Times Editors On Zimmerman Acquital - Keeping The Dream Alive

The NY Times editors won't let reality or their own reporting intrude on their fantasies about the Zimmerman trial and acquital:

Trayvon Martin’s Legacy

..

The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute [That is technically correct insofar as "Stand Your Ground" is part of the overall explanation to the jury of justifiable and excusable force]. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.

These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.

The law sounds intuitive? The law sounds very similar to the NY State law for self defense. Some excerpts (my emphasis):

S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

...

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody...

 And they provide more detail on self-defense. My emphasis again, with comments as to the applicability to the Zimmerman case in brackets.:

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person [The state failed to prove that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, unless we accept their notion that it is illegal to exit one's car]; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force [the state failed to prove it was not Zimmerman getting battered on the sidewalk and screaming for help]; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.[N/A]

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating [This is their favored alternative to Stand Your Ground, but of course it has no relevance when the shooter is lying on the ground screaming for help]; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

[The following exceptions would not apply to Zimmerman]

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Well. Even with New York's duty to retreat, Zimmerman would have had a strong self-defense story that the prosecution never proved to be false. Here is the Times Liz Alvarette in today's paper:

At the trial, the fight between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman that preceded the shooting produced a muddle of testimony — and grist for reasonable doubt. It remained unclear who had thrown the first punch and at what point Mr. Zimmerman drew his gun. There were no witnesses to the shooting and no definitive determination of which man could be heard yelling for help in the background of a 911 call.

The only version of events came from Mr. Zimmerman, who did not take the stand, denying prosecutors a chance to cross-examine him. His statements to the police spoke for him at the trial. Defense lawyers also had a powerful piece of evidence in photographs of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries: a bloody nose and cuts and lumps on the back of his head.

...

The evidence of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries may have helped his case, but it was not legally necessary. He needed to show only that he feared great bodily harm or death when he pulled out his gun, which he was carrying legally, and shot Mr. Martin.

“Classic self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said.

Soon after Mr. Zimmerman was arrested, there appeared to be a chance that the defense would invoke a provision of Florida self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground. Ultimately it was not part of Mr. O’Mara’s courtroom strategy, though it did play a pivotal role immediately after the shooting.

The provision, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and since adopted by more than 20 other states, allows people who fear great harm or death not to retreat, even if they can safely do so. If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force.

"If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force".

Without researching that I will bet that is more Times fantasizing. Life and the lkaw are full of surprises but where is the imminent threat of grave harm if the attacker is retreating? Legal eagles? Pressing on:

The provision also allows a defendant claiming self-defense to seek civil and criminal immunity at a pretrial hearing.

Mr. O’Mara said he did not rely on Stand Your Ground as a defense because Mr. Zimmerman had no option to retreat.

"Retreat was not an option" would have been the argument made in a New York court.

We don't honestly expect the Times editors to let facts or the law interfere with their fantasies, but I an keeping my own dream alive.

I AM NOT A LAWYER, BUT... Eugene Volokh is a law professor:

Who should bear the burden of proving or disproving self-defense in criminal cases, and by what quantum (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt), is an interesting question. But on this point, Florida law is precisely the same as in nearly all other states: In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is separate from the duty to retreat, obviously.

KEEP PANDERING ALIVE! The DOJ will pretend to keep the hate crimes investigation open even though not even the pom-pom girls (and guys!) at the Times can take it seriously:

With Criminal Case Closed, Justice Department Will Restart Hate Crime Inquiry

By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Sunday that it was restarting its investigation into the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin to consider possible separate hate crime charges against George Zimmerman.

Possible hurdles:

In a statement on Sunday, the Justice Department said that now that the state criminal trial was over, it would continue its examination of the circumstances in the shooting. “Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction,” the statement said.

The department sets a high bar for such a prosecution. Three former Justice Department officials who once worked in the department’s Civil Rights Division, which is handling the inquiry, said Sunday that the federal government must clear a series of difficult legal hurdles before it could move to indict Mr. Zimmerman.

