All you need to know about the Zimmerman case but were too emotionally charged to ask

If you ask the GG, much, too much, has been said and written about the George Zimmerman case, mostly by pundits who either have no clue what they’re talking about or want to make the case into something it is not. So as usual, we must turn to the GG for a cool, calm, reflective analysis.
If you remove human emotion from the equation and focus exclusively on the facts and the law, the case becomes quite simple. Granted, that is hard to do, given the natural proclivity of some people to see race as an overlay. But let’s try anyway.

What was the case about and what was it NOT about?

Zimmerman claimed that at the moment he shot Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman’s head was being slammed into the pavement over and over by Trayvon and that he shot Trayvon in self defense, fearing for his own life. Despite what many unknowing pundits have said, the case had nothing to do with Florida’s “stand your ground” law. In fact, before the trial began Zimmerman’s defense lawyers had withdrawn a motion for a hearing on the stand your ground defense, deciding instead to use the more traditional defense of self defense. So if you hear someone use “Zimmerman” and “stand your ground” in the same sentence, put on your frown mask and tell them they’re off base. Tell ‘em the GG said so. Then tell them if they want to argue the merits of stand your ground laws, fine, just don’t use the Zimmerman case as a backdrop.

Here’s what we DO know from the evidence presented at the trial:

1. There had been a series of burglaries and thefts at the compound where George Zimmerman lived and served as a neighborhood watch volunteer.
2. Zimmerman had previously been heard to refer to the perpetrators as “a—holes who always get away.”
3. In his capacity, Zimmerman was legally authorized to have and in fact did have a handgun in his possession at the time of the incident.
4. On the evening of the event, Zimmerman, a 29-year old Hispanic (as he referred to himself) was in his vehicle patrolling the area when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking along the street in front of the compound on his way home from a nearby convenience store where he had gone to buy some candy and a drink.
5. Trayvon, an unarmed 17-year old black male, was wearing a hoodie and Zimmerman thought that he matched the stereotype of the person(s) who had been responsible for the crimes in the compound.
6. Zimmerman called 911 and was told to stay in his vehicle until the police arrived to investigate.
7. Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, eventually stopping and getting out of his vehicle, defying the 911 operator’s instructions not to.
8. At some point thereafter, a confrontation took place between Zimmerman and Trayvon that got physical and resulted in Zimmerman fatally shooting Trayvon in the chest. Prior to the fatal shot, the open 911 line picked up screams for help from either Zimmerman or Trayvon. There was conflicting testimony as to whose screams they were.

Here’s what we DON’T know because of a lack of any evidence :

1. Who started the actual fight? No one knows besides Zimmerman and he was not required to testify.
2. Did Zimmerman provoke and incite Trayvon into a fight by, for example, ordering him to leave the premises, by calling him names, or by hurling racial epithets at him? No one knows besides Zimmerman and he was not required to testify.
3. Did Zimmerman single out Trayvon with malice? In other words, did he racially or otherwise profile Trayvon? The prosecution argued as such during their closing argument but there was no actual evidence of pre-existing malice toward Trayvon personally. In fact, there was no evidence as to what Zimmerman’s mindset was at the time he began tailing Trayvon. Only Zimmerman knows and he was not required to testify.
4. Who had the upper hand in the fight at the time of the shooting? There is nothing in the evidence to determine. Zimmerman had some contusions on his head and a broken nose and bloody lip but the jury was free to conclude that that was not evidence per se that Trayvon had the upper hand at the instant that Zimmerman shot him. Zimmerman told police that Treyvon was on top of him and slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk at that instant; and since Zimmerman’s defense rested on self-defense, assuming Zimmerman told the truth to the authorities, Zimmerman must have felt Trayvon had the upper hand to the point that Zimmerman feared for his own life.
5. Was Zimmerman committing any unlawful act just before he shot Trayvon? There is no evidence that he was.

Here’s what the Florida self-defense statute provides :

The Florida law says that a person has the right to defend themselves by the use of deadly force if they are reasonably in fear of death or severe bodily injury at the hand of another person. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (Zimmerman in this case) did not act reasonably in fear of death or bodily injury at the hands of the assailant (Trayvon in this case); in other words, there is a presumption that Zimmerman acted reasonably in defending himself and the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted unreasonably. The only issue is whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of death or severe bodily harm at the time he shot Trayvon. Whatever happened prior to that instant doesn’t matter one iota as far as the law is concerned. So even if Zimmerman had prior malice in his heart toward Trayvon and/or even if Zimmerman provoked or incited Trayvon into a fight, that doesn’t matter for purposes of determining Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. The only thing that matters and the only thing the jury could consider was whether, just before he shot Treyvon, Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his own life or severe bodily injury. The only exception would be if Zimmerman at that instant was committing an unlawful act, in which case self defense would not apply. There was no evidence of any unlawful act on the part of Zimmerman.

So did the jury render the proper verdict of not guilty?

Based on the evidence and the Florida law and on the instructions and charge from the judge which had been approved by the attorneys for both sides and which the jurors were sworn to follow, the GG believes the jury returned the right verdict of not guilty. There were reports that at least some of the jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was simply no pathway for them to get there without deviating from their sworn duty to consider only the evidence, to apply the law and to follow the jury instructions. In fact, the jurors should be commended for adhering to their oath and reaching the right decision rather than engaging in the practice of jury nullification, under which a jury ignores the evidence and law and just renders a verdict based on what they feel is right. Ironically, those of a conservative stripe who have praised the verdict are among the same groups who have encouraged the practice of jury nullification in other criminal cases. Had this jury taken their advice and done that here, there’s a good chance Zimmerman would have been found guilty.

What about those who feel that justice was not served by the verdict and that race was involved?

The purpose of the trial was not to dispense justice on some grand scale but to determine the guilt or evidence of one individual, George Zimmerman, based on the factual evidence in this particular case and Florida law. A jury heard the evidence and the law and concluded that Zimmerman was not guilty, or, more precisely perhaps, that the state had not proven Zimmerman to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how the American legal system works. Did Zimmerman do anything to deprive Trayvon of any of his civil rights? There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman actually detained Trayvon or interfered with his right of passage. Did Zimmerman physically attack Trayvon? Again, there was no evidence to that effect. Did Zimmerman provoke Trayvon into a fight by verbally abusing him with racial epithets? There was no evidence to support that. You cannot simply assume that Zimmerman did any of those things just because that’s what you want to believe. Had there been actual evidence to support any of those actions by Zimmerman, then oned could argue that the Florida self-defense law should be changed to provide that a person who provokes or entices another into a physical confrontation cannot avail himself of self defense as a defense to any harm inflicted on such other person during such confrontation. But, as discussed above, because the Florida law in effect today is what it is, none of those actions by Zimmerman would likely have changed the outcome of this particular case. What about the fact that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle despite being admonished not to do so by the 911 operator? Again, that has no bearing on the criminal case just concluded, but it’s possible Treyvon’s heirs might be able to bring a wrongful death civil case against Zimmerman claiming that Zimmerman was negligent in getting out of his vehicle and approaching Treyvon. Of course, a defense to that claim might be that Trayvon could also have avoided the ultimate confrontation by continuing to walk away (presuming he had not been physically detained, of which there was no evidence). The tragedy of the case is that both parties, had they acted differently, could have avoided the confrontation that led to the fatal shooting. As for race, there was simply no evidence in the case that Zimmerman acted out of any motive related to race. The FBI investigated Zimmerman’s background and was unable to find any history of racial hostility on the part of Zimmerman. Are race relations still a major problem in our society? Yes, of course. Was that evidenced in any way by the Zimmerman verdict? No, not at all, and those who would invoke it to inflame racial tensions make the GG very grouchy.

gg