law it was strictly up to Zimmerman to find a way to get away from this child. Maybe if Zimmerman had not been able to murder this sweet child then Zimmerman maybe might have died, but so what, there is no way a little child could be criminally liable cause it would not have been the child’s fault that Zimmerman was so fat and weak to be able to get away. And, besides Zimmerman started it by getting out of his truck did he not?

    By law then this sweet innocent little child should have been able to murder Zimmerman because of what Zimmerman did. Once Zimmerman got out of his truck, and looked at the child, by law the child had a legal right to bash in Zimmerman’s skull and murder him, and if Zimmerman died so what? It sure did not give Zimmerman the legal right to fight back.

    The way I see it is once it all started to go down, the only way Zimmerman could have stayed out of trouble would have been for him to just give it up and let this sweet child finish him off like you would a mad dog. But, as we have sadly come to expect from racists he ‘made a deliberate and calculated decision’ to stay alive, and for that Zimmerman deserves to go to prison for a very long time.
    Francine

    .

    • kllypyn says :

      TRAYVON NEVER TOUCHED HIM AND HIS RACIST SUPPORTERS KNOW IT.

      • bangazcracka says :

        What you mean? Little Trayvon was putting a real good whipping on that old cracker. I know lots of people believe Zimmerman split the back of his head open by lying down and hitting his head on the concrete floor, but give little Trayvon credit for getting some of that cracker for dissing him. But, you can be sure it was certainly little Trayvon’s voice heard screaming. Couldn’t have been the cracker cause Trayvon had his hand over the cracker’s mouth.
        Francine

      • kllypyn says :

        Trayvon never had his hand over his mouth. He never touched him at all.

      • bangazcracka says :

        How dare you say that. You can’t believe that. Little Trayvon was beating this old white cracker’s butt cause he deserved for dissing little Trayvon.

      • bangazcracka says :

        I hear just crackers say the screaming was Zimmerman, and no it had to be Trayvon. Let me tell you it was both. The old cracker was screaming his head off cause little Travon was kicking his butt, but little Travon probly be screaming something like shut the f*** up…..mother f*****.
        Francine

    • carabeeinqueen says :

      The fact that you have to try an “mimic” what Trayvon Warriors say, by saying things they’ve never asserted. bangazcracka is just more proof of the delusional Zimmbicle mind. They have to invent things to have any sort of argument. FAIL

    • carabeeinqueen says :

      BTW, Crackas post is a classic RZimmermanjr rant. He just HATES that a black boy might be considered innocent until proven guilty. You’re much more transparent than you think Bobby, same as your IP.

  2. CherokeeNative (@mrsgottln) says :

    Francine/bangazcracka – What a disgusting piece of work you are. I bet you consider yourself a christian too. Statistics show that most racists are undereducated and have a lower than normal I.Q. Reading your words proves that you have both.

    If Zimmerman was not actually getting his head deliberately bashed into concrete — which, from the investigator’s testimony at the bail hearing leads one to surmise that prosecutors do not believe occurred as Zimmerman claims and given that the forensic evidence indicates that there is none of Zimmerman’s DNA on Trayvon’s hands, cuffs or sleeves — then Zimmerman was not justified in using deadly force against Trayvon, no matter what his actual beliefs were. Zimmerman may have had the adrenaline rushing through his veins, may have perceived his opponent as a murderous gang-member rather than a skinny teenager because of the presence of a hoody; it’s possible Zimmerman really did think that a wrestling match on the grass with a skinny teenager somehow put his life in mortal danger. But his hyperactive threat perception system does not excuse him.

    Even if Zimmerman truly believed he was somehow in danger for his life, he was not thereby granted permission to kill Trayvon if his fears were the product of an unreasonable mind. And there is plenty to suggest Zimmerman was in fact acting out of excessive caution and unreasoning fear that night. His hyperactive vigilance, his willingness to see a boy returning home from a candy run to the store as a grave threat to his neighborhood, his professed fear for his life due to a tussle with an unarmed boy that he outweighed — if the jury finds from Zimmerman’s behavior that his fears were unreasonable, and that his fear for his life due to a couple bumps on the head was not practical, then the killing is not justifiable as self-defense.

    Add to this that Zimmerman admits that he had the wherewithal and time to contemplate that he not shoot his other hand, aim, and pull the trigger.

    The evidence indicates that Trayvon was not punching Zimmerman in the face, bashing his head into the pavement, or smothering Zimmerman during the struggle, which is supported by eyewitness testimony and by the testimony of paramedics that Zimmerman refused treatment. Rather, the complete lack of any of Zimmerman’s DNA on Trayvon’s hands supports a finding that such never occurred. Also, immediately before firing the fatal shot, Zimmerman admits the two were struggling over the gun. He states that he managed to gain wrist control over Trayvon and gain control of the weapon, aim and fired one shot, hitting Trayvon in the heart. It was during this struggle for the weapon—and not during an attack on Zimmerman—that Trayvon was killed. Because Defendant was not under attack, but was struggling for the weapon, there was no reasonable belief that deadly force was required.

    Although younger than Zimmerman, Zimmerman was larger and heavier than Trayvon, and under the circumstances, the Court will most likely not find that Trayvon’s size caused any reasonable belief of danger. As such Zimmerman cannot prove that Trayvon’s actions created a reasonable belief that deadly force was required to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

    If the jurors who will ultimately decide Zimmerman’s fate are people of reasonable minds, they will recognize that Trayvon was walking on a public street, confronting no one and was himself confronted by a self-appointed mediator of public safety. He was confronted and quizzed — and the mere questioning of his presence by the way is something that a sworn police officer, without probable cause, would not be able to do while compelling an answer. Zimmerman had no legal justification whatsoever for compelling any answer or response or halt by Trayvon. Trayvon was within his rights to say, go fuck yourself and keep walking. He was within his rights not to be queried about his whereabouts, or about his purposes. To do so and insist on your quasi-authority as a neighborhood watchman is to violate the 4th Amendment rights of another citizen. And clearly that is the premise behind this confrontation.

    Had Trayvon been allowed to walk while black in a Florida subdivision, he would be alive. Had Zimmerman not been armed, he would not have held the arrogance to confront of a fellow citizen without any probable cause to believe that the citizen was engaged in a crime. Had he not confronted that citizen without probable cause, the confrontation would not have elevated to fisticuffs. And had he not been armed in that confrontation, it would have remained a fistfight. Had the state of Florida not horribly corrupted hundreds of years of self-defense common law, Zimmerman would not have been empowered to make such appalling and fatal decisions.

    Under the Bill of Rights, Trayvon has the right to walk and be black and not to answer the curious questions of an untrained but armed police-want-to-be who has no legal status to detain or question or compel evidence from a fellow citizen. But hey, he stood his ground. And now a teenager who wasn’t committing any crime when he was first approached is dead.

    As Florida law now stands, an extraordinary, untrained civilian — someone who fancies themselves to have legal authority that they should not in fact have, someone armed with a concealed firearm, someone empowered by a new law that values real estate more than life — he can proceed to escalate that moment until violence ensues, at which point, being the only one carrying a concealed and deadly weapon, he can take a human life that should never have been at risk in the first place.

    Trayvon was unarmed and was walking. Zimmerman was armed and felt empowered to stand his ground and question Trayvon for being unarmed and walking. A confrontation resulted that would not have resulted if Zimmerman had picked up the phone and delegated his concerns to trained law enforcement officers who understand the practical application of probable cause and the absolute right of free citizens to resist interrogative efforts by officers. A civilian or a cop can approach anyone ask them questions. But only a cop understands that he is not, without probable cause, entitled to cooperation. That is what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. A cop can ask anyone anything. But one does not have to respond unless one is detained by the officer, and the officer can only detain you with probable cause. An ignorant, self-aggrandized neighborhood watch volunteer carrying a deadly weapon may or may not understand their lack of standing in attempting the approach. And that lack of understanding may indeed lead to escalation and violence and tragedy.

    That is what happened here. Zimmerman was no cop. He had no probable cause. And worse, he had no training to understand the tenuous legality of his authority. Meanwhile, Trayvon did nothing to require his cooperation or detention. So a confrontation began and an argument ensued. Trayvon stood his ground against an armed man that unilaterally approached and challenged him. Trayvon is dead. Zimmerman is utterly unjustified, regardless of whether Trayvon was agitated enough by having his civil rights violated to have engaged in common assault or mutual combat. Trayvon was unarmed. Zimmerman had the gun.

    Zimmerman is going to prison. You, Francine, are going to hell. Wait for it.

    • bangazcracka says :

      Cherokee you are a piece of work…Listen to me.

