Posted on 04/13/2012 7:05:10 PM PDT by doug from upland
The charges brought against George Zimmerman sure look like prosecutorial misconduct. The case as put forward by the prosecutor in the “affidavit of probable cause” is startlingly weak. As a former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, I have read a number of such affidavits, and cannot recall one lacking so much relevant information. The prosecutor has most likely deliberately overcharged, hoping to intimidate Zimmerman into agreeing to a plea bargain. If this case goes to trial, Zimmerman will almost definitely be found “not guilty” on the charge of second-degree murder.
The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a high-profile case is troubling. Everyone knows how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to indict, because only the prosecutor presents evidence. A grand-jury indictment would have provided political cover; that charges were brought without one means that the prosecutor was worried that a grand jury would not give her the indictment.
Advertisement The affidavit consists of six main points:
● Zimmerman was upset about all “the break-ins in his neighborhood” and expressed anger at how criminals “always get away.”
● According to a discussion with Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, who said that she was talking to Martin before the attack, Zimmerman followed Martin. He did so despite the police operator’s saying “we don’t need you to do that.”
● Zimmerman “confronted Martin and a struggle ensued,” though no evidence is cited on this point.
● Trayvon Martin’s mother identified the voice crying for help on a 9-1-1 call as her son’s.
● Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest, and this is confirmed by both Zimmerman’s statement and ballistics tests.
● Martin died from the gunshot wound.
Note some of the points that are missing. The prosecution doesn’t claim Zimmerman had racial animus against blacks. There was no “f***ing coons” on the police call. Some extremely relevant information from the police report is completely excluded: There is no mention of the grass and wetness found on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt, the gashes on the back of his head, the bloody nose, or the other witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, before the shot was fired. There is not even an attempt to say that the police report was in error; instead the affidavit just disregards it.
Even if everything in the affidavit is correct, it does not even begin to deal with the most crucial question: Who attacked whom? Even if it is true that “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued,” there may have been no wrongdoing on Zimmerman’s part. “Confronted” does not mean “provoked” or “assaulted.” It could simply mean that Zimmerman followed Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Surely Zimmerman had the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. The police operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was merely suggestive, not an order to stop. Indeed, the police had no authority to give Zimmerman such an order.
Now take the charge of “second degree” murder. There is no way that the affidavit justifies such a charge. In Florida, second-degree murder is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.” But if Zimmerman was being beaten, there was no “depraved mind regardless of human life,” and the act “imminently dangerous to another” would be justified as self-defense.
Angela Corey, the special prosecutor who filed charges, claimed multiple times on Wednesday that the prosecutors “are seekers of the truth.” In our legal system, grand juries can sometimes provide a check on prosecutors who indict based on political pressure or the desire to seek the limelight. It is no surprise that Corey avoided the grand jury.
— John R. Lott Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor and a co-author of the just-released Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future (John Wiley & Sons, March 2012).
What I can’t understand is how the judge accepted this pathetic piece of sh... er, *work* at Zimmerman’s hearing yesterday, and decided it was sufficient to support the murder 2 charge.
Because of the manipulation and lies of the networks, threats and intimidation by flamethrower Sharpton and pals, and a pronouncement by racist Mad Maxine on the floor of Congress that Trayvon was hunted down like a dog and shot, there is no way Zimmerman can ever get a fair trial. The jury pool across the country is hopelessly tainted.
Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are in a win/win situation on this. Zimmerman gets convicted, they puff out their chests to prove to their minions that THEY had the power and fortitude to help bring on this “justice”.
What they REALLY hope for is an aquittal. THEN they can racebait at a level not seen since Rodney King. They are licking their chops on this.
I read it. It read like the prosecution’s closing arguments. It was laughable.
I have a question that I’ve wondered about. When the cops told Zimmerman to quit following the other guy, was Zimmerman in his car?
Pardon me for the dumb question.
I know why she does not want to go to a Grand Jury, but how
does she get away with not going to the Grand Jury? It
would seem to me that it is required under the 5th Amendment.
Something about not being held to answer for a capital or
otherwise infamous crime without...
just asking.
Mike
Zimmerman never spoke to a “cop” at all until after Martin was dead.
Can you imagine being the lone juror who refuses to be intimidated, doesn’t find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Black Panthers put a bounty on your head?
Don’t say something like that couldn’t happen in this country, because it already has happened, hasn’t it?
Don’t know.
I think Zimmerman called 911 and I think someone at 911 told him to quit following the kid. I’m just wondering if he was following the kid in his car when that happened. Maybe no one has said yet. I guess it will all come out eventually.
No.
Transcript of Zimmerman Call to Police Dispatch
Contrary to what the charging affidavit asserts, Zimmerman was not told to "wait" either. The word "wait" does not appear anywhere in the transcript of the call.
We don’t need no steenking probable cause.
I fully expect the jury to be intimidated. All of their home addresses and places where they work are going to be Tweeted.
This is a 21st Century American version of a 1930s Stalinist Show Trial.
In this version, it begins with the media.
And of course, it’s already begun.
If you look at the actions in court through the lens of the US Constitution, you are not seeing what’s really going on.
This is High Communism in action, with the full pressure of a Thugocracy in the White House backed up by the threat of large numbers of anonymous murders roaming the streets seeking revenge.
No jury will acquit this man. Juries have families. They don’t want their families dead.
Zimmerman is going down, as surely as any Enemy of the People in 1930s Stalinist Russia. And we are all going to watch it happen in the media.
We all have a ringside seat to an incredible injustice.
The way I first heard it was that the 911 call taker, not the
police, that told him that they did not need him to follow
the guy. When was he given a positive order not to follow?
Are the 911 operators in that county commissioned law
enforcement officers?
Mike
The prosecutor didn't have access to the 911 transcripts.
She only knows what the New BlacKKK Pampers told her.
He spoke to a 911 operator who is not a cop and can not issue lawful orders to anybody at any time. Lott addresses this in his article. The suggestion from the operator is not a lawful order and is in fact a canard and irrelevant legally.
Another good analysis, this from Andrew McCarthy.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy
I guess that’s why we don’t know whether he was in his vehicle or not when the 911 folks suggested he not follow the kid. I read that transcript you cited and couldn’t find where he said that he was in his vehicle or not. He did mention that the cops could find him by finding his truck, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was in the truck at that time.
It’ll probably come out in the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.