Posted on

Wait for it, no, forget it, it’s already here..


Well, we knew 2 things were inevitable. One, that George Zimmerman’s “self defense” story was going to come to light, and b) the Sanford PD was going to try to cover their asses, in some way, shape, or form. Well, in the former, reports are trickling out with Zimmerman claiming he was the one who was attacked, and that Trayvon Martin went for his gun. Of course this completely contradicts the 911 tapes and cell phone calls Martin had with his friend, but let’s just roll with that for a second.

Then we have the story leaked that Trayvon Martin was suspended from school because they found weed residue in his book bag. Not in his system that night, mind you (per the autopsy) but yes.. he may have smoked weed and had some residue in his bag at school. So, that, combined with a hoodie, =, well of course we know what it means. That the right wing blogosphere is alive and kicking and ready for redemption.

But the most amazing thing I’ve read in some time though is right wing blowhard Michael Smerconish’s piece for HuffPo today. He said the 911 tapes would bear out whether Zimmerman really acted in self defense and is therefore innocent. He acknowledges that a) Zimmerman had no real reason to be following Martin, b) He had no real reason to confront Martin, especially being told not to, and c) that Zimmerman clearly had some kind of pissed-off vigilante agenda on his mind when he said “these assholes always get away,” and Smerconsih goes as far as to admit he likely threw in a racial slur to boot, to 911!! But then he says something that just defies all rational logic and explanation. Smerconsih actually fucking says this:

“If a voice analysis shows it to be Zimmerman, that will suggest he was justified in using deadly force, that he was crying for help and restraining himself before drawing his gun.

If, however, it is Martin crying out for help, Zimmerman’s ability to cloak himself in “stand your ground” will evaporate, and that identification will appropriately lead to his arrest.”



Wait… WHAT??!! Are you following that?? We have established, even per Michael Fucking Fox News Sweetheart Smerconish, that Zimmerman had no reason to follow, stalk, or approach Trayvon Martin. Let alone to be armed. But once Zimmerman does this, now he is in a position of self-defense if Martin swung first? Make sure you understand exactly what I am saying and exactly what Mike Smerconish is saying here.

Trayvon Martin had no right to take a swing at the armed stranger who approached and confronted him for no good reason.

George Zimmerman had every right to shoot him dead if Zimmerman didn’t throw the first punch.


Sometimes.. I am just utterly, fucking, speechless.


About trosen76

Who's asking?

4 responses to “Wait for it, no, forget it, it’s already here..

  1. Not quite. The law basically reads such that a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s shoes would have to have an immediate concern that either his life was in danger or that Treyvon would have inflicted “grave” harm on his person. The short of it is that evidence is going to have to be weighed either way. Those clamoring for one extreme or the other on this are simply being overly-sensational. I’m all for protecting private citizenry from governmen tyranny, including that of police corruption, but I usually wait until they weigh all the evidence they gather and make a decision before I go off the reservation on the po-po. I doubt many people have even read the law much less understand it. Hardly any blog or article or rant I’ve had the pleasure of reading has actually correctly asserted what the law is or how it MIGHT apply. Conceivably, we could have a scenario where the SYG law doesn’t even come into play and just have a straight self defense issue case (Depending on how the facts play out).

    I’m not saying Zimmerman is innocent. There are plenty of factors that weigh against him in so far as his protection via the SYG law. But very little is actually known about the confrontation itself after he catches up to Treyvon. Forget about all the ancillary crap about Treyvon smoking weed, wearing a hoodie, getting bad grades, or having facebook pictures where he’s thuggin it up. None of that shit is relevant. And frankly, it doesn’t even matter if Treyvon through the first punch. One half-assed swing from a 17 year old is more than likely not going to be enough to meet the “grave” harm standard, let alone fear of death. And let’s not forget that it’s difficult to argue you were acting in self defense when you are chasing after the kid. None of that is dispositive though. You simply need to measure the facts as a whole before you can even begin to interpret the standard. Absent that, we really shouldn’t be flipping out one way or another.

    • trosen76

      Thanks Tano. Fair points, but you are kind of confirming mine. The “ancillary crap” is what is going to be all over the blogosphere now. And since that’s what I do, non-law related work and blog, as where you, practice law and also blog, I thought it relevant.

  2. This is so much more simple than all the media noise (on both sides) would suggest. I think the heart of the whole thing is that Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Trayvon. He didn’t need to do that, and he was advised that he didn’t need to do that. The second he did it anyway, everything else was set in motion, and none of it would have happened without Zimmerman getting out of his truck. It was his own poor judgement and temperament that created a hostile situation, out of nothing at all. How he’s not being held accountable for anything in this case just boggles my mind.

    • trosen76

      Ultimately, I think it’s going to come down to that. The prosecution (unless they bring the inept OJ Simpson prosecutors out of retirement) will have the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin, ignored law enforcement requests to break off pursuit, initiated confrontation by approaching Martin without cause, displayed via the 911 tapes hostility toward the victim without cause (showing cause and hostile motive), and ultimately fired the fatal shot against an unarmed man. There are few scenarios where I see that being overcome to get off scot-free. However whether this comes down to murder or manslaughter will depend heavily on jurors’ interpretations of 911 tapes, and what little eyewitness testimony will be deemed reliable. From what I have read it seems witness statements are conflicting at best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s