This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

The Zimmerman Case Requested by Sarkazein



guy faulkes said...

Sark, I will be glad to give you my opinion on the things you mention. Please understand I am not an attorney, just an old layman that has studied the issue of self-defense from his mid-teens to the present. I will be very interested to hear the opinions of the rest of you.

First, we need to discuss deadly force and disparage of force. Deadly force is the last resort in a self-defense situation. It requires a reasonable man’s opinion that death or grave bodily harm would come to the defender if the aggressor is allowed to continue his actions. One must meet any attack with only enough force to counter it. If there is no danger of death or serious bodily harm, then deadly force is not authorized. For instance, if your girlfriend slaps your face and calls you a cad, deadly force is not appropriate ( a domestic violence charge might be). However, if someone is sitting on you hammering your head into the ground with his fists, then it certainly would be. All of the evidence indicates this is the case with Martin beating on Zimmerman.

Disparage of force means that the aggressor(s) are more than a match for the victim. This could be due to age, health considerations, how good of shape the two parties are in, the number of aggressors, etc. Testimony was given in this trial that Zimmerman was not a physical match for Martin.
In order to defend yourself, you have to be responding to the actions of an aggressor. The aggressor is the person that initiates force into the equation. This condition can change. If the initial aggressor stops the attack, then he is no longer an aggressor. If he tries to disengage and the original defender does not allow him to do so, then that person becomes the aggressor. In this case it does not matter because Zimmerman did not instigate force. He was a neighborhood watch person following a suspicious person in the neighborhood. This is not a matter of force being initiated and, in any event, Zimmerman seems to have been going back to his car when Martin attacked. This is supported by both the physical evidence and Zimmerman’s call to the police.

end of part 1

guy faulkes said...

Now let us talk about Florida’s stand your ground law. It is very similar to our castle doctrine. All these laws do is remove any requirement to retreat if you are attacked in any place that you have a legal right to be. It is not a defense for murder. It only protects a person from any requirement to run as used to be the case in North Carolina. If you turn your back on an aggressor, you are very likely to get hurt. Zimmerman did this and paid for it. If he is found guilty, this law will be irrelevant. If he is acquitted, the intent of the law would be to protect him from lawsuits for defending himself.

Finally let us discuss the trial. Zimmerman should never have been charged in the first place. Indeed, the law enforcement officers did not do so. He was charged as an apparent political ploy by the District attorney. Zimmerman’s defense has torn the prosecution to shreds. This is the most effective defense I have ever witnessed. Some examples are the ability of the defense in getting the judge to reverse her ruling that Martin was under the influence of marijuana. They did this by forcing the prosecution to supply them with the notes of the person that did the autopsy. He had notes on how to answer expected questions and claims to not remember the case very well. I, personally, suspect he did not preform the autopsy, but that an assistant did and he signed off on it The defense made the prosecution’s witnesses look so bad, they should have been defense witnesses. One of the more asinine attempts made by the prosecution was to imply Zimmerman wanted to kill someone because he used an inside the waistband holster with his magazine filled to capacity and a round in the chamber. The defense indicated how inane this supposition was by saying that both armed officers inside the courtroom in all probability had their magazines filled to capacity also and that they were certain to have a round in the chamber.
As to the outcome of the trial, Zimmerman should be easily acquitted, but I doubt he will be. First of all, this trial is being held entirely for political reasons. It was tried in public long before it reached the court room. It is hard to overcome the bias that was established when the President of the United States indicated if he had a son, Martin would look like him. As if this kind of rhetoric was not enough, there is the well-publicized threat of rioting that was created by the media using the race card to stimulate controversy in the case. If you recall, they first indicated Zimmerman was white and then that he was a white Hispanic. All of this together adds up to the opposite of “free as a bird, guilty as Hell”. In this case I think it will be innocent as a baby, convicted by politics and the press.

end of part 2

guy faulkes said...

Finally l would like to talk about mistakes Zimmerman made. First of all, he made statements without the advice of his attorney. Even Ted Kennedy knew better than to do this. Never make a statement other than to say you are to shaken to speak right now and will do so later with your attorney. Very few people get in trouble by keeping their mouth shut. Next, Zimmerman turned his back on a potential threat. You have to maintain situational awareness. Chances are if Martin did not think he had an advantage on Zimmerman, he would not have imitated force sufficient to generate a response that got him killed.