“It is not enough if it’s just a fight that escalated,” said Samuel Bagenstos, who until 2011 served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the division. “The government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully with a seriously culpable state of mind” to violate Mr. Martin’s civil rights.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. hinted at those challenges last year.

“We have to prove the highest standard in the law,” Mr. Holder said at a news conference in April 2012. “Something that was reckless, that was negligent, does not meet that standard. We have to show that there was specific intent to do the crime with the requisite state of mind.”

Florida failed to get traction with their 'state of mind' charges, but who knows?

The Times offers this example of a successful prosecution:

Criminal charges under federal hate crime law have increased significantly during the Obama administration. Between 2009 and 2012, the Justice Department prosecuted 29 percent more such cases than in the previous three fiscal years. Last month in Seattle, for example, Jamie Larson, 49, pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges that he beat a cabdriver, who was from India and was wearing a turban.

Mmm - a drunken miscreant beat a cabbie. Tha assailant had a long criminal record, there were no self-defense issues at all, and there had been no acquital on related criminal charges. Is this meant to inspire confidence that Zimmerman can be prosecuted? Or does it show us what a real hate crime might look like?

The Times does not vex their readers with news that came out during discovery in the Zimmerman trial:

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

They interviewed "nearly three dozen" people? Interview more!

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeNKlFOhUeN#storylink=cpy

 

Comments

[MarkO]

It appears to be a complement to leading from behind.

[Danube on iPad]

"The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute."

I believe that's simply false.

[Captain Hate]

All the dreams that are fit to print.

[Ignatz]

--But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved.--

Firearms account for two thirds of homicides.
Does that mean one third of homicides are not deadly?

[Tom Maguire]

I believe that's simply false.

As did I. However, the right to stand one's ground is mentioned in the context of explaining jusifiable and excusable homicide, so I was wrong.

I was probably also wrong not to mention that...

[MarkO]

Is having one's head bashed into the sidewalk not deadly dangerous?

It seems this line of reasoning might most adversely affect women. It certainly favors the most physically strong.

With a complete trial record, I have to conclude that misstatements of obvious facts are malicious.

[Ignatz]

Laugh of the day provided by Foreign Policy; US Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government Made News to Americans.
It's talking about Radio Free Europe type programming and completely ignores the considerably more propagandistic government provided news we already receive from PBS, CPB and NPR, not to mention NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.

[DebinNC]

Am I the only one just hearing about Temar Boggs? [LUN] He and his friend deserve public commendation and widespread recognition. From the reams of reporting on Trayvon Martin, what is there to admire about him? Nothing imo.

[N. Y. Nick]

"The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute."

You should rephrase and clarify that paragraph. There is a difference between considering its merits and applying it. which was where NYT became confused and incorrect in their assessment, as they often do. But you're right,

[Nuff Said]

RE; SYG it seems like having the right-of-way while driving.

You can insist on it to your own detriment. The law counsels driving defensively, which means sometimes you don't demand your rights.

[JIB]

I am reading this Times story while holding my breath for 4 minutes.

Thinking about Roger Bannister and Trayvon Martin.

[Ignatz]

--Possible hurdles:--

Barry adopting Trayvon as his son?

[Jeff Dobbs]

TM:
However, the right to stand one's ground is mentioned in the context of explaining jusifiable and excusable homicide, so I was wrong.

From the jury instructions, it was in the context of justifiable use of deadly force:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Rob Crawford]

It seems this line of reasoning might most adversely affect women. It certainly favors the most physically strong.

You've noticed that, too?

[Comanche Voter]

Re N.Y. Nick---the New York Times writers became confused and incorrect in their assessment as they often do?

Be still my beating heart--I would never have guessed it. The Gray Lady is often wrong but only seldom uncertain.

There are spots out here on Left Coast (that capital "L" was intentional) where they'd fit right in. Say the news room of the Los Angeles Times--a haven for the intellectually challenged and journalistically less diligent.

