As Emily used to say, “Never mind!” Al? Spike?
The news coverage of the emerging evidence in the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman was slow in coming this week, perhaps because it makes the news media look bad. Reluctantly, however, it is finally getting out, though perhaps not with the breathless urgency the media mustered when it was actively manufacturing fake evidence—-a doctored 911 tape, a grainy film showing no injuries to Zimmerman’s head—so Martin’s shooter could be pronounced a killer-racist before he was even charged.
ABC News, perhaps attempting to atone for its disgraceful coverage of the case in March, released a through report on its website of latest developments, revealing that:
- “Two police reports written the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin said that Zimmerman had a bloody face and nose”
- “Zimmerman seemed to have a battered nose and bloodied face…and the back of his clothing was soiled with wet grass…Zimmerman was also bleeding from … the back of his head.”
- “Two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman’s version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.”
- “The documents state that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.”
- “The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between 1 inch and 18 inches away, bolstering Zimmerman’s claim that he shot Martin during a close struggle.”
- “Martin’s autopsy report…revealed that there was a quarter-inch by half-inch abrasion on the left fourth finger of Martin, another indication of a possible struggle.”
- “Martin had THC, the drug found in marijuana, in his blood on the night of his death, according to the autopsy.”
Recall that Zimmerman, in his 911 call before the incident, had said that the suspicious figure in a hoodie appeared to be under the influence of drugs.
All of these findings support Zimmerman’s credibility and self-defense claim, and contradict the theory, turned into an assumption by the mob of vigilantes assembled by Martin’s parents, professional race-agitators and the news media, that Zimmerman was a racist profiler stalking an innocent child with intent to harm. It also contradicts the charges against him and the claim by the prosecutor that the decision to charge second degree murder was based purely on the evidence, and not by public, media and political pressure.
Zimmerman may still be convicted of some crime. He is not guiltless: he precipitated the chain of events that led to Martin’s death, and it was his gun that ended Martin’s life. Nevertheless, we should mark which, if any, of those who pronounced George Zimmerman a racist, a liar, a cold-blooded killer and worse before the evidence was available, warping the justice system and rubbing race relations raw in the process, have the courage and integrity to announce their acknowledgment of their own unfair, reckless and irresponsible conduct as publicly as they egged on the lynch mob for George Zimmerman.
Perhaps more important, we should mark those who do not.
__________________________________
Spark: Mike Martin
Pointer: Ron Radosh
Facts: ABC News
Graphic: Learn Java
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Did you also notice his transformation from “white-hispanic” to “multi-racial Hispanic”? Call me cynical but if the evidence was pointing in thr other direction I think he’d still be referred to as the former.
Yes, I think that’s exactly right. Pathetic.
As soon as public pressure led to a legal inquiry – and remember, there originally wasn’t going to be one – I stopped commenting. I objected to the lack of inquiry.
Hopefully the truth will out.
No, I’m not going to say what I think that is, I don’t know, too much spin from all sides at the moment. I’ll let those hopefully more competent go through an actual trial process – if that is justified.
Commenting on erroneous information until you get the result you want and then ignoring the fact that the information was misleading to begin with is exactly the problem this post points out.
You are just wrong, zb, that there “originally wasn’t going to be one.” I have seen no evidence of that. An investigation was ongoing. The assumption that if a suspect isn’t arrested and charged immediately “nothing is happening” or “the case is being covered up” was never consistent with typical law enforcement procedures. True: Zimmerman might not have been charged, and based on what we are learning, that might have been a fair and proper outcome.
What all the pressure and dishonesty did was to make a fair inquiry, fair prosecution and fair trial impossible. It doesn’t require spin to conclude that.
There’s been a lot of commentary going around on these new developments, some of it from prominent media people. That’s good news. It means that the race hucksters have shot their musket off too soon and now find a volley of facts coming back at them without their having a return shot. Too bad! For guys like Jackson, Sharpton, the New Black Panthers and their media supporters, this was all about politics, not justice. That these media sources subscribed to this is to their open discredit.
We’re in complete agreement. I feel dirty typing that. Come on media, stop propping up this stupidity so SMP and I can return to our natural state of opposition and acrimony.