Finally, a word of advice. If you are considering getting a concealed carry permit, obtain and read the books In the Gravest Extreme and Cute Lawyer Tricks by Masad Ayoob. He will advise you on things you should know both before and after you have to defend yourself. An example is to carry the same kind of ammunition as a local law enforcement agency to counter the inevitable claim that the prosecution would make (if you were charged) that you used some kind of super deadly ammo because you wanted to kill someone. Mr. Ayoob is very impressive. Unfortunately, one of the people that is most impressed is Mr. Ayoob himself as evidenced by some of his writings. In any case, you should get these books, read them, keep them, and reread them once a year. Also, get some training. The concealed carry class is only the bare minimum you should have.

Speaking of concealed carry classes, I have assisted in these classes at several ranges and under several instructors during the last 15 years. I would highly recommend the husband and wife team of Gary and Sandy Hoyle. You can find them on the Watauga Gun Club web site. Joe Moody also does a good job and can be reached on the same site.

End of part 3. Are you not glad that is over?

Blogger said...

Great job Guy! Thanks!

NewGuy said...

Great post(s), Guy...
I agree with almost all of what you said. I do think however, that he will not be found guilty. I can't imagine a unanimous verdict of guilty ...possibly a hung jury or (hopevully) an acquittal.

Juries are often wrong - but it's usually in favor of the defendant. Getting 100% of jury members to agree that their is neither 'reasonable doubt' or that self defense has been disproved is, imo, unlikely.

guy faulkes said...

I mad a mistake in the above information. I meant to say the defense was able to get the judge to reverse her decision that Martin being under the influence of marijuana to the point it could have influenced his actions was not admissible.

I have heard people argue that this is not relevant because marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol. Personally I do not want anybody sitting on me to hold me down wile he tries to beat my brains out no matter what the substance is of which he is under the influence.

However the fact he was using an illegal substance is an extenuating circumstance that is not in his favor. It indicates a disregard for the rule of law.

Except for that, it wold make little difference to me if the person that attacked me was a teetotaler, a drunk, or a dope fiend. The result would be the same, as to my response.

It should make a difference to the jury.

My apologies for the error, but, in my defense, I wrote that post pretty late after a hard day and did not check it.

Sarkazein said...

Thanks GuyFaulkes. I would rather hear from an expert than a lawyer any day. Remember, it is lawyers arguing both sides of the case and probably a lawyer sitting on the bench not knowing yet which one is right.
This case is bad on multiple levels. Now I hear the DOJ paid for protestors to demand Zimmerman's arrest. The Obama presidency has abandoned 50% of the citizens.

I use THIS RECENT VIDEO to ask someone if they would use deadly force to protect this girl. This is the new reality. I would have hoped someone would have used deadly force here if they had had the means.

I was having trouble with the 'stand your ground' defense (which I don't think he used) because Z followed TM, thus having a choice. His choice, however legal, has changed his life forever. Allowing someone to beat his face off could have also changed his life forever... his choice to follow Martin. I am sure Z was concerned about his neighbors (right or wrong) when he momentarily lost track of Martin and he probably felt an obligation to be able to point out his whereabouts to the police on their arrival. Just as I would have.... before, perhaps not now.

I have read pot causes a kind of paranoia in some people. TM's pot use might have made him think the creepy white cracker was out to get him. Combine that with machismo and you can get bad results. I also had the opinion Martin's girl-friend and his relatives were afraid of saying anything that might put Martin in a bad light even if it was true. I don't think they were honest, and I think they felt it was the righteous thing to do (lie).

My opinion is, like you say, Zimmerman had the best of intentions. Martin didn't. Martin thought he was being disrespected and was going to whoop Z. He could have and was, but not for the great equalizer.

Everyone I know who carries prays they will never have to shoot anyone.

Sarkazein said...

Zimmerman might get the reduced Manslaughter verdict. Because of the pre-trial publicity and the interference by the Obama administration and the evidence, there will be grounds for appeal. Will the presiding judge and the jury convict in order to pass it on? The judge should have stopped the trial when the prosecutors rested. She didn't even though it was her duty... all because of political pressure.

Is not the DOJ interference grounds for Holder's impeachment?

Sarkazein said...


guy faulkes said...

Sark, your Outside Pressure link demonstrates why Zimmerman should not have been charged very well.

A police Chief serves at the pleasure of the municipal manager, who in turn, serves at the pleasure of the municipal council. As I was once told by a chief of police that would not charge a person for a clear violation of a law (he witnessed the violation), "If I want to keep my job, I have to go along with the council and the manager." This was the other side of the coin, but it illustrates the influence of politics into the legal system.

It might help if all chief law enforcement officers were elected so they had to answer directly to the people, but this only introduces a different kind of political pressure. It is a rare occurrence for a chief to live up to his oath a the cost of his job as happened in the Zimmerman case.

I somewhat disagree with you about the stand your ground issue. It is not valid in this cage because, as you said, the issue is determining who was the aggressor. However, if Zimmerman is acquitted, then it will come into play.

Both parties had a right to be where they were as long as they were in a public easement. The altercation took place on such an easement. All of the physical evidence and most of the testimony of witnesses points to the conclusion that Martin attacked Zimmerman, so it would be a case of self defense.

In this case stand your ground cannot be used as a defense, but if Zimmerman is acquitted, it should come into play to defend him from law suites, if it is the same as our castle doctrine.

As to being defended from those that have threatened to murder him after an acquittal, I am afraid Zimmerman is on his own.

Blogger said...

Justice Department Backed Trayvon ralies

guy faulkes said...

Blogger's link shows that the Obama administration has funded Martin support rallies. Of course the official explanation is that the justice department did so in order to keep matters peaceful.

We have such statements as those made by the leader of the New Black Panthers, King Shamir Shabazz. "This time we are doing it right.......This time we are not burning down our communities. This time we are going out to Whitey's suburbs and burning down HIS community...... This time we are going to make Whitey feel the pain."

The judge has approved the lessor charge to be considered by the jury.

My prediction is that Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter. This conviction will be overturned on appeal, but this delays the inevitable of an acquittal of Zimmerman.

Given the information supplied by Bloggers link, and the fact Shabazz has already been given a free ride by the Justice department (the nigh stick incident outside the polling place), it makes one wonder what will happen if Shabazz tries to carry out his threat.

Florida is not San Franciso or New York. It is like many other places. In these locations, this kind of riot would be met with armed resistance. The use of self defense in this case would make Zimmerman's defensive response seem pale indeed.

Many people feel that if armed resistance to these kinds of rots occurs, Mr. Obama would declare martial law and start confiscating guns as per the Katrina emergency.

Assuming this to be the case, I do not think guns will be peaceably surrendered as per Katrina, nor do I think it wold be a large group of government agents against individuals. I think it would be the start of a war because neighborhoods would have organized to defend themselves from whatever comes. After all, the sales of guns and ammo skyrocketing did not happen for no reason.

Any opinions?

Sarkazein said...

The new reality is- If you want to join the police department you are a psycho. If you volunteer for neighborhood watch, you want to kill black 17 year old "children". You should already have received a death blow and had it verified by a coroner BEFORE you defend your life. If you defend yourself from a 6', 170 pound 17 year old, you are a child abuser. A gated community is open to the public, hence the gate.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I have been in three race riots. DC during the MLK jr assassination riots, on Chanute Air Force Base in Illinois during the Vietnam War race riots by Black US airmen, and in West Palm Beach (Riviera Beach) circa 1973 or 4. All I was up close and personal with, on the streets by chance or by youthful ignorance. This one I will sit out, some how. I will stay home and stand armed guard over my 52'' Phillips TV, my MAC, and my family.
I was at the gun store today. There was a long line of Koreans buying ammo.

guy ffaulkes said...

There was a third lessor charge that the prosecution wanted but the judge denied. It was apparently third degree murder / child abuse.

Sarkazein said...

I am listening to Zimmerman's lawyer's closing statement. He's putting everybody in the court room to sleep.

Sarkazein said...

I just noticed for years I have been duped, possibly by PC, into using the term "race riot".

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I would like to know if the jury was present when the "child abuse" thing was brought up. If so, that was a dirty trick by lawyers.

NewGuy said...

Sark....I disagree. It seems to me that he is making a good closing; hitting all the relevant points and bringing home the point that the state hasn't proven anything!

I don't see how the jury could possibly conclude that their was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not defending himself.

Of course, I thought OJ was guilty so I could be wrong....

NewGuy said...

I'm not Guy Faulkes but I can answer the question....

No, the jury was not present when the issue was discussed. The state had asked that third degree murder be given to the jury as an 'included lesser offense'. Their position was that the death occured curing the commission of the felony of child abuse. The Defense went nuts at this last minute surprise - the judge ruled that it wasn't appropriate as an 'included lesser offense'.

It did - in my opinion - show how desperate the state was to try to find something that might 'stick'. The charge of second degree murder and manslaughter are both dead if the jury finds that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I really don't think the state feels very good about their case - but, we will see.

Like I said, I thought OJ was guilty!

Sarkazein said...

Sorry NewGuy, I nodded off and just woke up.
Did the lawyer talk about the pressure to arrest Zimmerman without a Grand Jury and against the PD's decision not to arrest. Did he talk about it with enthusiasm and anger?

NewGuy said... was the junior attorney handling it at the time, and he hit the roof! "Oh my God!" he said.."Just when I thought this case couldn't get any more bizarre"...

He went on an claimed the state was playing tricks- that they had worked on this for over a year and didn't indicate it to the defense until an hour or so before court convened. He was really pissed and it showed. I don't know if there is a video out there on it, but it was replayed over and over on TV.

As far as anyone raising the fact that the charges were filed only as a result of political pressure..I haven't seen the whole trial and I don't know if the lawyers have brought that up or not...other than the fact that they called the former chief of police to testify about the case being taken over by the mayor and others and how the mayor screwed up witness interviews by interviewing Martin family members as a group. Each was then obviously influenced by what the others said.

Overall, I think the defense has done a good job. One of the defense lawyers has been a little rude with the judge a few times and she seems to not like him much but the other one seems well organized, reasonable and -imo- will have credibility with the jury.

If you have time, look at CNN's Headline News - they have a lot of coverage and may be rerunning some of the highlights.

The case has now gone to the jury. We will see.

guy faulkes said...

In my opinion, the defense has done an excellent job. It has used logic and calmly torn apart everything the state has tried to prove.

However, Sark may have a point. The jurors are lay people. They may respond better to the screaming and shouting of the prosecutor than to reasoned logic because it may hold their attention better. It might be better is some presented the logic in a very passionate manner. (Did I just describe Rico? The defense should avoid making the judge angry, but it does have to get and hold the juries attention.

The state has to use emotion and drama to get their point across because NONE of the physical evidence supported their case and their witnesses were torn to shreds. Theater is all they have. The problem is it may be enough. It deoends n the jury ahd the kind of people on it.

Also, you may not be able to avoid a riot if Shabzz carries through on his threat to go into Whitey's suburbs and take the pain to Whitey.

When I think of how this kind of rhetoric demeans the fine people that I shoot with that happen to be black, it makes me sick. All I can say is Shabazz had better stay away from their neighborhoods.

Any thoughts on the possibility of marshal law if rioting does occur and whether it would include gun confiscation?

Blogger said...


Sarkazein said...

If Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, and some think it a bad thing, how can law enforcement and politicians put themselves on alert for rioting? Are they not racially profiling?

Anonymous said...

Not Guilty

Sarkazein said...

NewGuy got it. Not guilty. Stand by....

Sarkazein said...

I am listening to the State's Attorney and the prosecutor throw fuel on the fire. What idiots.

guy faulkes said...

I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised at the not guilty verdict. The best I was hoping for was a hung jury due to the political pressure and the threats of riots if Zimmerman was acquitted. I congratulate the jury for refusing to be intimidated.

Yes, I know that the jury was sequestered during the trial, but think of the none stop onslaught of anti Zimmerman propaganda that was produced by the press before the trial. Also, the threats of riots was heavily publicized.

Thankfully the jury made their decision on the evidence presented at the trial and not in the court of public opinion.

This case should never have happened in the first place as thee was no viable evidence to justify a reasonable suspicion of anything ilegal in order to charge Zimmerman.

As far as I know there has been no violence due to the verdict. This may be because the verdict was released so late, because the proponents of violence do not have the influence they think they do, or (more likely0 people want to live under the rule of law, even if they disagree with the verdict.Let us hope those such as Shabazz are unable to preach hate and stir up mobs.

The next question is if Zimmerman is charged with violating Martin's civil rights for having used self defense. As the feds make this charge and they have already shown their bias in the case, this is almost a certainty.

Sarkazein said...

The FBI investigated Zimmerman's alleged racism and couldn't find any. In other words the Federal Thought Police could not find racial intent. Now the NAALCP wants the DOJ to file civil rights crimes against Zimmerman. The Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey, after saying the trial was never about race, went on to say in the next few sentences says it was racial bigotry (profiling) by Zimmerman.
There was prosecutorial abuse both before and after the trial.
Now we will see just how crooked the DOJ under Holder can be. They will have to throw their own FBI under the bus.

NewGuy said...

It seems to me that our system will make many mistakes which allow guilty people to go free (OJ?) but very seldom will convict an innocent person. Yes, it does happen - my point is that it is rare.

The question that the jury had to answer in this case is whether or not the state had proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. Some may believe he was not - but is there proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he wasn't?

Not when there was so much testimony AND direct evidence that Zimmerman was on his back getting his head bashed against the sidewalk while Martin pummeled him with his fists. Not when MOST testimony and evidence indicated that Zimmerman was calling for help! Not when Zimmerman had the bruises on his face/nose and the back of his head to show he had undergone a beating!

This doesn't PROVE that Zimmerman was acting in self defense - but it doesn't have to. The law doesn't require Zimmerman to prove his innocence - it requires the prosecution to prove his guilt.

I watched much of the trial. From what I saw there was very little evidence that supported the states version of events and certainly there was plenty of reasonable doubt - I can't see how any jury ACTING IN GOOD FAITH could have convicted this man.

Now the question becomes whether or not Obama's "justice" department will try to somehow turn this into a civil rights violation against Zimmerman. There is more evidence to support that Martin's attack on Zimmerman (whom he called a "cracker") was more a violation of Zimmerman's civil rights than the reverse.

Nontheless 0bama never claimed that his son, if he had one, would look like Zimmerman so I suppose we can make a good guess as to where this is likely to go.

The jury made the correct decision but the system certainly did not give Zimmerman a fair shake!

Recommended reading =

Johnny Rico said...

Hero Zimmerman is found not guilty!!! Fantastic. The thug Trayvon Martin learned the hard way not to attack people like he had done much of his young adult life.

If more people will now take Zimmerman's approach to personal responsibility then we might take back our nation from thugs and criminals. Imagine the benefits of having a bunch of Zimmermans running around select Charlotte neighborhoods doing community watch duties. Good stuff!!!!!

Claire Benson

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

I heard Zimmerman's HOA has already paid Martin's parents $1,000,000.

Blogger said...

Fox Poll The poll is about 2/3rds the way down. So far only two people in North Carolina have voted--me and some idiot.

Sarkazein said...

If you were a police officer, which of the protestors would you layout with a full riot club back hand first?

It would be hard to chose, I know. Rule out the obvious protestors who are holding their smart phones up.


guy faulkes said...

Is it not interesting that what little rioting occurred happened in Kalifornia? Rioting in Florida might have been a good way to die. Self preservation is indeed a strong motivator.

Sarkazein said...

OK, no takers? For me, it would have to be the former hippy in the flea market fedora. His fist is cocked and he is advancing his 95 Lb frame forward in an aggressive stride. He thinks he has a gang of big bros right with him ready to take out the man, man. Oops... they are hanging back.

Sarkazein said...

Uncle Ted writes:

Sarkazein said...


Sarkazein said...

The hardest thing about the Zimmerman case is the unarmed part. Most uninformed people just hear the word "unarmed", and that's where their brain stops thinking.

Sarkazein said...

Rachel Jeantel says a "cracka" is a police or a security guard. That girl has been coached so much her mind has become mush. She now says Martin was being stalked by a gay cracka. So Martin is guilty of attacking a gay person because the gay person looked at him. The Left will defend Martin's gay bashing.

NewGuy said...

It's entirely likely that the gun saved Zimmerman's life. Had he died as a result of his head being bashed into the concrete sidewalk, their would have been a small article in the local papers - we would never have heard of the case.

Sarkazein said...

NewGuy- There are two things: 1. Who would have gone to jail if the crackas (a police) had arrived on the scene, responding to Zimmerman's call, and witnessed Martin pounding Zimmerman as the witness described? Martin. And we would have not heard about the case.

2. If Zimmerman had allowed Martin to continue the beating until his (Zimmerman's) death or coma (as Holder thinks should have happened), and he (Martin) had gotten away, we would have never heard about this case even if Rachel Jeantil had turned Martin in to collect Crime Stopper reward.