Prosecution in George Zimmerman's Trial Continues to Help His Case

Video via The Orlando SentinelVideo via The Orlando SentinelYesterday and today, the jurors in George Zimmerman's murder trial heard testimony from Chris Serino, the Sanford, Florida, police investigator who at one point recommended a manslaughter charge against him. Serino testified that he felt pressure from within the police department to make an arrest but that upon reflection he concluded there was not enough reason to doubt Zimmerman's account of the fight that ended in Trayvon Martin's death. While Zimmerman struck Serino as an overzealous neighborhood watch volunteer who unnecessarily set the stage for the confrontation with Martin, he also seemed to be telling the truth.

Although the prosecution has sought to highlight inconsistencies in Zimmerman's various statements, Serino conceded during cross-examination that "nothing major" changed from one interview to another. He said Zimmerman's story was supported by physical evidence, include a medical examiner's report that the front of Martin's hoodie was not touching his body when he was shot, suggesting that he was "hanging over" Zimmerman. Serino also noted that Zimmerman was "very elated" when he was told that the fight might have been caught on video, suggesting he believed such evidence would vindicate him. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar," Serino said. Given all the evidence, asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara, did Serino believe Zimmerman was telling the truth? "Yes," Serino replied.

It is possible, of course, that Zimmerman was telling the truth as he perceived it but nevertheless did not have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury at the moment he shot Martin, as required for a self-defense claim under Florida law. Possibly relevant to that question is today's testimony from medical examiner Valerie Rao, who described Zimmerman's injuries (a bloodied, possibly broken nose, plus bumps and lacerations on the back of his head) as "minor" and "insignificant." On cross-examination, however, Rao conceded that the injuries were consistent with having his head banged against a concrete sidewalk, perhaps a few times, as Zimmerman has described. Furthermore, as O'Mara pointed out, the fact that the injuries Zimmerman suffered were not life-threatening does not mean there was no reason to fear more serious injury if the fight continued.

Another piece of evidence that may bear on the question of the threat perceived by Zimmerman is the recording of a 911 call in the background of which someone can be heard crying out. The prosecution has suggested the cries came from Martin, while the defense maintains they came from Zimmerman. Yesterday Hirotaka Nakasone, an FBI voice analysis expert, testified that the recording was too short and indistinct for any conclusions to be drawn about who was screaming. Nakasone is the same expert whom the defense used at a pretrial hearing to discredit prosecution witnesses who were prepared to testify that it was Martin in the background of the call. Judge Debra Nelson excluded the testimony of those witnesses, deeming it "not reliable."

It is worth emphasizing that all the trial witnesses so far—including the neighbor whose description of the fight supports Zimmerman's account—have been called by the prosecution, which seems to be actively undermining its own case. Hence the headline over a story in yesterday's New York Times: "In Zimmerman Trial, Prosecution Witnesses Bolster Self-Defense Claims." As Orlando defense attorney Diana Tennis dryly observed in an interview with the Times, "When you are talking about state witnesses as if they are defense witnesses, that is a problem for the State of Florida." The Times suggests the state is falling far short of proving that Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder:

In light of the first week, analysts said that prosecutors should have charged Mr. Zimmerman with manslaughter instead of second-degree murder, which involves a showing of hatred, spite or evil intent. The jury can still consider manslaughter, but doing so could complicate closing arguments and deliberations.

"The state is overreaching, and I think that may well come back to bite them in terms of credibility," said Michael Band, a longtime Miami prosecutor and now a defense lawyer.

Another sign of the prosecution's failure is this fair-minded piece by New York Times columnist Charles Blow:

On one level, the case is simple: if Zimmerman had not pursued—some say stalked—Trayvon Martin that dark, rainy night, Martin would still be alive.

That's the logical argument. The legal one is more complex. The case, it seems to me, spins on some crucial questions, some of which we may never completely know the answers to....

Who felt threatened, the teenager with the candy and the soda or the man pursuing him with a gun and a live round in the chamber? The answer on the surface would seem obvious, but it's possible that both felt some level of threat. It's also possible that threat responses washed back and forth between them like water in a tub, neither of them knowing about the other what we know now—that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not....

