May 12 2012

FL Domestic Shooting Case Bad Omen For Zimmerman

Published by at 10:10 am under All General Discussions,Trayvon Martin Case

Before we get into the nuts and bolts of the recent case for domestic shooting (no one harmed) I will say I believe the sentencing was way over the top. However, the case illustrates what I have been saying about the Trayvon Martin case for some time.

That is: the use of a firearm in self defense requires a clear and present danger, not a feeling based on emotion.

Here is the situation that transpired:

Alexander said she was attempting to flee her husband, Rico Gray, on August 1, 2010, when she picked up a handgun and fired a shot into a wall.

She said her husband had read cell phone text messages that she had written to her ex-husband, got angry and tried to strangle her.

She said she escaped and ran to the garage, intending to drive away. But, she said, she forgot her keys, so she picked up her gun and went back into the house. She said her husband threatened to kill her, so she fired one shot.

Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.

Here’s the rub. While the gun was discharged to ward off attack, the “attacker” in this situation had not yet reached a point where deadly force was considered proper. But there is more

Alexander’s attorneys tried to use the state law that allows people to use potentially deadly force anywhere they feel reasonably threatened with serious harm or death.

But a previous judge in the case rejected the request, saying Alexander’s decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety, according to the Florida Times Union newspaper.

This is the whole thing about avoiding conflict. You cannot take actions and make decisions that create a confrontation and then use the confrontation as a self defense. Personally I am stunned at the outcome, since the man had apparently tried to strangle the women. But the law is clear, she had escaped and she should have called police, not armed herself and gone back in.

This is why Zimmerman is in such deep trouble. He too had opportunities (many of them) to stand back and avoid the conflict. He defied police direction to do so. This woman fired a warning shot – Zimmerman killed a kid. She was in her home, Zimmerman was in a public space.

The story also explains why I think Zimmerman should avoid a jury trial and actually plea deal:

After the sentencing, Rep. Corrine Brown confronted State Attorney Angela Corey in the hallway, accusing her of being overzealous, according to video from CNN affiliate WJXT.

“There is no justification for 20 years,” Brown told Corey during an exchange frequently interrupted by onlookers. “All the community was asking for was mercy and justice,” she said.

Corey said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as “10-20-life.”

Virginia is just as strict. With your CCP permit comes harsh penalties for stepping a hair out of line. Let me repeat – this sentence is unjustified and unfair. The conclusions are correct, the punishment ridiculous. Hopefully the Governor will intervene and set it to something reasonable.

Now, I want address the incident map and show how Zimmerman was not likely to have been ‘jumped’ by Martin.  In fact the map shows just the opposite:

You can click to enlarge, but the key points here are

  • C – Zimmerman’s truck, where he left it armed to chase down Martin
  • E – Where Zimmerman ended up thinking Martin would try and leave the neighborhood (it never dawned on him Martin had a right to be there and lived in the nearby buildings)
  • G – Martin’s residence
  • F – The site of the physical altercation and killing of Martin

Now a lot of people claim Martin ‘doubled back’ to confront Zimmerman. That is pure BS given this map. Martin would not know where Zimmerman is because he sprinted down between the buildings and likely did make it to is house. He also probably assumed the coast was clear, having stayed between the buildings for a long time (as everyone admits given the phone call time line). Zimmerman could be anywhere since he was in a truck.

Zimmerman is actually standing in the parking lot out of site of Martin. There is no proof Martin knew where Zimmerman was, anymore than Zimmerman knew where Martin was.

So the story goes thus: Zimmerman ends his 911 call to head back to his truck from Point E. There is a straight line between C and E right down the walkway.

But look where F took place!

F is not on that straight line to Zimmerman’s truck. It is on Martin’s path to/from home. There is nothing against Martin assuming the nut job (Zimmerman)  had left. Martin reasonably could have assumed the coast was clear and went back to his phone call with his girlfriend.

But Zimmerman must have seen him down the path and diverted his heading. Zimmerman HAS to have walked towards Martin for the event to occur where it did. Which blows Zimmerman’s story out of the water. Zimmerman was the consistent instigator. And like the case above, he had no right to go armed after Martin. None.

Zimmerman is toast.

35 responses so far

35 Responses to “FL Domestic Shooting Case Bad Omen For Zimmerman”

  1. browngreengold says:

    You know RT, I find it amusing to read the things you’re writing about this case.

    You present yourself as being someone who is familiar enough with the facts and the evidence to have arrived at an informed opinion then you unwittingly expose your lack of knowledge without even realizing it.

    The cell phone was recovered from the scene on Feb 26th along with other personal belongings including the items purchased at the 7-11 as well as $22 in cash that Martin had in his pocket. You do realize that there are cell phone records which have been released which support what we have been told about the younger Martin having been on the phone correct?

    Furthermore, you write about Martin’s father, Traci, being unaware of what was going on and failing to investigate when the gunshot and the resulting commotion occurred.