Oh, crap. The sky just turned jet black here, a sinkhole just swallowed my neighbor’s home, four dark horsemen appeared in the sky, and there’s a huge “The END” written in Gothic where the sun was.
Well that’s DEFINITELY going to affect my morning commute.
Can’t we all just stop getting along?
–Dwayne
Jack must feel like the old man in “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”. “Do you not see what this means??!!”
We sense that your story is not likely to be true: no way the horsemen would leave you behind. Don’t know your neighbour but I’m betting he couldn’t be as horrid as you – unjust & racist!!!
Wow, you actually are typing this after all the facts are in! Are you a shameless propagandist, or just a cretin? I can’t imagine another option.
By the way, the next non-substantive post like this one will be sent straight to spam. You have an unearned shot at a legitimate comment. I have no hope that you will make good use of it, but you have it.
I guess we’re going to have to start exchanging Christmas cards!
I promise not to get you one making fun of religion if you promise not to get me one pushing religion.
Seasons Greetings, then!
Merry Christmas!
I saw the report from a source–don’t remember which–that simply quoted the autopsy report that the gunshot was from “intermediate range.” I remember raising an eyebrow at that, assuming that such a designation would mean 6-8 feet, not close enough to leave stippling. But the phone rang… or something… and I didn’t go back and read the entire article, so I can’t say if it was misleading or if I simply read one sentence too little.
But it does raise questions. I have no doubt that coroners, forensic scientists, police, and criminal lawyers all interpreted “intermediate” correctly. But I did not. The same analysis would apply to “weapons of mass destruction” and similar terms. I’m not talking here about euphemisms like “enhanced interrogation techniques” or similar active attempts to obfuscate. These are, instead, terms which have both specific (to a coterie audience) and general (to the rest of us) meanings.
Maybe it’s just because I’ve spent a good deal of time in the past few weeks talking about post-modern literary theory, but the purely linguistic qualities of the case–and I’d include James’s observation above in this–really intriguing.
The latest reliable info I’ve seen on that (from the actual police report) estimated the shot to have been at point blank range. There was no word on powder burns, but it was said in that report that the round entered Martin’s heart with no exit wound. I don’t know what kind of pistol Zimmerman was packing, but that leads me to estimate that his ammo was likely .38 ACP or less. A .44 magnum, for example, would have gone right through him and hit the pilot of an airliner passing overhead!
I was reading from the autopsy report itself, which (assuming the apparently leaked copy to be accurate) uses the phrase “intermediate range.” Apparently, in the parlance of the trade, anything over 18″ is “distant.” Without that knowledge, a lot of people–like me, at first–are going to assume things that aren’t true. Interestingly, there’s no mention I can find in the report of the caliber of the gun/bullet.
That IS interesting, Rick. I just assumed I had overlooked it. If the two witness reports were correct, Martin was straddling Zimmerman on the ground, delivering heavy fist blows to his face. The forensic report seems to back this up. If so, Zimmerman would have drawn and fired dead center mass from a range of likely less than a foot. Even a .22 plinker would have left powder residue on the clothing from that range. However, even though struck and pierced in the heart, Martin did not apparently die immediately. This leads me to suspect an intermediate calibre or small magnum round like a .22 “Devastator”. Martin’s “hoodie” wouldn’t have provided much protection. There are other factors, of course, but on the face of it, I’m inclined to believe that Zimmerman used a .32 or .38 ACP round. Something larger would have likely burst Martin’s heart on impact, resulting in immediate death.
Considering how we’re STILL waiting on an apology and retraction from Sharpton over the Tawana Brawley incident, I’d say the odds of this particular CNBC “journalist” walking back his rhetoric on the Martin shooting are long indeed….
–Dwayne
Sharpton’s track record is way longer than that. For example, he didn’t apologize for the Crown Heights riot or the Duke Lacrosse case, and he denied any responsibility for inciting the riot that led to 7 innocent people dying in Freddie’s Fashion mart.
No, I don’t expect we’ll hear from him on this..
Not as long as he thinks he can wait it out and the heat will blow over him. Sharpton has every reason, as you’ve illustrated, to believe he can.
“Martin had THC, the drug found in marijuana, in his blood on the night of his death, according to the autopsy.”
Oh, come on, what is this, “Reefer Madness”?
Methamphetamine, that’s something different. I don’t think this was a murderous marijuana spree. In fact, the more detailed autopsy says describes it as trace amounts.
