The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Here’s a Video I Missed

A news report just after the incident:


And do listen to the end.  His parents deserve your respect and sympathy.

The guy in the red sweater was Zimmerman.  It’s another instance where the crucial moment wasn’t seen, but still it contradicts the narrative that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood, or Charles Johnson’s misleading statement that:

Zimmerman ... chased the boy down, and shot him in the street.

It seems safe to say that Martin and Zimmerman got into a fight.  Which doesn’t justify shooting the kid automatically.  Instead that turns on the following questions:

Who struck the first blow?

Did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear that Martin was about to subject him to lethal force?

If Zimmerman struck the first blow, did he have a reasonsable chance to escape?  (because contrary to what you heard, there are some circumstances where you are required to retreat in Florida)

If Martin struck the first blow and the answer to the second question is yes, then Zimmerman was justified in shooting.  Even if Martin didn't intend to do serious bodily harm to him, even if he had a chance to escape.

If Zimmerman struck the first blow, he did have a reasonable fear, and he did not have a reasonable chance to escape (for instance, if he was still on the ground), again he is innocent.

And the key thing is this.  As far as I can tell, the only living witness to those crucial moments is Zimmerman.  The only person who can answer those crucial questions, who is alive, is Zimmerman.  So barring surprising evidence to the contrary, I don’t see how they can even justify trying him.

---------------------------------------

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

18 comments:

  1. You're blogging about this a lot, but none of your posts have addressed what I think is central to the issue: By all accounts, Zimmerman sought out the confrontation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. actually i have. it looks like he was following him... and its irrelevant. He's allowed to follow him, even to say, "hey, what are you doing here?" That he might have been seeking to confront him verbally is irrelevant.

    The relevant issues are about the physical altercation. That's it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many think seeking out the confrontation involving a gun, in that situation where there was no good basis to think there was any dire circumstance requiring intervention, was reckless.

    I don't think Zimmerman murdered Martin. I think Zimmerman's a jackass who cost a child's life because he was totally irresponsible.

    It's kinda like Die Hard 3's opening, where John Mccain has a concealed gun and is standing on a street corner with a provocative sign. Then some youth are outraged and attack John.

    Ignoring murder and self defense rights for a moment: it's reckless to orchestrate such confrontations with a gun involved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Several diverse points...

    (1) The first commenter is right. You can't ignore the fact (or so it appears) that Zimmerman sought out a confrontation. It all goes to the reasonableness of his self-defense claim. If you confront someone, even verbally, it's not surprising that the confrontation will become physical.

    (2) Another thing you ignore is the way the case was handled. Before this became a national story, the case was closed. The Sanford police took Zimmerman at his word and sent him home with his gun (the gun should have been treated as evidence), wearing what he wore in the altercation (his clothes are also evidence).

    Surely you can muster a little outrage about that.

    (3) You are just plain wrong about the duty to retreat. I know you are reading 776.041, but you're not reading it correctly. For example, Zimmerman doesn't have to "strike the first blow" in order to "provoke the use of force against himself". Simply showing his gun, or even stalking, might be sufficient (which goes to point 1 above).

    (4) But let me turn to the questions you pose, because this is where the rubber meets the road. You ask....

    >> Did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear that Martin was about to subject him to lethal force?

    This is where most people have a problem. How many people armed with a gun would have a fear of a smaller kid armed with Skittles? Just what "lethal force" does a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea carry?

    Yes, Zimmerman may CLAIM he was in fear of death or seriously body injury from Martin, and maybe he's not lying about that. But was that fear "reasonable"? This is hard to believe.

    And please know that under Florida law, you are not allowed to use deadly force for just ANY bodily injury. The nature of the "lethal" attack must meet a pretty high threshhold.

    Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

    I didn't write that last paragraph. That came from a State of Florida government website. The same language also appears in a brochure (PDF) that is sent to concealed-carry licensees like Zimmerman.

    So I ask you... if swinging a garden hose at someone does not justify the use of a gun in self-defense, what could Trayvon have done (or possessed) to justify the use of deadly force against him? THAT is what inquiring minds would like to know, and we haven't heard anything reported from Zimmerman's police statement, or from eyewitnesses, which would give rise to the permissible use of deadly force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer to your last question is that Martin was atop Zimmerman, striking his head against the ground. That's a risk of serious bodily injury. Zimmerman's head injuries were observed by the responding police. And that circumstance was reported, so I'm baffled why you ignored it.

      Delete
  5. "we haven't heard anything reported from Zimmerman's police statement, or from eyewitnesses, which would give rise to the permissible use of deadly force."

    I've heard that Martin was kicking Zimmermann in the face while Zimmermann laid on the ground with a broken nose screaming for help.

    I don't know if that's true, but if something like that is true then of course Zimmermann had a reasonable fear of great bodily injury that drastically exceeds being swung at by a garden hose.

    That's not to say the police did a bang up job investigating this. I'd like to see them run ballistics on the firearm and I don't understand why it took so long to reach the parents, either. I still think Zimmermann's judgment was very unfortunate.

    My hunch is that Martin and Zimmerman thought they other were suspicious for largely (or hopefully entirely) non-racial reasons and thought they were defending themselves. Both misunderstood the situation and had they knew what they other was really up to, this tragedy would have been avoided. The injustice is that Zimmerman seems (to me) to have been in a better position to exercise discretion and should have been much more responsible. He was the adult and he was the one bringing a gun into the situation. But that doesn't make him a murderer and the story has grown to a lynch mob, which is really sad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >> I've heard that Martin was kicking Zimmermann in the face while Zimmermann laid on the ground with a broken nose screaming for help.

    >> I don't know if that's true, but if something like that is true then of course Zimmermann had a reasonable fear of great bodily injury that drastically exceeds being swung at by a garden hose.

    First of all, I doubt the broken nose thing. That's an extremely bloody thing to happen, and neither the police report nor the photo indicate it was that bad.

    Secondly -- and ultimately a jury would probably decide this -- being swung at by a garden hose strikes me as FAR more dangerous, seeing as how most garden hoses have metal at the end.

    >> The injustice is that Zimmerman seems (to me) to have been in a better position to exercise discretion and should have been much more responsible. He was the adult and he was the one bringing a gun into the situation.

    Well said. It clearly wasn't murder -- not premeditated for sure. But I can think of a host of other things that it WAS -- reckless endangerment for one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel."

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_arizona-iced-tea-suv-unarmed-black-teenager

    I'd personally opt for the hose whipping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's what Zimmerman reported to the police, according to the "authorities" who are engaging in a litte CYA.

      Of course, if the beating was truly that bad, one wonders why the police sent Zimmerman on his merry way home.

      If my head was truly "slammed" into the sidewalk several times, I would require immediate hospitalization, as would anyone. In fact, the police would have sent Zimmerman to the hospital to check for a possible concussion. That's SOP.

      Ultimately, a jury will (or SHOULD) decide, but it seems that Zimmerman's story doesn't quite match his wounds.

      Delete
    2. I agree that is Zimm's version of the situation. I think it's corroborated by the blood on his head that I saw reported some time ago and I also think it's corroborated by some witness, but I wasn't there and Martin is not available to offer the other side of this.

      I want a grand jury to look at this case. I'm not sure what charges, but I want the justice system to give this man a fair trial. But if the government cannot assemble a case against him, then this is not possible even though it feels like that is justified.

      I actually think it would be better for Zimmerman to have a trial than to be left dangling for the lynch mob.

      Delete
  8. >> I'm not sure what charges, but I want the justice system to give this man a fair trial. But if the government cannot assemble a case against him, then this is not possible even though it feels like that is justified.

    Absolutely, although I remain outraged that the police really bulloxed this up from square one. I doubt there are even photos of the wound Zimmerman received. They might point to Zimmerman's innocence (or guilt).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ken

    > It all goes to the reasonableness of his self-defense claim. If you confront someone, even verbally, it's not surprising that the confrontation will become physical.

    Surprising? No. But it doesn’t legally justify taking a swing at anyone. Read the actual caselaw before you open your yap again.

    > Another thing you ignore is the way the case was handled. Before this became a national story, the case was closed. The Sanford police took Zimmerman at his word and sent him home with his gun

    Wow. You have evidence right in front of you that this did not happen, and you don’t even notice. Did you even watch the video before commenting?

    No, I don’t know that they did those things you claimed. And you don’t either.

    > Simply showing his gun, or even stalking, might be sufficient (which goes to point 1 above).

    Showing a gun—which he is legally allowed to have—but not in a threatening way—is a justification for violence? Um no.

    As for stalking, it would be a defense to Trayvon if he was alive and on assault and battery charges, maybe—that is if he reasonably believed that George was about to attack him physically. But Trayvon’s shield cannot be used as a sword against George. You’re simply wrong on that point. Read the actual case law.

    > This is where most people have a problem. How many people armed with a gun would have a fear of a smaller kid armed with Skittles? Just what "lethal force" does a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea carry?

    And what if he thought the kid had a gun? Duh.

    > First of all, I doubt the broken nose thing. That's an extremely bloody thing to happen, and neither the police report nor the photo indicate it was that bad.

    Orrrr… maybe a medical record. I’ve had a broken nose (long, stupid story), and it doesn’t fix itself. You have to go through surgery and you end up being bandaged. I want to say I was bandaged up for a month, but honestly the memory is a little fuzzy. I was young.

    > Well said. It clearly wasn't murder -- not premeditated for sure.

    Jesus, you don’t even know what you are talking about when speaking against Zimmerman. Yes, it is very possible for this to be actual premeditated murder, if Z was lying. Premeditated doesn’t mean that he has an elaborate plan to do it, just that he have even a split second to decide before doing it.

    > Absolutely, although I remain outraged that the police really bulloxed this up from square one. I doubt there are even photos of the wound Zimmerman received.

    Wow, so based on your inaccurate claim that they screwed this up from the beginning, you doubt they took photos.

    Do you see what I mean about you jumping to conclusions?

    Dustin

    I think at this point, i want a grand jury to look into it and write a report, especially if they return a "no bill." For Zimmerman's protection.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >> ME: It all goes to the reasonableness of his self-defense claim. If you confront someone, even verbally, it's not surprising that the confrontation will become physical.

    >> YOU: Surprising? No. But it doesn’t legally justify taking a swing at anyone.

    That's not the point. The point is that if Zimmerman confronted Martin in such a way to provoke him, then he loses his claim of self-defense.

    >> ME: Before this became a national story, the case was closed. The Sanford police took Zimmerman at his word and sent him home with his gun

    >> YOU: Wow. You have evidence right in front of you that this did not happen, and you don’t even notice. Did you even watch the video before commenting?

    Yeah. It doesn't contradict anything I wrote.

    >> ME: First of all, I doubt the broken nose thing. That's an extremely bloody thing to happen, and neither the police report nor the photo indicate it was that bad.

    >> YOU: Orrrr… maybe a medical record. I’ve had a broken nose (long, stupid story), and it doesn’t fix itself.

    Wow, it's like you turned your brain off. Who cares how the nose is fixed? The point is that if it was broken, there would have been massive bleeding when the cops arrived. And although the cops noted a bloody nose when they got up close to Zimmerman, that's a far cry from a broken nose.
    >> And what if he thought the kid had a gun? Duh.

    There is still the question of reasonableness. If, for example, Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun because the kid was black (don't all black kids have guns?), then he's simply being unreasonable. If he mistook the Skittles for a gun, that's unreasonable, too.

    So the question remains: what about Trayvon (a weapon or his actions) could REASONABLY be mistaken for something deadly?

    >> Wow, so based on your inaccurate claim that they screwed this up from the beginning, you doubt they took photos. Do you see what I mean about you jumping to conclusions?

    First of all, they DID screw this up, which is why the police chief and original prosecutor are no longer on the case. The police came to the conclusion that this was self-defense, and -- if nothing else -- that remains unclear.

    Secondly, expressing an opinion based on fact is... you know, what people DO... including you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ken

    > That's not the point. The point is that if Zimmerman confronted Martin in such a way to provoke him, then he loses his claim of self-defense.

    By your interpretation of “provoke,” if a man burns a flag, leading a veteran to physically assault him, and at some point that veteran pulls out a gun and points it at the flag burner, the flag burner cannot invoke self-defense unless he can retreat.

    Thankfully that is not the law.

    > Yeah. It doesn't contradict anything I wrote.

    Now you are just lying. The report said specifically that he was not allowed to keep the gun that night.

    > Who cares how the nose is fixed?

    Projection is an ugly thing. My point is that if he had medical records, indeed living doctors willing to testify that he had a broken nose that night, then that is strong evidence that trayvon broke his nose. I mean I suppose it is possible for him to have broken his own nose afterward—or paid someone to do so—but you would have to be a real sociopath do that.

    And your argument that the police were not sufficiently emphatic about the bleeding is kind of thin as a rebuttal.

    > There is still the question of reasonableness. If, for example, Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun because the kid was black (don't all black kids have guns?), then he's simply being unreasonable.

    Which I have already said… sigh.

    > If he mistook the Skittles for a gun, that's unreasonable, too.

    In the dark? I wouldn’t be so quick to say that. But who is to say he even saw what it was? It could have been that the kid was reaching back toward his waistband. Zimmerman himself carried his gun on his waistband, so he knew that was a place to hide a gun.

    Or here’s another thought. He was on top of Zimmerman and pulled his Iced Tea and made as though to use that as a weapon. If it is a Snapple, we are talking a glass bottle on a potentially broken nose. That can kill people. You can drive the broken bones right into your brain. Its like smashing a person with a round brick. And that is assuming the bottle isn’t broken, which can be then used to slash.

    All of which is wild speculation offered only to prove something basic that you keep forgetting—you don’t have enough facts to draw a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >> By your interpretation of “provoke"...

    Your flagburning example has nothing to do with this. Trayvon Martin was stalked. Singled out for menacing behavior. That's a provocation.

    >> I mean I suppose it is possible for him to have broken his own nose afterward—or paid someone to do so—but you would have to be a real sociopath do that.

    If it will help him stay out of jail, it's not so outlandish. In fact, I've seen it done in one of my early cases.

    >> It could have been that the kid was reaching back toward his waistband. Zimmerman himself carried his gun on his waistband, so he knew that was a place to hide a gun.

    Well, you can play that game forever. Is there any move Trayvon could have made that could NEVER be interpreted as a deadly threat?

    >> All of which is wild speculation offered only to prove something basic that you keep forgetting—you don’t have enough facts to draw a conclusion.

    And (once again), I am not coming to a conclusion. I am speculating -- not wildly, but based on the evidence that is out there. ADMITTEDLY speculating.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ken

    > Your flagburning example has nothing to do with this. Trayvon Martin was stalked. Singled out for menacing behavior. That's a provocation.

    No, apparently you believe that non violent behavior can rob you of your right to self-defense. I just showed you where your logic leads and you don’t like it.

    > If it will help him stay out of jail, it's not so outlandish.

    So your theory is that George, with only a few minutes before the cops arrived, went and somehow broke his own nose, and all the people who saw the aftermath of the shooting didn’t see it, and the cops didn’t find whatever rock or whatever he used to do it. Again, within a few minutes.

    > Is there any move Trayvon could have made that could NEVER be interpreted as a deadly threat?

    Not attacking him in the first place (if he did)?

    > I am speculating -- not wildly

    Says the guy who just imagined George Zimmerman breaking his own nose.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >> No, apparently you believe that non violent behavior can rob you of your right to self-defense. I just showed you where your logic leads and you don’t like it.

    I never said that ANY non-violent behavior robs you of your right to self-defense. But ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE, any *provocative* behavior will prevent a self-defense argument. And "provocative" isn't strictly limited to physical behavior only.

    >> So your theory is that George, with only a few minutes before the cops arrived, went and somehow broke his own nose, and all the people who saw the aftermath of the shooting didn’t see it, and the cops didn’t find whatever rock or whatever he used to do it. Again, within a few minutes.

    We don't know if he had a broken nose when the cops arrived. That's the point. YOU conjectured that medical records would confirm whether he had one or not... but he denied medical treatment on the day of the incident, and didn't go to see the doctor the next day! So yes, he COULD have self-inflicted a broken nose. I've seen it done... where I guy breaks his own nose to make his case look better.

    >> ME: Is there any move Trayvon could have made that could NEVER be interpreted as a deadly threat?

    >> YOU: Not attacking him in the first place (if he did)?

    And what? Standing like a statue? People make involuntary movements all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kman

    > But ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE, any *provocative* behavior will prevent a self-defense argument. And "provocative" isn't strictly limited to physical behavior only.

    But burning a flag in front of a veteran is NOT provocative? Do you actually know any vets?

    > We don't know if he had a broken nose when the cops arrived.

    Aahahahahahahhahaha.

    > And what?

    And nothing.

    ReplyDelete