“I believe that the police misinterpreted me and that I may have misspoken about certain facts in my statement to police…”Posted: December 9, 2013
claims he pointed gun at her recants gun assault accusation
Chuck Ross reports: The woman who told police that George Zimmerman pointed a gun at her face has recanted her story and is now saying “I want to be with George,” according to a court affidavit published by the Orlando Sentinel.
Last month, Samantha Scheibe called 911 to report that Zimmerman had pointed a shotgun at her face during a domestic disturbance sparked after she asked the former neighborhood watchman to move out of her house.
The 911 call from last month’s incident captures Scheibe yelling at Zimmerman, “You point your gun at my fricking face.” Scheibe said that Zimmerman also pushed her out of her residence and was smashing her belongings during the argument. Zimmerman claimed that Scheibe started the fight and denied pointing a weapon at her.
Now Scheibe has contacted Zimmerman attorney Jayne Weintraub to recant her accusation.
George Zimmerman has been arrested again today November 18, 2013. A new George Zimmerman mug shot has been released moments ago by local authorities Monday 11-18-13. But why was Zimmerman arrested, does it involve his former wife, and is he being represented by an attorney?
George Zimmerman was arrested and booked, local police tell news. The arrest stemmed from allegations inside a home in Apopka, Florida. The owner of the home has not been identified to news. Police tell news that they received a 911 call, reporting an alleged “disturbance”. When Seminole County Sheriff’s officers arrived, they arrested Zimmerman. He was then transported to a local area jail. Read the rest of this entry »
An iPad used to shoot video of a confrontation that allegedly erupted Monday between George Zimmerman and his estranged wife, Shellie, and her father might prove key in determining whether charges will be filed, police said Tuesday in Lake Mary, Florida.
“Unfortunately, the iPad is in several pieces,” police spokesman Zach Hudson told reporters about the device, which he said George Zimmerman had damaged. Read the rest of this entry »
by David Santucci
A young white male was walking to his car on a city street late at night on August 12 when he was confronted by a trio of black individuals. They shot him dead. Police have arrested three people and charged them with first degree murder. But some in the victim’s family can’t understand why the shooting is being called a failed robbery when they say the evidence suggests something possibly more sinister: a hate crime.
David Santucci, 27, had just started his new job as a nurse. According to his family, “he was an awesome guy…he wanted to be a missionary…he wanted to help people.”
The murder happened in Memphis, TN less than two weeks ago. Santucci was killed by a single 9mm shot through his heart. To its credit, the Memphis police department apprehended the suspects in less than fifteen minutes. Various reports say that all three suspects made statements that implicated them in Santucci’s murder. And they’re calling it a robbery gone wrong.
Miguel De Diago is one family member who doubts this killing was a failed robbery. He’s the the brother-in-law of David Santucci and told TheBlaze some stuff just doesn’t add up.
MSNBC has mastered the art of making unracial things racial.
By Jonah Goldberg
‘Why do they seem so determined to also make it racial?”
So asks Joy-Ann Reid, the managing editor of The Grio, a web magazine owned by NBC News whose mission is to “focus on news and events that have a unique interest and/or pronounced impact within the national African Americans audience.” The “they” in question are conservatives and journalists asking, among other things, why President Obama hasn’t inserted himself into a new criminal-justice case the way he did in the Trayvon Martin tragedy.
The irony-impaired Reid was asking that question about a heinous murder in Oklahoma, where, according to police, an Australian student was shot by a black youth with the help of two friends (one of whom was white) “for the fun of it.” Police allege that the bored teens spotted Christopher Lane jogging and decided to follow him and shoot him in the back.
Reid asked the question while guest-hosting a show on MSNBC, a network that has mastered the art of making unracial things racial. Just two days earlier, Reid had insisted that there’s a “neoconfederate thread” running through the gun-rights movement. Whatever that means.
Not all are unreasonable
By Theodore Dalrymple
The man who walks out of his house with a mind devoid of stereotypes is like the man who goes to the Antarctic without having inquired about the weather. But there is no such man: for even to know that the Antarctic exists is to know that it tends to be cold there. Our minds are necessarily full of stereotypes and we could not negotiate the world without them.
