Rod Dreher

Crash Where They Know Your Name

George Zimmerman’s Bloody Nose

By Rod Dreher • December 4, 2012, 9:46 AM

A police photo of George Zimmerman taken on the night he was arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin. This is more evidence that Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin when he fired the fatal shot. Zimmerman’s defense team says that prosecutors are playing politics with releasing evidence to them. For example, the prosecution provided the defense with only a black and white photocopy of this full-color image. The black and white shot is far less informative.

Zimmerman is undoubtedly an unattractive defendant in many ways, but: we have photographic proof that Zimmerman’s face was bloodied by Martin that night and we have photographic proof that the back of his head was cut and bleeding, which backs up Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was bashing his head into the sidewalk. It becomes a lot easier to understand why police initially declined to charge Zimmerman in the case. He was flat on his back getting the crap beat out of him by Trayvon Martin when he pulled out his gun and fired in self-defense. If that isn’t true, then is there a more plausible story of what happened that night?

Remind me, why, exactly, is George Zimmerman on trial?

Posted in Crime and Punishment, Race. Tagged George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin.

78 Responses to George Zimmerman’s Bloody Nose

← Older Comments

DS says:

December 4, 2012 at 1:04 pm

I wouldn’t convict Zimmerman based on the evidence I’ve seen. And there’s no excusing the prosecutors for playing games and not releasing the bloody-nose photo until now. Prosecutors are just like that.

But I can understand why Zimmerman is being prosecuted. Imagine:

Caller: “There’s a guy walking in my neighborhood.”

Dispatcher: “What’s he doing?”

Caller: “He’s walking in the street, looking around. Doesn’t look like he belongs here.”

Dispatcher: “Can you describe him?”

Caller: “A white guy. Wearing Dockers and a Polo shirt. He’s walking around looking at all the houses. He’s up to no good.”

Dispatcher: “Is he doing anything specific?”

Caller: “Staring at houses. Maybe he’s trying to find one he can break into.”

Dispatcher: “Okay, we’ll send a police unit to check it out.”

Caller: “You want me to drive after him and hold him for you?”

Dispatcher: “No, sir. Stay in your car. The police will handle it.”

When the police arrive, they find the caller, who is a young black man in a hoodie and baggy jeans, sitting on the curb. He has a gun and his nose is bloodied. A white man in pleated khakis lies dead on the sidewalk. The caller says there was a fight and he was just defending himself.

Is there an uproar when the shooter is prosecuted? Is there an uproar if the shooter is not prosecuted?
M_Young says:

December 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm

At least the photo should put to rest any notion Zimmerman is a ‘white Hispanic’. Sailer’s been having some fun with this. Comparing, say, Jorge Ramos, who no one’s ever called a ‘white Hispanic’ with Zimmerman.
Richard Johnson says:

December 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm

“But let’s say he did make contact with Martin and had the sheer gaul to ask a young black man what he was doing wandering around, that is not ‘picking a fight’, not by a long shot.”

If he made contact with Martin then he may have committed battery.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

If I, as a civilian, walk up to you and lay my hands on you without your permission, I could well be charged battery.

“Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care to avoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant’s conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount to criminal negligence.”

I trust, M_Young, that were I to approach you as Zimmerman approached Martin, and I were to lay my hand upon you, you would not react violently. Right?
Peter says:

December 4, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Because a person threatened by someone wielding a gun has at least as much right to defend himself as someone following a random stranger for no good reason.
Clamdigger says:

December 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm

so, beating up someone who is stalking and harrassing you, has been told to stop by the police, and has zero legal standing, is bad, but shooting and killing him requires him not to be on trial?
Rebecca Trotter says:

December 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm

It should also be noted that this jurisdiction has a long history of mishandling murder cases. In one instance which occurred not long before this shooting, a murder suspect turned himself into police for protection for fear of his life due to the fact that it was common knowledge (or at least belief) that he had been seen committing the murder. The suspect had been identified as the killer by multiple witnesses, but since he invoked his right to remain silent and wouldn’t self-incriminate while in police custody, the local prosecutor refused to press charges. There were other such strange cases of the prosecutor’s seeming unwillingness to build cases. So the second guessing of the local prosecutor which took place in this instance was probably pushed along by public outcry, but was also a reasonable thing to do in substance given the track record of the local prosecutor.