If Martin struck the first blow, as the defense contends, could that be considered an act of self-defense?

Regardless of who struck the first blow, some testimony suggests that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman. In that scenario, could the right to self-defense switch personage?...

Even assuming that Martin was winning a physical fight with Zimmerman, did Zimmerman "reasonably" believe that he was in "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"?...

Morally, Zimmerman is by no means without guilt. Legally, it remains to be seen whether he will be found guilty of second-degree murder.

A recorded exchange between Zimmerman and police that the prosecutors presented yesterday illuminates the question of his moral culpability:

"Did it ever occur to you to ask this person what he was doing out there?" Officer Serino asked in the recording.

"No, sir," Mr. Zimmerman replied.

"Do you think he was scared—do you think he thought you were trying to hurt him?" another officer asked. "Can you see how this might frighten him?" Mr. Zimmerman fell silent. "I didn't have the opportunity," he eventually said.

I think Blow gets it about right: If Zimmerman had been less nosy and nervous, less inclined to view a black teenager walking through the rain as suspicious, Martin would still be alive. But that does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, let alone second-degree murder. All the defense needs is reasonable doubt, and there is plenty of that at this point, thanks to the prosecution.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's either they assigned the most imcompetent prosecutors to this case or they just don't care to win it. I suppose there's also the fact that it's not really a winnable case for the prosecution.

  • Dweebston||

    I doubt it's either. I don't think the prosecution had much choice in the matter. Charging Zimmerman with anything less than some form of murder would look like complicity to those who want Martin's death treated as a watershed moment for race relations. Manslaughter was never an option. The DAs could host a press event explaining their rationale based on the testimonies we're now seeing presented in court, but to anyone not already tediously familiar with the law and the circumstances, Sanford, Seminole County, and Florida would stink of racism. They knew what they were taking to war.

  • Paul.||

    This isn't as complicated as it's being made out...

    If I were straddling a police officer, banging his head against the ground, and the officer (fatally) shot me, would the officer be facing charges?

  • Mainer2||

    I don't understand this analogy at all. You're equating a police officer with a civilian ? That just doesn't make sense.

  • Matthew Brown||

    A police officer IS a civilian, and their rights and responsibilities in most respects are the same as anyone else's as far as the law is concerned, except in specific circumstances noted in the law.

    An example of a difference is that a police officer can arrest under reasonable suspicion and cannot be charged or sued for false arrest for doing so.

    Self-defense is not, in most jurisdictions (including Seminole County, Florida), an instance of a different rule for police officers.

    (Of course, Mainer2 may have intended sarcasm here! but sarcasm is impossible to detect reliably unless one knows the writer.)

  • Zeb||

    It was sarcasm.

  • Paul.||

    -1 sense of humour.

  • ||

    Better question, Paul: if a police officer were straddling you, banging your head against the ground, and you shot the officer, would you be facing charges, or even be alive?

  • Whahappan?||

    If you never touched him and were 10 feet away from a police officer, and he shot you in the back claiming you made a "furtive movement," would the officer be facing charges?

  • MWG||

    "If Zimmerman had been less nosy and nervous, less inclined to view a black teenager walking through the rain as suspicious, Martin would still be alive. But that does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, let alone second-degree murder."

    Pretty much sums it up.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Absolutely. That's why you should think long and hard before picking fights with strangers. Even creepy ones that are harassing you.

    What type of society is a polite society again?

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    " But that does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter,"

    well of course not, martin was 17 that makes it boyslaughter.

  • PapayaSF||

    Except that:

    - Zimmerman was defending his neighborhood from burglars, who had struck multiple times.

    - The perps (those caught) had been black teenagers.

    - Martin wasn't just walking in the rain, but peering into houses.

    - Martin had previously been caught with loot from a burglary.

    So Zimmerman was quite justified in being "nosy and nervous."

  • Sigivald||

    And, while it is quite possible (nobody but Zimmerman can tell us, and he is an interested party) that Martin was not someone that should have inspired suspicion, well...

    The photos and text messages from earlier in the trial do not reveal a "generic black teenager with no particular features", but "a strapping young lad who had deliberately cultivated a thuggish persona.

