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).
I doubt that. I've never made a 911 call, but I'm familiar enough with police policy that, if I called 911 and received that advice, I'd take it as an admonition to leave pursuit to the officers when they arrive. Certainly, George Zimmerman, a wannabe cop who has made 46 calls to 911 since 2004, would have a similar understanding.
Indeed, Zimmerman responded "OK" to the dispatcher's advice. And it seems that, in fact, he did break off following Martin, and he stated that he had lost Martin. But, unfortunately, Martin had not lost Zimmerman and apparently decided to teach him a lesson about profiling and disrespect in an unlawful manner, not considering that the object of his lesson might be armed.
Here is an excerpt
He will if they get a bunch of idiots on the jury. I got into an argument with my normally level headed brother over this. I sent him the maps and the call transcripts and I haven’t heard from him since. He kept saying wait for forensics. I told him we already know how Trayvon died and who killed him.
“There is NO doubt there is probable cause for Voluntary.”
But that’s not what he’s charged with. Where does probable cause come for arresting him on murder 2?
“I am a little surprised at 2nd degree but just carrying the gun and following when told not to gets you there.”
Huh? He has every right to conceal and carry according to his license. As for following when told not to, that’s irrelevant. It wasn’t a lawful order, not given to him by any kind of authority, and we don’t even know for sure whether he disobeyed it, do we?
“Fortunately, none of these people are involved in the case. Good attys on both sides. The system is working.”
If he had been charged with manslaughter we wouldn’t have people on both sides of the aisle suggesting prosecutoral misconduct. This is not “the system working.” There’s no evidence of a “depraved mind,” if nothing else.
Carrying a gun and possibly ignoring some random telephone operator does not amount to murder 2, and nothing will, unless the prosecution pulls a rabbit out of its hat. But if their secret evidence is so damning, why wasn’t what it demonstrates laid out in the affidavit? Because even if they prove everything they talk about there beyond the shadow of a doubt, it wouldn’t amount to murder 2.
I hope in your 25 years of prosecution you didn’t so grossly overcharge people.
He did not call 911. He called the non-emergency number. This is the number you call to report suspicious activity. The military has the same set up and I have used it last year. Some clown was taking photos where he was not supposed to.
The first question they will ask is if you are calling to report a crime in progress.
Ok. For the millionth time. Zimmerman did NOT call 911. He called the Sanford Police Department dispatch (non-emergency) which is what neighborhood watches do. The dispatcher did NOT say don’t follow. He said “we don’t need you to do that” and Zimmerman said “ok”.
If we keep repeating what others say rather than listening to the actual tape we are contributing to the problem. Please take the time to listen carefully to the actual recordings before repeating inaccuracies.
Correction: It was on the Sanford PD site, until Bitch Corey told them to take it down. Fortunately, the good folks at the above link archived it. The internet interprets censorship as damage.
True, but irrelevant. My mistake.
The question was how Zimmerman should have taken the police advice, "We don't need you to do that", not which line to the police he was on.
Not to mention the fact that the arresting police officer states that at the time Zimmerman says he was calling for help but no one would help him.
Zimmerman first agreed to meet the police by his vehicle, near the mailboxes on Twin Trees. But then he said they should call him so he could tell them where he was. It sure doesn't seem like he intended to return to his vehicle immediately.
For some reason or another he decided to go on the pathway which runs behind the houses ... in the opposite direction from where he was parked. And on that pathway the shooting took place.
If you look at the map you will see the layout of the complex. It would have been easy for Trayvon to just cross over to the parallel street and continue on home. Zimmerman would have had to return to his truck and drive all the way around. Trayvon could have then crossed back to the sidewalk if he was so scared.
Just Google Retreat View circle, Sanford FL
“The question was how Zimmerman should have taken the police advice, “We don’t need you to do that”, not which line to the police he was on.”
He wasn’t on with the police. That right there makes it legally irrelevant. Since when can’t you assert self-defense after failing to heed what a fellow civilian tells you they don’t need you to do? But that’s not the real point. Do we know for sure whether or not he did follow the non-lawful non-order? I’m not aware of any evidence proving he continued to follow Martin afterwards.
I have lived in my place three years and I still have to go read the street signs when I give friends directions. I walk and drive the streets everyday. I know how to get home so I don't necessarily need to know the address. I don't even know what my neighbors address is unless I go look on her door.
“Here is an excerpt”
That’s not the police telling him to do anything, which was the subject of my post.
Not necessarily true.
In some places, 911 operators and police dispatch operate under a commission of the local sheriff/state patrol.
They sure as heck ARE LEO and you ignore them at your own peril.
Really? In whose budget does Sean's salary fall?
Who says he ignored the order/suggestion? He said “OK” right after they told him not to do it.
“They sure as heck ARE LEO and you ignore them at your own peril.”
I don’t think they are law enforcement, and they most probably aren’t officers. They didn’t give an order, and I don’t think it would have had any legal force if they had. Since when can cops, assuming for argument’s sake that they were cops, order you to stop following someone over the phone? Anyway, finally I’m still waiting for evidence that he ignored the order, pretending for the moment it was an order.
“Really? In whose budget does Sean’s salary fall?”
I don’t know who Sean is, but what do I care? Is the lady who cleans toilets at the police station a cop?
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.