Massad Ayoob's Blog, page 129
July 19, 2013
ZIMMERMAN VERDICT: THE STAND YOUR GROUND ELEMENT
Few elements of this case have been more widely misunderstood than the “stand your ground” (SYG) element. Quite simply, Florida’s SYG law, statute 776.012, simply rescinded a previous requirement that one had to retreat if possible before using deadly force in self-defense. This did not particularly change the rules of engagement. The previous law had demanded retreat only if it could be accomplished in complete safety to oneself and other innocent people present. It is hard to imagine a situation in which one WOULD kill another person if they could have simply walked away unscathed.
The evidence showed incontrovertibly that Zimmerman, straddled by his attacker in the MMA mount and being savagely beaten while supine, could not possibly have retreated or otherwise escaped at the time he pulled the trigger. His wise lawyers knew that from the beginning, Craig Sonner when I spoke with him in March of 2012, and Mark O’Mara and Don West when I discussed it with them a couple of months later.
The media is largely either confused or deceptive about this, and so I’m afraid are many lawyers, including the Attorney General of the United States, who has called for an end to SYG laws. Florida Governor Rick Scott empanelled a blue-ribbon committee to study the law last year, which included some vociferous anti-gunners. Nonetheless, their collective recommendation was to leave SYG in place. The Governor now stands up in defense of it as well, as seen here: Protesters stand up to ‘stand your ground,’ but laws likely here to stay.
Stevie Wonder has announced that he won’t perform in Florida until SYG is done away with. Stevie Wonder, through no fault of his own, is blind. He has my sympathy for that.
But the other opponents of SYG seem to be willfully blind, and for that, there is no excuse.
Share or Bookmark
July 17, 2013
ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 3: “WHO STARTED IT?”
Welcome to the new commentators here, many of whom seem to feel that Zimmerman started the encounter, a concept that concerns many of our regulars as well. Whenever there’s a fight, no matter the degree of consequences, the first question is always “who started it?”
Zimmerman took the first action, calling police when he observed Martin. He said that he was concerned because the man in the hoodie appeared to be wandering slowly and aimlessly in heavy rain. This is more consistent with what might be called “casing the joint” than with someone in a hurry to get somewhere dry. He didn’t mention Martin’s skin color until expressly asked about it by the call center operator.
The evidence indicates that Zimmerman didn’t get out of his car until the operator asked where the suspicious person was, and where the police should meet Zimmerman, the complainant. Taking that as a request for information, Zimmerman obligingly got out of the car to gather the intelligence that seemed to have been implicitly requested of him. He was, after all, the elected (not self-appointed) captain of Neighborhood Watch, and his function as Eyes and Ears of the Police had been drilled into him and the other Watch members through the Police Department itself. When the call-taker asked if he was following the man, Zimmerman replied in the affirmative. He was then told, “You don’t have to do that.”
The evidence indicates that he stopped following Martin at that moment. His former rapid breathing returned to normal and wind noise from his phone stopped, consistent with his testimony that he stopped following and had lost sight of Martin. The dispatcher did not “order” him to stop following, and later admitted in court that he had no authority to do so. Nonetheless, it was clear that Zimmerman was simply following Martin to keep him in sight and report his whereabouts, not “pursuing” with any intent to “confront.”
Putting together the timelines of the calls – hard evidence – and the testimony of the prosecution’s “star witness” Rachel Jeantel. When Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, the latter was a very short distance from home. Yet in the four minutes thereafter, he had to have left that location and gone toward Zimmerman’s. Even Jeantel admits that the first words of the confrontation she heard were from Martin, before the phone went dead.
Keeping an eye on someone from a distance is not against the law. Leaving the safety and mobility of your vehicle when suspicious unknown people are around may not be the best tactical move, but is no evidence of wrongdoing or intent to confront.
Who struck the first blow? Virtually all the evidence supports Zimmerman’s account; no evidence contradicts it, and no evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, in any way. If as some conjecture Zimmerman had drawn the gun at the first, why did he wait until his scalp had been split open on the sidewalk and his nose smashed before he pulled the trigger? And if Martin really believed he was in danger from the man watching him, why didn’t he simply call the police from the phone he was already speaking on?
Within the totality of the circumstances presented in court by the prosecution itself, it would seem that saying “Zimmerman started it” is like saying that a woman was raped “because she asked for it.”
It’s about evidence, not about “what-ifs.” The simple fact is, no matter what some want to believe and no matter how much the brainwashers of the media have twisted the facts, there is no solid evidence to support any theory other than that Martin didn’t like being watched, attacked Zimmerman violently, and was shot in self-defense by the man whose head he had been smashing against the sidewalk with potentially lethal effect.
There are more issues, of course, and we’ll explore them here shortly.
Share or Bookmark
July 15, 2013
ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 2: THE “UNARMED TEEN”
It seems that the verdict of a sworn jury in our criminal justice system means little to the haters, who are still screaming that George Zimmerman killed “an unarmed seventeen-year-old.” Given that seventeen is old enough to enlist in the Marine Corps and to be tried as an adult – the Gainesville Sun recently headlined that a “sixteen-year-old man” was to be charged with murder in the selfsame Florida criminal justice system – the age issue doesn’t hold a lot of water when seen through a clear glass.
“Unarmed?” Actually, NO. The history of adjudicating deadly force actions shows that Trayvon Martin was “armed” two or three times over.
First, the haters (like the prosecution) assiduously ignored George Zimmerman’s statement that while Martin was “ground-and-pounding” him, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster, told Zimmerman that he was going to die tonight, and reached for his victim’s pistol.
If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand. If I announce my intent to murder you and reach for a gun, I’m bought and paid for right there. And it doesn’t matter whether the gun I’m reaching for is in my holster, or yours. That’s why every year in America, when thugs try to grab a policeman’s gun and are shot, the shootings are ruled justifiable.
Even before Martin’s reach for Zimmerman’s still-holstered pistol, the circumstances that were proven to the satisfaction of the jury showed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting his attacker. Remember when defense attorney Don West said in the defense’s opening statement that Martin was armed with the sidewalk? That sounded ludicrous to lay people, and I would have phrased it differently myself, but professionals understood exactly what he was talking about.
The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.
Position of disadvantage means that the opponent has full range and freedom of movement, and you don’t. You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…or you are down and helpless in a martial arts “mount” while your opponent pounds you at will.
Finally, we have the clearly proven element of Martin smashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. If I picked up a chunk of concrete or cement and tried to smash your skull with it, you would certainly realize that you were about to die or be horribly brain-damaged if you didn’t stop me. It would be what the statutes call “a deadly weapon, to wit a bludgeon.” There just isn’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between cement being smashed into head, and head being smashed into cement.
Clearly, Trayvon Martin possessed the power to kill or cripple Zimmerman. That is why, under law, Zimmerman was justified in defending himself with a per se deadly weapon.
The jury got it. Too bad the haters didn’t understand…or didn’t want to understand.
Share or Bookmark
July 13, 2013
THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 1
Minutes ago as I write this, justice has triumphed in a courtroom in Sanford, Florida. I wish to congratulate six brave, honest, intelligent jurors. And two fine defense lawyers. And the honest cops and witnesses who testified, and the many who contributed to the defense fund for a wrongfully accused armed citizen.
Several blog followers have asked me why I haven’t written here (or spoken anywhere) on this, the most important armed citizen case of our time. The answer is this:
I did write on it once, on Friday, March 23, 2012. The following day, I received a phone call from Craig Sonner, George Zimmerman’s original legal counsel, to retain me on the case as an expert witness for the defense.
The weeks wore on. Attorney and client parted ways. I was subsequently contacted by Mark O’Mara, the new defense lawyer. Late in May of 2012, I met with him in his office, along with his co-counsel Don West. I also attended the bail hearing in which Zimmerman’s bond was revoked. During the hearing, TV cameras swept the courtroom. Some folks saw that, recognized me, and apparently assumed I was involved with the case.
In fact, I don’t take expert witness cases until I’ve seen all the evidence, and the prosecution was extremely slow in providing that. I wound up not being involved. However, having been retained by one of the defendant’s lawyers and consulted with another, I felt bound by confidentiality and did not think it would be professional to comment directly on the matter from then on.
I’ve been biting my tongue ever since, because there was much that I wanted to say.
The verdict is now in, and I’m gonna smooth those teethmarks off my tongue, and in the next few entries here will discuss some elements of the Zimmerman case which have been widely and profoundly misunderstood.
In the meantime, to get the commentary and analysis of the case that most of the mainstream media denied you, go to the excellent day by day writing of Andrew Branca, an attorney who specializes in this sort of case, at www.legalinsurrection.com.
Your commentary is more than welcome here.
Share or Bookmark
BACKWOODS HOME APPLESEED RETURNS!
While on verdict watch, let me take a moment to announce that Backwoods Home magazine is once again sponsoring an Appleseed!
Get all the details here: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/bwh-shoot.html. Be sure to check out the links.
I was at last year’s inaugural event sponsored by the magazine, and enjoyed heck out of it. I particularly enjoyed meeting so many of our readers.
Get there early and browse through the in-house bookstore at the magazine’s headquarters in Gold Beach, a town so picturesque it’s a destination community in and of itself.
Hope you can make it!
Share or Bookmark
July 10, 2013
ILLINOIS DOES IT!
Yee-haw! The Illinois state legislature yesterday overrode anti-gun Governor Pat Quinn’s ludicrous amendatory veto, and concealed carry is now law there.
It ain’t perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than it used to be.
Congratulations to all the civil rights advocates in Illinois – and elsewhere – who worked so hard to make it happen.
Share or Bookmark
July 7, 2013
COPS AND YOUR GUNS
I am so, so, SO sick of hearing the prohibitionists say that cops don’t want you good people to have guns.
If you haven’t seen it already, check out what I had to say on that in the current issue of Backwoods Home http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob142.html.