And FYI, I am not decided one way or another in this case until all the evidence is in, but this sounds a lot like subtle character assassination.
Oh, and he used to jaywalk and spit his gum on the sidewalk too.
I don’t read it that way at all. Zimmerman said on the 911 tape that the figure rousing his suspicion looked like he was on drugs. This supports that. High is high. Nobody is suggesting that a teen who gets high deserves to get shot. The suggestion is that a teen who is acting high can legitimately arouse suspicion.
And Trayvon’s parents—as well as Obama—“opened the door” by using the victim’s alleged angelic nature to make Zimmerman look all the more the monster. They can’t use “he was a good boy who respected authority” to tar Zimmerman and then say it is unfair to come back with “Not necessarily.”
This supports that. High is high.
Ugh. Trace amounts of marijuana stay in the system for weeks. This does not support Zimmerman’s statements.
Also, if you think “high is high”, that might explain why your stance on marijuana seems to be out of sync with reality.
They can’t use “he was a good boy who respected authority” to tar Zimmerman and then say it is unfair to come back with “Not necessarily.”
If he was “on drugs”, you’d have a point. Since the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion, the charge of unfairness is fine.
The point is that the traces of marijuana—his blood and urine—give plausibility to Zimmerman’s perception that Trayvon was acting as if he was on something. It doesn’t prove he was right. (“High is high” was excessively flip.) It also indicates that he was a normal teen , with a normal teen’s contempt for authority, not the Little Lord Fauntleroy of his parents’ statements.
That’s like saying that blowing a .01 BAC gives plausability to an officer’s perception that I’m drunk. I’d say this information cuts against Zimmerman’s belief.
It makes him a normal teen. If the pushback was “Trayvon was a normal kid, not Jesus Christ”, then it’s fine. If the pushback is implying that Trayvon was a bad guy, it doesn’t fly.
If the trace levels have any relevance, it is only to give credence to Zimmerman’s statement that the kid looked as if he was on drugs. Since Zimmerman appears to have a strong self-defense claim, the prosecution will try to make the case that he unreasonably set his sites on Trayvon, which means that the defense will have to show his suspicion was reasonable.
Other than that, it is irrelevant, as is the question of what kind of kid he was. It’s just as wrong to shoot a bad kid as a good one….it should make no difference whether Trayvon was a budding scholar and counter tenor in the church choir who was about to cure cancer and launch a camp for disabled orphans, or a sadistic cretin who bit the head off of woodchucks and ran his own meth lab while campaigning for Newt Gingrich. Ethically, it makes no difference. He shouldn’t have been shot. Martin’s parents painted him as a saintly child to bias public opinion—its the kind of stuff that would be blocked by a judge as “prejudicial.”
Nobody’s saying that he was a dope fiend out for blood, Bugs. But the fact that he had illicit drugs in his system is a factor in establishing his character. It might also be indicative of how the altercation started. No drugs were discovered on his body afterward. But those who use illegal drugs are naturally adverse to the approach of anyone who seems to represent authority, as they often do carry residue on their clothing.
Often enough, young people (or old) are unclear on the difference in status between a commissioned police officer and a hired guard. Having been in both situations, I’ve noticed this many times. It’s the prime reason as well why the dispatcher recommended that Zimmerman not approach his suspect directly. While a guard may have the power of citizen’s arrest (as we all do), he likely lacks the experience to approach a suspect (who might be completely innocent) in the right manner. It takes experience and tact to do this correctly. Even then, it can go badly.
It should also be noted that Zimmerman reported that Martin was behaving as though lost or “disoriented”. That last description is key. Had Zimmerman been accosting a suspect who was under the influence of something like meth (and in the dark, subject wearing clothes that could easily conceal a weapon) the danger would have been acute. Even experienced police officers get the “pucker factor” from this kind of scenario. Again, I can personally testify to this.
I’m just waiting for evidence, if any, to clarify what caused Martin and Zimmerman to struggle. Certainly (to me), a finding of THC in Martin’s system is irrelevant to the cause of that part of the situation. It’s good to see more come out about the gunshot and wound, FINALLY.
The odds are that Zimmerman accosted him clumsily and/or that Martin had a chip on his shoulder from the onset.
