“The Donning of a Hood Is Not Consistent With This Rule:” The Latest Martin/Zimmerman Shooting News Roundup

Update: As you will see below, several Cnn videos did not embed properly.  There is some kind of bug in their software that keeps causing the same video to embed.  So in each offending case, I replaced the video with a link.


Update (II): I just saw where ABC news admits that video it showed does in fact show evidence of Zimmerman being injured.  Scroll (way) down for the info.

So this is the latest in my Trayvon Martin round-ups.  You can see all the posts where I discuss the case by using this link to aggregate them.

Now as preliminary matter let’s remind ourselves about the law again.  Whether Zimmerman was following Martin or not is beside the point; there is no law that says that you must run the other way when you think a person is a criminal.  At most it goes to Zimmerman’s credibility—that is if he lied about that element of the story, one wonders what else he might’ve lied about, and if he told the truth about it, you have that to contend with, too.

What does matter are three crucial questions:

1.      Who struck the first blow?

2.      At the moment he shot, did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear that Martin was about to either kill him or cause serious bodily injury?

3.      If Zimmerman struck the first blow, could he have reasonably escaped without endangering his own life?

And let’s point out something else.  Once he invokes the self-defense defense—as he is almost sure to do so at trial—it is not his burden to prove he acted in self-defense.  Instead it is the State of Flordia’s burden to prove he did not.  So bluntly, it was self-defense until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is how the presumption of innocence works and it works that way in every state but one.

What The Narrative Against Zimmerman^® maintained from the very beginning was that this was a case of profiling—a euphemism for racism, really, in this case.  You could see it from the beginning that The Narrative Against Zimmerman^® was that George was a typical white racist who assumed that a black child was a criminal based on nothing more than the color of his skin and hunted him down and killed him in the street.  The irony of all of this, is that it represents the left’s “profile” of a bigoted shooting.  They were so attached to this Narrative^®, that when it turned out that Mr. Zimmerman was not exactly a white dude, they called him remarkably a “white Hispanic.”  And meanwhile, they maintained it was somehow unfair and wrong to point out any facts that might support Zimmerman’s initial suspicions.  I would go as far as to say that if George Zimmerman had been named Jorge Zapata, this story never would have gained national attention.  But because he had a “white” sounding name, The Narrative^® was set.

By the way, as a general rule black people are most likely to killed by black people, white people are most likely to be killed by white people, and “other” is most likely to be killed by “other.”  That is by FBI statistics, which you can read about at the link.

“What makes all these people who are threatening George any better than the person they think he is?” The Latest Zimmerman/Martin News Roundup

Okay, we have a lot of news stories and commentary to aggregate, so let’s jump into it.

As a way of review, in my legal analysis (here and here) there are three crucial questions to determine whether Zimmerman validly invoked self-defense:

1)      Who struck the first blow? 

2)      At the moment Zimmerman shot Martin, did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear that Martin was about to inflict legal force on him?

3)      If Zimmerman struck the first blow, did Zimmerman have a reasonable opportunity to escape?

I say that having reviewed enough evidence that it makes it pretty clear that there was some kind of fight between them before Zimmerman shot him.  Obviously things would be very different if Zimmerman shot him with no fighting beforehand.  So pay close attention and you will see that, maddeningly, for the most part the only person who can answer those questions is Zimmerman.

First, for the first time we have heard George Zimmerman’s account.  Via the Orlando Sentinel (hat tip to Dustin in the comments):

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, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about...

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

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.

New York Times: Hey, Isn’t It Great the Way Obama Brought his Race Into the Trayvon Martin Case?

Earlier today I talked about this statement by Obama:

Update: That video is not loading, so here's a substitute.

And among other things, I had this to say about it:

[H]ere is the absolute worst part of what Obama said:

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.”

At the beginning of the statements Obama notes that as head of the executive branch that might very well prosecute George Zimmerman for a crime, he is limited in what he can say.  He rightly recognizes that if he makes statements indicating any kind of prejudice in the case he could harm the ability of the government to prosecute it.  And please note when I say “prejudice” I don’t mean merely if he expresses any bias based on race, sex, etc. but any pre-judgment, any kind of judgment before the facts are in.

But ironically that very statement exposed himself to charges of prejudice—the kind of prejudice you think of first when you think of the word, bias based on race.  He just implied that because of racial affinity he feels particularly bad about the Trayvon killing.  So then since a hypothetical son of Barrack and Michelle Obama would not look like George Zimmerman, does that mean he feels less sympathy for him?

And indeed Trayvon does not look particularly much like Barrack or Michelle Obama.  The only way you could say that Obama’s hypothetical son would look like Trayvon is if you think all black people look alike, and gee, I thought that was a racist point of view?

One does have to wonder how this will play in the Hispanic community, too.  While the President didn’t indict Zimmerman, his racially charged remarks might play badly.  The President should have made no reference to the race of anyone involved; and indeed all good people feel sympathy for the Martin family, regardless of skin color.  If you don’t feel bad for them, yeah, I think there is something wrong with you.

But according to Jackie Calmes and Helene Cooper of the New York Times, this is swell:

President Obama did not mention race even as he addressed it on Friday, instead letting his person and his words say it all: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Weighing in for the first time on the death of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager shot and killed a month ago in Florida by a neighborhood watch volunteer, Mr. Obama in powerfully personal terms deplored the “tragedy” and, as a parent, expressed sympathy for the boy’s mother and father.

“I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” Mr. Obama said. “Every parent in America,” he added, “should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

While speaking movingly from his perspective as the father of two girls, one a teenager, Mr. Obama notably made no reference to the racial context that has made the killing of Trayvon and the gunman’s claim of self-defense a rallying point for African-Americans. Since Mr. Obama first began campaigning to be “president of all the people,” as his advisers would put it when pressed on racial issues, he has been generally reluctant to talk about race. And after his historic election as the first black president, Mr. Obama learned the hard way about the pitfalls of the chief executive opining on law enforcement matters involving civil rights.

Trayvon Martin Shooting Roundup

There’s a lot of idiocy going around these days, starting with the President’s reaction via Michelle Malkin:

There’s a lot there.  Some of it is uncontroversial.  The assertion that this is a tragedy seems pretty safe.  As I said yesterday, it seems extremely safe to believe that Martin was innocent in all this.  I say that even though I noted evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  As I noted in the comments it was very possible for us to have seen a scenario of cascading errors.  Zimmerman erroneously believed that Martin was “up to something” so he followed him.  Martin saw this man following and got scared and reasonably attacked Zimmerman believing he was defending himself.  Zimmerman reasonably got scared that Martin was pulling a gun on him and drew first and fired.  That is pure speculation, but it is very easy to imagine that kind of cascading reasonable errors that led to this death.  In any case, a young man who by all indications was doing absolutely nothing wrong is dead and even if it is not a crime, it is a tragedy.

I am faintly irritated by the President’s assertion that this is an occasion to re-examine the law.  As I pointed out yesterday, this really had little to do with the no-retreat rule in Florida.  Incidentally I will take this moment to point out that I was trivially wrong on one point.  If Zimmerman threw the first punch the law in Florida apparently would impose on him a duty to retreat (remembering that it only applies if one can reasonably do so in safety—you don’t have a duty to run when you know you are likely to be shot trying to escape).  Which means that far from being a radical jurisdiction, Florida is solidly in the mainstream of most states.  Most states only impose a duty to retreat on aggressors outside their own homes.  But as I showed when discussing the Bobbitt case (not the famous Bobbitt case), the Florida courts radically imposed a duty to retreat even on a battered wife in defending her own life in her own bedroom.  That seems to be a bit much.

Every state in the union recognizes a right to self-defense that goes by whether one reasonably believes they are in danger.  No matter how robust or stingy the right of self-defense is, it always has that core where you have a right, under the right circumstances, to kill another based on a reasonable fear of death, serious bodily injury and so on.  And since it goes on your perception of the danger, rather than the reality of it, mistakes like this are inevitable.  That is, it is inevitable that sooner or later an innocent man will be mistakenly thought to pose a threat.

Would we really want any other rule?  Imagine that you face a situation where you believe that your life is in danger.  If you sincerely believed you were in danger, would hesitate to use whatever force is necessary to save your own life?  And remember the same rule applies to the defense of others.  So if you really believe someone has a gun to the head of a loved one, would you hesitate to do everything necessary to protect that person’s life?  Outside of military conscription, the law cannot and should not expect you to risk your own life, period.  That is why, while I think Roe v. Wade was generally wrongly decided, I do believe a woman has an absolute right to abort a fetus if her life is in danger—because it is just self-defense.

And most people get that.  For instance, I think it is safe to assume that everyone has watched the movie Die Hard.  For the five people who haven’t, the set up is that terrorists take over an office building and off-duty cop John McClane is trapped in the building and doing what he can to stop the bad guys.  And one of the best parts of the movie is the relationship between McClane and Al Powell, another cop on the outside.  They only talk on the radio for much of the movie, only meeting in person at the end, and by then they are friends for life.  In one powerful scene, John asks why Al chose a desk job.  Al replies:

I shot a kid.  He was 13 years old.  Ohhh, it was dark, I couldn't see him.  He had a ray gun, looked real enough.  You know, when you're a rookie, they can teach you everything about being a cop except how to live with a mistake.  Anyway, I just couldn't bring myself to draw my gun on anybody again.

He’s not saying he was demoted or imprisoned for it.  Just that he felt so horrible about the thing that he couldn’t bring himself to draw his gun any more (which makes it that much more powerful at the end when he does use his gun to save his new friend).  I don’t think a single person watching that movie thinks that Al did the wrong thing, and certainly no one thought he should go to prison.  If you thought that, then I start to think there is something wrong with you.

What all of this is, is the worst example of “there oughta be a law” syndrome, which was classically lampooned by this bit from the Onion:

Truck Accident That Killed Rafters in Canyon Sparks Truck-Canyon-Rafter Reform Debate

There is no realistic and just way to avoid every failure—to prevent every innocent person from being killed.  And saying this means we need to reform the law only ensures that injustice will occur.

But I am burying the lede here, because here is the absolute worst part of what Obama said:

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.”

At the beginning of the statements Obama notes that as head of the executive branch that might very well prosecute George Zimmerman for a crime, he is limited in what he can say.  He rightly recognizes that if he makes statements indicating any kind of prejudice in the case he could harm the ability of the government to prosecute it.  And please note when I say “prejudice” I don’t mean merely if he expresses any bias based on race, sex, etc. but any pre-judgment, any kind of judgment before the facts are in.

But ironically that very statement exposed himself to charges of prejudice—the kind of prejudice you think of first when you think of the word, bias based on race.  He just implied that because of racial affinity he feels particularly bad about the Trayvon killing.  So then since a hypothetical son of Barrack and Michelle Obama would not look like George Zimmerman, does that mean he feels less sympathy for him?