    If you were anywhere near remotely familiar with the basic facts of this case you would know that Martin’s father was NOT at the apartment at the time these events occurred. You would also know that by the time he and his girlfriend, Ms. Greene, returned to the apartment the police investigation had been concluded and nothing out of the ordinary was going on.

    Finally, if you were familiar with this case you wouldn’t have made the error of stating that the girlfriend “heard” a gunshot over the phone.

  2. AJStrata says:


    If it has not been clear why I am serious on this case let me explain:

    (1) I have little patience for people who misuse their responsibilities with guns for reasons made clear in these comments. Zimmerman’s foolishness provides ammunition to those trying to end the right to bear arms.

    (2) A young man was needlessly stalked, spooked and killed. As a father this is abhorrent. No citizen has the right to kill someone’s kid. No one. Call me pro-life.

    (3) Need to chill the overheated politics. Justice is best dealt with by ignoring the news media circus and focusing on the facts and events as we know them.

    I have made clear why I feel this way, and laid out the information that supports my views. From day 1 – when I said Zimmerman was likely a wannabe cop and then the reporting confirmed this – I have used the scientific method of assessing data, making predictions, and then using the results of those predictions to either tear my view apart or confirm it.

    So far and at every step the details have unfolded as I suspected they would. Which is more than I can say for others.

  3. Neo says:

    Zimmerman spent 93 seconds on the 911 call after he stopped persuing Martin .. enough time to get to “D” where he was staying.
    The only reasonable explanation is that Martin came back.

  4. Neo says:

    What have we not heard much of the bus driver assault Trayvon Martin is rumored to have committed shortly before his death ?

  5. Redteam says:

    “You present yourself as being someone who is familiar enough with the facts and the evidence to have arrived at an informed opinion then you unwittingly expose your lack of knowledge without even realizing it.”

    Didn’t I make it clear that I have not formed an opinion of guilt or innocence in this case? I clearly said all I know is what the police reported.
    I have formed an opinion that nothing has come out that proves guilt on the part of either party. with the ‘evidence’ that has been released by the police, and that is all of the evidence we can rely on at this point, no one can be convicted.
    so, browngreengold, what are your qualifications for determining whether all this ‘evidence’ that you just laid out is true?
    The police did not report the cell phone or the $22 on his person.
    Where did you get proof that he went to a 7-11. No evidence of that has been released, it has been speculated, but no video.
    The police did not report that Martin’s father was not at the apartment, so are you ‘guessing’ here?
    Why didn’t the police know who Martin was if they had his cell phone? why did they list him as John Doe at the Mortuary?
    I know that the news people have ‘reported’ that she heard a ‘shot’ on the phone. There is no evidence that that is true.
    Why didn’t she call 911? If she did, the police don’t know it. They reported 8 911 calls about the incident, none from Martin, his relatives, or his girlfriend.
    If she heard a gunshot, why didn’t she call 911?

    browngreengold, it appears you have swallowed the internet version hook, line and sinker. You should rely on police reports, not guesswork. so I would say that you have “unwittingly expose your lack of knowledge” of the truth about the case, only wild speculation.

  6. Redteam says:

    I copied this from the Wagist site, which seems to be following the case very well and they say it very clearly.

    “But as time has gone on, it seems the investigation the department carried out was actually extremely by the book. Lately, people have changed tack; they don’t like the conclusions the investigation reached and feel state law must be to blame.

    While the police spent weeks attempting to gather evidence and press charges against Zimmerman, the facts of the case simply didn’t materialize in a way that implicated Zimmerman as having committed manslaughter.

    Then the case was blown up by the media, and more and more investigatory branches of the government became involved, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, but evidence against Zimmerman has still remained elusive. If there is any strong evidence against him, it hasn’t been released by the prosecutors thus far.”

    One other point, the ‘special prosecutor’ didn’t feel as if the grand jury would return an indictment, so she bypassed them and did it on her own. i.e., she didn’t have confidence in her case.

  7. AJStrata says:


    I said Martin went back out. I said he probably thought the coast was clear.

  8. browngreengold says:


    Are you really unaware of the 7-11 video tape?

    Are you really unaware as to what was going on with the elder Martin and his girlfriend during the evening of Feb 26th?

    The police reports didn’t state that Martin’s father was at Ms. Greene’s home…yet you argued that to be true.

    Once again, you demonstrate a basic lack of factual knowledge.


  9. AJStrata says:


    Thanks for chiming in and noting the facts. I was told the phone was not recovered too, which I had doubted.

    Cheers, AJStrata

  10. […] second court case that parallels the Trayvon Martin case, and spells bad news for George Zimmerman (here was the prior case). The parallels are quite important: Circuit Judge Ashley Moody denied a motion to use the Stand […]

  11. Redteam says:

    “Are you really unaware of the 7-11 video tape? ”
    Yep, as are the police. In fact, I have read that the police tried to obtain a video but it was not available. If you’ve seen one, you’ll be providing a link I’m sure.