[Rob Crawford]

RE; SYG it seems like having the right-of-way while driving.

Not at all.

[pagar]

"n light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute."

What is now-notorious about the Florida Stand Your Ground statute?
When did it become notorious?

[JIB]

Have the Times consulted their loan officer as to the law of self-defense in Mexico?

[Ignatz]

Here's an example of the delightful decisions that occur with NY's duty to retreat law.

"Their families were close until 1994 or 1995, when a dispute -- with ultimately tragic consequences -- arose over cable and telephone wiring. The victim and his family believed that defendant was siphoning off their services, even after the service providers found that the suspicion was without basis. In 1997, following a heated verbal exchange, the victim [Badgett] stabbed defendant [Aiken] in the back, hospitalizing him for two days."

The relatiionship, as you might expect, did not improve after Aiken spent two days in the hospital. Badgett apparently continued to make threats to Aiken. "Although the families remained next-door neighbors, separated only by a common wall, from 1997 to 1999 the victim repeatedly threatened to shoot, stab or otherwise injure defendant. He made these threats to defendant's face, to his father and to neighbors -- at one point even brandishing a boxcutter."

So the "victim" didn't learn from his mistake--and Aiken sounds like he had good reason to be scared out of his wits--especially in a city where, remember, it is quite difficult to legally obtain a handgun for self-defense, and even a long gun is strongly discouraged by a somewhat complex licensing procedure.

I wish that I could tell you that Aiken was completely blameless in the confrontation that led to Badgett's death, but Aiken's behavior certainly complicated the matter. Aiken, in the midst of a dispute through the common wall between their apartments, swung a lead pipe into the wall hard enough to make a dent on Badgett's side of the wall. Badgett called the police.

At some point, Badgett went out to the hallway in front of Aiken's door, and made a fatal mistake. According to Aiken--and the courts gave Aiken the benefit of the doubt, and accepted Aiken's version of what happened--Aiken "continued standing in the doorway, never going into the hall, when the victim reached into his pocket, came up to defendant's face 'nose to nose,' and said 'he was going to kill' him. Believing he was about to be stabbed again, defendant struck the victim on his head with the metal pipe, killing him."

I can't say that that Aiken's fears were unreasonable. Badgett had stabbed him in the past. Badgett had repeatedly threatened Aiken with death. Badgett had now approached Aiken, yelling at him, and was close enough to be dangerous with a knife. Under the same circumstances, with Badgett's history of criminal violence, I might have reacted the same way. So why did the police arrest Aiken, and why was Aiken convicted of manslaughter?

Aiken argued that New York law says a person doesn't have to retreat from a threat if he is in his own home, and that standing in his doorway was "in his own home." New York's courts did not agree. The state high court (in this case, the New York Court of Appeals), decided that an apartment doorway is a "hybrid private-public space" in which a person doesn't have the same reasonable expectation of seclusion as in a home.

Can any rational person consider that a more just result that Zimmerman's?

[Nuff Said]

"Can any rational person consider that a more just result that Zimmerman's?"

The bottom line is that Trayvon was 100% at fault for his own deserved death at the hands of the innocent and sweet, pillsbury dough-boy.

[narciso]

In other news, Mazzetti, he was the one who was leaked Rodriguez's destruction of the interrogation tips, likely by Sulick, says the weapons to our 'freedom fighters' in Syria, will have little effect, another 'shirley he can't be serious.

[narciso]

AllahPander of course, says 'think of England' regarding a suit against the wannabe
Marshal Girards, well i'm paraphrasing.

[NK]

Florida Statutes-- I have a direct question. What, if any, immunity from Civil Suit does GZ now have as a result of the Jury acquitttal? He did NOT invoke the SYG statutory claim in a pre-trial motion, instead he asserted SD as an an affirmative defense at trial, which the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. Because GZ did NOT prove SD by a preponderance at a pre-trial hearing, does he NOT have immunity?

[Porchlight]

I think that's right, NK. I think O'Mara must call a new hearing to prove Zimmerman is protected under SYG and thus immune.

[Nuff Said]

Danube says anyone who considers a civil suit is stupid.

[Account Deleted]

"The state high court (in this case, the New York Court of Appeals), decided that an apartment doorway is a "hybrid private-public space" in which a person doesn't have the same reasonable expectation of seclusion as in a home."

Ignatz,

Thanks for the example of the courts "reasoning" driving legislatures to pass SYG and other types of legislation to clarify the limits of what ninnies in robes can destroy through sophistry.

Perhaps if self defense were explained as the aggressor having the same rights as a baby in the womb, once fear of serious injury or death has been engendered, progs might led to what passes for understanding among the intellectually bereft.

I doubt the existence of sufficient sidewalk chalk to achieve the goal though.

[Enlightened]

So I guess the media is hell bent on making sure Zimmerman's Whiteness is the primary descriptor of his ethnicity.

So in that context from now on they will equally describe Bambi as Barack Obama, whose Mother is White.

[Rob Crawford]

I think that's right, NK. I think O'Mara must call a new hearing to prove Zimmerman is protected under SYG and thus immune.

I don't think so. I think the jury decision is sufficient -- they decided he was justified in using lethal force in his own defense, after all.

[NK]

Porch thanks-- that 'sounds' right. The Fla statute is murky on immunity, but your reference to a post-trial motion for a hearing to prove immunity by a preponderance sounds right to me. MoM rightly did not file a pre-trial motion with Nelson. Nelson is porcine fascist, she would have denied no matter what, and given BDLR the opportunity to X-exam GZ and create impeachment material which may have posed a problem at trial. I wonder if MoM files such a post-trial motion? Nelson is an even worse judge for GZ now, and MoM may want to wait and get full civil discovery about things Trayvon.

[Rob Crawford]

Weirdest thing -- filled out a 4473 the other day, and unless I missed it in past encounters, they've added a new race question. First it's "Are you a Hispanic?" then it's "Check your race (one only)"

[narciso]

Well not surprising, this is the Department that threw out the confessions of KSM, et al. which overruled the review of interrogation policy by senior prosecutors, calling in the
Bulger prosecutor, so magic eight ball would say they would say yes,

[NK]

RobC-- I think the problem is the Fla SD statutes 'standards of proof'. To win immunity a defendant must affirmatively prove SD by a preponderance of evidence. GZ has not done that yet. The standard of proof decided by the jury was that the State failed to disprove SD 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that does not mean GZ affirmatively proved SD by preponderance.

[AliceH]

ISTM there might actually be some legitimate "justice for Trayvon" demands. I refer to the shoddy forensics and consequent loss of evidence by the Medical Examiner's office and Crime Scene officers and whoever else was in the chain of evidence collection/preservation/examination chain.

I can't help but think, whether consciously or not, they didn't bring their 'A' game because the victim was black teenager with no ID and whom no one in the complex could identify as a resident.

Whatever the reason, they failed TM and they failed GZ by limiting the reliability and availability of the evidence.

[AliceH]

re 4473 --First it's "Are you a Hispanic?" then it's "Check your race (one only)"--

I know it's been there since January at least.

[Account Deleted]

The Florida Immunity Statute is here.

The verdict form doesn't have a "self-defense" box but the simplicity of the manslaughter charge implies self defense as the most rational reason for reaching a not guilty verdict.

[narciso]

In other news, the View was picked ace epidemiologist Jenny McCarthy to their ranks,
just to make the peanut gallery all that more explicit.

[Porchlight]

I think the jury decision is sufficient -- they decided he was justified in using lethal force in his own defense, after all.

Seems like it ought to be that way, Rob, but there is this:

If a civil case is brought against Zimmerman, Nightline anchor and ABC's Chief Legal Affairs anchor Dan Abrams said that, in Florida, his defense team can make a motion to have a civil case dismissed under the "Stand Your Ground" law. It states that a person whose self defense claim is found lawful "is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such self defense."

