The author gives his opinions regarding the Trayvon Martin case under the pale of his experiences with similar legal dynamics, as he presented in his paper published in two parts by the New York Bar Journal in 1983 (Sorrells, Entrapment or Due Process can be read at www.senderberl.com/NYSBarJournal.pdf). The author rejects any reliance by the defense on the Florida stand your ground statute on the predicate that any case supporting second degree murder charges against a defendant, daresay first degree murder charges, cannot diminish or abrogate a victim’s or his family’s, as the case here, due process rights to have his killer criminally charged and duly adjudged by a jury of his peers.
 
While many bandy about the question whether George Zimmerman was overcharged with second degree murder, to some legal professionals practicing in the criminal arena, there is already sufficient evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was undercharged, to wit: should have faced a grand jury indictment for first degree murder.
 
Let us get to the heart of the claim: that the evidence is that the cries for help came from Trayvon Martin. What would cause the minor to cry out for help in the manner done, the victim, surely reflecting a good dose of hysteria, fear and concern in those cries? How long after hearing those cries was Trayvon Martin shot and killed?
 
To answer the second question, the released tapes indicate that the 17 year old was shot and killed within seconds of his cries for help. While one can make an intelligent assumption that the reason for his cries for help and his immediate death thereafter have a connecting link, we have a superior route of evidence for what was said that caused the minor to cry for help with the desperation heard. The witness: Robert Zimmerman, the defendant’s very own father.
 
In one the early interviews, Robert Zimmerman expressed the following as reported by the media:
 
"Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of 'You're going to die now' or 'You're gonna die tonight' -- something to that effect," Robert Zimmerman said. "He continued to beat George. At some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did." LINK.
Also see: LINK and LINK

From the prosecution’s own affidavit in support of the information, we know that the cries were those of the victim, not the defendant. What the defendant and his father, a retired judge, helping his son in past skirmishes with the law, were no doubt concerned about is whether a witness would come forth hearing what the defendant said to the victim causing the victim to cry out desperately for help before shooting him. If a witness heard the words, Robert Zimmerman, an attorney and retired judge, no doubt knew that they better own the issue by claiming those words were said by the victim, when they painted him, the victim, to the media as the aggressor, the sine qua non, for the use of the alleged defensive use of the firearm the defendant carried.
 
However, the fact that the cries that were heard belong to the victim show a jury that the speaker of those incriminating words, de facto already attested to by the defendant, were not likely to be the words of the victim, who was in fact shot seconds after his cries, but the words of the defendant telling the victim that he was about to die.
 
This degree of evidence regarding first-degree murder has a great deal of supporting evidence already out in the public domain. The defendant made it clear from his words on the 911 audio tapes released that he viewed the victim, again a minor, returning home with candy and a drink as someone casing the area, appearing to be on drugs, and the poster child (literally and figuratively) for all the other criminals effectuating crimes in his home community, where defendant served as a member of the community watch.
 
Consider what the defendant said on the audiotape, where he resisted the advice from police dispatch to stand down to not pursue the victim:
 
He says to the police dispatch that Trayvon Martin:

Was starring at all the houses
Starring at me
Coming towards me
Had his hands in his waistband
Something is wrong with him
Coming to check me out
He had something in his hands
These assholes always get away
He's running...
“This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something.”

The police arrived one or two minutes after the shooting but the defendant’s words and actions should clearly prove to a jury that he acted as judge, jury and executioner in dispensing justice against the minor child for all those criminalizing previously his community. While CNN and other media outlets obfuscated what else the defendant said, the following Internet link (www.senderberl.com/zimmerman_audio.wav) has a very short audio in wave format where you can hear for yourself that the defendant who was predisposed to interact and intercede with the victim said: “These fuck’in coons.” CNN first highlighted two words (fuck’in coons), which they changed the next day to “fuck’in cold.” But CNN became aware of what many were aware, there were three words and the first of those three words was the word “These…” So “These fuck’in cold” absolutely did not make sense (aside from not being on the audio) but to be grammatically compliant CNN came up with “These fuck’in punks,” which oddly was attested to by the prosecution’s information. However, the EVIDENCE is that the defendant said “These fuck’in coons,” which by itself represents far more than a hate crime but also defendant’s state of mind in his behaviors attributable to the victim’s death.
 
There is a great deal more supporting the proffers made. First, it seems clear at this point that the defendant did not relay to the victim when the confrontation took place that he, the defendant, was a member of the neighborhood watch. He also did not apparently tell the victim that the police were called and they were on their way and would be there any moment. The victim in getting shot and killed in the next two minutes activated the minor child’s and thus his parents full due process rights to have the killing investigated and addressed. Under the evidence already in hand that the defendant was the conditio sine qua non for all that happened and the evidence from his own mouth (through his father) that one said to the other that he was going to “die now,” coupled with the defendant’s statement that “these assholes always get away” when combined with “These fuck’in coons,” all foreclose any thought that the defendant could avail himself of any affirmative defense in what the evidence supports is nothing other than a first degree murder case.
 
The truth of the matter is that it all happened as it did exactly because Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman owed him nothing including any presumption of innocence, basic respect or courtesy, the need to identify himself or restrain himself to await the police arriving one or two minutes later (after the shooting). The defendant did not contain the situation, inherent in his standing down as he was advised, but, conservatively said, inflamed the confrontation, one where one was told that he was going to “die now” and the evidence is sufficiently clear beyond any reasonable doubt at this early juncture to point to the defendant as both the speaker and the shooter. The only person that night who feared death was the minor child, Trayvon Martin. The only person pursuing death was the defendant who took the minor child’s life in payment for all the accumulated hatred he carried for the “coons” that plagued his home community.