      One of the most venerable lawyer’s aphorisms goes something like this:
      If the facts and the law are against you, attack the police.
      This is almost exclusively the province of defense lawyers as it is assumed—and virtually always the case—that the prosecution has the very great advantage of having the facts and the law on its side.  There should be no arrests and prosecutions otherwise.  But this is not at all the case in the George Zimmerman prosecution.  Not only are the law and the facts aligned against the prosecution, so are the police.
      It is always the defense seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.  In the Trayvon Martin case, it is the prosecution seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the case of the investigating police!  It is difficult to explain precisely how unusual and downright strange this is.  The prosecution is  in the position of arguing against the police and much, if not all, of the evidence they’ve amassed, which is the universe-mandated role of the defense in any criminal case.  Consider these facts presented on April 23 of 2012 (“Gilbreath” is Dale Gilbreath, one of the two investigators for the Special Prosecutor):
      * Gilbreath admitted that he did not interview Zimmerman.  [This means that everything he and his fellow investigator knew about Zimmerman’s statements came from the materials collected by the Sanford Police. He has no new evidence in that part of the case.]
      * Gilbreath could not justify the use of the word “confrontation” in the affidavit and looked very evasive in avoiding it.
      * Gilbreath admitted he had no idea whose voice was calling for help, and admitted that he did not speak with Martin’s mother and that he could not confirm whether anyone spoke with Martin’s father about that or whether he could identify Martin’s voice on the various tapes…
      * Gilbreath admitted he had no idea who started the fight.
      * Gilbreath admitted that he had no evidence that conflicted with—no evidence to prove otherwise–Zimmerman’s statement that he was walking back to his truck before being assaulted by Martin.
      * Gilbreath admitted that he had no evidence that conflicted with—no evidence to prove otherwise–Zimmerman’s statement that Martin assaulted him first.
      * Gilbreath admitted that Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with his account of the attack.  Amazingly, he also admitted he hadn’t read Zimmerman’s medical records from that night and that he had never requested a copy of those records.
      From the moment a special prosecutor was appointed, it was pre-ordained that they and the Sanford Police would be at odds.  And when, apparently from the very beginning, Angela Corey aligned herself with and collaborated with the Scheme Team, a group of race-baiting lawyers with a financial interest in the case, it was a certainty that she and the local prosecutor–Norm Wolfinger–who did not find cause to charge George Zimmerman, would be at odds.
      What is remarkable is that Corey made her charging decision based on the same record and facts available to the Sanford Police and Wolfinger.  We know this because at the initial bond hearing, their investigator, Gilbreath, testified that he (and this means the special prosecutor’s office) did not interview Zimmerman and clearly had no evidence beyond what was then known.   In other words, he had done no real additional investigation beyond that already completed by the Sanford Police, and likely, he—and the special prosecutor–had not yet had time to read all of their investigation.
      Certainly, Corey relied, probably heavily, on the unsupported and hyperbolic statements of Benjamin Crump, most specifically, his representation of the testimony of Dee Dee.  Unfortunately for Corey and Crump, Dee Dee is a perjurer, and the “evidence” she provided Bernie de La Rionda (hereinafter “BDLR”).  Not only did not implicate Zimmerman in any crime, she actually supported his account.  To make matters worse for the prosecution, Dee Dee will be an absolutely terrible witness and will actually harm, rather than help, the prosecution’s case, even ignoring her perjury.
      Consider too that The Narrative, the Scheme Team and all those supporting both have savaged the Sanford Police, calling them everything from incompetent to racist, and suggesting all manner of evil conspiracies against Trayvon Martin on their part.  Few, if any, Sanford officers will be kindly disposed to the prosecution in this case.  Indeed, one or two officers, perhaps former Detective, now late-shift patrol officer Christopher Serino might, to one degree or another, be at least somewhat supportive of the narrative (though his own reports will contradict him), but the prosecution will still have to deal with Wolfinger who will have to testify why he did not find probable cause to charge Zimmerman with any crime
      I would not be in the least surprised if BDLR actually asks the court for permission to treat Wolfinger and the Sanford Police as hostile witnesses, which would be yet another astonishing plot twist in this Twilight Zone episode of a case.
      So with Mark O’Mara requesting an evidentiary hearing on the evidence to be presented by audio experts, what are the issues about which he’ll be concerned?  
      There are two primary “bodies” of audio “evidence” in this case.  George Zimmerman’s muttered comments during his call with the police dispatcher as he was watching Trayvon Martin, and the reports of two separate groups of “experts” in their analysis of someone screaming for help, recorded as background by the Sanford Police in at least one phone call of a potential witness.  Zimmerman has testified that the voice is his, calling repeatedly for help, help that never came.  Remember that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict this account.
      One avenue BDLR may take is arguing that Zimmerman called Martin a “fucking coon.”  Unfortunately for BDLR, this issue has been completely debunked:
      The allegation was that Zimmerman—during the 911 call–called Martin a “fucking coon.”  It was presented as prima facie evidence of Zimmerman’s racism.  CNN used the supposedly superior technology available only to a well-funded major television network and aired a segment by reporter Gary Tuchman that confirmed that Zimmerman called Martin a “fucking coon.”  As one might imagine, this did little to calm racial tensions.
      In the meantime, J. Neil Schulman, using Roxio, an off-the-shelf, inexpensive program, produced an audio clip of the comment that clearly reveals the comment to be “fucking cold.”  The final “d” consonant is unmistakable.  To experience the difference for yourself, speak the words “cold,” and “coon.”  Notice the “d,” to be audible, must be clearly voiced and percussive, while the “n” of “coon” is stopped and quiet. 
      Tuchman was, some nine days later, forced to admit—though exceedingly grudgingly—that Schulman was right.  The word was “cold,” not “coon.”  Zimmerman was taking the weather to task, not Martin or anyone else.  Not that this might stop BDLR from trying to misrepresent the evidence.  Remember, please, that any attempt to paint Zimmerman as a racist will be contradicted by the FBI’s investigation that reportedly found no evidence of such racism, quite the opposite.
      The other issue is: who was screaming for help?  Remember that the audio was taped over a phone and from a distance.  Remember too that under the effects of adrenaline, even burly men with basso profundo voices can easily see their voices rise several octaves in pitch, making them sound like excitable little girls. I’ve seen, and heard, this on innumerable occasions.  In this case, every “expert” dealing with the source material has admitted that it is of very poor quality.  In addition, they had no examples of Trayvon Martin’s voice with which to compare the source material, making it practically impossible to know if the voice belonged to either man.
      CNN soft-pedaled the facts, which are that Owen and Primeau did not have adequate voice samples from Zimmerman—and none at all from Martin—from which to make comparisons.   In fact, Owen used proprietary software—his own which he is marketing for around $5000 a copy—and which is not accepted in court in the United States.  Consider:
      Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman’s. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday — meaning it’s unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
      So it’s 48% likely to be Zimmerman, but 60% is required to “feel confident.”  Notice how CNN handled the fact that because they have no samples for Martin, they can’t do any comparison.  They ignored it and said it’s “unlikely” it was Zimmerman.  CNN saved the most important quote for last:
      The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed that they cannot say who was screaming [emphasis mine].
      They ‘cannot say who was screaming,’ yet CNN wrote the article in such a way as to give the impression that it was not Zimmerman.  Notice that they did not say it was Martin.  Perhaps Roxio would have been helpful here as well.  The fact remains that without many substantial and highly specific samples, no audio examiner can deliver a reliable opinion on such things.  This article by an ABC affiliate illustrates that point.  And this post on Macsmind makes the same point.
      The FBI’s examination of the same evidence produced the same results, with the exception that the FBI honestly reported them: 
      To put it as simply as possible, the FBI struck out.  They cannot say whose voice is crying out for help.  The sample provided them is of poor quality and while they don’t specifically say this, I suspect that they, just like the civilian examiners, don’t have the proper number and kind of voice samples of Zimmerman and Martin with which to make a competent comparison even if the 911 call were of sufficient quality.  The FBI will be able to testify only that they don’t know who is screaming for help. 
