Wow. While the President has 1st ammendment rights like the next person the Presidential Podium isn't a place to exercise opinion. His job is to uphold the laws and rules of the land. I am appauled he continues to offer a slanted view of this case--specifically where are the words about the right to self defense, that he "could have been a home owner on a watch," etc? How about chastizing the Holder and the DOJ for defying a jury's unanimous verdict of "not guilty" by saying the shooting was unecessary?
The other day I wrote a Q&A for someone looking at what would have been the legal recourse if Martin was NOT shot. When looking at it from that perspective I think it is palpably obvious the jury was correct.
Q: Assume the same series of events with one exception: Martin was never shot by Zimmerman. In this scenario just prior to pulling his firearm Zimmerman heard the police, no longer feared the next punch could knock him unconscious and he be left unprotected, and the police instead arrived moments later. Assuming all the same evidence as presented in this case what would have happened if Zimmerman had not shot Martin?
A: The police would have arrested Martin and charges of assault and battery would have been filed.
Martins best case scenario presented by the State was Martin could contest he was in a legal place (his community) doing nothing illegal when he was thrust into a compromised situation (a minor being followed by an armed stranger on a dark, rainy night) when he was accosted aggressively by Zimmerman. Even if Martin told the police Zimmerman verbally threatened him (there are no witnesses or evidence of such) the above scenario would not protect Martin from charges as the material evidence is substantial. Zimmerman contradicts Martin and claims Martin was the aggressor and assaulted him (again, there is no evidence of who started the fight) but significantly Martin had no signs of injuries, Zimmerman had multiple facial injuries, and there is a witness to Martin mounting Zimmerman. And in this scenario the police arrived when the two parties in the position of the shooting: Martin on top of Zimmerman (as shown by the forensic evidence).
In this scenario Martins motives and actions can be called into question and challenged. The police would have also asked some pressing questions: Why did Martin not run home if he was so afraid? He had a right to be where he was but if he was afraid enough to motivate a physical altercation why did he not run home? Martin was obviously much faster than Zimmerman. The police would have also asked: If you were afraid of Zimmerman, why did you continue to talk on the phone to friends instead of calling 911? In this scenario Martin had multiple avenues to avert the physical confrontation. Some evidence indicates that Martin may have even turned back to confront Zimmerman instead of seeking a safe ground (which nullifies a self-defense claim).
The next issue is the nature of Martins self-defense claim. Many have suggested Martin acted in legal self-defense. But as this case highlights, even though no physical harm had to occur, there had to remain a reasonable fear of imminent death or significant bodily harm and the individual would have had to retreat as much as possible. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Zimmerman posed a reasonable threat that a normal person would fear for their life or fear great bodily harm. Following someone and keeping an eye on them until LEO arrives is not a crime--Zimmerman had every right to do this. (Martin's guardians should have alerted him to the presence of the local watch.)
Further, as outlined in this case, someone claiming self-defense must retreat. The States presentation, at best, fails to show Martin had no reasonable means of retreat. Even if a claim of Stand Your Ground was presented there remains no evidence Zimmerman presented a threat or that Martin stood his ground and warned Zimmerman prior to the physical contact (we are back to the there is no evidenceso even if this happened Martin would be in the same boat as Zimmerman.) Unlike Zimmerman who claims he cried for help and had injuries consistent with assault plus a witness to the assault Martin has no evidence he took the legal steps to claim SYG or self-defense.
And this is a best case scenario of claiming self-defense.
If Martin was afraid why did he not flee after knocking Zimmerman to the ground? Why did he not get off and flee when Zimmerman cried repeatedly for help? The last two points are contested as, again, there is no direct evidence Martin knocked Zimmerman down first or that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, screaming for help. But if the police arrived and no shooting occurred undoubtedly, considering Martin mounting Zimmerman and the fact Zimmerman was injured and Martin was not, there is incontrovertible evidence that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman and no evidence that Zimmerman had harmed Martin.
If the tragic shooting had not occurred Martins history would have become evidence: his phone, his Facebook, his Twitter, his school records and expulsion, etc. Specifically his history of fighting, brandishing stolen weapons, illegal drug use, and possible stolen goods. In this context Martins racial comments to Ms. Jenteal and her belief this was (paraphrase), Just another fight bode very poorly to corroborate Martins case. In fact the racial slur toward Zimmerman could be grounds for a civil rights violation against Zimmerman (would the FBI and DOJ be called in?)
In Florida Martin would not need to prove self-defense. Martin would only have to cast reasonable doubt on Zimmermans claim that Martin assaulted him. The problem is, if the tables were flipped, Martin (unlike Zimmerman) has no signs of injuries. Further, there is no evidence that Martin could not retreat. Martin, unlike Zimmerman, did not notify the police of suspicious activity. There are no witnesses Martin warned Zimmerman before SYG. And unless Zimmerman presented his firearm (no evidence of such until the shooting) there is no founding to self-defense based on a citizen exercising a valid conceal and carry. Martin could present all the same talking points as the State, but with the same material evidence none of it rises to the level of, Reasonable doubt. There is no way around the fact Martin had many attempts to retreat (Martin had this responsibility) and Martin had ample opportunity to contact Law Enforcement. If Martin had not been shot, with the limited witnesses and evidence, there is an extremely strong case Martin assaulted Zimmerman.