Enough said for now…
Share or Bookmark
July 3, 2013
HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY
Some will be watching fireworks on July 4, and some will be releasing them. Mine will come from gun barrels. What better way to celebrate Independence Day and commemorate the armed citizens who gave us that independence?
Personally, I’m looking for some range time on the Fourth, and hoping to shoot a match over the weekend. The sounds will fit right in with the more traditional celebration.
Which reminds me: a few years ago I was on the board of directors of a gun club that had been established around 1950. Some folks who had knowingly built homes near an established shooting range wanted to shut down the club because of the noise. (We won.)
Amidst all that, the local anti-gun newspaper wrote about the controversy, sending their reporters around to talk with the neighbors. One of those neighbors told the reporter it didn’t bother him at all.
“It’s the sound of freedom,” he said.
I made a motion that we offer that neighbor a free membership. I don’t believe he ever took the club up on it, though.
Maybe he wasn’t even a shooter.
But he sure had his head in the right place.
Mas demonstrates that the sweet new Ruger SR45, introduced this year, is one kind of “fireworks” that works in the rain. Yes, there’s a solid backstop.
Share or Bookmark
July 1, 2013
THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS PLEASE
In the Prescott, Arizona area, a massive wildfire has claimed the lives of 19 firefighters. Their average age is 22. http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/22726613/2013/06/30/yarnell-hill-wildfire-grows-to-almost-1000-acres
This is said to be the highest death toll of firefighters since the Twin Towers.
Instinct tells us to run from fire. The brave men and women of the fire service run toward it instead.
Thoughts and prayers, please.
Share or Bookmark
June 26, 2013
THE MS. AND THE GUN, REDUX
A little while ago in this blog, I wrote about an anti-gun lady who did a strange and incredibly stupid thing for the MS magazine blog. You can find it here: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/06/17/false-flags-false-premises/#comments
Someone walking around carrying a gun she admitted she didn’t know how to use was so scary a concept that I still consider it both a false premise and a false flag. The lady in question did so because she is an avowed anti-gunner, and wanted to show the world how dangerous guns are.
Well, in hands like hers, they are.
Go to the links to her MS magazine blog, found in the link above, and also to the comments on both that site, and the above-linked entry in this Backwoods Home blog. You’ll see that in each, many people warned her of the danger she was presenting to herself and others.
Apparently, MS Magazine agreed: they have stopped her insane experiment, at least under their aegis, but it appears that the madness will continue in the Huffington Post.
Kudos to MS magazine for dumping it. I’d be very much interested in hearing the real story from those folks why they wisely aborted this obviously dangerous and doomed mission. I would particularly like to hear from Gloria Steinem on that.
There aren’t a whole lot of anti-gun people I can say I admire, but Gloria Steinem is one. Hers is the name most associated with MS magazine, and I well remember when she burst on the American scene. Her writing was one of the reasons I became an early and unlikely feminist. (Yes, I was in my early twenties then, and yes, she was “hawt” as they say today. She’s 79 now, but hell, I’m going on 65, so she’s still in my dating range.) But that’s not important: the important thing to me is that Gloria Steinem embodied an ethos that has served me well for my entire life: the realization that strong, capable, confident women are the most interesting and valuable women. (Funny thing: that works across both genders, doesn’t it?)
And, I strongly suspect, Gloria Steinem and her true heirs understand how embarrassing it is to everything they stand for when “a clueless woman with a gun” becomes a grotesque stereotype of hysterical incompetence. That is nothing less than anathema to everything they have spent their lives fighting for.
Ms. Steinem was a pioneer in what was called then the Women’s Liberation Movement. She was and is an avatar of female empowerment. At about the time she co-founded MS magazine in 1972, women were already past baby steps and taking long strides to penetrate previously male-oriented job markets. In the construction industry, they didn’t do it as manual laborers and hod carriers, they did it at the hydraulically-operated controls of Caterpillar tractors; in law-enforcement, they didn’t do it with fists but instead with guns and expertly-wielded batons. As one of the first police PR-24 baton instructors, I was able to point other cops to female officers like Missy O’Linn, who later became a great police defense lawyer, and petite Florida cop Pamela Miller because they could make that baton absolutely sing: pound for pound, a woman with more limber upper limbs and 30 degrees more flexibility in the pelvic axis could get more power into a properly-executed PR-24 strike than her brother the same height and weight.
FORCE MULTIPLIER was the operative term.
And it still is. Check out this video of a young mom being savagely beaten by a home invader – in front of her three year old child – recently caught on a “nanny-cam.” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/watch_home_invader_savagely_pummels_hxiWhv2uYrbF0uIPD680BL .
Excuse me all to hell, but I would like to believe that any woman I loved would have been better off with a gun in that situation, explaining to her child how the big man’s white tee-shirt suddenly turned all red and he fell down and stopped trying to hurt decent people, and honey, it’s going to be all right now. It’s easier to explain than the horror the mom in the video will have to explain to her little one.
And, you know, I would like to believe that Gloria Steinem and the other pioneers of women’s empowerment can recognize that
Share or Bookmark
Massad Ayoob's Blog
- Massad Ayoob's profile
- 65 followers