      BDLR will surely want to use these expert witnesses to deliver unsupportable opinions not based on science but on “gut feelings.”  Ignore the fact that Owen’s software is not accepted as reliable in US courts, these guys are experts!  In other words, BDLR wants to throw up as much of a smoke screen as possible.  It is he that seeks to create reasonable doubt about his own evidence, the evidence gathered and prepared by the primary investigating agency!
      O’Mara will argue that the witnesses be allowed to testify only to the results obtained through reliable and accepted means: none of them can say who was screaming.  He will argue that they not be allowed to testify to unsupportable opinions, which can have no other effect than to unfairly prejudice a jury against Zimmerman.  He will particularly argue against allowing Owen to testify at all because his testimony is based on unproven technology not recognized as sufficiently reliable to be used in court.  This is an inherently reasonable and legally well-grounded argument, which may mean little or nothing in Judge Nelson’s court/
      But aren’t these men experts?  Aren’t they allowed to deliver expert opinions?  They are, but only when those opinions are the result of the application of scientifically accepted and recognized methods.  To do otherwise in this case would be like a fingerprint examiner saying: “well, it’s true that I don’t have any actual fingerprints from the accused to compare to the latent prints found at the crime scene, but because I’ve been doing this a long time, and because I glanced at the accused’s hands when I walked past him just now–and by the way, I’m selling software about my method of how to do that–I’d stake my reputation that those are his fingerprints.”  It doesn’t matter how many degrees a witness has or how long they’ve been pursuing their discipline.  If they are not professionally applying the methods and technologies recognized by the courts as the standard in their discipline, they are guessing as much as the layman.
      The only rational, lawful course would be to allow only one bit of testimony from these witnesses:  the fact that they can’t say who was screaming.  This leaves Zimmerman’s account as the only, and the definitive, account of the attack.  I somehow suspect Judge Nelson will be neither rational nor lawful.
      Readers may also want to visit Legal Insurrection where Cornell Law Professor William A. Jacobson points out that the accepted standard is multiple similar voice exemplars.
      Just One Minute also has a solid discussion of the related issues, as does Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left.
      ONE ADDITIONAL ISSUE:
      As the trial draws near, an issue continues to be raised.  For some, it’s merely another smoke screen, a way to obscure the facts.  Others probably don’t understand reality.  I refer to another essential part of the narrative that goes something like:  “Trayvon Martin never touched Zimmerman, and if he did Zimmerman deserved it becxause he “profiled” Martin, and besides, Zimmerman didn’t get hurt at all, and even if he did, Zimmerman wasn’t justified in using the force he did.”  I wrote:
      People are severely and permanently injured or beaten to death by people employing only their hands and feet each and every day…
      One viciously assaulted without provocation may well be justified in drawing a knife or firearm and brandishing it to stop the assault.  They need not wait until they are so seriously injured they are milliseconds from passing out to do so.  If they have time, and if the assailant will not stop, they may surely use it to stop the assault.  This is particularly true of female victims attacked by men.
      The point is there is a great difference between someone who shoves you to the ground or strikes you a single blow and does little or nothing more and someone–or a gang–who continues to brutally attack you.  The former might require nothing more than a later call to the police.  The latter might require immediate action necessary to preserve life.  It is always a good idea to be aware of the specific laws of your state on this and other matters.
      Hollywood has done us a great disservice in this and a great many other ways.  Watching movies, entire generations of Americans have romanticized violent confrontations.  After watching countless battles where characters punched and kicked each other relentlessly for many minutes, they have developed the idea that they too may engage in such behavior.  They fail to realize that what they are seeing is not fighting, but fight choreography, a carefully timed and filmed dance between experienced actors and stunt men and women, meticulously designed to give the impression of powerful blows given and endured.  Stage blood is not real blood, the result of lacerated skin and ruptured organs and blood vessels.  Reality is very different. Most fights quickly end up on the ground, in the dirt and blood.  Human beings simply can’t take the kinds of repeated blows action heroes absorb and dish out without serious, immediate and long-lasting consequences.
      The human body is at once amazingly resilient and terribly fragile.  I have seen people take unbelievable punishment in car accidents and assaults and suffer no long-term ill effects.  I have also seen people sustain single blows in assaults or minor car accidents that have crippled them, left them paralyzed, destroyed their intellects leaving them near-vegetables, or even killed them. When under brutal and continued assault, how do you tell what the likely outcome will be?  Will you merely suffer painful but rapidly healing injuries, or will you be disfigured, crippled or worse?
      Being struck forcibly in the face or head is a stunning, intensely painful experience.  The eyes, soft tissues and bones of the face are particularly vulnerable to serious, disfiguring, even crippling damage.  A blow to the nose sufficient to break it is unbelievably painful and stunning.  In many cases, it directly interferes with vision and thinking, leaving a victim unable to understand what is happening to them (so much for running away) and unable to protect themself for some time.
      In the same way, being struck forcefully anywhere in the head—even if the skull is not fractured–can cause short term brain damage—that’s what a concussion is—or permanent damage.  Saying: “Oh, it’s only a mild concussion,” indicates a lack of understanding of medicine.  Concussions can be deadly.  I’ve known victims of assaults—including fellow police officers—who suffered head injuries and literally couldn’t think straight—couldn’t function normally–for days, in some cases, weeks.  They were all fortunate to make full recoveries; many do not.
      In the last year, one of my brightest students suffered a mild concussion in a basketball game.  For the next month, it was as though her IQ suddenly dropped 20 points.  She instantly went from an A+ student to a C- student, though her personality remained essentially intact.  Her athletic abilities were also noticeably affected.  She looked the same, but those who knew her realized her injury made her a very different, lesser, person.  Fortunately, she fully recovered.
      One may certainly suffer serious, permanent, even fatal damage from being struck in a wide variety of places on the body.  I’ll not bother to mention them for obvious reasons.  While I am a large, strong man, and while I have experience and training in a variety of martial disciplines, as well as experience in physical confrontations, I have always gone out of my way to avoid such things.  Despite my abilities, I am no longer as young as I once was.  I get older every day while criminals tend to always be in their teens and early 20s.  And while my reflexes and abilities are still superior to a substantial portion of the population, they’re certainly not what they were in my 20s and 30′s, or even my 40′s, for that matter.  I’d be a fool to try to employ only empty-handed defense against a younger attacker or attackers.  I might prevail, but I would almost certainly sustain real damage in the battle.  I’m no longer willing to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary to protect my life or the life of another.  Violent physical confrontations are not a game, contest or a measure of testosterone.
      The facts, which the prosecution cannot dispute, are that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and multiple injuries to his face and head, injuries seen and recorded by multiple witnesses immediately after the attack, entirely consistent with his account of the attack.  There is every reason–including eye witnesses–to believe his account, and no evidence to prove otherwise.  This means that Zimmerman was knocked, stunned, to the ground by an unexpected punch to his nose.  He was immediately mounted by Martin, who repeatedly slammed his head into a concrete sidewalk, and repeatedly punched him.
      This attack could easily have resulted in Zimmerman’s death.  Being struck in the head even once can be deadly.  Consider the case of Ricardo Portillo, a 46 year old volunteer soccer referee punched once in the head by a 17 year old soccer player who took offense when Portillo issued him a yellow card.  Portillo collapsed shortly thereafter and died, in a coma, about a week later.
      Consider that Zimmerman had his head repeatedly slammed into a sidewalk.  This is more than the equivalent of being repeatedly struck in the head with a large rock, except a sidewalk is more massive, therefore arguably capable of producing greater injury.  A 17 year old is more than strong enough to kill, particularly when his victim is not expecting an assault and is, as was the case with Zimmerman, roughly the same size.
      Was Zimmerman in an encounter where the use of deadly force was justified?  Without question.  He is being prosecuted today because of the (hopefully) temporary political dynamics of Florida and the nation.  That does not, however, mean we need lose track of reality.