    “Are you really unaware as to what was going on with the elder Martin and his girlfriend during the evening of Feb 26th?”
    Yep, I was neither with them nor have any first hand knowledge of their whereabouts. Do you? provide us a link to the police report on this please.

    “The police reports didn’t state that Martin’s father was at Ms. Greene’s home…yet you argued that to be true.”

    Actually, I said this:
    “I find it hard to believe that his father was there at his(fathers) girlfriends apartment”

    There’s something in that statement that indicates that I thought his father was there. I’m sure you don’t have any more information than I do as to their whereabouts.

    “Once again, you demonstrate a basic lack of factual knowledge.”
    So, at some point you’re going to link us to some ‘fact’ that we don’t know. I see absolutely nothing in anything you said that indicates you have any ‘inside’ information, only speculation and guessing.

    Do you have a dog in the hunt? Do you support the proposition that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

    AJ:”Thanks for chiming in and noting the facts.”

    would you kindly point out just one ‘fact’ that BGG noted? I couldn’t find one.

  12. browngreengold says:


    Have I made an argument one way or the other as to the guilt or innocence of either party? No, I haven’t.

    What I have done instead is demonstrate that you don’t possess an even basic understanding of the facts of this case yet you chatter on incessantly.

    You attempt to constrain others to arguing only what is contained in official police reports while you, yourself, repeatedly stray outside the contents of those reports.

    You cannot have it both ways. Pick a horse and ride it.

    Even now, you’re unaware of the 7-11 video tape and, yes, it does exist.

    Even know, you don’t know where the elder Martin and Ms. Greene were on the night of 2/26.

    And then you go on to selectively quote yourself when called out on the holes in your arguments.

    You’re amusing in your ignorance.

  13. Redteam says:

    BGG, “You’re amusing in your ignorance.”
    Thanks for thinking i’m amusing. I will say nothing about your ignorance, you’re making the case very well.

    I notice you failed to provide the link to the video and to the report detailing Martin’s father’s whereabouts that evening.
    I will state that I have read that Martin and his father was watching a basketball game together and Martin left at halftime to go to a store. But, I don’t consider that to be true (or untrue)

    “You attempt to constrain others to arguing only what is contained in official police reports while you, yourself, repeatedly stray outside the contents of those reports.”
    I make no attempt to constrain anyone to anything. I just think it’s foolish to quote a ‘fact’ that has not been proven to be ‘fact’.

    I see no problem with saying that any information that is just guesstimates and speculation should not be considered as fact or evidence unless it is in the domain of the police.

    “You cannot have it both ways. Pick a horse and ride it.”
    I picked my horse, it is that zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and that wild speculation and theories have nothing to do with facts that will be introduced as evidence.

    PROVE that a 7-11 video of Martin exists.
    PROVE that you know Martins father’s whereabouts
    PROVE that there was a cell phone belonging to martin recovered.

    it does no good and does not advance your argument to just fly in, throw out a few baseless statements and ‘claim’ that it proves that I’m wrong.

    I can’t be wrong. I have not stated that I know who was guilty, just that I have not seen anything that is factual that would convict ‘EITHER’ one of the parties. For me to be wrong, it would be necessary that I ‘have seen’ definitive proof.

    BGG, provide the links if you want to salvage any credibility at all.

  14. AJStrata says:


    BGG has no responsibility to fix your ignorance. None.

    He nailed you. You whine about speculation and deduction (a legitimate investigative method popularized by the fictional Sherlock Holmes), then go beyond reality in your own side.

    It is laughable – and sad. Projection my dear black pot. Projection.

    Suggest you stop complaining about people expressing their views, before you sound like a censor.

  15. Redteam says:


    “BGG has no responsibility to fix your ignorance. None.” Thank God for small favors. I sure hope he doesn’t try.

    “Suggest you stop complaining about people expressing their views, ”

    haven’t done that and wouldn’t do it. That’s what this blog is all about, people expressing views. My view is people should try to be reasonably accurate and at least make an attempt to be honest and factual, but I see none of that in BGG’s comments. He hasn’t stated anything that is known to be factual.
    And that’s not my view, it’s a fact.
    I certainly see no evidence that he could fix anyone’s ignorance, if he is capable, you’d think a little of that would leak out.

    “He nailed you. You whine about speculation and deduction (a legitimate investigative method popularized by the fictional Sherlock Holmes), then go beyond reality in your own side.”
    Whine? so you admit what he’s doing is speculating and deducing?

    Do you think he might ever arrive at any facts applying techniques that do not involve looking for the truth? If one only looks at rumors, speculation and guessing, he is not very likely to stumble upon the truth.
    The difference is, I don’t have to speculate or deduce or guess. I just have to point out that the truth has not come out yet so I don’t know who is guilty and who is not. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.