What Everyone Needs To Know About The Smear Campaign Against Trayvon Martin (1995-2012)

[JDPriestly]

42. Outside the grand jury, where the evidence will

be ambiguous enough to permit an indictment depending on the jury, Zimmerman can't claim he was retreating unless he testifies.

So he won't claim he was retreating if I am correct about the fact that he won't testify.

Why do I say the evidence was ambiguous enough? Because Trayvon was legally within the housing development, because there were lots of witnesses, because of the lack of forensic evidence, because Trayvon was clearly headed toward the house where he was staying, because Zimmerman's call to 911 describes Trayvon as running toward that very house.

And Zimmerman can't afford to testify. Remember the OJ case? He did not testify either.

The jury simply analyzed the evidence, and decided that there was not enough evidence to convict. That could happen here, but as with OJ, that kind of resolution to the case will not rehabilitate Zimmerman's reputation.

And, if Zimmerman is a gun-happy guy with an uncontrolled temper, he will, like OJ, get into trouble again. Zimmerman will not be able to live his life in peace, sheltered from scrutiny, not unless he testifies and proves that he really was acting in self-defense.

I think that is going to be hard to do -- prove that he really was acting in self-defense.

What happened was really quite commonplace. A mature man and a 17-year-old boy who could be taken for a man are walking down a street alone. But this time, something unusual happened. The mature man started to follow the boy, and the boy ran (from Zimmerman's phone call).

At this point, we do not really know what happened. Zimmerman is reported to have claimed that Trayvon turned and attacked him. Why would Trayvon do that? Let's say that Zimmerman testifies to that effect. Then the question will be, why would Trayvon turn and attack? Did Trayvon feel threatened? If so, why? Was it something Zimmerman did or said? Was Zimmerman following Trayvon in a way that frightened Trayvon? This is the crucial moment. Zimmerman will hem and haw, and if he doesn't and tells a story exonerating himself, not even he will believe it. Because at that crucial moment, something happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon that Zimmerman may not even be willing to remember, much less testify about.

Remember, if Zimmerman testifies, he faces cross-examination.

One thing that makes it unlikely that Trayvon turned and fought is the fact that Zimmerman was Hispanic/white and Trayvon was a young, African-American. Trayvon was old enough to know that the benefit of the doubt would not be his birthright if he turned and picked a fight. The story attributed to Zimmerman does not makes sense.

But more important, we see in this example why this stand your ground law cannot work in a case in which two individuals are both where they are supposed to be, but one mistakenly thinks the other is dangerous. Any mother knows how hard it is to decide which kid started the fight once both kids are in the midst of it. And each kid will say the other started. It's the job of the jury to try to make sense of that kind of chaos in murder cases, not the one who happens to make it out alive.

What would have happened if both Zimmerman and Trayvon had been legally in the housing development, Zimmerman had been unarmed and had followed Trayvon. What if under these facts, Trayvon had been the one with the gun and Trayvon had shot Zimmerman. Do you realize that Trayvon, under this crazy law, would not have stood trial? The law would have given the benefit of the doubt to Trayvon. With this law, the one with the gun pretty much always survives, while the unarmed, under-aged kid . . ., or imagine a mom with a stroller or an elderly man out for an evening stroll . . . . .