The whole thing is complicated in good part because our justice system and laws simply don’t work as well as they ought to. Even Zimmerman’s vigilante behavior was in good part due to the fact that local police seemed unwilling and unable to do anything to investigate, much less stop numerous break-ins in the area. Even in the case of the death of an unarmed kid, the police failed to do some really basic things like check the deceased’s cell phone or even attempt to identify Martin. Both the unnecessary death of an unarmed teen and the subsequent legal circus of Mr. Zimmerman’s culpability owe a good deal to the failure of those we have entrusted with authority to exercise it well and faithfully.

At any rate, to ask why Mr. Zimmerman is being prosecuted on the basis of a broken nose is absurd beyond all reason given the clear complexities of the case and the teen who never made it home with his skittles and iced tea.
Dean in Minneapolis says:

December 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm

@M_Young. Re: “…sheer gaul to ask a young black man what he was doing wandering around…”.

This is an odd construction. I wasn’t aware that walking home from the convenience store after purchasing Skittles and iced teas is considered as “wandering around.” As best as I can tell, it’s actually just “walking home.”

And last I checked, “walking home” isn’t an activity that rises to the level of suspicious behavior such that one might expect to be followed, stopped, and questioned by a gun-wielding private citizen, particularly when the “walking home” isn’t occurring on the private property of that private citizen (that is, there was no trespass here).

The bottom line is this: Mr. Zimmerman mistakenly took the law into his own hands, and an unarmed young man is dead because of it. There are enough cloudy issues of fact and law that reasonably triggered a prosecutorial investigation and a trial. We don’t know what happened that evening, and the process this nation uses to discover the truth beyond a reasonable doubt is what you see unfolding before your very eyes.

That should answer Mr. Dreher’s question, as well.
Red Phillips says:

December 4, 2012 at 2:51 pm

“the “right to a trial” is essentially a total sham in this country anyway. Prosecutors decide your guilt, and decide your sentence. Ninety-seven percent (!) of federal cases end in a plea bargain..

People really think they still have the right to a trial? When by exercising the right, declining to take a plea with very minimal jail time (or probation!), you can face seventeen years (!) for aggravated hair cutting? I know I sound like a raving lefty here, but if you think the “right to a trial” is anything but a relic i this country, you’ve totally lost the plot.”

I’m a raving righty, and I totally agree. The tendency of law enforcement to over charge and multiple charge in the attempt to force a plea bargain is a travesty. If the courts can’t handle all the cases then there are too many laws and/or not enough judges.
Richard Johnson says:

December 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm

I remember a time back in 1983 when I was visiting a friend in Dallas. We were at his apartment and I wanted to grab some soda. He told me that there was a 7-11 down the street and around the corner, so I took off walking and found the store.

However, on the way back to his place I got a bit disoriented, being the noob from Iowa that I was at the time. All the buildings looked alike.

As I was walking a fellow came up and asked if he could help me. I asked for directions to the address of my friend, and he politely pointed me in the right direction, and I soon was back on my friend’s balcony enjoying a Dallas sunset.

Today, looking back on that time in light of the Zimmerman/Martin incident, I am profoundly thankful for three things:

1) That I ran into a polite Texan who took pity on a confused northerner,

2) that it was mid-afternoon rather than night, and

3) that I am white.

I fear that had any of these three things been different, the outcome could have been worse for me.
M_Young says:

December 4, 2012 at 3:37 pm

“and I were to lay my hand upon you, you would not react violently. ”

Let’s assume, without any evidence, that Zimmerman actually touched Martin. When most people are touched against their will, they will brush the hand touching them away forcefully. They don’t start wailing on someone.

” I wasn’t aware that walking home from the convenience store after purchasing Skittles and iced teas is considered as “wandering around.”

Zimmerman’s call to the cops, which we have on audio (unlike the call to the girlfriend), says he was looking into houses or something similar. At that point Zimmerman doesn’t have any reason to lie, so his description has a good chance of being accurate, esp. since it seems Martin was at least a little bit into the ‘thug life’. You have your narrative, received from the Martin family lawyer –with nice little ticks such as the Skittles thrown in, a kid who buys Skittles couldn’t possibly by a threat, right?. I have mine. Mine has realtime audio.
Clamdigger says:

December 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm

M-Y0ung says “Zimmerman’s call to the cops, which we have on audio (unlike the call to the girlfriend), says he was looking into houses or something similar…”

But that is just hearsay —or just what he is saying to the dispatcher. There is no evidence that what he says he saw is true. It *does* fit his narrative that as a member (supposedly) of the neighborhood watch (which told Zimmerman to simmer down, not carry a gun or act in a vigilante manner, the same things the police told him repeatedly)…that since the police weren’t going to stop the problems in the neighborhood, he would.

There is no factual evidence that we have seen that Martin was looking in windows, in fact, doing nothing except getting harrassed by an out of control vigilante while he was walking home with his skittles and ice tea.
Ivan K. says:

December 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm

Why is Zimmerman on trial?

“If I had a son he’d look like Treyvon.”
Richard Johnson says:

December 4, 2012 at 4:29 pm

M_Young, perhaps you need to actually listen to the call.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68871920/News/George-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin

I wonder why the 911 operator asks if he was black or hispanic? Are only blacks and hispanics suspicious?
M_Young says:

December 4, 2012 at 6:00 pm

“I wonder why the 911 operator asks if he was black or hispanic?”

The operator clearly says ‘black, white, or hispanic’.

The power of the Narrative even distorts the senses.
JonF says:

December 4, 2012 at 8:22 pm

I have nothing much to say here except to agree with the posters who have pointed out that this is being handled by due process of law and let us be content for now until a verdict is rendered.
I am however a bit astonished at the poster who opined that there was no evidence in this case by which to charge and try Zimmerman. Um, how about a dead body with bullet wounds in it (and those from Mr Zimmerman’s gun). If that is not prima facie evidence of homicide (note the precise legal term) then I can’t conceive what that poster would accept for evidence.
Deggjr says:

December 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Remind me, why, exactly, is George Zimmerman on trial?

A picture of Trayvon Martin’s corpse might serve as a reminder.
Glaivester says:

December 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm

I think that there was such an attempt to lynch George Zimmerman in the media (putting misleading pictures on the news showing Martin as much younger than he was during the incident, not showing Zimmerman’s wounds, editing the 911 tape so it looks as if Zimmerman commented on Martin’s race unsolicitedly) that a lot of people have gone in the other direction and assume he is innocent.

As for whether or not Zimmerman was in reasonable fear for his life, that is part of the issue of self-defense, but the issue of whether or not he unreasonably put Trayvon in fear for his life is also a reasonable question for the prosecution to ask – in other words, did he threaten Martin in such a way as to justify Martin attacking him.

However, the racial aspect of this has been somewhat dishonest; the decision of the media to call Zimmerman a “white Hispanic” is obviously a propaganda choice in order to make certain that if one can put a racial motive on the case, racism will be firmly blamed on whites rather than on Hispanics. It is unlikely that the qualifier “white” would be put on in a situation where the media did not want to portray him as the bad guy.
Rev. Mike says:

December 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm

Remind me, why, exactly, is George Zimmerman on trial?

Rod, I hold a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) and took my training for it in South Carolina. The quality of training one receives in these classes can be spotty, but I happened upon a good instructor. He drilled it into our heads that having this permit does not make one a law enforcement officer, and there is no such thing as citizen’s arrest in North Carolina. I say this as a CHP holder and an NRA member–George Zimmerman is on trial and to borrow a phrase from Al Pacino, “should go right to ____ing jail” because he ignored a direct order from the 911 operator to stand down and leave it to the police.

Whether Travon Martin beat him to a pulp subsequently is irrelevant. Zimmerman had a clear opportunity and obligation to back down and walk away, and if I were the prosecutor, I would pound on that theme and keep pounding on it, and my closing argument would be one sentence–”George Zimmerman could have walked away but didn’t, and someone died because of it.”
Glaivester says:

December 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Here’s a pithy saying for you:

Just because they try to lynch you doesn’t mean you’re not guilty.

(Honestly, I am reluctant to take a side in the Zimmerman case, because I actually am not certain which side is correct).
Richard Johnson says:

December 4, 2012 at 10:30 pm

Ah, M_Young, you are correct. The operator did say “white, black or Hispanic”. Sorry about that. I know better than to listen to something like that with my right ear. Shouldn’t have trusted it. Thank you for correcting me on that.

How goes your effort to return to the 50s? I might have a line on a used Tardis for you.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

December 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm

Its been said many ways already: George Zimmerman is on trial because he initiated a confrontation, and when the man he confronted responded, perhaps in self-defense, Zimmerman claimed “self defense” and shot the man he had chosen to confront.
Sands says:

December 4, 2012 at 11:56 pm

JonF: I am however a bit astonished at the poster who opined that there was no evidence in this case by which to charge and try Zimmerman. Um, how about a dead body with bullet wounds in it (and those from Mr Zimmerman’s gun). If that is not prima facie evidence of homicide (note the precise legal term) then I can’t conceive what that poster
would accept for evidence.

But not all homicides are murders. If someone breaks into my home right now while I’m typing this in my EZ chair and I kill that person, that person’s death would be a homicide (I caused his death) but I would not have broken any laws. My state says I can do that. Now if all the evidence backs me up, do you think I should face a murder trial just because a homicide
was committed?

The question in the Zimmerman case is this: Was a Florida statute violated? It my be hard for some to comprehend, but just because Martin died at the hands of Zimmerman, that does not automatically mean that Zimmerman committed a crime.

People here are claiming that Zimmerman ran Martin down and physically confronted Martin. I would say that if that happen, Martin would of had every right to use his fist to defend himself. But the problem is, there is no evidence to support that. To believe that you would have to believe that Zimmerman outran Martin after Martin had a head start of more than two minutes (Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher for more than two minutes after he lost sight of Martin). And despite this head start, the shooting occurred closer to Zimmerman’s truck than Martin’s apartment. All the evidence suggest that Martin went from being the pursued to being the pursuer.

I also want point out that Zimmerman was already out of his vehicle when the dispatcher told him that he didn’t need to follow Martin. And Zimmerman’s response was ‘OK.’

We can go on and on about the evidence in this case. But this notion that we should just arrest people and charge them with a crime with the hope that the jury will get it right is absurd.
J says:

December 5, 2012 at 1:01 am

Remind me, why, exactly, is George Zimmerman on trial?

Because he’s an idiot and there is such a thing as intolerable idiocy.
M_Young says:

December 5, 2012 at 2:27 am

“Its been said many ways already: George Zimmerman is on trial because he initiated a confrontation,”

Actually, we don’t even know that … if by ‘confrontation’ you mean physical confrontation. Clearly Zimmerman was observing young Martin. Clearly Martin saw Zimmerman observing him. Clearly, from the audio, Zimmerman started to ‘pursue’ Martin — sorry, but following young black men is still not a crime in the US of A.

Then, from the audio of the 9/11 call, we have what seems to be a de-escalation by Zimmerman. Less labored breathing, less wind noise (i.e. he’s not running). Zimmerman says he’ll meet a cop, and to have the cop call him. And that’s it, that’s all we know. It seems to me as equally plausible that Martin, feeling ‘dissed’, doubled back and initiated the physical confrontation with Martin.

But you know what … none of this matters. Because the proper response to a query or ‘confrontation’ is not to start wailing on a guy. If you choose to escalate like that, you take your chances.

BTW here is a an example of an African-American who, feeling harassed (with some cause), chose to push his harasser off a subway platform into the path of an oncoming train. I take it that Zimmerman critics think that Ki Huk San pretty much deserved what he got. Because, stripped of all pretense, you guys seem to think that Zimmerman’s action in ‘confronting’ Martin was worthy of a possibly life threatening beating.
M_Young says:

December 5, 2012 at 2:31 am

Mr Johnson, I give you credit for your giving me credit.

As for my return to the fifties, I am still looking for a souped up De Lorean . If you have a line on one of those, please let me know.
JonF says:

December 5, 2012 at 5:52 am

Re: But not all homicides are murders.

Which is why we have trials to determine that of course.

But the example you give of a clearly justifiable homicide is not at all comparable to Zimmerman’s case. That homicide took place in a public space, one in which the victim had every right to be, which victim was doing nothing more than walking down the street prior to the confrontation. Also, there are no witnesses to the incident.
Again, this is why we have trials in cases where the facts are unclear.
YIH says:

December 5, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Rod: ”Remind me, why, exactly, is George Zimmerman on trial?”
Will this do?
AnotherBeliever says:

December 5, 2012 at 8:04 pm

He’s on trial because there’s an inconvenient body. That often results in a trial, unless the episode is caught on camera or by enough reputable witnesses to leave no doubt of self defense. At this rate it’s likely to be declared a mistrial, before all is said and done, and that will be the end of the affair. Finally.