Based on what I’ve been able surmise after filtering through the media distortions, it seems likely that you’re right on both counts. Zimmerman followed the Martin despite being instructed not to do so. Martin became alarmed by this and attempted to evade. This could be mistaken for “lost or disoriented”. I think its likely that, when they finally confronted each other, Martin became angry. To me this would not have been an unreasonable reaction. I think Zimmerman created a situation that he was not able to handle effectively and because of this, Martin is dead. At the same time though, based on his injuries, he probably really felt he had to shoot to defend himself. The question I have is, “If you instigate a confrontation with the result that you have to kill someone in order to protect yourself, what is your responsibility for that person’s death?” Any input would be welcomed.
Assuming at Zimmerman identified himself as the night watchman for the neighborhood (which was a gated community, BTW) it would seem that Martin should have had little logical reason to feel threatened or to react violently. He might well have felt a little picked on or was put off by what he interpreted as a high handed attitude by Zimmerman, but to attack him as he apparently did seems (to me) to indicate that he had a predisposition to resent a semblance of authority. Racial? Cultural? Or was he, in fact, casing the neighborhood and panicked at Zimmerman’s approach? Only Trayvon could tell us his state of mind.
Assuming at Zimmerman identified himself as the night watchman for the neighborhood (which was a gated community, BTW) it would seem that Martin should have had little logical reason to feel threatened or to react violently.
I have been physically threatened by a police officer who identified as such when I was doing nothing that rose to the level of reasonable suspicion. If Zimmerman did everything right, then there would be little logical reason for Martin to feel threatened, but that’s an assumption that I don’t think we can make.
Yes. It’s fair to say that we can eliminate “both parties behaved responsibly and reasonably” from the slate of four possibilities, since if they had, there would have been no fight. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that both parties behaved IRresponsibly and UNreasonably, which still doesn’t preclude a finding of either manslaughter or innocence by virtue of self-defense in the trial. Also possible is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon in a threatening or offensive manner and the kid lashed out in anger and/or fear; and that Zimmerman attempted to explain himself and startled Martin, who attacked him.
But once we eliminate the hate-crime, racial bias issue, this becomes neither a matter worthy of national attention or an ethical issue. The ethical issues apply to the activism, the distortion of the facts, the intrusion on law enforcement, the interference of media and political figures, the exploitation of a non-racial incident to aggravate racial tensions, and the degradation of George Zimmerman’s rights to a fair trial, the unethical journalism, and the questionable conduct of lawyers on both sides. The actual incident, however, increasingly resembles the kinds of incidents that happen in every major city, every day.
I agree with everything, except that the commonness of this incident means it shouldn’t be national news.
The news would be mighty tedious covering 100 similar incidents every day. I assume you mean that the frequency of these incidents is legitimate news, and I agree. But there was no legitimate reason for Zimmerman to win the Kewpie Doll over all the rest.
Agreed. This could have been a legitimate news story, but not at all in the way it was handled.
It stands to reason that Zimmerman would have identified himself as such, TGT. But this still illustrates my point as to why the dispatcher counseled him not to approach his suspect. Your own experience with a police officer being “too zealous” can be interpreted differently, based on perspective. However, it has nothing to do with this case.
My experience goes directly against your statement: “Assuming at Zimmerman identified himself as the night watchman for the neighborhood (which was a gated community, BTW) it would seem that Martin should have had little logical reason to feel threatened or to react violently.”
I’d agree with that, tgt. Especially a kid, at night, in the rain.
It would have been basic procedure. Besides, Martin knew that he was a stranger in a gated community. Did he honestly think that there wouldn’t have been a guard or guards on duty after the hours of darkness? This leads me to suspect the reason for his behavior.
I think that’s a bit too suspicious. He was staying at am uncle’s house in the gated community. All homes can look alike in that kind of setting. It was raining, and he may have been stoned. I get lost finding my room every time I have to stay at a resort hotel, which is a lot like gated communities. And I hate it. I don’t blame him for being disoriented, and maybe a bit panicked. Luckily for me, the hotel resorts don’t arm their employees or guests in Colorado Springs.
I’m making all due allowance for that, Jack. This is, however, a factor that has to be weighed into the formula. We have to be mindful that none of us is privy to first hand information on this case.