My Last Word on the Zimmerman/Martin Case

I hate to be seen as fixated on anything but especially on the George Zimmerman trial. But, apparently, there are people who are fixated on it and they are angry about the verdict. There are also people who are fixated on the case and are happy with the verdict. Most of these, on both sides, are ignorant of facts and insensitive about either family.

I came across someone who wrote in a comment the following:

"We know that one guy went after another guy - with a loaded gun, while screaming racial slurs, after the police told him not to."

He called these "uncontested facts."

Except they are neither uncontested nor are two of them facts. First, Zimmerman did not even utter a racial slur, much less "scream[ed]" them. Had he done so and there was any actual record or testimony of such the prosecution would have presented it. They did not. The writer claimed these racial slurs could be found on the Zimmerman's call to the police. They cannot... because they do not exist. The only thing he got right was that Zimmerman had a loaded gun (and a permit to carry it).

Second, Zimmerman was not told to not follow Martin. The exact words were advice, not an order, not a demand, not a telling. The exchange went:
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
Dispatcher: "Ok, we don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "Ok."

At that point, Zimmerman claims (in his statement and subsequent police interviews) that he stopped following martin at that point. Is that to be believed? There is no evidence or testimony that disputes it. Therefore, in a trial, we are obliged to accept that it is true (benefit of the doubt always is to go to the defendant in a criminal trial). But, as individuals not bound by trial rules, we can disbelieve it and presume that he continued to follow Martin. However, that brings up another problem...

The call to the dispatcher goes silent soon after Zimmerman says he (Martin) is running in the direction of the back gate to the complex (time 7:13:41). As we can learn from this interactive map from the Miami Herald, Martin is also moving in the direction of the townhouse in which he is staying.

Martin is on the phone with Rachel Jeantel. He tells her that there is a man following him. She tells him to run but he responded with "No" because he is "near his father's place." (or words to that effect, there is no transcript of her testimony, just recordings... If you have the actual words, I would like to know what they were). Now, "near" is a vague term. It could mean he was right outside or on the same block. We do not know. What we do know is that the struggle occurs between the two near the "T" intersection of walkways.  This is clear from where the body is found and testimony of  of Mr. Good. This is maybe 300 feet from the townhouse in question. We also know the fight broke out just about time 7:16, as the first 911 call is placed at  7:16:11 and the fight is already in progress.

Incidentally, the timeline can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#February_2012
 
And the timeline is important. Because it shows there were a number of minutes that went by where we do not know where Zimmerman or Martin are. If Martin is seeking the safety of that townhouse, why does the struggle occur ~300 feet north of it? If Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, why is the struggle not further down toward that townhouse.

What I think happened is that two people who distrusted each other on sight because of each person's behavior (Martin appearing to be looking in windows and checking out units in the complex, Zimmerman following Martin). Instead of letting these go, each continues to hold that distrust until the confrontation which explodes into violence and leaves Martin dead.

It is clearly a tragedy and it could have been avoided. But neither one was willing to let his guard down apparently and assume any innocent (or even reasonable) intentions on the part of the other. Both, I am sure, felt completely justified in that distrust.

As I said, a tragedy... but not a crime.