      • carabeeinqueen says :

        Cracka for all you’re blah, blah blahing… you don’t have even one bit of proof that Trayvon caused those injuries much less assaulted him to the degree you exaggerate to.

        In fact, the head injuries are not the kind of injuries that would occur if a head was being banged on concrete. So, the forensic evidence points to Zimmerman’s scenario as little more than fiction. Once Zimmerman is caught in ONE lie/exaggeration, the jury from that point forward has the right to dismiss his WHOLE account. The presumption that any of his story is true, goes right out the window with the first proven lie/exaggeration. Which is EASY for the State to prove since George is self-evidently a pathological liar.

        It is much more likely that Zimmerman on a dark, rainy night, while pursuing after Trayvon, merely ran face first into the tree, then fell back and hit his head.

        Therefore, there was no real cause for Zimmerman to defend himself.

        He’s a murderer.

      • bangazcracka says :

        Does the State have any evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin? No:

        O’MARA: I want to keep it on the time line. You said that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher? Continue to follow Martin who is trying to return to him home. Did he disconnect at that point?

        GILBREATH: No, he did not. He stayed on the phone for a short period of time. Yes, he did.

        O’MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

        GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

        O’MARA: Which means they met. I’m just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

        GILBREATH: Well, it’s not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words. O’MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

        GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

        O’MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

        GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

        O’MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

        GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don’t know how much more explanation you wish.

        O’MARA: Anything you have, but you don’t have any, do you?

        GILBREATH: I think I’ve answered the question.

        Does the State have any evidence regarding the identity of the screaming voice (including the Orlando Sentinel “experts” and the FBI analysis)? No:

        O’MARA: A struggle ensued. We have witnesses concerning struggling, correct? You have evidence of that, right?

        GILBREATH: Yes.

        O’MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon’s mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin’s voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?

        GILBREATH: Did I?

        O’MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

        GILBREATH: The “Orlando Sentinel” had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.

        O’MARA: Is that part of your investigation?

        GILBREATH: Yes.

        O’MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?

        GILBREATH: No.

        Does the State know who was the initial physical aggressor? No:

        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?

        GILBREATH: Do I know?

        O’MARA: Right.

        GILBREATH: No.

