I'm Not a Criminal Attorney, But...

The Daily Beast is reporting a few new facts about the Trayvon Martin killing. They printed a fairly clear report of what Zimmerman supposedly told the police after the shooting.

As has been reported, Zimmerman told police officials that he lost sight of Martin and went around a townhouse to see where he was. Then he claimed Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him down.

According to The Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.

(Martin’s father told reporters last month that police had told him his son’s last words were, “You got me.” Benjamin Crump, the family’s lawyer, said he doesn’t believe either account.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

Because I just like analysis, let's take a look at some of these allegations.

(1) Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him. Smother him with what? He didn't say "choke," which would have left scratches, bruises, or some kind of red marks on his neck. He said "smother."

Years ago I took the deposition of a guy who hit and ran my client (who was an off-duty policeman who stopped to offer assistance because Mr. Hit and Run's car was stopped on the side of the freeway). In his deposition, Mr. Hit-and-Run testified that he was fearful of my client who was approaching his car at night. (My client was not in uniform, but was wearing his badge on his belt and shone the flashlight on it, then stood in his headlights so Mr. H&R could get a good look at him.) "What about him made you so afraid?" I asked. A: "He looked to me like he was holding a weapon." Q: "What kind of weapon?" A: "I don't know." (This was starting to sound fishy.) Q: "Tell me what it looked like." A: It was white and it extended from the hand he had raised by his ear down past his waist." (Huh?) Q: "That sounds like the beam of his flashlight. Is that what you are describing?" A: "No. It wasn't that." Q: "I'm confused. What kind of weapon looks like (what you described)?" A: (long pause) "A rag."

A rag. That was the scary weapon he thought my client had. Here's a clue for you non-attorneys: he never thought my client was threatening him with a rag. He was lying. We don't know why he was parked on the side of the freeway when his car worked perfectly well. We may never know. But a good guess: it was for something illegal, because when he saw my client's badge, he sped off, hitting my client, leaving the scene and speeding along the freeway where he was pulled over in the next county. Do I know that with 100% certainty? Of course not. But his ragaphobia? Not credible.

So what was Zimmerman being smothered with? We don't know because the police (apparently) didn't ask. I wonder if it was a rag (though no rag was found at the scene as far as we know.)

(2) Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin.

***

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.


So Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, straddling him, beating him, smothering him. Zimmerman shot him. He utters some strange phrase twice, "then turned and fell face-down on the ground." WHEN DID HE STAND UP?

This is either a complete fabrication, or there is a scene missing from this episode. Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman, beating him, got shot, then turned and fell face down. But Zimmerman does not tell us when he stood up. Did he get up and then get shot? This would explain the lack of blood on Zimmerman's clothes in the video, but it also means it was not self defense, IMO. Did he get fatally shot in the chest and then get up? Does that seem plausible to anyone reading this? And if it happened that way, Zimmerman should have blood all over him. But no blood in the police video.

(3) According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

He was shot, then he turned and fell face down on the ground, but Zimmerman did not think he was "seriously injured." Does that pass the straight-face test?

Do you know what common sense tells me? This is mostly speculation, but here's my take.

Zimmerman is a cop-wanna-be. That much is clear. His numerous 911 calls, his neighborhood watch work, his concealed weapon permit all add up to being an unofficial Dudley Doright. He was out of work and bored, so he spent an inordinate amount of time "finding" "suspicious characters" in his neighborhood.

If you've heard the 911 call, you know that the dispatcher told him NOT to follow Trayvon. "We don't need you to do that," he said. Zimmerman said OK, but consider these factors: Zimmerman was frustrated that those "assholes always get away." It's on the tape. And Trayvon's girlfriend reported that he told her on the phone at the time this started to go down that "some guy" was following him. She told him to run. He said he'd walk faster. The fact that the man and teenager ended up in the same place means one had to go towards the other. We know Zimmerman wanted to catch Trayvon (from the tape) and we know that Trayvon wanted to get away from the man pursuing him (from Trayvon's girlfriend). My conclusion: Zimmerman followed Trayvon, maybe even chased him, to keep him from "getting away."

I also think Zimmerman pulled his gun on Trayvon to try to get him to stop "getting away." There is no video or eye-witness of this part of the confrontation, but it makes sense. I think Zimmerman simply wanted to make Trayvon stop and wait for the police. But to Trayvon, this strange man who was following him pulled a gun. So I think Trayvon ran. And then I think Zimmerman tackled him. This makes more sense to me than an unarmed teenager who is not breaking the law attacking Zimmerman from behind. And it is more consistent with other evidence.

Other eye witnesses have IDed the man in the white T-shirt as the man "on top" of the other person She looked out her window and saw the man in the white T-shirt on top.

And Trayvon ending up face down? Imagine this scenario: Zimmerman speeds up to catch up with Trayvon and is perhaps even calling to Trayvon to stop. Trayvon goes faster, not know why some guy is after him. Zimmerman pulls his gun and pursues, tackling Trayvon from behind. But his gun is in his hand underneath Trayvon's abdomen/chest. There is a struggle with Trayvon trying to get away, shouting "Help! Help me!" In fact, the funeral director says Trayvon's body showed no signs of a struggle, contradicting the allegations that he was beating on Zimmerman. In the struggle, Zimmerman fires the gun either intentionally or unintentionally.

Zimmerman and his father are known to the police in Sanford. But for whatever reason, they decide that Zimmerman is not a criminal and deserves their help. They label Trayvon a John Doe and send his unidentified body to the morgue where he lays three days unclaimed, with his family wondering what has happened to him. But they put his name, date of birth and other vital information on the police report. Why?

In an absolute sense, no one "knows" what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. But we have brains and knowledge and logic at our disposal. We know enough to know Zimmerman has not been honest.

He lied when he told the dispatcher he was going to stop following Trayvon.

He lied about being the one calling for help.

He lied about the nature and severity of his injuries.

And we know the police and perhaps other officials have been assisting Zimmerman in trying to simply "get past" this homicide. As far as we know: They failed to "bag" Zimmerman's shoes, clothes, and hands for forensic testing (he is seen in the police video wiping his feet on the rug in the doorway). They failed to confiscate and ballistics test Zimmerman's gun. (It was returned to him when they released him early that same morning.) They did not test Zimmerman for gunshot residue, just questioned him and took his statement.

Perhaps they believe this was an accident by a good-intentioned neighborhood watchman. Whatever the reason, they never intended to prosecute any criminal action against this man who shot and killed a non-offending, unarmed teenager. But we do not have police officers and laws in place to protect individuals with police-fantasies from prosecution after pursuing and killing unarmed teenagers. The law and law enforcement exist to protect us all from zealots with police-fantasies.

A judge and jury will decide Zimmerman's fate, as they should. I am not endeavoring to try him here. I just enjoy the analysis and the quest for answers.

"No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required..."

Article VI paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I've heard a lot of preaching and ranting from the Tea Party about the CONSTITUTION and how our President has somehow violated it. I still don't know how. Neither do they. They just know they don't like Barack Obama, so ergo, he must have violated that confounded document they hold so sacred. Blah blah blah.

Those screaming the loudest about the Constitution are treating it the same way they treat the Bible. Here's what I mean.

They say: Gays are unnatural, sinful, and they should not be allowed to marry because of the Bible. But you don't see them protesting legal divorce. Or starting a foundation to end the weaving of wool with linen. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible they think are important, and simply discard - or ignore - the rest. And they do the same with the Constitution.

Obama has been called a Muslim, a secret Muslim, an atheist, an atheist Muslim, a secularist, and has been attacked because of things his former Pastor, Rev. Wright has said. All this despite the Constitutional mandate that

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, whack jobs ranting about imagined interfaith political rumbles, clearly you do not abide by or support the Constitution of the United States. Should we try you for treason?

How about you, Mittens? Here's a link to Mitt Romney questioning Obama's religion and accusing him of considering the establishment of a new religion. A completely fabricated allegation and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL religious test.

Mitt was asked why he thought Obama wanted to require insurance to cover birth control. The obvious answer to any sane person: So that women can have better and more affordable access to birth control. Duh. Mitt's answer: Scary Barry is trying to destroy real religion and force us to practice secularism. (Paraphrased obviously)

And then, when Lawrence O'Donnell says some bad things about Mitt's Mormon religion, the National Review jumps to Mitt's defense. You can begin to see the wisdom of our founding fathers as this attack and counter-attack spirals into utter stupidity.

The Salt Lake Tribune's headline today is "MORMON MOMENT" with a picture of Mitt Romney. Here's a link to the article online. It has a different headline than the printed version. But, NO, it's not a Mormon Moment. It's not a Mormon Moment any more than Kennedy's election was a Catholic Moment or Nixon's election was a Quaker Moment. It's a political moment. That is all.

By the same token, the idea of NOT voting for someone because of their religion - or lack of religion - is about as unAmerican as anything you can put on a list. It is a fundamental principal dating back to our country's founding that our elected officials not be subject to a religious test. Period.

Politics are nasty. And they are made even more nasty by the moral positioning and God-claiming that candidates engage in. Morality and politics are about as foreign to each other as integrity and politics.

Religion and politics? They have been shacking up and fornicating in this country for far too long, despite the Constitutional prohibitions. Look at the bastard candidates that relationship has produced! Sadly, I see no end in sight to this corruption of our elections. The Constitution only has the power we give it, and it only has the authority we submit to. Until the theocrats get out of politics - or are forced out by Americans who truly respect and honor our Constitution - we will never get Above Our Raisin'.

So Many Embarassements, So Little Time to Blog

Since work got back to normal, my blogging has been lagging. Sorry. I'm re-committing to get back to pointing out people cavemanliness and moronitudes.

So, to catch up, here's who should be embarassed for not getting above their raisin' in recent weeks and months.

Mitt Romney - It might be more accurate to say he needs to get "beyond his raisin'." He is so hopelessly clueless, uncomfortably stiff, and shockingly dishonest that he is truly re-defining American politics. Someone should let Mittens know that everything he is saying is being recorded and much of it is on YouTube. Some nice Democrats have put this video together. Yes, they have an agenda, but the video is still shocking, and includes some FoxNews peeps calling him a flip-flopper. Check it here. Character? He is a character, but I doubt he has any character. Is there nothing he believes in with conviction? He seems to be a man of faith, but refuses to answer questions about that at all. His plan for winning seems to be that he is not Barack Obama. But his approval numbers are actually lower that POTUS's right now.

Sanford Police Department and George Zimmerman - Whatever delusions of posse-style grandeur Zimmerman may have been suffering from, Zimmerman's pursuit, confrontation, and killing of Trayvon Martin is inexcusable and shocking. Only slightly more disturbing is the apparent cover-up and complicity of the Sanford City Police. It is never OK for an armed man to pursue, confront and shoot someone who was doing nothing illegal. NEVER. There is no explanation, excuse, defense or dumb-ass law that makes this OK. Period.

Justice Scalia - His questions at oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act were from the Tea Party website, ie broccoli and cell phones. It's not like I'm a fan of Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts, but at least they act like they once went to law school, instead of mocking and snorting like some petulant redneck. And he laughed outright at the very idea that either he or his clerks would be expected to read the law in question. It is 2700 pages long. I get it. But you know what? They get paid a load of money, they cannot be fired, they get government health care and pensions, and they only rule on 75-80 cases per year. With the help of law clerks. Yes, we do expect our Supreme Court justices to read the laws they are reviewing. By the way - not one mention of broccoli, cell phones, or the corn husker kickback (it was taken out before passage) is in the law, Justice Scalia.

Men, both political and religious, trying to prevent insurance coverage of birth control. IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE FREE. That's just a lie. The ACA provision required that birth control be in the definition of "preventive care" so that it would be available without co-pay from our private insurance carriers. We pay for it WHEN WE PAY OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS! There was no provision requiring tax dollars to pay for anyone's birth control. Ignorance makes us susceptible to any lie. This was a notorious one. The fact that health insurance was not required to cover birth control before now is a scandal. The fact that supposedly celibate bishops had a hissy-fit because insurance coverage of birth control meant some employers would have some tangential relationship to their employees getting "the pill" is also a scandal. Re-igniting the debate about the safety and propriety of women even having access to birth control is a scandal of unimaginable size and scope. WTH? Did I just step out of a time machine? Listen, all you small government Ayn Randian wonks, and you theocratic moral policemen, who have no real clue that for a woman, freedom requires the ability to determine when we get pregnant: Get your policy and your theology out of my veehayhay. It's none of your business.

The New Orleans Saints - They put a bounty on the opposition, rewarding players who injured opposing players. This is not Thunderdome (or for a more modern reference, the Hunger Games) you neanderthals. It's freaking FOOTBALL. It's a GAME. Played for fun and entertainment. Treating it like it's life or death is not only stupid, it's barbaric. No penalty is too big for you.

Tea Bagging Alabama Fan - An Alabama fan, apparently drunk in celebration hours after Alabama won the BCS National Championship in January, took advantage of a passed out LSU fan at a Krystal restaurant in New Orleans when he dropped trou and tea bagged the unconscious tiger supporter's face. It was filmed on a smart phone and posted on YouTube. Charges have been filed. I'm a Tide fan myself, but this was appalling. Is it the same as rape? No. But it is in the neighborhood.

Rush Limbaugh - On general principal, but also because he (1) told big fat whopping lies about the birth control provision of the ACA and (2) vilified a Georgetown Law School student who advocated for insurance coverage of The Pill. Slut. Whore. The usual misogyny from Rush. Advertisers fled but he's like a cockroach. He will not go away.

People who anonymously post the most hateful garbage imaginable in the comment sections on the internet - The concept of wishing people harm or death because they are a different race, political persuasion or sexual orientation is completely lost on me. I don't understand this any more than I understand vandalism. It is pointless, harmful, and destructive.

Do I ever have violent or derogatory thoughts when I get angry? Sure. But what separates me from the animals is that my lizard-brain is controlled by my walking-erect brain. Most of us are able to push down the angry 2001 Space Odyssy bone-weilding primate inside us and let other's be - whatever and however that want to be. People who view anyone different as a threat, and lash out at them with violence or hatred, are still being controlled by their lizard brains, and are doomed to never get above their raisin'.