I am finally going to weigh in with an opinion
on Trayvon Martin, as to whether George Zimmerman committed a crime when he
shot him. My answer is, no, George
Zimmerman did not commit a crime and I do not think the jury got it wrong, as
many allege. While I do not believe that
George Zimmerman committed a crime when he shot Trayvon Martin, I do not believe
he was right in doing so. The two are
different. Allow me to go through the
facts as they have been brought out. I
also want to address some of the responses I have gotten, particularly on
Twitter, from people that quite frankly, haven’t got a clue.
George Zimmerman possessed a properly licensed
and permitted concealed firearm. Yes,
the Neighborhood Watch Program he was part of had rules against carrying
firearms by its members, but this did not make it illegal. The Neighborhood Watch Program probably
terminated him from the program for violating their rules. This is the most severe thing they could do,
and while it is a violation of their rules, it is not a crime. Zimmerman carrying a gun was not illegal.
George Zimmerman was not engaged in any illegal
activity at the time he followed Trayvon Martin. While incredibly annoying and disconcerting, Trayvon
may have even felt threatened by the
action, but Zimmerman was not doing anything that rises to the level of an
assault and made no threats, at least none were ever alleged in the trial. Zimmerman
did not violate any laws by following Trayvon. A person can follow any other person they
wish, at pretty much any time, barring the ladies or men’s restrooms or locker
rooms, stalking, etc. Believe it or not,
you can even video tape them if you wish, because they are in a public place
and they have no expectation of privacy.
Trayvon had to have reasonable grounds on which to feel threatened. Again, while it is annoying; it is not
illegal to follow someone, and Trayvon did not have a reasonable fear.
If you are following someone, they are welcome
to confront you and ask you what the hell you are doing. They can even call you vile names, but they
cannot threaten to do you violence. This
is the crime of assault. They cannot strike
or touch you. This is the crime of
Battery. Trayvon was on a cell phone
with a girlfriend; he could have easily hung up, dialed 911 and told the
police, “Hey there is this guy following me.”
He did not do this. Instead, he
chose to confront George Zimmerman and hit him.
Trayvon Martin committed a crime,
the crime of Battery, on George Zimmerman.
More on that in a minute.
There are those who have stated that George
Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon Martin. He
may very well have done this and, again, this may be a really crummy thing to
do, but it is not illegal, especially for a civilian. There has also been a misrepresentation of
what Trayvon Martin was doing at the time all of this was occurring which makes
the allegations of “profiling” even less credible in my opinion. Trayvon was not, as popularly represented by
his supporters, just walking down a sidewalk.
He was walking through the back yards of the homes in a residential
neighborhood. In an area where sidewalks
are provided, walking through the back yards of neighborhoods can easily be
construed as “suspicious.” As a police
officer, I certainly would have thought it suspicious and I would have stopped
Trayvon and asked him what he was doing there.
George Zimmerman did not stop Trayvon, he
followed him, and he had called the police.
By all accounts, Trayvon could have stopped, waited for the cops and
dealt with them and George when they got there.
The accounts at trial lead most to believe that Trayvon instead chose to
confront George and at some point hit him in the face. The pair went to the ground and, again, by
the only account available, that of George Zimmerman, Trayvon began to bounce
George’s head off the pavement or the concrete.
George had the physical evidence indicative of taking such a beating;
the broken nose and the cuts and bruises to the back of his head. George Zimmerman did not break his own nose and pound his own head on the ground.
Now this is where things get a little more
complicated. I recommend you review my
previous blog entries on this topic (“Trayvon Martin - Two Wrongs Do Not Make A
Right,” April 6, 2012 and “Trayvon Martin’s Death…There Are Things We Must
Learn,” April 10, 2012).
Trayvon Martin is beating a man, but Trayvon does
not know that man is armed. Trayvon
thought it was a fist fight, but, much to his surprise I imagine, it turned
into a gunfight, and Trayvon did not bring a gun. When George started to lose the fist fight,
he had a reasonable fear that Trayvon might discover his gun and use it against
him. One woman Tweeted me with, “How do
you know Trayvon knew how to use a gun?”
I don’t, but I can assure you I am not going to bet my life on whether
Trayvon could or would shoot me after he takes my own gun away from me after I
am unconscious. The testimony from
George was that Trayvon, in fact, tried to take the gun from him. George was in a really bad situation and,
based on the facts developed in Court, George started to fear for his
life. He drew his gun and eliminated the
threat by killing Trayvon. George
Zimmerman was legally, the key word being legally,
justified in using deadly force to stop Trayvon from beating him, taking his
(Zimmerman’s) gun from him and killing him with it. The jury decided this was the case and I
happen to agree with it.
The people to whom I take exception are those
who are willing to start making wild assertions that have no basis in fact. In response to blog entries I made in 2012 and
Tweets I posted, I have a number of responses that all amount to “What if….” In the words of my father, God rest his soul,
“What if cows could fly? Would we all
need steel umbrellas?” I can take any
situation and “What if” it to death. We
do not make decisions of guilt or innocence in a criminal trial based on “What
if’s….” “What if’ing” is the last
bastion of the losing side in an argument.
It amounts to assuming as fact things that have not been proven and/or
don’t exist to disprove the concrete, provable and arguable facts we have
available to us. It defies logic and I
answer it with, “Ya, but that didn’t happen.”
My other despised argument starts, “Is it
possible…” The answer is always, “Yes.” I don’t even let the rest of the question get
asked, because it makes no difference what it is. Is it possible the sun will come up in the
west tomorrow? I believe that all things are possible, so the answer
is always yes. The people of the opinion opposing mine have
been reduced to “What if’ing… and “Is it possible…” arguments because they do
not have any facts.
Among the unsubstantiated allegations is that
George Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon Martin.
Folks, people profile other people every day. The presumption is that it is bad. Not always, in my humble opinion. As a police officer, I came to recognize that
there were situations we referred to as “crimes” that were never on the
books. One of these was “White Boy in a
No-White-Boy Zone.” There were
neighborhoods in which we were pretty sure the white guy (or girl) cruising
through at 3:00AM was not there delivering peach cobbler. We had a reasonable suspicion they were in
the neighborhood to buy drugs. We
stopped them and, as often as not, we found they were there to buy or had
already bought drugs.
There were neighborhoods where a black guy
walking through the neighborhood, usually late at night, was also “suspicious”
because we knew who lived in the neighborhood and we knew they didn’t live
there. We would stop and ask them what
they were doing there. If they said
something like, “Walking home from my girlfriend’s house,” we generally took
some information, checked them for wants and warrants, and sent them on their
way. As a rule, we rarely arrested
them. Most of the time, we would do a
pat down search to make sure they didn’t have any weapons and, occasionally, we
would find “contraband” or a weapon. Then we would make an arrest.
Change the situation slightly, the guy is white
and has a bulging pillowcase over his shoulder, walking through a neighborhood
late at night. We would stop him and ask
what was in the pillowcase. We had a
suspicion that they might be carrying stuff stolen in a burglary. Was it a “reasonable” suspicion? I am not sure, but it was a suspicion and we
would make contact with them, ask questions, and assess their responses, demeanor
and actions. Based on, as the attorneys
say, the totality of the circumstances, we would move from a hunch to suspicion
to reasonable suspicion to probable cause for a search and then probable cause for
arrest. At any point during the
encounter, a person could give us answers that made sense, allayed our
suspicion(s) and we would then thank them and let them go on their way.
No, George was not a police officer, but he
still did nothing illegal. George saw a
guy he thought suspicious and reported him to police. He followed him so he could tell police where
the suspicious person was when they got there.
Unfortunately the situation turned ugly real quick.
Many people have pointed out that George did not
obey a “police order” to stop following Trayvon. Actually, the man on the phone with George
was a dispatcher, not a police officer.
Regardless, he said to George, “We don’t need you to do that [follow
Trayvon]…” First, a dispatcher in a
communications center does not have the legal authority to issue an enforceable
order to anyone. Second, the so-called “order”
was equivocal. George was not
instructed, “Stop following him.” At best
it was a suggestion, maybe a request?
George chose not to comply, admittedly with tragic results, but he was
not legally obligated to comply and did nothing illegal.
When you boil all this down to its basic elements,
George Zimmerman did nothing criminal.
Whether he did something for which he can be held civilly liable is
another matter. What we have going on is
people who want to make George Zimmerman a criminal for mostly emotional
reasons. They want or need to make this
about race. They want or need to make this
about a bad law. They want or need to make Trayvon an innocent victim, and most of these people
have a vested interest in the outcome, whether it be emotional, political or
financial, but Trayvon was anything but innocent.
As much as I hate to make the comparison, O.J.
Simpson was acquitted in the murder of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman, but in a
later civil suit, he was found liable for the death and forced to pay money
damages to the Goldman family. In the State
of Florida, civil suits allow a jury to assess what percentage of
responsibility the parties to the suit hold in a case. If there were to be a civil action, the jury
would get to determine how much at fault George was and how much at fault
Trayvon was in this case, but I don’t think we will ever get this determination
because the same Florida Law that let George stand his ground also gives him
immunity from civil suit, his having been acquitted. Take a look at:
I am not sure this isn’t the real problem with
the self-defense law in Florida. George
Zimmerman did any number of things wrong, but they did not rise to the level of
criminality. The gun lobby effectively
got the Florida Legislature to prohibit civil suits in cases of
self-defense. The idea is that if the
act was in self-defense and the person gets acquitted, then why should they
face a civil lawsuit? Well, the rules of
evidence are different in a civil suit, so the jury might have heard things
they did not hear in the criminal trial.
The standard of proof is different and the fact that a crime may not
have been committed does not mean that, in this case the shooter, did
everything right. However, in a civil
suit, in a “Court of Equity,” I am pretty sure George Zimmerman would have been
found partially responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death. The
fact that we will probably never see the case judged in this manner is the real
shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment