XDA

Here is the headline for CNN's coverage of the release of information about the Trayvon Martin shooting:

Police: Trayvon Martin's death 'ultimately avoidable'

And here is the support for that headline:

The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern...

This paragraph is the impression (opinion) of a police officer and it is meaningless for several reasons.

1) It has nothing to do with a single element of 2nd degree Murder or any lesser included (like manslaughter). Florida Law does not have any language in its homicide statutes that starts, "Unless the encounter was ultimately avoidable..."

2) This is not an opinion rationally based on the perception of someone there as no police officer was there at the scene until after the shooting.

3) The opinion that 'nothing would have happened if...' is rank speculation not admissible as evidence in any court I've ever been in.

So of all the bits of information revealed yesterday to seize on for a headline, this 'ultimately avoidable' is about the least important of the lot.

So why did CNN cling to this meaningless bit of speculation for highlighting?

Because the talking heads there were such supporters of the narrative where Zimmerman was a racist, vigilante murderer, they are unable to abandon it, no matter how worthless the so called support of that narrative now is.

Oh, by the way, has anyone at CNN or MSNBC apologized for saying Zimmerman was not attacked or injured by Trayvon based on the earlier leaked surveillance tape at the jail, on which no detail was evident? I didn't think so.

Unless there is something more out there not yet revealed, I predict a dismissal by the judge prior to trial.

UPDATE: Check out this question and answer about this case. It would have been shorter just to say "no."

Q. Has any solid evidence emerged after all these months of media frenzy that the story George Zimmerman told the police wasn’t true?
– Steve Sailor *

A. Some Sanford officers were skeptical about certain details of Mr. Zimmerman’s account. For instance, he told the police that Mr. Martin had punched him numerous times, but they questioned whether his injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed to have received. They also suspected that some of the threatening and dramatic language that Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin used during the struggle — like “You are going to die tonight” — sounded made up.

Labels: Trayvon Martin; George Zimmerman

Remember when CNN and MSNBC were showing the leaked surveillance tape of George Zimmerman every twenty minutes and each time they showed it, one of the talking heads said that he or she couldn't see any injury? The said, "This tape conclusively shows that Mr. Zimmerman suffered no injury to the back of his head." Nancy Grace, who uniquely combines shrill and cloying in every statement she makes, was all over the surveillance tape asking, "Where's the blood?"
Well, today photos of the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head, taken by the police before he received medical care, were leaked or released in preparation for his bail hearing. As the late, much missed Gilda Radner used to say so well.


Never mind.

Labels: Trayvon Martin; George Zimmerman

One of the good things from a legal education is being able to sort out of the largely irrelevant mess of details the few operative facts which matter to the law. Let me do that with the sad tale of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Young Mr. Martin died of a gunshot wound caused by Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and a wound to the back of his head. It is impossible not to think that Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin were fighting before the gun was used to kill Mr. Martin. One eyewitness says Mr. Martin was on top of Mr. Zimmerman beating him and George Zimmerman was yelling for help just before the fatal shot was fired. We are far from having the complete story in front of us.

What ultimately will matter is who threw the first punch, as initial aggressors generally cannot then claim self defense. Generally when someone starts a fight which goes badly for the initiator, if he then uses deadly force to prevent grievous bodily injury, he's facing manslaughter charges.

Other than that bit of legal analysis, the case is not that interesting or, for that matter, newsworthy, however sad it is. Here's why. It is a very rare thing that a non-black person kills a black person. We are not a nation constantly involved in interracial violence (here is an exception but it is getting no national coverage even though the racist hate element is fairly pronounced). Blacks in America are 18 times more likely to be murdered by another black person than by a person of any other racial background. But we never, or hardly ever, talk about the common scenario. We, or at least those on the left politically, would rather talk about the rare case as if it were instructive.

President Obama said that the homicide should cause all of us to do some "soul searching." Why?
The News One ("for Black America") staff says stop using the death of Trayvon Martin to talk about black on black crime. Why? They have prejudged the incomplete evidence and called it "murder" rather than "death."

I'd rather wait until we have more information before I pass judgment.

UPDATE: Here are more recent figures than the DOJ statistics I was using (which showed that 93% of murders of black Americans were by other black Americans). Virtually the same sad statistics.

UPDATE 2: Clear thinking columnist for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, chimes in with his specious conclusion here. Money quote:

But the tragic and essential thing, for me, is the bull’s-eye that black men wear throughout their lives — and the vital imperative to never, ever, be caught on the wrong street at the wrong time.

There may well be a bull's-eye on the back of black males, but it's almost exclusively other black males taking the shot at them.

Here's Charles Blow at the New York Times with his take on the early state of conjecture. He brings it home:

As the father of two black teenage boys, this case hits close to home. This is the fear that seizes me whenever my boys are out in the world: that a man with a gun and an itchy finger will find them “suspicious.” That passions may run hot and blood run cold. That it might all end with a hole in their chest and hole in my heart. That the law might prove insufficient to salve my loss.

It's fear of someone with a gun finding his boys 'suspicious' that fills his heart with dread? Is that the real world top threat to his sons?

He ends somewhat out on a limb:

Although we must wait to get the results from all the investigations into Trayvon’s killing, it is clear that it is a tragedy. If no wrongdoing of any sort is ascribed to the incident, it will be an even greater tragedy.

I'm not sure he is aware he's using the rhetorical device of apophasis. If I might paraphrase: We should await the investigation results but it's clear a crime has been committed? Really? Based on what?

Labels: Trayvon Martin; George Zimmerman