In April, Zimmerman's defense team chose to waive the pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing, and put their case before a jury. The hearing would have given the judge the discretion to free Zimmerman, eliminating the need for a trial. But the validity of a Stand Your Ground defense would be determined solely by a judge.

If Zimmerman were given immunity from a civil suit under the "Stand Your Ground" law, Abrams said, the defense might be able to win "reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff," according to Florida law.

Martin's family might be reluctant to file a civil suit, Abrams added, because they may decide it is not worth the emotional cost or they might fear that they could wind up owing Zimmerman money, if he is deemed to have "stood his ground" under the Florida law.

http://www.wbap.com/common/more.php?m=58&ts=1373888292&article=A2066170ED2D11E286DEFEFDADE6840A&mode=2

[Porchlight]

If the above is correct, it looks to me like the order of things is that the suit is brought and then O'Mara motions to have it dismissed under the immunity law. But ultimately a judge must decide if immunity applies.

There is also the fact that Zimmerman has no money and that all the bad stuff about TM will inevitably come out in a civil suit, whereas now it is more or less still hidden.

[bgates]

Am I the only one just hearing about Temar Boggs?

I hadn't known the name; turns out he's a 15 year old who chased down a kidnapper on his bicycle. (Sounds like he has a bit of a hero complex.) Here's the adorable little girl he rescued:

Jocelyn Rojas: White Hispanic, or Hispanic White?

[narciso]

And Red Chief's act is getting really old, he's becoming the 'guest that wouldn't leave' from that SNL sketch.

[NK]

My guess-- no Civil Suit is actively pursued against GZ. The Crump Racialist mafia will sue City of Sanford, County and State of Fla. They will quickly settle and payoff the Martins, the Racialists with $$ and the Trayvon Community Center -- all with taxpayer$$$! Why besmear the the beautiful name of Trayvon with all that taudry discovery in a Civil Suit.

[AliceH]

In O'Mara's post-verdict press conference, he said something like "We will seek and we will get immunity in any future civil proceeding."

I take that to mean
1) immunity is not automatic; and
2) a civil suit does not need to be filed before immunity can be sought

[Clarice]

I am rather certain I heard MOM say Zimmerman has immunity now fromcivil suit for the death of TM and h expects to recoup from Fla GZ's legal costs.

[NK]

Ai yai yi-- my 'direct question' is getting several plausible --and conflicting-- answers. TBD I guess.

[Rob Crawford]

ISTM there might actually be some legitimate "justice for Trayvon" demands. I refer to the shoddy forensics and consequent loss of evidence by the Medical Examiner's office and Crime Scene officers and whoever else was in the chain of evidence collection/preservation/examination chain.

Except St. Skittles wasn't the accused.

While I'm not thrilled at the crap work done by the investigation, I suspect it was mostly because they had an admitted shooter and everything was already rain-soaked.

[Rob Crawford]

Problem is, Porch, that comes from journalists.

[Rob Crawford]

You know who has more than a little bit of a hero complex?

Hint: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow..."

[Danube on iPad]

"Danube says anyone who considers a civil suit is stupid."

I don't recall ever saying that, and if I did I don't recall the context. I do believe that GZ will be unable to recover anything from NBC, and that he won't get any relief against Corey or BDLR. I'm not sure about his getting attorney's fees. I do think the Martin family might have a shot at wrongful death damages, but I don't know whether I would advise it.

[scott]

I don't think so. I think the jury decision is sufficient -- they decided he was justified in using lethal force in his own defense, after all.

Not necessarily. Remember MOM's chart. If the jury thought that GZ was "probably not" involved in self defense, but short of "certain" that he wasn't, they were obligated to acquit.

[Janet --- -... .- -- .- ... ..- -.-. -.- ...]

Problem is, Porch, that comes from journalists.

Boy, that's my outlook on everything now. Can't decide if the "rioting for Trayvon" movement is actually pretty small...or if the MFM just don't want to show the ugliness going on...or if there really is some big movement.
Who knows?

[Specter]

But it is a sad state of affairs. Went to work yesterday and the 30 yo guy who works with me was reading FB posts in his iPhone. He turns to me and say, "What's all this George Zimmerman stuff anyways?" So typical of so many Americans - they aren't paying attention to any important stuff. He and another guy who work with me knew nothing about the IRS scandal, fast and furious, etc...

[scott]

Clarice, MOM said post acquittal that he would seek immunity (future tense).

[Frau Wut]

I despise the MFM ginning up more upheaval. Our thin McClatchey rag has large color photos of so CA protesters most carrying printed signs from psl.org--Party of Socialism and Liberation. (liberation!)Children are being dragged out and indoctrinated with hate.

btw what were the welfare bennies under Uncle Joe and Onkel Adolf?

[jimmyk]

The MSM has reached a new low with its pandering to the race-baiters in the aftermath of the acquittal. All the coverage I've seen has been on those who make this into a racial issue, and no one has brought up the urban knockout-game culture that teaches black teens that it's cool to go around sucker-punching (apparently) white people. Never mind that GZ is mixed race. I'm almost forced to give Piers some points for at least letting Robert Zimmerman speak, even if Piers was his usual clueless adversarial self. That's the only "alternative" point of view I've seen.

[Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet]

From the facts adduced at trial, and from the fact that according to Ms Jenelle Mr. Martin the self-styled no limit ni@@@ racially profiled GZ as a creepy ass cracker, I don't think this is a case that the Justice Department will bring.

On the 4473 issue, for several years, I have refused to identify my "race" on any form, Federal or otherwise. I write in "other - mixed".
My way of civil disobedience. If anyone objects, I firmly say "bring it on". It costs me nothing to get a good lawyer:>)

[NK]

Janet-- I believe the Legacy Media is desparate for Trayvon riots to reinforce the meme. The reaction has been pfffttt...the reliable Free Mumia Lefties, and some idiot celebs.... oh and Oakland, but that's a regular saturday night there.

[AliceH]

Rob - I wasn't using the word "Justice" as synonym for "exoneration" or "beatification".

[pagar]

I still don't see where the "now-notorious"
Part came from?

"Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute"

[NK]

Pagar-- come up to Manahattan to say hello to jimmyk and me, 'EVERYONE' in manhattan knows SYG is 'notorious'. Do you agree Jimmy?

[Captain Hate]

In other news, the View was picked ace epidemiologist Jenny McCarthy to their ranks,
just to make the peanut gallery all that more explicit.

She'll fit in well with the other brainless nags except for the sweater stretchers.

[jimmyk]

No, I don't. As I just said on the previous thread, I don't even see how SYG is relevant in this case, since all the evidence suggests GZ was pinned down and getting beaten, and therefore had no possibility of retreat anyway.

SYG is only "notorious" among the safe and well-protected limousine Manhattan liberals who get the vapors over the idea that anyone should actually stand up to a thug.

[Rob Crawford]

I still don't see where the "now-notorious" Part came from?

The press.

[Kurt]

Here's a great piece from Reason explaining that "Stand Your Ground" did not apply in this case and the only reference to it in court was by the prosecutor in one instance, and not the defense.

[Ignatz]

IIRC if a civil suit is brought against Zimmerman and he is determined to be immune he shall, not may, be awarded all costs of defense.

Since he has been acquitted that is a powerful disincentive for Crump etal to pursue him.

[Danube on iPad]

Justice for Don'ta::

"Two men who have been in jail several times before have been arrested after a fatal shooting in downtown Charleston early Sunday.

"Three people were shot about 2 a.m. at 420 Meeting St., Charleston police spokesman Charles Francis said. When officers arrived they were told the victims had been taken to hospitals in private vehicles. One of them died at Medical University Hospital, Francis said.

"The Charleston County Coroner’s Office identified the deceased as Don’ta Pringle, 20, of Summerville. He died of multiple gunshot wounds, according to the coroner’s office."