George Zimmerman is accused by his detractors of having acted upon a stereotype. He saw a young black man allegedly pursuing an erratic course in a gated community and he concluded that he was up to no good, that quite possibly or even probably he was a burglar on the prowl. If only he had kept another stereotype in his mind, things might not have turned out so disastrously: It was raining that evening and burglars do not like the rain. In fact, the principal cause of certain kinds of crime is clement weather, because the statistical association between such weather and those types of crime is the strongest known to me, stronger even than those between smoking and criminality (more than 90 percent of prisoners, at least in Britain, smoke), and between tattooing and criminality (an even higher percentage of white criminals are tattooed, except for those charged with fraud, embezzlement, etc.).
I first learned of the meteorological causes of crime on the walk that I took most afternoons for 15 years, between the hospital where I worked in the morning to the prison where I worked in the afternoon. It was about 600 yards, and on fine summer days up to six or seven cars parked on the way would have been broken into, the little shards of shattered glass sparkling, almost with the color of peridots, on the curbside. In winter, or in the rain, not a single car was ever broken into, and I was surprised that the police had not issued a warning to car owners to park their cars only in bad weather. Criminals may be tough, but they are not hardy.
Now, if George Zimmerman had realized this, it would have neutralized his alleged stereotype and the whole tragedy would not have occurred. He didn’t realize that it was unlikely (though not absolutely impossible) that the young man was on a criminal enterprise because he wasn’t hurrying to get out of the rain, as most true criminals would have done if they had been caught in it.
Andrew Branca, author of the book The Law Of Self Defense, has been covering the Zimmerman trail for Legal Insurrection. Recently, he was asked to participate in a panel discussion on gun rights and the Zimmerman case.
via Ace of Spades HQ.
Such statutes don’t put anyone at risk, and rest on sound legal principles.
By dint of an unholy marriage between genuine ignorance and political opportunism, the Zimmerman trial has this week led to a peculiar dispute as to the propriety of so-called Stand Your Ground rules. “It’s time,” attorney general Eric Holder told the NAACP on Tuesday, “to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.” Fittingly, the crowd broke into applause before Holder had even finished his sentence.
Others have eloquently argued that the conflation of the Zimmerman trial and Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute is nonsensical, and none so sedulouslyas Reason’s Jacob Sullum. They are correct, of course; one’s “duty to retreat” evaporates as an option when one’s back is on the concrete. Nevertheless, if the likes of Eric Holder are set against the law, it probably is a good time for its advocates to take a second look, and to answer its critics, too.
In this pursuit we might begin by denouncing as demonstrably false the popular idea that Florida is a legal backwater and Stand Your Ground an outré legal novelty. Reviewing American state law, the constitutional lawyer Eugene Volokh did a quick headcount this week and revealed that:
The substantial majority view among the states, by a 31-19 margin, is no duty to retreat. Florida is thus part of this substantial majority on this point. And most of these states took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes, including the Florida statute.
In essence, “Stand Your Ground” is a blanket term for any legal regime in which individuals do not have a duty to run away in the event that they are attacked. In states with such systems, juries are not expected to consider whether an individual could feasibly have retreated before resorting to violence in his defense; in states that do not, juries must inquire as to his chance of safely fleeing. In other words, in most of the country the Castle Doctrine has been extended to the village.
The primary argument against such a law is that the mésalliance of concealed firearms and permissive self-defense rules affords those with evil intent a legal loophole to murder. There is, it must be repeated ad nauseam, no evidence whatsoever that George Zimmerman was possessed of anything approaching evil intent. But I suppose that this isn’t to say that others might not be. Florida’s law, which is fairly typical on this front, holds that:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Thus, critics such as Eric Holder charge, one individual simply needs to provoke another into taking the first swing, and then, ostensibly acting in self-defense and without a duty to retreat, he will be able to kill whomever he wishes. In an otherwise excellent reaction to the Zimmerman verdict, TheAtlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates hinted at this last week, imagining that “an intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did — buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law, and then wait.”
Superficially, there is certainly some logic behind this claim. Firearms are a means by which the weak may put themselves on at least an equal footing with the strong. People with guns tucked quietly away may certainly become less risk-averse and more confrontational. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, of course, and almost all holders of concealed-carry permits have gone through a training program of some sort. But not everybody is a good guy. In a country that enumerates the right to bear arms and promises equal protection of its laws, there is little way to weed out those who might one day commit a crime — and it is never a good idea to restrict liberty because it could be abused. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean it’s not a potential problem.
By William Saletan
His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.
Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.
But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports . The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.
I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.
It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.
Overestimating His Relevance, Misreading His Audience, Eric Holder Makes Unwelcome, Misleading Pronouncements to Further Poison Public Discussion and Inflame Social Climate Following Florida’s Martin Zimmerman Verdict.
By Neil Munro
The nation’s top law-enforcement officer told an African-American sorority Monday that he would lead an effort to change Americans’ beliefs and judgments about race, following George Zimmerman’s Sunday acquittal in the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Attorney General Eric Holder blamed racial attitudes for the killing.
“We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies, and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too-common incidents,” Holder told the long-scheduled meeting of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority.
Martin was a 17 year-old black youth in Florida.
“I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honesty about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised,” Holder said, while pointing his finger for emphasis.
“We must not, as we have too often in the past, let this opportunity pass,” he said, reminding listeners of the episode in 2009 when he called Americans “a nation of cowards” for not talking about race in the way he wished.
However, Holder did not use the speech as an opportunity to explain beliefs that he believes are mistaken, nor to offer data that shows suspect attitudes and stereotypes are either commonplace or incorrect.
Holder was appointed as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer in 2009 by President Barack Obama.
Holder’s effort to blame racial misunderstanding for the initial shooting is unjustified, said several lawyers.
“State prosecutors… tried to prove that throughout their entire case and there was no evidence of it,” said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former justice department lawyer now at the centrist Heritage Foundation.
“The jury didn’t buy it,” he told the The Daily Caller.
Moreover, “FBI reports are now also out in the public domain and the FBI itself admitted there was no racial animus,” he added.
Frances Robles and Scott Hiaason | Miami Herald
last updated: July 12, 2012 02:34:47 PM
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.
Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.
Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”
The Duval County State Attorney released another collection of evidence in the Zimmerman murder case Thursday, including reports from FBI agents who investigated whether any racial bias was involved in Trayvon’s Feb. 26 killing.
The evidence includes bank surveillance videos from the day of the killing, crime scene photos and memos from prosecutors.
Among the documents is a note from the prosecutor who said one of the witnesses said her son, a minor, had felt pressured by investigators to say the injured man he saw was wearing a red top. The boy’s testimony had been considered key, because it backed up Zimmerman’s allegation that he — wearing red — was being pummeled.
Federal agents interviewed Zimmerman’s neighbors and co-workers, but none said Zimmerman had expressed racial animus at any time prior to the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin, a black teen, in a confrontation at a Sanford housing complex. As Sanford police investigated the circumstances of Martin’s death, the FBI opened a parallel probe to determine if Martin’s civil rights had been violated.
by JOHN NOLTE
As you will see below… the mainstream media did everything in its still-potent power to not only push for the prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman (the police originally chose not to charge him) but also to gin up racial tensions where none needed to exist.
It all started with the anchor of a major television network (Al Sharpton) inserting himself in the story to spread division and hate; it continued straight through to the closing days of the trial when another major news network, desperate to keep a fabricated racial narrative alive, propagated the portrayal of Zimmerman as part of a racial group that doesn’t exist — the “white Hispanic.”
In-between, there has been an astonishing amount of malicious fraud and lies, all in an effort to serve a president, stir racial hatred, and influence the justice system.
February 26, 2012 – George Zimmerman Shoots and Kills Trayvon Martin
Zimmerman claims self-defense. After an investigation, the police agree and decide not to press charges.
March 8, 2012 – The AP Falsely Describes Zimmerman as “White”
The story of the grieving parents of Trayvon Martin demanding Zimmerman be arrested first achieves national attention on March 8 when CBS This Morning runs a report.
Later that same day, the Associated Press throws the first log on the racial fire by inaccurately describing Zimmerman as white.
March 13, 2012 – NBC’s Al Sharpton Uses MSNBC Platform to Stoke Phony Racial Narrative
Sharpton devoted a portion of his program on MSNBC, PoliticsNation, to the Trayvon Martin case. He interviewed Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who reiterated the accusation that Zimmerman was “white”: “We think Trayvon Martin didn’t know who the heck this white man was who approached him before he got killed.”
Earlier that same day, Sharpton’s National Action Network released a statement calling for…
…a “complete and thorough investigation” into Martin’s death. He added: “[W]e are told that racial language was used when the young man reported his suspicions to police[.]”
The story about Zimmerman’s use of racial language was false.
March 13, 2012 – ABC News Reporter Claims Trayvon Shot Because “He Was Black”
About ten days before Al Sharpton and President Obama would launch the Zimmerman story into the stratosphere, Matt Gutman, an ABC News correspondent based in Miami, Florida, was already (and without a shred of evidence) laying the track for a racial narrative.
Gutman covered the case for the network, and his Twitter feed at the time was full of falsehoods, innuendo, and irresponsible speculation. In one tweet, Gutman came right out and claimed Trayvon was shot “bc [because] he was black.”
Gutman would also recklessly accuse Zimmerman of “stalking” and shooting down Trayvon.
March 19, 2012 – CBS News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Is White
A small detail that the Obama administration and the media apparently missed was that the white versus black racial narrative they were preparing to invest so much into was missing just one thing: a white person.
Proof of this is that CBS News falsely claimed Zimmerman was white about a week before the story exploded.
In their venomous zeal, the media and Democrats likely assumed that someone with the last name Zimmerman had to be white. But they were wrong, as Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Never ones to back off a good narrative, rather than use this revelation to tamp down tensions or correct their reporting, the media simply made up out of whole cloth a new racial category: the “white Hispanic.”
The media tried to turn the Zimmerman trial into something it’s not: a racial metaphor.
By Rich Lowry
The George Zimmerman trial is the racial metaphor that failed. It has proved that none of the ideological baggage heaped on the case ever made any sense.
George Zimmerman is not a symbol of white America, or — to borrow the stilted phrase the New York Times used to refer to him in its reports — white-Hispanic America. The case is not about race relations. Incredibly enough, even the attorney for Trayvon Martin’s family now says, “We don’t believe the focus was really race.”
To the extent that the entire episode has any larger meaning, it is a tale of the left’s desperation to indict contemporary America as a land of rank racism, different in degree, perhaps, but not in kind from 1950s Mississippi. That’s where Emmett Till, to whom Trayvon Martin has often been compared, was brutally murdered for whistling at a white woman.
Mentioning Martin in the same breath as Till is an offense against history and common sense.
When the national controversy over Martin’s killing first erupted, I thought it was wrong that Zimmerman wasn’t charged. I still think it was foolhardy of Zimmerman to get out of his car and trail Martin, and that if he had had the sense to leave the matter at his call to the police, a tragedy could have been avoided.
But that doesn’t make him a murderer. There was always a perverse wishfulness to the Zimmerman-haters: Look how rotten and backward this country is. Look at what white-Hispanics are capable of. Look at the corruption of our criminal-justice system. Look at this poor child murdered in cold blood.MSNBC tried and convicted Zimmerman, executed him by firing squad, then propped the body up at the defense table so it could do it all over again. Host Lawrence O’Donnell said Zimmerman shot “a black teenager to death for having done absolutely nothing,” and opined that “I believe what we have here is evidence of a police cover-up.” At a rally, another of the network’s personalities, the Reverend Al Sharpton, compared the injustice done to Martin to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ — and that may have been one of his cooler-headed moments.
The most poisonous interpretation of Zimmerman’s conduct — that he sought out and assassinated a black kid for being a black kid — was never plausible. Assassins generally don’t call the police before tracking down targets. But it looks positively ridiculous in light of all the evidence suggesting that right before Zimmerman fired, Martin was beating Zimmerman, not the other way around.
The prosecution had the odd habit of calling witnesses who contradicted its case against Zimmerman. One of them, a neighbor named John Good, testified that Martin was mounted “MMA-style” on top of Zimmerman, drubbing him in a “ground-and-pound.” A forensic witness called by the defense, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, testified that the muzzle of Zimmerman’s gun was against Martin’s clothing, which in turn was several inches away from Martin’s body — facts consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman.
Accounts differ on who was crying out for help that night. Martin’s family says it was Martin; Zimmerman’s family says it was Zimmerman. But Zimmerman is the one who had the injuries consistent with getting beaten up and being in distress.
All of this suggests that Zimmerman fired in self-defense. At this point, if he is convicted of second-degree murder as charged, he will be the one failed by the Florida criminal-justice system — not Martin.
Justice, in the sense of a deliberate, lawful judgment consistent with the facts, was never the driving passion of the Zimmerman-haters. They wanted a racial morality play. If Trayvon Martin had been shot by another black person, no one would have cared. Al Sharpton wouldn’t have made him a cause. Lawrence O’Donnell wouldn’t have batted an eyelash. No one outside his immediate family and friends would have ever known his name.
Trayvon Martin’s shooting was an ideologically useful tragedy, and so the vultures did their worst.