    Body language says a lot, and the thug-life types show it; that's part of the persona.

    (Contra Papaya, Zimmerman had no way to know about Martin's school-time issues and connection to theft, so that can't have been a factor.

    But Martin's definition of himself to the world, which to all I saw simply resembles "common street tough", well ... that's broadcast. And hard to miss.)

  • PapayaSF||

    Contra Papaya, Zimmerman had no way to know about Martin's school-time issues and connection to theft, so that can't have been a factor.

    I was not saying that Zimmerman knew those things, only that his suspicions that Martin was up to no good were justified. Martin's past destroys the "he was just an innocent boy walking home from the store" narrative. Oh, and Martin's father seems to be (or have been) a gang member.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Martin's past destroys the "he was just an innocent boy walking home from the store" narrative.

    Huh? There's no evidence he was doing anything wrong when Z started following him. GZ's suspicions were completely wrong -- there really can't be any debate on that point.

  • PapayaSF||

    Zimmerman said Martin acted like he was casing houses, and the timeline of Martin's movements supports that: he didn't simply go to the store and head home. He took far longer.

  • free2booze||

    Not to mention that Martin confronted Zimmerman while he was walking back to his truck.

    Zimmerman had been following Martin. Martin disappeared in the shadows 300 yards from his home. Zimmerman got out of his truck to look for a street sign and house number to provide to police, then returned returned to his truck, where he was confronted by Martin.

    If Martin had made the choice to go home instead of confronting Zimmerman, he would still be alive. Also, if he really felt threatened by the creepy cracker who was following him, he was on the phone long enough to dial 911.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes. The timeline shows Martin had plenty of time to get home, if that was what he wanted.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You're giving GZ's version of events -- that's not been established as fact, at least not yet.

    I'd think a Reason reader would understand a black youth being reluctant to call 911 in the middle of a white neighborhood.

  • free2booze||

    It's also the version of events that has been laid out by the prosecution, through the multiple hours of video tape they have shown of Zimmerman's police interviews. Considering that the prosecution has yet to offer another version of events, I see no reason to doubt that this is how the timeline happened.

  • free2booze||

    I'd think a Reason reader would understand a black youth being reluctant to call 911 in the middle of a white neighborhood.

    I'm second guessing Martin in the same way that people are second guessing Zimmerman. We here much about how if Zimmerman had done X,Y or Z differently, that Martin would still be alive. It appears that Martin also had other options available to him that could have also altered the course of events that night.

  • SIV||

    Going to where he was staying. Identifying himself as a guest on the private property. Not starting a fight with a "creepy ass White Hispanic Mexican Half-Peruvian 1/4 Black cracka" who was totin' a pistol...

  • Rich||

    All the defense needs is reasonable doubt

    There's that r-word again.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/ye.....-not-hers/

    Judging by some takes on the case, it would seem that merely cross-examining the state's witnesses makes the defense attorneys racists themselves.

  • SIV||

    God-deniers do tend to be bigots. Intolerance is a central tenet of their faith.

  • ||

    Yes, intolerance is the central tenet of my faith that doesn't exist nor have any tenets.

  • Irish||

    What's it like to be a miserable cosmotarian, you cocktail swilling whore?

  • SIV||

    Richard Epstein makes a good living at it. What Cato pays him as an "adjunct scholar" to defend the National Security State probably doesn't even cover his boat-slip rental.

  • ||

    How do you even remember to breathe?

  • Irish||

    He inhales after 'cosmotarian' and exhales after 'cocktail parties.'

  • PapayaSF||

    Rachel Jeantel: It's always a bad sign when your IQ is about a quarter of your weight.

  • ||

    Whales would be the geniii of the planet.

  • PapayaSF||

    My rule only applies to humans.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "The fact that she does not speak perfect English in a ‘polish’ accent does not make her a bad representation of Black American women."

    She may not speak with a polish accent, but I bet she's had plenty of polish sausage (in the sense of food, not the wink-wink nudge-nudge sense).

  • SIV||

    Morally, Zimmerman is by no means without guilt.

    How is it not "moral" to defend yourself?

  • Invisible Finger||

    And Sullum calls that piece "fair-minded"!