        O’MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?

        GILBREATH: No.

        Does the State have any evidence to refute or contradict Zimmerman’s statements regarding what happened that night; primarily, that Martin attacked him while he was walking back to his vehicle? No:

        O’MARA: That statement that he had given you — sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?

        GILBREATH: Which two?

        O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.

        GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

        O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

        GILBREATH: No.

        O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?

        GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?

        O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

        GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

        O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

        O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

        GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

        Did the prosecution already get slapped down – by since-recused Judge Lester, no less – for arguing facts not in evidence regarding the alleged confrontation? Yes:

        DE LA RIONDA: And sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what “confronted” means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn’t you consider that a confrontation?

        GILBREATH: Yes.

        DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn’t turn around and start — he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman’s the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct?

        O’MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he’s talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence.

        LESTER: What’s the objection?

        O’MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness.

        LESTER: Sustained.

        DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word “confronted” sir?

        GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses.

        DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct?

        O’MARA: Again, your honor, we point to — and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness.

        LESTER: Sustained.

  3. carabeeinqueen says :

    “Does the State have any evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin?”

    Absolutely Yes, whether Gilbreath was aware of it at the time of the hearing or not.

    SERINO is certainly aware because in his capias requests he specifically points out that by George’s quote-unquote “OWN ADMISSION”, he was reaching down towards his gun/pants pocket/phone (all in the same exact area) right before he claims Trayvon punched.

    In other words, Serino is saying that George’s reaching down by his gun is what would’ve provoked Trayvon into defending himself, IF he had.

    In Zimmerman’s own words and demonstrations he ADMITS that he was reaching towards his gun a milisecond before he claims Trayvon punched him.

    Zimmerman himself ADMITS to the provoking incident that gave Trayvon the right to use deadly force in response. It is ZIMMERMAN that let the police know why Trayvon might’ve been provoked in to defending HIMself.

    Again ZIMMERMANS OWN ACCOUNT.

    And no, it does matter of GZ claims he was reaching for his phone not his gun. What lawfully matters is what Trayvon would’ve REASONABLY feared.

    Zimmerman had been stalking Trayvon for at least 8 minutes, Zimmerman REFUSED to explain his stalking behavior when Trayvon inquired, and then Zimmerman reached down by where likely 90% of the CCW population holster their gun.

    Lawfully, Trayvon needn’t have waited until Zimmerman actually PULLED the gun. If it was REASONABLE for Trayvon to fear he was about to be shot by Zimmerman (Remember, even ZIMMERMAN admits he was reaching down by his gun). Trayvon would have every legal right to use not only force, but DEADLY force in response.

    THAT is if there is ever even any proof that Trayvon ever actually assaulted Zimmerman AT ALL, much less unlawfully.

    It’s just as probable that Zimmerman actually pulled the gun, Trayvon did his best to keep Zimmerman (wrestling, not hitting) from aiming and shooting, but ultimately failed in his own self-defense.

    • bangazcracka says :

      Interested in hearing who will testify to all the garbage you claim as evidence. Will also be interesting when O’Mara puts Wolfinger (States Attorney for Seminole County elected by the people of Seminole County) on the stand.

      O’Mara: After your review of the investigation, why did you not bring charges against Zimmerman?

      State Attorney Wolfinger: Because the evidence did not support any.

      O’Mara: Thank you. No more questions.

      So what new evidence has been created since the Sanford Police Department/Wolfinger finished their work? Answer: Crump creates DD. And, of course Crump is absolutely believable since he has no stake in the outcome…what’s that? He does have a stake? You sho? Huh? How many millions did you say?

      Everybody knows the tight relationship between Crump and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Even you should be smart enough to see through what is really going here.

      • carabeeinqueen says :

        You don’t have to wait for the trial Listen/read the statements already released in discovery. It’s right in there and doesn’t take an “expert” to understand it.

        O’Mara, by not going for a pre-trial immunity hearing in one shot proved that Wolfinger was wrong about not arresting GZ. Wolfinger’s perspective is completely moot at this point. #FAIL

      • carabeeinqueen says :

        bangazcracka says “So what new evidence has been created since the Sanford Police Department/Wolfinger finished their work?”

        There was plenty enough probable cause that night. O’Mara, by choosing to forego the pretrial immunity hearing essentially confesses to the fact that the state most certainly DOES have a case. If they didn’t he would’ve gone for the pretrial hearing.

        bangazcracka says “Everybody knows the tight relationship between Crump and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Even you should be smart enough to see through what is really going here.”

        LOL… Sorry buddy. Your tin-foil hat conspiracies aint gonna cut it for George

      • renosweeney says :

        Wow. If George is depending on Wolfinger to plead his case, George is is DEEEEP shit. Wolfinger has a history of failing to charge in violent crimes against blacks. Wolfinger was FIRED FROM THE CASE because his failure to charge George was not JUSTIFIABLE. LOL.

        Cara is right.

        By not going for the pretrial SYG hearing O’Mara is CONCEDING that Lee/Wolfinger were WRONG for not arresting/charging George.

      • bangazcracka says :

        We don’t need no stinkin evidence. We jus make it up as we go. Whats we needs is a white boy conviction to satisfy the brothers.

      • bangazcracka says :

        “Give Us Our Pound Of Flesh”, Francis Oliver, Mother Of Martin Family Attorney, Natalie Jackson, Gives Jaw Dropping Interview Showcasing Scope of Racial Animosity Toward George Zimmerman –

        If there was any doubt about the strength of the professional grievance industry aligned against George Zimmerman, and their single-minded focus to convict him despite he evidence to the contrary, one only needs to look at a recent Bay 9 interview with Francis Oliver, the mother of Trayvon Martin family attorney Natalie Jackson.

        The ‘in-your-face’ level of racism expressed by Oliver is quite staggering to witness. However, it should not come as a surprise given the embedded hatred Oliver carries for non-blacks.

        “I’ve been fighting white people my whole life seems like” Francis Oliver March 18th 2012.

        What should be alarming to casual followers is witnessing Oliver’s expressed strategic goal of getting like-minded black racists to find their way onto the jury. Even to the extent of her outlining how potential black jurors need to conceal their animosity:

        “Don’t get eliminated before you even get a chance to be questioned. We definitely don’t want it to the point that all blacks are eliminated because we got over excited and blew our chances. At least give us a chance. Give yourself a chance,” said Oliver.

        “blew our chances“?    Blew their chances at what exactly?  Sorry, that’s a rhetorical question, we know exactly what the goal is here – Ms. Oliver has outlined it clearly in all of her prior points of advocacy.   The goal is to convict George Zimmerman AT ALL COSTS.

        I have previously researched Francis Oliver;  Her ideology is quite well known.

        One of the key advocates/activists in the Seminole NAACP is Francis Oliver, Natalie Jackson’s mother, and black historian for Sanford, Florida whose straw-grasping claims of racism present today stem from the 1911 incorporation of “Goldsboro” over a century ago :

        “I’ve been fighting white people my whole life seems like,” said Oliver. Of her daughter Natalie, Oliver said, “I raised her on the front lines of the movement.”

        The daughter of Francis Oliver, the one raised on the front lines of the movement, is the same Natalie Jackson who, together with Benjamin Crump and Daryl Parks, represents the family of Trayvon Martin, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin;   Francis’s daughter Natalie Jackson also sits with, and advises, Seminole chapter NAACP President Turner Clayton.

        The same black racist, Turner Clayton, who sent an e-mail to former Police Chief Bill Lee within THREE DAYS – demanding that George Zimmerman be arrested, tried and convicted, before even Ryan Julison, the Media Consultant was hired and came aboard;  And well before the investigation was a matter of public inquiry.

        Many people in Seminole County are right now getting jury notices that could lead them to the huge role of deciding George Zimmerman’s fate.

        But are some people talking about getting a notice too much? And could that affect how fair of a trial Zimmerman could get?

        “They’re all excited, everybody’s watching the mailbox every day to see if they’re going to get one of those letters that come through the mail,” said Francis Oliver, the Curator of Sanford’s Goldsboro Museum.

        And when people do get them, some are talking about it a lot — even on Facebook. There’s a post for example, where one man writes,
        “I’m for a life sentence without hearing any evidence. I’m pretty sure they’ll send me home.” He goes on to say, “I also believe in a fair trial for all but I’m not the right guy for this case.”

        Oliver, who led protests last year pushing for Zimmerman’s arrest, said she wants a fair trial for both sides.

        She said even people with strong opinions about the case can consider both sides at trial. She worries some potential jurors are going too far.

        “Don’t get eliminated before you even get a chance to be questioned. We definitely don’t want it to the point that all blacks are eliminated because we got over excited and blew our chances. At least give us a chance. Give yourself a chance,” said Oliver.

        Oliver even posted a notice on her own Facebook page, advising people of what not to do if you get a summons.

        “Just kind of calm down, keep our mouths closed, take your envelope, report to wherever they tell us to report,” said Oliver.

        Five hundred of those summoned will eventually be asked to report for jury duty on June 10 for Zimmerman’s trial. Jury selection will then dwindle that down to six people that will decide the case.

      • bangazcracka says :

        While watching George Zimmerman’s immunity hearing online in late April 2013, Chip Bennett took satisfaction seeing Florida prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda flail away at the one blog that has given him fits from the beginning. “BDLR alleges that The Conservative Treehouse doxed Witness 8,” Bennett commented. “Double shot!”

        By “Double shot,” Bennett meant “doubly cool.” This was the second of three occasions on which de la Rionda would refer to the Treehouse. By “doxed” he meant, in a word, “outed.” More comprehensively, the Urban Dictionary defines “doxing” as “a technique of tracing someone or gathering information about an individual using sources on the internet.” The word likely derives from the Microsoft Word format “Docx.”

        In fact, doxing succinctly describes how a blogging collective like the Conservative Treehouse works. What troubled de la Rionda is what troubles many authority figures: doxing levels the media playing field. He and they could no longer control the narrative by feeding information to compliant media sources. De la Rionda worried too that the Zimmerman defense was taking its cues from the relentless doxing done by the Treehouse as though that somehow gave the defense an unfair advantage. For the record, the Treepers have refused to communicate with the Zimmerman defense lest they be accused of doing what de la Riona insinuated.

        Bennett had been following Zimmerman’s travails from the beginning and commenting on the Treehouse since June 2012. A chemical engineer by profession and a logician by avocation, the 35-year-old Bennett believes “one hundred percent of the evidence in discovery supports Zimmerman. I don’t think there’s been a single bit of evidence that convicts.” As the June trial approaches, he strongly believes that Zimmerman will be acquitted. On this point, he has more faith in the judicial system than many of his Treehouse colleagues.

