How to Convict George Zimmerman 101: Part II, The Prologue
Joe Burbank / EPA file
The scene is set: George Zimmerman and Mark O’Mara are sitting at the defense table intently looking at lead prosecutor Angela Corey as she approaches the podium, acknowledges the court, looks at the defense table, acknowledges their presence, paces a few steps from the podium and finally turns to the jury and just before her lips part to say the first word, Mark O’Mara holds his breath. Angela Corey has two choices: she can present to the jury that Zimmerman was engaged in a wrongful act just as he encountered Trayvon Martin or she can show that George Zimmerman was the first aggressor. These two choices have different implications and although she can argue both, the evidence she will use to convey either theory to the jury would essentially be the same, rather, it will the only other side to the story.
This article will discuss the first of two choices, which involves showing that George Zimmerman was engaged in wrongful activity just as he encountered Trayvon Martin on that dark and rainy night. This simply means that the prosecution would have to present evidence that George Zimmerman did something wrongful within the purview of § 776.013 of the Florida Statutes. Angela Corey will likely show that George Zimmerman, the 28 year old “self-appointed” neighborhood watch captain, who has sought on more than one occasion to “solidify [his] interest in law enforcement,” intended to capture and detain the “punk/asshole” (Trayvon) to keep him from getting away from the imminent arrival of the police.
Corey will likely begin her case by using the fact that Zimmerman took affirmative steps to “protect his community” at all costs, perhaps enough to rise to the level whereby local law enforcement would take notice of his efforts. For instance he formed a community watch, went on several ride-alongs with the Sanford Police Department, called the police numerous times to report suspicious people and voluntarily followed Trayvon even to the point where he got out of his vehicle to pursue him on foot despite dispatcher’s plea to cease his pursuit. Undoubtedly Zimmerman was so convinced that Trayvon was a drugged-out criminal on the prowl for a smash-and-grab operation that he called the police. On that call with dispatch Zimmerman can be heard saying words of affirmation such as “yep” and “uh-huh,” after stating his reasons for suspecting Martin was up to no good and possibly about to break into an unsecured home. It was as if he was rationalizing and therefore self-justifying the actions he was about to take.
In addition to his suspicions about Trayvon, Zimmerman thought it necessary to mention Trayvon had his hand in his waistband and attached the iteration that Trayvon was a black male (I wonder what image that is supposed to convey). A few seconds later, Zimmerman states with surety that Trayvon indeed had something in his hands and made a plea to have officers come immediately. This demonstrates to the reasonable person that Zimmerman believed that Trayvon had a weapon of some sort and that Zimmerman had reason to be at least cautious if he were to confront Trayvon. This “reasonable belief” that Trayvon was carrying a weapon is heightened by the fact that it was George carrying the only weapon. In other words George was ascribing his own thoughts, feelings, and attitudes to Martin, a term psychologist call projecting.
Understanding the state of mind of George at this point is an important part of lead prosecutor Corey making her case to the jury. The question that now remains is why would George get out of the safety of vehicle to pursue an up to no good Trayvon on a dark and rainy night who, in George’s mind, may be carrying a weapon in his waistband. (I suspect his defense team has preemptively positioned itself to combat this question via an interview with Sean Hannity, too bad it’s tainted) Here is where the fireworks begin.
From this point Corey has a few choices based on the evidence she has gathered. And depending on that evidence, she can likely show the jury that Zimmerman was engaged in wrongful activity either by detaining Trayvon against his will or brandishing his weapon. Both are more than likely to be wrongful under § 776.013 of the Florida Statutes. The first would be false imprisonment/arrest and the other would be felony aggravated assault. It is not unreasonable to get to this point if the evidence is weighed and reasonable inferences are drawn.
According to § 787.02 of the Florida statutes false imprisonment “means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will.” Even if the unlawful restraint were to last a mere second, under Florida law it would still be classified as false imprisonment. It is an undisputed fact Trayvon did not, by any means, want to converse with or be detained by Zimmerman. Trayvon was on his way to his father’s place to finish watching the last half of the NBA all-star game with his younger brother. Ironically it was Zimmerman himself who stated Trayvon took off running after he was most likely spooked from being followed on a dark rainy and lonely night.
At common law a person (arrestor) may detain another (arrestee) against their will, if the arrestee has in fact committed a misdemeanor that rises to the level of breaching the peace and it was committed in the presence of the arrestor. An arrestor can also detain an arrestee against their will if the arrestee has in fact committed a felony even if the arrestee did not commit the felony in the arrestor’s presence. This privilege applies to private persons who are not law enforcement or something similar such as a shopkeeper or security officer. Zimmerman for all purposes was acting as a private individual. Thus the only way Zimmerman would be able to detain Trayvon without committing a wrongful act is if Trayvon committed a misdemeanor that breaches the peace in his presence or Trayvon committed a felony and Zimmerman is aware of it.
After weighing the competing interests of Trayvon and Zimmerman, so to speak, a reasonable person can infer the motives of both Trayvon and Zimmerman based on the evidence. Trayvon’s motivation was to seek safety and return home because not only was he in a neighborhood he did not know, but a man whom he has never seen before was watching him and following him in a vehicle while alone on a dark rainy night. On the other hand Zimmerman, pressed with a series of break-ins in his neighborhood and his conviction that Trayvon was a fleeing threat, his motivation was to make sure the police captured the criminal Trayvon, because “those assholes always get away.”
On the second point when the facts are viewed in its entirety is it reasonable for Zimmerman, armed with a pistol, to get out of the safety of his vehicle to pursue someone he believes is a burglar with his hand in his waistband (an odd term to begin with waistband is often used in conjunction with guns) on a dark and rainy night without his gun drawn? Is it reasonable for any armed individual to pursue a stranger in the dark they just reported to the police on the suspicion of that have or is about to commit a felony without at least having their weapon in a ready position? More importantly how was Zimmerman able to catch, detain or cut off Trayvon’s escape? (unfortunately for Trayvon when you wear a hoodie it cuts off your peripheral vision) Moreover according to Zimmerman’s own statement he never threw a punch, could it be because a gun was in his hand and a struggle ensued over control of that weapon? At this point, I am asking my readers to listen to the audio recording once again with those questions in mind. Listen intently and I promise you will hear a few things you may not have heard before. Click! To be continued . . .
STOP tired of visiting apleblog.com and finding no new stories? Before you leave, subscribe to the website it will save you time and let you know when there is a new story posted. Folks, stay tuned this story has a Part III and it’s the continuation of the legal arguments based on Zimmerman being characterized as the first aggressor then tying it all together. I welcome your comments, please be civil, as I understand this is a contentious story and people often get emotional.
If you have not read my earlier post, which is Part I of this story click here. Thank you for your readership.
I think false imprisonment as the predicate wrongful activity by George Zimmerman is a very weak argument. If the state uses that, he will get off no doubt. Aggravated assault seems more feasible, but where is the evidence to prove that? I don’t think (circumstantially) that can be proven, let alone directly.
1its a felony here in the state of florida maybe i should add that in my post… most certainly committing a felony especially when the crime is against another would certainly count as wrongful, especially when carrying a concealed weapon w/o a license is..
2I can hardly wait for Part III.
3The Florida Statute says: “…forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will.”
I assume you’re implying that Zimmerman, forcibly or by threat, restrained Martin, and thus became the aggressor (so Zimmerman couldn’t claim self-defense). Given the facts of the case, that scenario seems unprovable. This seems like a big gamble, because if the state goes this route and the jury doesn’t buy it, Zimmerman walks for sure. It may be safer to try to prove Zimmerman was simply the initial aggressor in the fight.
Personally, I don’t think this case should have been charged due to the overwhelming evidence that points toward self-defense by Zimmerman. I doubt he will get convicted of anything.
4well to make it a bit clearer, once you use the term “or” as opposed to “and” — or works to put either option. For example if I say red or green, that means either red or either green, any of those colors will suffice. If I say red and green, that means I need both red and green to suffice. Now going back to the definition of false imprisonment, consider the “or” in the definition, so there are multiple ways you can imprison a person and it doesn’t always have to be by force or threat, you can for instance leave someone in a small room that opens only from the outside and refuse to let them out — that would be imprisoning… and you wont need force or threat to do that
5I understand that, I learned all about breaking down statutes in law school…
I’m asking you, what is the evidence that would support false imprisonment in this case? I said I assumed you meant “forcibly or by threat” because nothing else from the statute would even come close to being applicable in this case (i.e. it’s undisputed that Zimmerman didn’t abduct or imprison Martin).
I’m not saying Zimmerman DIDN’T do something of that nature (he very well may have), but what is the evidence to support that theory?
I like the creative argument, I’m just curious as to how you’d support it…
6all they have to show is some restraint against the will of another. The evidence seems to point to a scared trayvon running away from zimmerman. We know this because Zimmerman stated he was and at some point he retarded Trayvon’s escape. Obviously Zimmerman wasn’t inquiring like one would your local gas station attendant, hey can you give me directions. The evidence suggests that Zimmerman believed trayvon was a dangerous criminal and he did not want him to escape (police) capture. The evidence probably further suggests that he initiated/attempted a citizen’s arrest. A citizen’s arrest falls under false imprisonment – all you need to do is attempt to hold a person until police arrives. Since you’ve had law school and as I wrote in my post, there is no privilege for mistake of fact on a citizen’s arrest afforded to private individuals.
More importantly I don’t think they have to prove Zimmerman imprisoned him beyond a reasonable doubt, he’s not being charged with false imprisonment, they just have to prove that he imprisoned him above the preponderance of the evidence standard and below the clear and convincing standard — which is by competent substantial evidence. The goal is to remove SYG by overcoming his preponderance of the evidence SYG claim, not convict him of false imprisonment
7so in a nutshell they don’t really need hard evidence, they need as much evidence as they did to convict scott peterson, which was all hearsay. Or in a case where there is no body, similar to circumstantial, maybe even from a totality of the evidence standard.