  • ||

    The article explains what Zimmerman's moral culpability is: he played a role in the fight occurring in the first place. (Even under the assumption that he didn't start it and it was self defense)

  • SIV||

    Was he wearing a short skirt? Flashing a lot of cash? Left his truck running with the keys in the ignition? Explain this "moral culpability"?h

  • ||

    The article explains why they feel he is morally culpable. I don't know what actually happened so I have no opinion one way or the other. Its not obvious it was self defense either as you assume.

    It is entirely possible that he acted in self defense but has some moral culpability for stalking Martin for no reason and provoking him into a fight. That would seem to be there position.

    Maybe that is to much nuance to you.

  • SIV||

    Its not obvious it was self defense either as you assume.

    Obvious enough the cops let Zimmerman go and the DA declined to charge.

  • ||

    Oh, I guess I'll drop my neutrality then because I totally believe in the trustworthiness and competence of cops and DAs.

  • SIV||

    It is entirely possible that he acted in self defense but has some moral culpability for stalking Martin for no reason and provoking him into a fight.

    Some "neutrality" you have there. No evidence has been presented in either the media or the courtroom supporting any of those 3 allegations.

  • ||

    For fucks sake, you just cut out the last part of the paragraph: That would seem to be there position.

    You were either refusing to read the article or purposefully ignoring it so I summarized it.

    And obviously there is some evidence. Nobody is contesting that he was following Martin around and was told to stop doing so by the police. What happened between that point and the fight is pretty fucking unclear.

  • SIV||

    Nobody is contesting that he was following Martin around and was told to stop doing so by the police.

    The 911 dispatcher contested that he did anything of the sort.

    Sean Noffke, the dispatcher who was on the phone during Zimmerman's non-emergency call, testified regarding his own statements at that time. Noffke said that when he told Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that," he was making a suggestion, not giving an order. He said that dispatchers do not give orders because of liability issues. During cross-examination, Noffke testified that Zimmerman did not seem angry during the call, and that he wanted the police to come to his location. Noffke also testified that he asked Zimmerman which way Martin was going, and that his question could be interpreted as a a request to go and see which way he was going. He clarified his statement that dispatchers do not give orders, but suggestions for the safety of the caller. He testified that Zimmerman's swearing and comments about Martin did not raise any particular concern, but under redirect said that Zimmerman's language could be interpreted as "hostile." The defense then asked if Noffke actually heard hostility, and he said no. The defense asked about the statements regarding Martin's race and appearance, and Noffke testified that all of the discussion was for the purpose of identification of the suspect, and did not seem unusual

  • PapayaSF||

    Indeed.

    As for culpability, let's say that at your local playground, some kids have been molested by strangers. One sunny day you are there and see a scruffy guy in a raincoat, standing behind a tree, looking at the kids, with his hand moving in his pocket. You ask him what he's doing, and he attacks you. What's your "moral culpability" in "starting that fight"? Little to none, it seems to me.

  • ||

    None there. What's your point, that this situation is analogous? Unlikely but possible. But you don't know that anymore than I do. No one knows but Zimmerman.

  • Matthew Brown||

    Yes, it's not entirely obvious it's self-defense. Zimmerman claims it was. His injuries are consistent with his story. Some of the eyewitness accounts are consistent with his story as well. There are no eyewitness accounts, so far, that are good enough to categorically show that his story is wrong.

    The law says that when self-defense is claimed, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't. Zimmerman doesn't have to clear a very high bar in order to successfully argue self-defense; the prosecution does.

  • Zeb||

    Yep, that;s it. There is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story. A bunch of other assholes on here are talking out their asses imagining that they know what really happened and that the kid was casing out houses or something. No one knows that. No one knows how the fight started (well except Zimmerman). What we do know reasonably well is that they have no case for second degree murder.

  • ||

    These people who are so damn sure that Zimmerman is entirely innocent and has no culpability are just as retarded as the pro-Martin race baiters.

    And were talking about moral capability not legal capability.

  • ||

    *culpability* x2

  • tarran||

    The law says that when self-defense is claimed, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

    Not quite. In general when a defendant claims self-defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In general when a defendant claims self-defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

    Under Florida law it is as Mr. Brown states. Which I think is a stupid law, since it makes it easy to get away with murder, but that's the way it is.

  • free2booze||

    and provoking him into a fight

    None of the evidence revealed so far supports this statement

  • VG Zaytsev||

    for stalking Martin for no reason and provoking him into a fight.

    That word does not mean what you or media whores think that it means.

    Zimmerman was walking around his neighborhood looking for suspicious characters.

    That's not stalking and it's not provocative to non suspicious characters.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "It is entirely possible that he acted in self defense but has some moral culpability for stalking Martin for no reason and provoking him into a fight."

    That's still assuming a lot. We don't know exactly how Zimmerman was acting, to know how threatening a reasonable person might find that behavior. We don't know what Martin's motivations were for starting the fight, if he did so. Perhaps he was an innocent hothead who felt the best defense was a good offense. Perhaps he was a criminal who realized that Zimmerman could lead police to him and get him caught for committing burglaries and wanted to eliminate the witness. No one fucking knows, so saying "Zimmerman is definitely morally responsible" is stupid.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    My thoughts exactly. If he was defending himself, he isn't morally or legally guilty.

  • Loki||

    Actually I would think that anytime you take another person's life, even if it is in self defense, in a literal "kill or be killed" situation, most people would still feel at least some twinge of moral culpability. Put it this way, I really don't want to know the kind of person who wouldn't feel the least bit guilty about taking another person's life, even if it is legally justifiable.

  • shamalam||

    Regret, sure. Culpability, no.

  • Zeb||

    Legally, no. But morally, I don't think it is so clear. One could be responsible for creating the circumstances where self defense was necessary, yet still be justified in killing in self defense. Based on what is happening in court, I think it is pretty clear that Zimerman is not (or at least should not be) legally guilty of a crime. But it is not obvious that he bears no responsibility for the fact that it happened at all. I don't know if that makes him at all morally responsible for the kids death, but it is far from obvious, especially since we know so little of what actually happened.

  • Zeb||

    Jesus Fucking Shit, SIV, you really can't imagine a situation where a killing is justified as self defense, but the person who did the killing is to some extent responsible for the circumstances leading to the killing? I'm not saying that is or is not what happened here, but it is conceivable.

  • SIV||

    I don't know where you get that.

    I'm saying we have no evidence, at all, that Zimmerman did anything to provoke a violent attack.

  • Rudy||

    I'd say the actions of our president and others is what pushed the state to decide to prosecute. They likely feared an investigation into "racism" if they did not. As the United States moves toward a majority-minority nation, we should expect this kind of thing to happen often. Truth, justice, liberty, all are foreign ideas to the brainwashed black liberal, who thinks he is always a victim and can never be wrong. This is typical of the thought patterns of this group.

  • tarran||

    Hy American, you've made a mistake, Storm Front is down the road. This is a blog catering to a more civilized class of people, like Warty.

  • Rudy||

    Even though Zinnerman looks as if he will be acquitted, a permanent casualty of this will be neighborhood watch volunteers, now that it is considered, at best, "immoral" to suspect a citizen of crime if he is black.(Members of the race commit 50%-60% of the property crime in any given year) It will mean more dangerous neighborhoods, but they will be in working class districts, so no one will care.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    a permanent casualty of this will be neighborhood watch volunteers

    I for one will be glad to see the League of Wannabe Batmans meet a quick demise. Again, if I only owe a fully deputized officer of the law my name, address, and "Am I being detained/Am I free to go?" Why do I owe a random harasser-on-the-street any more?

  • Rudy||

    Nothing, the goal is to catch criminals in the act and as acting as a deterrent. Considering crime levels in some areas, such as Zimmerman's neighborhood, I think it is a worthy goal.

  • SIV||

    When I randomly harass suspicious-acting persons on my street my standard opening line is "can I help you"?.

  • tarran||

    ^^^^^ THIS!

    The first time I did it, it turned out the dude was hopelessly lost and I was able to point him in the right direction.

    Poor guy was trying to read house numbers looking for one that didn't exist on our street.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Your response to "No, thanks." is what defines it as harassment or not, though.

  • cavalier973||

    "Here, let me give you one of my cards. Now if you should ever want to call me, call me at this number. Don't call me at that one, that's the old one.

