Jurors heard again and again, from Zimmerman himself, how Martin first verbally confronted him, then violently smashed Zimmerman’s nose with a sucker-punch and pounced on top of him as he was laid-out on his back. Jurors listened to him again and again describe the process of Martin bashing Zimmerman’s head into the pavement, then smothering his mouth and nose while he writhed and squirmed desperately.
Jurors heard Zimmerman repeatedly describe Martin finally grabbing for Zimmerman’s previously concealed gun when it became exposed by his outer garments riding up his torso, telling Zimmerman, “you’re gonna die tonight, motherf*****!!”
Here’s the crux of the case, based on my decades of training and experience. 14 years ago, I had a co-worker who was not indicted by a grand jury’s review after an almost identical incident. A ghetto thug was highly annoyed (criminally annoyed, you could say) at my uniformed, armed co-worker for writing down his license plate after the thug was trespassing and told to leave a certain area. Instead of driving away, the thug suddenly stopped and exited his vehicle and came after my co-worker on foot, in full attack mode. My co-worker was already on foot. The two wound up on the ground, and my co-worker’s story was that the thug went for my co-worker’s holstered gun.
I have no idea whether the thug in that incident actually did grab for my co-worker’s gun, and I will never know for certain. But the story given to the gran jury by my co-worker was that the two grappled for the gun and the thug wound up with a bullet entering his brain via underneath his chin, my co-worker having gotten off the shot that perhaps saved his own life.
The jury had no choice but to assume my co-worker told the truth about how it happened, because there was absolutely nothing, no evidence whatsoever, to overcome any reasonable doubt that it didn’t.
In the death of Trayvon Martin, all of the facts, evidence, and circumstances support the idea that however the incident developed, nothing George Zimmerman did can remotely be said to rise to the level of a criminal act.
Zimmerman’s story holds up, according to solid testimony of several credible witnesses. Nobody can prove that he was not in fact profiled, stalked, attacked, and almost murdered by Trayvon Martin, whose gangsta-rap hero listed on his social media profile was the “recording artist” known as “C-Murder,” who is currently in prison for–you guessed it–murder.
No one except George Zimmerman really knows for certain if there really was a grab by Trayvon for Zimmerman’s gun, and a spoken intent to kill him. But that is the crucial aspect which, if true, means he really had no other choice but to get the gun first and fire into Martin’s vital areas.
The jury has to decide whether Trayvon grabbed for Zimmerman’s gun. Nothing can prove whether he did or not. Even if they don’t believe he did, deadly force can be reasonably argued if they believe Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk. For that matter, people are beaten to death with mere fists every day in this country.
Presumption of innocence in our legal system means if you can’t prove a crime has occurred, you must decide as if the actor was operating in good faith.
Without irrefutable proof otherwise, jurors might as well accept the idea that Trayvon did grab for the gun. The law says they have to.
They must acquit.
