Introduction
As the world knows, on July 13, 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder and not guilty of manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin. In this essay I am testing an idea that I had when I started to review the statements by George Zimmerman in his videotaped police interview and computer voice-stress analysis (CVSA) test available on YouTube (1:11:59). I welcome all comments and criticism.
I disagreed with the verdict and know that such a trial cannot be re-argued. But I admit to adopting a prosecutor's mindset once I saw what I thought to be several inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, so I am inclined to support efforts for a civil rights case against Zimmerman or a civil wrongful death lawsuit against him.
To that end, although I am not a lawyer, I hope this will be a small amount of support for anyone who could help pursue justice for all involved, even if it serves only to identify and rule out a legal blind alley. I am certainly willing to concede that if there is no legal avenue by which George Zimmerman can be held responsible for any wrongdoing in the killing of Trayvon Martin, then his name should be cleared and he should be allowed to live his life in peace and pursue any legal action of his own. But until that time comes, anyone concerned with the prospect of justice for all under the American legal system should exhaust all worthy attempts to bring out the whole truth about the events of that night, not only the ones allowed within the narrow confines of Zimmerman's criminal trial. And even then the world deserves to know whether the original criminal trial was rightly decided.
I want to focus on the manslaughter charge, because I have yet to see confirmed evidence or testimony that Zimmerman’s actions rose to the second-degree murder requirement of "ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" or "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."
However, the manslaughter requirement was:
To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin." That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.
George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin's death
Here I do see that Zimmerman's actions may have risen to the manslaughter requirements. Admittedly it seems like a small action at first, but I hope to show that this seemingly insignificant motion on Zimmerman's part pulled the pin on the grenade, so to speak, in his confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman Reaches for His Phone
It is Zimmerman's claim, at least in the police interview where he told his story the day after the killing, that the following happened when he encountered Martin. Times are from the YouTube video.
Zimmerman claims that while walking back to his car, he first heard Martin say "You got a problem?" In this version, Zimmerman's first verbal interaction with Martin was Martin's voice coming from behind him.
In his own words, Zimmerman then says the first thing he did was turn around, whereupon he saw Martin. Zimmerman then says he reached into his jacket and went for his phone (30:45). By his own words, Zimmerman admits that he reached into his jacket. That is easily a provocative move at the moment that the two men first stood face to face. I believe that action constitutes grounds for considering Zimmerman the aggressor. Zimmerman admits to having intentionally committed the initial acts of profiling Martin and following Martin. His defense was predicated on having the jury accept that Zimmerman did nothing intentional after that to directly provoke Martin.
But in the video, Zimmerman says he intentionally reached into his jacket pocket. Zimmerman's explanation was that he was going to call 911 instead of the non-emergency number. Why he reached his hand into his pocket is immaterial for the purposes of Stand Your Ground law, however. That intentional act was sufficient to cause Martin to fear that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon. From there it is quite plain to see how the encounter escalated. When Zimmerman reached into his pocket he completed the chain of intentional acts that led Martin to fight (which was within his legal rights to do), after which Zimmerman, caught in a struggle of his own making, shot to Martin in the chest - shot to kill, in other words, not to injure or drive off.
In fact, Zimmerman himself is heard on his call to the police claiming that Martin had his hand in his waistband. So if we know that Zimmerman himself considered Martin's reaching into his clothes to be a suspicious act, surely Zimmerman should have known that the same kind of action on his part would have looked threatening to Martin - especially when done in the dark by a stranger who had been following him and who was now turning around to face him while reaching into his jacket pocket.
Pretty much every defense of Zimmerman that I have read on internet comment boards insists that it was when Martin allegedly punched Zimmerman that the encounter turned into a self-defense scenario in favor of Zimmerman. I have seen little or no mention of the fact that Zimmerman reached into his pocket at that critical moment when he could have done other, less provocative, things. For example, Zimmerman could have said "I'm neighborhood watch, do you have a problem?" I'm not saying that what Zimmerman might have said would assuredly have prevented a fight, but most likely it would have made Martin think twice about punching him.
Nor am I saying that Zimmerman did any of what he did with ill will or out of any deliberate intent to kill Martin from the outset. It just proves that Zimmerman was untrained and had little business being anywhere near Martin after he saw him from his car. And manslaughter doesn't require that Zimmerman deliberately set out to kill Martin. It just means that Zimmerman intentionally took actions that ultimately led him to kill Martin. Zimmerman should have known, particularly after hearing advice from the non-emergency phone dispatcher that he did not need to follow Martin, that this was a situation that could easily escalate due to sudden moves and hidden hands. Sizing up situations like this was supposedly Zimmerman's bread and butter as a neighborhood watchman. In fact, at 35:43 of the video, Zimmerman again brings up the fact that he was quite careful to point out where his gun was so the police officer who was handcuffing him wouldn't think he was grabbing for the firearm on his own hip. It seems hard to defend Zimmerman's decision to reach into his jacket pocket for his phone as anything other than reckless when he claimed to have so much knowledge of how hand motions could alter the dynamic of a situation where weapons may be present.
Conclusion
My simple point is that in my opinion, Zimmerman's own admission that he chose to go for his jacket pocket is what set off the fight, and the fact that he had been following Martin due to nothing that Martin had done, and had found Martin's alleged putting his hand into his waistband as suspicious, meant that Zimmerman caused a reckless situation that resulted in Martin's reaction to punch him.
Bear in mind that as of today we still don't know if Zimmerman's account is what actually happened. But even if we take everything that happened after he reached into his jacket pocket as true, that still places the cause of the escalation on him. And because he killed Martin, Zimmerman put himself in a position where a verdict of guilty of manslaughter would have been entirely defensible.
Now, of course Zimmerman cannot be tried for manslaughter again. But it's my contention that he can be sued for wrongful death based on the facts above. I have heard of many cases where police officers have shot a person because he went for something in his jacket or pants. Amadou Diallo is perhaps the most infamous case. Diallo was shot when he reached for what turned out to be his wallet. If trained police officers can misinterpret a movement like that as a possible gun draw, there is even more reason to believe that Martin, unarmed in front of a stranger, thought the same thing - and that there was every reason under Florida’s self-defense laws for Martin to have feared for his life.
At that point, it wouldn't have mattered how hard Martin punched Zimmerman. Zimmerman had initiated the altercation by his provocative hand movements - movements that Zimmerman himself would have considered suspicious had Martin made them - and thus granted Martin the justification to ward off what he would have thought was a coming attack. Under Florida's own Stand Your Ground law, Martin would have had the right to stand his ground for fear of death or great bodily harm. Zimmerman could have been going for a gun or other weapon at that time and in fact was armed. So I find it quite plausible that Martin may have figured, "Well now is my chance to stop him before he kills me." And ironically that is exactly what Martin had a right to do - use force up to and including killing Zimmerman if Martin felt in fear for his life at that moment. I don't support Stand Your Ground laws, but given how Zimmerman moved his hand, I see Martin as having been justified in his reaction. So based on that interpretation of the events, I think a civil case can be made that Zimmerman wrongfully killed him. Even Zimmerman's lawyer pointed out that physical injury is not needed for a self-defense claim:
But above all, Mr. O’Mara emphasized to jurors that a claim of self-defense does not require any injuries, only a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.
"No injuries are necessary to respond with deadly force," Mr. O'Mara said. "Not a cut on a finger. The statute is clear. It requires a reasonable fear of bodily harm."
Zimmerman Jurors Ask for Clarification on Manslaughter
This is not to engage in speculation about whether Martin would have lived if Zimmerman had stayed in his car or if Martin had continued home. At that moment, events had come down to what physical action would provoke the other man into fearing for his life. By reaching into his jacket pocket at that critical moment, Zimmerman culminated the set of possibly well-meaning but ultimately reckless actions that would warrant a manslaughter conviction against him.
The Police Interview and CVSA Test
What I found curious about watching Zimmerman's CVSA interview is that it is entirely possible - in fact, likely - that Zimmerman could answer these questions truthfully yet still be guilty of manslaughter. In many ways it would be the hallmark of manslaughter - well-meaning community watchman gets in over his head. Zimmerman could have completely believed that (1) he did not "confront" Martin and (2) that his reaching for his phone could not possibly be misconstrued as reaching for a weapon. Just because he subjectively believed those things, however, in no way means that Trayvon Martin had to accept them as true, or that it relieved Zimmerman of his responsibility for appearing to go for something in his jacket pocket.
Below is a list of inconsistencies that I believe exist in the version of events that George Zimmerman told to a police interviewer the day after Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death.
The video can be found here:
George Zimmerman Sanford Police Interview [Lie Detector/Polygraph] (February 27, 2012)
Video Length: 1:11:59
At the end of the interview, Zimmerman is given a computer voice-stress analysis (CVSA) test, whose stated purpose is to check the truthfulness of Zimmerman’s answers to two key questions:
1. Did you confront the guy you shot?
2. Were you in fear for your life when you shot the guy?
For the record, CVSA "remains a controversial lie detection technology."
Here is the detailed list of items I found to be inconsistent in Zimmerman’s version of events.
1. Zimmerman claims he reached for his phone to call 911 (30:45) - By his own words, Zimmerman admits that he reached into his jacket. That is easily a provocative move at the moment that the two men see each other and is grounds for considering Zimmerman the aggressor.
2. Zimmerman claims Martin hit his head against the concrete at least "several times" (31:40)
3. Zimmerman claims Martin covered his nose with one hand and his mouth with the other (31:47).
4. Zimmerman claims he "shifted and squirmed" to get his head off the concrete. But were there any stains on his clothes that would result from such squirming on grass in the rain? (32:14)
6. Zimmerman claims that somehow his jacket lifted up to reveal his gun, and Martin slid his hand down Zimmerman's chest to get the gun. (32:54)
7. Zimmerman claims he "pinched"Martin's arm and was able to reach his "firearm," aim it at Martin, and fire one shot. (33:01)
8. Zimmerman claims he thought Martin said "You got me" or "You got it" as if he heard the shot. (33:18) But given the close proximity of the two men, there is no reasonable way Zimmerman would believe he had missed Martin, so no reasonable way to think he thought Martin had said those things. Also, a coroner explained that both of Martin's lungs collapsed when he was shot, so it seems unreasonable, if not impossible, to believe that Martin could have spoken. Certainly it seems really unlikely that he would have had the presence of mind to say "You got me" the way they do in the movies.
9. Zimmerman claims he either pushed Martin off him or pushed him back. (33:33) But neither of these kinds of pushes would explain why Martin ended up face down. It seems much more likely that Martin would have ended up on his back, especially if he had been on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.
10. Zimmerman claims he thought Martin had a weapon and so pushed Martin's arms apart. (33:47) But Martin's body was found with his arms tucked under him, not spread out. Zimmerman’s claim that he somehow moved Martin to face down in order to spread his arms out seems not to make sense because if Zimmerman was so close that he knew he had not missed, he would not have felt any movements from Martin to make him think he needed to continue wrestling with him - certainly not to the point of turning Martin over (and somehow still missing the fact that he had been hit).
11. Zimmerman continues to claim that Martin was uttering sounds. (33:56) Again, the coroner explained how this would not be possible with two collapsed lungs, even if it had still been possible moments earlier (item 8 above) at the moment of the shot.
12. Zimmerman claims he had blood all over his face and his eyes. (34:47) It is not clear how none of this blood was found on Martin's hands or clothes. Especially if Martin had slid his hands across Zimmerman's chest to reach for the gun, as Zimmerman claimed. In such close quarters surely some of the blood would have been pushed into Martin’s clothes to the extent that whatever rain was falling would not have washed it off.
13. Zimmerman claims he had the awareness to tell the police officer where his gun was so the police officer wouldn't think he was reaching for it. (35:43) This confirms that Zimmerman knew that when he had reached for his phone in front of Martin, that it was entirely likely, in the dark, facing a stranger, that Martin would see Zimmerman's motions as an act of reaching into his jacket for a weapon.
14. Zimmerman claims someone - a police officer or EMS worker - said he was going to need "one, probably two, stitches on the back of his head." (36:22) That kind of injury assessment is completely inconsistent with Zimmerman’s claim that his head was bashed into a concrete sidewalk at least several times.
15. Zimmerman states that the police decided to take him to the station first. (36:42) If he had sustained at least several strong blows to the head against a concrete sidewalk, it seems doubtful that the police would have decided his injuries were so light that they could afford to talk to him before taking him to CFR (Central Florida Regional Hospital).
16. Zimmerman again confirms that he went for his phone. (38:40)
17. Interviewer asks why Zimmerman tried to get in such close proximity to Martin. (39:52)
Zimmerman claims he did so in order to tell the police which direction Martin was headed in. Not necessarily a lie by Zimmerman, but later he claimed he was no longer looking for Martin and was headed back to his car. So if Zimmerman had indeed given up the pursuit, his answer to the interviewer should have been something like, "I wasn't trying to get in such close proximity to him. I was just walking back to my car."
18. Zimmerman claims he forgot he had his gun. (42:15) That seems beyond credibility.
19. Zimmerman claims that he doesn't know whether he and Martin reached for the gun at the same time. (42:53) But in item 7, Zimmerman claims he pinched Martin's arm, presumably to stop Martin's hand from reaching the gun. So it is inconsistent for Zimmerman to claim that he is not sure whether they grabbed for the gun at the same time. Also inconsistent is that Zimmerman doesn't repeat his claim that he pinched Martin's arm.
20. The way Zimmerman is describing trying to get the gun past his other hand doesn't seem consistent with the distances he says were involved. (44:21) If a moment earlier, Martin had moved his arm from covering Zimmerman's mouth to sliding down his chest to reach for the gun, if anything Martin would drop closer to Zimmerman, thus reducing the distance between the two men. It doesn't seem like Zimmerman would have the need or even the room to stretch out his arm to clear his other hand. "Hardly any play before the gun is into his chest," says the interviewer in support of this reasoning.
21. Zimmerman answers too quickly when asked "Were you in fear for your life" before hearing the whole question (1:02:57). I don't think there is any deceptive intent here, but it does make Zimmerman seem a little jumpy, which fits the scenario in which he was quick to profile Martin, following him too aggressively, and provoke a fight even if he somehow thought he was doing the right thing.