8I think too much attention is being given to SYG in this case. If he wins a SYG hearing, he gets immunity and the case is thrown out. If he loses a SYG hearing, it goes to trial like it would have and he uses a self-defense defense.
At trial, Zimmerman will claim self-defense, and the burden will be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. This will be very tough to meet. There may be evidence pointing that way, but not nearly strong enough. I just don’t see it.
I also think there are more political motivations in this case than we will ever know. This case reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse case (in the way blacks and whites are so divided on what needs to happen). As much as I hate to say it, I think this case represents a lot more than what happened that night between Zimmerman and Martin.
9hey hey hey slow down on the Duke case, I actually still believe the verdict is out in that case. Look, Mike N. just relied on DNA evidence a bit too much. We have become a CSI society, we believe there must be fingerprints and DNA in every case when the opposite is true. Actually in rape cases DNA evidence is not always present in fact I hear it a substantial number of cases where its absent, condoms, etc etc. Secondly I don’t know what undergrad you went to but I went to UF and I attended a lot of parties. A LOT!! i’ll tell you something, very few times I could identify someone I saw the night before especially if more than 30 ppl attended or I know them or seen them before. Finally, when was the last lacrosse party you’ve attended and ONLY LACROSSE PLAYERS were there. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that still exists as to whether she was raped, I just don’t think she pointed out the right people, to her they probably all look alike and it was their party, so she held them responsible. I don’t doubt it, at UF we’ve had several incidents like that and but for money and settlements it would be worse. Rapes happen all the time on campus, everyone knows this.
10I think George had assistance. According to the latest information, in the form of Mark Osterman, Osterman arrived before the police did at the scene of the killing. Why was he there? Didn’t he live in Virginia at that time or in the process of moving after his episode with the Sanford Police? He certainly coached GZ on what to say (after that night). Some stuff GZ was wrong, wrong, wrong; such as: “…he yelled for help and I shot him…”
11Florida has an interesting case law that says that when the evidence leaves room for more than one inference of fact, at least one of which supports the defense’s theory, that the defendant must be acquitted. So, a claim that George “falsely imprisoned” Martin will be insufficient for a conviction.
George says he was on his way back to the vehicle when he was approached and punched. If the State cannot refute that beyond a reasonable doubt, then George cannot be considered the aggressor.
The Defense also claims that George was on the ground, unable to get away, taking injury and screaming for help for over half a minute, until he reasonably believed force was needed to prevent serious bodily injury.
If the State cannot refute that beyond a reasonable doubt, then under Florida law George has to be acquitted.
The Defense by far has the easier job in this case.
12@Bryan
I think the author was using the false imprisonment argument to overcome a SYG hearing, making Zimmerman the aggressor, but under a lower burden of proof than would be required at trial for a conviction. It would be ridiculous to try to argue that at trial to refute a self-defense claim, as there’s no way that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
To add to your point that the defense has the easiest job, Florida’s self-defense law is a subjective (mixed with objective) standard. In my opinion, it’s much easier to argue that George personally felt threatened in this situation (subjective) than that a reasonable person would have felt threatened in a similar situation (purely objective).
13That’s where experts can help the Defense too. Massad Ayoob (he’s trained firearms classes and law enforcement for decades) did a seminar recently on the SYG laws, and part of that seminar he discusses disparity of force that gives justification to using lethal force, and one form of disparity of force was position of advantage.
He said that once you’re pinned to the ground, fists become deadly weapons that gives justification for lethal force in self defense, and that will make it easy to apply that objective standard to George’s situation.
14Is there any evidence that Zimmerman made any calls other than to the police?
15What about Trayvon’s girlfriend, DD, who says that Trayvon asked Z “Why are you following me?” This makes more sense and goes directly against Z’s story. And what about the experts who say that the screaming was not Z. It sure sounds like a young boy to me and Z’s screams for help sound like a dog barking. From my perspective, it sounds like Z killed Trayvon in cold blood while Trayvon screamed for help knowing that Z had a gun pointed at him. Seems like Z just reverses the roles around and everything Trayvon did he says he did. That way he can remember everything. According to the initial Z 911 call, he is saying, “these assholes always get away”, “f***ng c**ns” or something similar, and now he wants us to believe his “polite self” that he portrays to the court. It is all bullshit and if I were on the jury, I would say he killed Trayvon in cold blood and I would ask for life at least.
16Why does the author repeatedly call Tracy’s girlfriend’s son, Trayvon’s younger brother? They were not related in any way, shape or form. This myth has been repeated over and over again by the press, but even minimal research shows it for the mistruth that it is. Nor was Trayvon headed for his father’s house. It was Tracy’s girlfriend’s house. So much focus on one set of “facts” and little or no attention paid to the truth.
17maybe so but doesn’t change the substance you are pulling at straws
18