    Now, let me introduce you to a friend of mine; Harvey, come over here..."

  • Vapourwear||

    On whether it is better to be clever or nice.....

  • Contrarian P||

    How can I contact the League of Wannabe Batmans (Batmen?)? I'd join up immediately, provided I don't have to wear the George Clooney edition nippled batsuit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How can I contact the League of Wannabe Batmans (Batmen?)?

    This should send you down the right path...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Again, if I only owe a fully deputized officer of the law my name, address, and "Am I being detained/Am I free to go?" Why do I owe a random harasser-on-the-street any more?

    I thought H&R was all about not putting cops think they're better than random "civlians"...

    "The police are the people and the people are the police." -- Sir Robert Peel, founder of the London Metropolitan Police

  • creech||

    The latest line I've heard from the pro-Martin types is that Martin was exercising his "stand your ground" rights - that is, he had no duty to retreat from Zimmerman and was allowed to throw punches if Zimmerman put hands on him first. And that the fact that Zimmerman killed him shows why "stand your ground" is unwise and should be made unlawful.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's. . .convoluted.

  • Paul.||

    I suppose it's a good thing neither the prosecution nor the defense is predicating their case to 'stand your ground'. So making 'stand your ground' unlawful based on a case that has nothing to do with 'stand your ground' is an awesome way to legislate.

  • Loki||

    making 'stand your ground' unlawful based on a case that has nothing to do with 'stand your ground' is an awesome way to legislate.

    Sounds like par for the course to me.

  • shamalam||

    Is it too soon to call for Angela Corey's head?

  • Hash Brown||

    Interestingly (to me at least), the most thorough writing about the trial that I've found so far has been at Wikipedia.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    I don't know why people always bash wikipedia, I know a long time ago it had some faults but in the time i've been using it, it has always been informative accurate and unbiased collection of data.

  • ||

    It's less reliable for political things, but for the most part is pretty good. The difference of reliability between articles is usually the amount of and quality of the sources. If something has few sources or they're mostly from opinionated sites, the article is less likely to be accurate or informative.

  • cavalier973||

  • Hash Brown||

    The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

    Uh-oh.

  • SIV||

    Get some citations you single-source slob! ;^)

  • Acosmist||

    OK, read the article about North Korea. Have fun!

  • SIV||

    I learned something from wiki:

    The HOA president who opposes and has nothing to do with the neighborhood watch testified:

    that the police did not do regular patrols of the area due to the lack of a written agreement between the HOA and the police department.

    The agreement is necessary, of course, because it is all private property. Property in which Zimmerman is an owner and Martin was "the guest of a guest".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Martin never entered Zimmerman's property, so I fail to see how that makes any difference.

  • SIV||

    In a private neighborhood,behind a fence and a gate all areas not designated as part of a residence are common areas, no?

    As a resident property owner, Zimmerman owns those streets and common areas as does Trayvon's father's girlfriend who was renting one of the units. Martin was just a guest of a guest

  • Hyperion||

    This should be declared a mistrial because of MSM malpractice. The very fact that this trial has not already been thrown out, is proof that there is no real justice left in the USA.

    If Trayvon Martin was not black, we would not be having this conversation right now.

    Fuck the MSM and all of the race card assholes.

  • cavalier973||

    Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch; why not call up other members and notify them that a suspicious-looking individual was wandering the neighborhood, peering into windows?

    It seems a better course of action than getting into a situation where one is charged with Murder 2.

  • shamalam||

    Of course Zim, the all seeing psychic, knew before hand that Martin would try to beat him to death and require a lethal self defense that would result in a political show trial. Yeah, Z should have dodged all that.

  • Hash Brown||

    "These assholes always get away," said he.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes, he could have called the neighborhood watch. Or, you know, called the cops, like he did.

  • Acosmist||

    This.

    I just...I just don't know how the hell cavalier thought that was a better world than the one in which he called the cops. Stunning.

  • SIV||

    You can catch the cosmo cooties from a dirty cocktail glass...

  • MissMalevolent||

    I always said it should've been manslaughter. But it's going to be a clusterfuck regardless.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement