The Altar Boy Who Loves African-Americans
Thu, Apr 26, 2012 by Jeff Norman
Chris Francescani’s otherwise solid Reuters article about George Zimmerman, with previously undisclosed and illuminating background info, is marred by Francescani’s baseless assertion that Zimmerman “disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin.” Actually, there’s no known evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher “suggested” he halt, but the lynch mob has brainwashed a lot of people into perceiving fiction as fact.
There needs to be probable cause (incriminating evidence) that the shooting was unlawful. The use of deadly force when it’s reasonable to fear great bodily harm or death is a right, not just a defense that can be used in response to charges. That’s why the State of Florida submitted a probable cause affidavit. In other words, it’s unlawful to prosecute someone without probable cause. Renowned criminal defense attorneys such as Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz have explained (here, here and here) why the affidavit is terribly flawed. If the best refutation of their criticism is that it’s common to prosecute people who’ve shot others, the State has failed to meet its evidentiary burden.
One needn’t be a legal expert to recognize that nothing has been disclosed which indicates Zimmerman violated any law. There’s a huge and discrediting gap between that nothingness, and the phony certainty of the lynch mob.
Francescani’s “reporting” (as if it were an undisputed fact) that Zimmerman “disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin” is typical of the pro-prosecution bias that dominates our culture. It’s not even complicated. Quite simply, nobody is known to have witnessed what George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin did or said between the moment Zimmerman finished speaking with the police dispatcher, and when the Zimmerman/Martin encounter thereafter began. Zimmerman said “okay” when the dispatcher implied he shouldn’t keep following Martin. He then sounds (in the recording of his conversation with the dispatcher) as if he indeed aborted his pursuit. Zimmerman later told police that after the call, he did what he and the dispatcher agreed he should do, which was find an address so he could tell the responding cops exactly where to meet him. How does this add up to Zimmerman chasing Martin with murderous intent – or chasing him at all – after the phone call?
That such a flub is contained in even a basically impressive piece of journalism, and that nobody (to my knowledge) has commented on it, shows how deeply ingrained the bias is.
Of course all killings should be thoroughly investigated. My beef is with the public’s rush to judgment, and special prosecutor Angela Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder when no evidence has been presented that supports it. Corey is placating the lynch mob instead of honoring established evidentiary standards.
It’s not as if charging Zimmerman with second degree murder was a prerequisite to uncovering evidence. Corey’s ample investigative powers would not have been diminished had she decided Zimmerman should not be charged.
Those who demanded a criminal prosecution see themselves as righteous defenders of a victim, but they fail to realize Zimmerman is also a victim, because he’s been denied the due process rights to which he’s entitled. Moreover, the lynch mob’s phony certainty undermines the stalwart and important efforts of reputable watchdogs who are working to eradicate police misconduct, particularly the sort of racial profiling that infringes on the liberty of innocent Americans. In the name of justice, misguided supporters of Trayvon Martin and his family are rallying around a ridiculously weak case, and ignoring incidents in White Plains, NY and Los Angeles that deserve greater scrutiny.
This story was also published by The Huffington Post.


May 14th, 2012 at 7:00 am
“but the lynch mob has brainwashed a lot of people into perceiving fiction as fact”
Not quite citizen. It’s interesting to watch this American debate, mainly for it’s extensive use of terms like “lynch mob”.
I agree that GZ stopped shortly after having been told not to follow. But if we consider the time he has in fact followed, and assume he returned to his car more slowly, thus give him twice the time to do so, it suggests that around 19:15 he should have been back at his car. This is not were things happened between 19:16* and 19:16:5* (56?) when we hear the shot.
Some of us simply have troubles to imagine GZ searching for an address in a community that has only four streets, he is said to have regularly patrolled, and in which he lives for 3 years. The streets are rather easy to describe. Why can’t he give an exact address for the car since it is parked at a “cut through” with no address, but later, assuming he didn’t move his car, is in fact searching for an address? Even if we assume he decided to move his car to a precise address of his choice, whatever followed couldn’t have happened. No?
May 14th, 2012 at 9:42 am
LeaNdr, it’s not clear how you computed Zimmerman “should have been back at his car” when he wasn’t, or why the computation is significant. Dale Gilbreath is one of the state’s two lead investigators working with the special prosecutor, and he co-signed the probable cause affidavit. He testified under oath at Zimmerman’s bail hearing that the prosecutor has no evidence to support any “confrontation” theory, or any evidence that Zimmerman didn’t walk back to his car after speaking with the police dispatcher, or any evidence that Martin wasn’t the first to attack. In other words, just as I contend, there’s no evidence Zimmerman committed a crime.
O’MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?
GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don’t know how much more explanation you wish.
O’MARA: Anything you have, but you don’t have any, do you?
GILBREATH: I think I’ve answered the question.
GILBREATH: Other than his call and that witness?
O’MARA: Yes.
GILBREATH: And the fact that where it ended up. No.
O’MARA: Well you do have some other evidence don’t you? We had Zimmerman’s statement, don’t you?
GILBREATH: We have Mr. Zimmerman’s statements, we have the shell casings and we had Mr. Martin’s body.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O’MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: …do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?
O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?
GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.01.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.03.html