Don'ta was black. Unfortunately, so are the two suspects, so the Justice Brothers won't utter a peep. Unless you live in Charleston this is probably the last you will hear about this matter.

[Captain Hate]

It's a really disgusting day on Farcebook.

[jimmyk]

A day ending in 'y', Cap'n.

[Enlightened]

Hmmm. In Oakland CA, if your black, angry and drinking - it's not a hate crime to pop off and punch an older man, who hits his head on the pavement and dies.

I guess George Zimmerman should have waited just a second or two longer to see if Martin's anger was enough to cause fatal injuries.

LUN

[jimmyk]

"Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias."

From Newsmax, I don't have a link.

[NK]

JimmyK-- alas the 'well protected Limosine Liberals' in Manhattan are not just the dominant culture in my experience, they are the virtual monopoly culture, who call the ideological shots all the way down the socio-economic strata. People such as yourself "we happy few" are pinpoints in a vast Leftwing screen; we are constantly working to stamp out ignorance, with little effect. Saying Manhattanites 'know' that SYG laws are notorious was no compliment; I was ridiculing their reflexive close mindedness.
OT-- in case Tom M wants to invest some JOM swag in Greenwich CT real estate: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362916/Inside-Americas-expensive-home-The-mansion-market-record-breaking-190million.html

[Enlightened]

Isn't it ironic that two 18 year-olds, just a year older than Martin, are charged as adults for murder, but Martin-another angry sucker-puncher- was just an unarmed child.

[JIB]

When is the hearing on sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct?

Will there be a state bar complaint regarding Crump and all his interference, meddling, coaching and manipulation? Can there be a reverse civil suit by Zimmerman against Crump, et.al. - not that that is advisable but just asking.

And Judge Nelson skates as I understand it from all the legal experts in Orlando. Its the voters choice on her continued occupation on the bench.

[Sue]

I hate hate crimes. Will I be prosecuted for hating the mere fact that I could hate someone? Because I hate Obama. So there dirty copper, come and get me.

[boatbuilder]

Good thing nobody told Taymar Boggs that "We don't need you to do that." The cowboy vigilantes are on bicycles now. He really should have called the police and stayed put. They would have found the girl after ten or eleven years.

[boatbuilder]

Temar Boggs.

[AliceH]

I stand with with Sue!

[jimmyk]

The "discussion" we should be having:

Violence for fun may be spreading among teens

Deadly and savage attack on Syracuse man was part of teen game called 'Knockout'

[daddy]

Some advice for Obama and Holder from Young Frankenstein:

INSPECTOR KEMP
A riot is an ugly thingk, undt vonce you get vun shtarted, there is little shance of shtopping it, short of bluudshet. I think, before we go around killing peeple, we had better made DAMN sure of our evidence

[jimmyk]

I was ridiculing their reflexive close mindedness.

Yes, NK, but the point is that they are still a small minority, but presume to speak for all of us--not just NYers but you know, they're the "paper of record" and all that.

[boatbuilder]

I wonder whether the Homeowner's Assn's insurance carrier got George Zimmerman's name on the release when they handed over the $1 mil to Crump. I would have insisted on it based on the likelihood that Zimmerman could seek coverage/defense under their policy if he was sued, or could try to make them a party to the civil suit against him.

[NK]

CobbCounty, Oakland, Syracuse, NYC SoHO (kindof)-- this 'Knockout' mayhem has got to be stopped. This is nihilism and medieval.

[NK]

daddy-- isn't the actual advice "ssssccchtarted" and "sssccchtopping"?

[NK]

Interesting point Boatbuilder-- but I really doubt the Crump/racialistts would have given a release to GZ, and I think the HOA insurer just wanted to get rid of the family Martin claim asap, and the HOA assumed the risk of a GZ claim. But I would be curious to see who the Martins released for the hOA insurance $$$.

[pagar]

Thanks for the answers on the SYG. I just couldn't get my mind wrapped around it. IMO, the SYG laws should be expanded in most cases.