        Like all the “Treepers,” though, he has real problems with witness #8, the elusive “Dee Dee,” the girl who had been on the phone with Trayvon Martin in the moments leading up to his shooting by Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. This mystery witness remained unknown even to Team Trayvon, the legal/PR machine headed by Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, until March 18, 2012. Instead of contacting the police after discovering her, Crump contacted ABC’s always pliable Matt Gutman. Gutman was uniquely allowed to listen to a phone interview with Dee Dee on March 19 but not ask questions.

        The following morning, March 20, ABC ran an exclusive preview of what was to come later that day, which included footage of Gutman listening to the conversation. At a lunchtime press conference, Crump shared what he learned. CNN, among others, covered the press conference live. As studio anchor Kyra Phillips waited for the conference to begin, she enthused about the “chilling new perspective” added to the case by the testimony of this heartsick girl who was on the phone with Martin when he was shot.

        Phillips then introduced CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin. Hostin had spoken with Crump earlier and shared with the CNN audience exactly what Crump hoped he would share. “Trayvon Martin told his friend that someone was following him,” said Hostin. “He was nervous. He was concerned. She explained to him that he should run. He told her he was not going to run, but he was going to walk quickly in an effort to get away from the person that he thought was pursuing him.”Hostin summarized that this “was the last conversation that Martin had with anyone, and it also, in my view, dispels the notion of self-defense.”

        A few minutes later, Phillips cut to the press conference. As Crump told the story, the young couple had been on the phone for an astonishing 400 minutes that day, caught up as they were in “puppy love.” So distraught was Dee Dee at Martin’s death, said Crump, “She couldn’t even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital.” Lest the media try to exploit this romance, Crump asked them to “please respect her privacy. She is a minor.” As would be proven later, Dee Dee was neither hospitalized nor a minor, but those were the least of the day’s lies.

        The extended phone calls included the time Martin walked to the neighborhood 7-11 and returned. According to Dee Dee, it started raining hard so Martin looked for shelter. It was then that Martin noticed that a man was “following him.” Dee Dee told him, according to Crump, “Be careful. Just run home.” At this point in Dee Dee’s account, Zimmerman left the truck and pursued Martin, who could not quite seem to shake him. Dee Dee also provided a handwritten summary of her call with Martin. This version of Martin’s final minutes is clearer than what is heard on the phone call.

        [Martin] started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon (sic) turned around and said why are you following me!

        Lest the media rely only on his word, Crump played at least segments of the actual recording for the press. Its climactic scene as described by Dee Dee was recorded as follows:

        He said this man was watching him so he put his hoodie on, Trayvon said.

        “What you following me for?” The man said, “What you doin’ around here?”

        Then somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell.

        “She connects the dots,” Crump told the media excitedly. “She completely blows Zimmerman’s absurd defense claim out of the water.” According to Crump, the heavy-set, twenty-eight year old “loose cannon” had no intention of going back to his truck. He pursued Martin and shot him down. Dee Dee heard it all. The witnesses confirmed her testimony. Cried the outraged Crump at the end of his presentation, “Arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin in cold blood today.”

        Crump got his point across. Gutman headlined his piece on ABC.com, “Trayvon Martin’s Last Phone Call Triggers Demand for Arrest Right Now.” ABC’s Diane Sawyer introduced Gutman’s TV piece, which hammered the Sanford Police Department for its many presumed failings, by referring to Zimmerman as the “neighborhood watchdog.” The piece closed with a photo of a young Martin hugging a baby.

        In none of the contemporary reporting did anyone challenge Crump’s account. No one asked why this girl failed to inquire about the fate of her beau who, when last heard from, was getting beaten by an unknown man. Why did she not call Trayvon’s parents? Why did she not call the police after she learned of his death? How could the plodding overweight Zimmerman have run down the younger, fitter Martin?

        These, however, were minor journalistic oversights compared to the most damning oversight of all: the failure to confirm who was crying out for help. At this stage, the media had full access to the 911 calls from the eyewitnesses. On the 911 call from Witness #11 one hears in the background forty-two seconds of screaming. The man on the tape yells “help” over and over. No one could deny the fear and desperation in his voice. The case hinged on that discovery, and yet not a single major media commentator thought to question Crump’s concocted analysis of the screams.

        “Logically, it makes sense that Trayvon Martin was the voice you heard crying on that tape,” Crump insisted at the press conference. As to why those screams should be Martin’s, Crump would have been better off saying nothing. Instead, he volunteered in his reliably mangled syntax, “You can conclude who is the person crying out for help presumably when they see a gun.”

        Crump wanted the media to believe that Zimmerman chased Martin down, held him at gunpoint, caused him to wail like a banshee for forty-two seconds at the sight of the gun, and then shot him down in cold blood knowing the police — whom he himself had summoned — were minutes away.

        If that were not enough, Witness #6, the best of the eyewitnesses, had talked on camera to the local TV station the day after the shooting and told the reporter what he told the Sanford PD the night before, namely that a there was a “black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy . . . or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help,” and that black man on top was “throwing down blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style.”

        There was no excuse for the media not to incorporate this account into their reporting and not to connect it to Zimmerman’s broken nose and bloodied head, but in the hysterical month of March 2012, the media were much too eager to convict the “white Hispanic” Zimmerman of an imagined hate crime to quibble with something as pedestrian as the truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: