Charges Against Zimmerman on File for Trayvon Martin's Death

     Although I am no expert in criminal law, police in New York customarily list the most serious crime the facts of the case indicate on the charge sheet (in this case that would be murder). The prosecution generally reduces the charges listed on the police charge sheet. Under New York law Zimmerman would be able to make the judge instruct the jury to consider  the least serious applicable crime under the facts (criminally negligent homicide). I would be interested if any lawyer with a criminal law background would comment on this. 

Why just examine this one murder case? Why not examine the system that permitted it?  Why not inquire into the local police who created Zimmerman and encouraged  him to prowl his neighborhood?

articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency--------Trayvon Martin's family asks for federal review of meeting between State Attorney, police chief---------2:29 p.m. EST-----April 2, 2012|-----By Amy Pavuk, Orlando Sentinel------- "Trayvon Martin's family is asking theU.S. Department of Justice to review a local State Attorney's interactions with Sanford police investigating the teen's death.-----The family's attorney sent a formal request to the federal agency Monday, stating that they believe State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and police Chief Bill Lee overruled a homicide investigator's recommendation that shooter George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.---------Attorneys Benjamin Crump and Jasmine Rand are requesting the Justice Department investigate the circumstances surrounding a meeting between Wolfinger and Lee, "in which they disregarded" the lead investigator's recommendation.-------"We look forward to your thorough and comprehensive review of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this meeting, and the decision to disregard the recommendation of the lead homicide investigator, Mr. Serino, who felt compelled to prepare an affidavit memorializing his recommendation to arrest the shooter George Zimmerman.""

ABC News has re-digitized video of George Zimmerman taken shortly after Trayvon Martin's shooting. The video was unveiled as an exclusive this morning on "Good Morning America." ABC was the first news organization to show the original tape. Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head." Neighborhood Watch volunteer Zimmerman has said he shot 17-year-old Trayvon in self-defense. The video shows Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department within an hour after the shooting. Gutman said the video had been "clarified" by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows "marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head."

NBC disclosed today that it will be launching an internal investigation into a segment about the Trayvon Martin case that appeared on the Today show, in which a call between George Zimmerman and a 911 dispatcher prior to Martin's death was edited in such a way that it portrays Zimmerman as a racial profiler. The editorial decision under review involves the removal of the dispatcher's inquiry about the race of the person Zimmerman was following — Martin. Absent that question, Zimmerman's comments get strung together as if he said, in sequence, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." The Washington Post provides the full transcript of that part of the call: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. Of course Zimmerman goes on to follow Martin against the advice of the dispatcher, but in this version of the call, it doesn't appear that he's awkwardly offering the information or in effect, profiling. Zimmerman still might have been, but the truncated call left much less doubt. The Post's Erik Wemple writes that in a case where few facts are undisputed, it was particularly egregious to misrepresent one of them, the phone call. "To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting." Meanwhile New York Times media czar David Carr wrote a column today titled "A Shooting, And Instant Polarization," in which he similarly impugned some media coverage of this controversial case. That the public is rendering its verdict immediately and firmly may be routine, but choosing sides takes on a deeper, more dangerous meaning when race is at the heart of the story. Race as an explosive issue is nothing new, but it’s been staggering to see it simmer and boil over in our hyperdivided media environment where nonstop coverage on the Web and cable television creates a rush to judgment every day. Partisan politics and far-flung conflicts fit nicely into that world — who’s ahead, who’s behind, should we stay or go? — but racial conflict? Not so much. That hasn’t stopped many in the media from displaying the same reflexive vigilantism that some are attributing to George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon. All over the Internet and on cable TV, posses are forming, positions are hardening and misinformation is flourishing. Instead of debating how we as a culture are going to proceed, an increasingly partisan system of news and social media has factionalized and curdled. Carr and Wemple are not the only two to call out partisan media and media at large for mishandling coverage of the Martin case, or misrepresenting specific aspects of it. Nor are NBC or Business Insider (chastised by Carr for mishandling dubious photos) the only two to have erred in their coverage.

NBC disclosed today that it will be launching an internal investigation into a segment about the Trayvon Martin case that appeared on the Today show, in which a call between George Zimmerman and a 911 dispatcher prior to Martin's death was edited in such a way that it portrays Zimmerman as a racial profiler. The editorial decision under review involves the removal of the dispatcher's inquiry about the race of the person Zimmerman was following — Martin. Absent that question, Zimmerman's comments get strung together as if he said, in sequence, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." The Washington Post provides the full transcript of that part of the call: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. Of course Zimmerman goes on to follow Martin against the advice of the dispatcher, but in this version of the call, it doesn't appear that he's awkwardly offering the information or in effect, profiling. Zimmerman still might have been, but the truncated call left much less doubt. The Post's Erik Wemple writes that in a case where few facts are undisputed, it was particularly egregious to misrepresent one of them, the phone call. "To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting." Meanwhile New York Times media czar David Carr wrote a column today titled "A Shooting, And Instant Polarization," in which he similarly impugned some media coverage of this controversial case. That the public is rendering its verdict immediately and firmly may be routine, but choosing sides takes on a deeper, more dangerous meaning when race is at the heart of the story. Race as an explosive issue is nothing new, but it’s been staggering to see it simmer and boil over in our hyperdivided media environment where nonstop coverage on the Web and cable television creates a rush to judgment every day. Partisan politics and far-flung conflicts fit nicely into that world — who’s ahead, who’s behind, should we stay or go? — but racial conflict? Not so much. That hasn’t stopped many in the media from displaying the same reflexive vigilantism that some are attributing to George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon. All over the Internet and on cable TV, posses are forming, positions are hardening and misinformation is flourishing. Instead of debating how we as a culture are going to proceed, an increasingly partisan system of news and social media has factionalized and curdled. Carr and Wemple are not the only two to call out partisan media and media at large for mishandling coverage of the Martin case, or misrepresenting specific aspects of it. Nor are NBC or Business Insider (chastised by Carr for mishandling dubious photos) the only two to have erred in their coverage.

If there was some incorrect or implied coverage that gives some incorrect characterization of George Zimmerman's words, of course that must be corrected.

HOWEVER, his utterances that he thought Trayvon may have been on drugs and the rest of it do NOT give George Zimmerman any cover for action he was advised NOT TO DO by the 911 dispatcher when he admitted on the 911 tape, "Yeah" he was following Trayvon.

As far as racial bias on his part, there is independent proof of his bias, be it conscience or subconscious. In the majority of his 911 calls to dispatchers regarding 'suspicious' individuals, he is reporting 'suspicious black male/males.'    

As much as many want to pretend that George Zimmerman's words must be given some extraordinary weight, they must be viewed through the prism of a man trying to avoid being indicted and tried for a crime.  

As no Sanford police authorities or anyone else have revealed Zimmerman's re-arrest or charges associated with his re-arrest, there is no presumption of innocence to be had in relation to the culpability of George Zimmerman. He is the confessed shooter of Trayvon Martin.

Due to unnamed Sanford police sources, leaking reports of what Zimmerman says is his version of events, it is those unnamed sources, apparently acting to Cover Their A**es, since they chose not to do their job more professionally, relying HEAVILY on George's word as their position for not keeping him in custody, that are responsible for the tally or scoring resulting from this tragedy.

If Sanford police had not leaked what is amounting to a highly improbable tale, the motivation seeming to be to somehow bolster their bizarre conclusion not to keep Zimmerman in custody, the discussion wouldn't be occurring in a manner that tends to tear more shreds everyday in the fabric of Zimmerman's credibility..

Too late to put the poop back in the horse. Maybe police sources leaking the police report with details of his tale wasn't such a good idea after all.

Has the girlfriend of Trayvon's father been interviewed? Was she there? Did Trayvon have access code for the gate? Had there been any criminal activity in the community? 

According to Mr. Padowitz, Florida rules of criminal procedure do not contain any provision for un-arresting anyone taken into custody,
George Zimmerman was arrested and held for questioning, he was never booked nor held on formal charges. I doubt Mr. Padowitz is in ignorance of constitutional law requiring people under arrest to be formally charged or released within 72 hours, but it appears you may be by the way you presented his statement. It's clear Zimmerman was initially arrested. It's clear the prosecutor declined to file formal charges. It's clear by implying something is unusual about him being "unarrested" you don't understand the most fundamental rights under the constitution, or at least think they should not extend to George Zimmerman.