[Tom Maguire]

Because GZ did NOT prove SD by a preponderance at a pre-trial hearing, does he NOT have immunity?

O'Mara was asked about possible civil suits at his press conference and did not make any mention of immunity. His post-acquital attitude seemed to be "Bring it on".

ISTM there might actually be some legitimate "justice for Trayvon" demands. I refer to the shoddy forensics and consequent loss of evidence by the Medical Examiner's office and Crime Scene officers and whoever else was in the chain of evidence collection/preservation/examination chain.

My recollection is that the evidence they *didn't* find became a big part of the prosecution "case" - no GZ DNA on Martin, for example.

I guess one could say that if the forensics team had done a first class job of preserving the evidence and *still* found no DNA, that might have been more significant. But I was always hazy on where the prosecution thought that train was headed - were we to infer that someone else altogether had been striking GZ? That his wounds were imaginary?

[Enlightened]

After 5 years of Hope and Change - why are Black youths so angry that they will assault an unsuspecting victim for no other reason than it's fun, or "I was angry".

And more importantly what is Al Sharpton, Jess Jackson and the NAACP doing about it?

[JIB]

DoT,

421 Meeting Street is in a so-so, iffy part of Charleston but still its not so blighted to have shootings of this kind.

But then its black yutes on black mutes. Nothing to see here, move along.

Talking about great cities for walking, food and wine, lots of art and history - Google is doing street view of Venice.

One of Mrs. JiB's and my favorite places in the world. If you have never been there - you can now go vicariously thanks to Sergei Bin!

[Rob Crawford]

But I was always hazy on where the prosecution thought that train was headed - were we to infer that someone else altogether had been striking GZ? That his wounds were imaginary?

Wasn't there something about a tree?

[jimmyk]

Isn't Venice underwater these days, JiB? I mean more so than usual? (Jokes aside about the streets being flooded.)

[Jane]

Boatbuilder,

Smart observation. And perhaps he would have to be specifically excluded at any rate since he is a member of the HO association.

I just hope Holder gives this as much attention as he has the death of Chris Stevens.

he still should be impeached.

[NK]

TomM-- thanks for the MoM update. So it 'Sounds like' GZ does not have immunity at this point. meh-- I believe the Martins never pursue a case against GZ for wrongful death-- instead Sanford, the County and State payoff the Martins big time-- easiest thing for a politician to do, spend the taxpayers' money.

PS: Tom are you in on that Greenwich property?

[jimmyk]

Wasn't there something about a tree?

And a flashlight? (GZ presumably bopping himself in the nose and head.)

Or as Barbara suggested in the other thread, the mysterious lefthanded puncher from the grassy knoll.

[MarkO]

"he still should be impeached"

Yes. First let's finish Benghazi. If you have not read the article in Vanity Fair, do it right now.

They are all lying. Especially "What difference" Hillary.

[Porchlight]

The cowboy vigilantes are on bicycles now. He really should have called the police and stayed put. They would have found the girl after ten or eleven years.

Yeah, what a wannabe cop. We should not encourage this kind of behavior.

[NK]

MarkO-- any chance you can link the VF article? I failed to read that over the weekend after someone mentioned it last week.

[daddy]

I see now from the fireworks between talking heads on FOX that the Left is trying to say that Obama bears no responsibility whatever for the mobs in the street incensed over the death of 'the young black man that would look like Obama's son if he had one.'

[jimmyk]

The uncritical coverage of the Zimmerman verdict protests is reminiscent of the MSM's fawning over OWS.

[MarkO]

This article is so specific that it certainly seems true. It devastates Hillary and shows Obama to be a coward. At least that's my objective view.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/08/Benghazi-book-fred-burton-samuel-m-katz

[MarkO]

Obama is not responsible for anything, including the place of his birth.

(I'm bored. Fishing for drama.)

[Enlightened]

Piers Morgan will be interviewing Dee Dee exclusively.