George Zimmerman will ask Florida to reimburse $300,000 in legal expenses

I was just getting over George Zimmerman’s acquittal. I was ready to move on. After a long inhale, followed by a short exhale, I had released.

Now I’m mad again.

After lengthy diatribe regarding faults with Florida’s “stand your ground” law, I was willing to concede the jury’s verdict had more to do with the reading of the law versus embedded racism. My attention slowly shifted to the law versus the players.  I began to see the acquittal of Zimmerman as a way to expose a wide range of problems with the criminal justice system.

I’m mad again.  I‘m outraged.  Yes, the wound just reopened.

After the turbulent aftermath of the jury’s decision to let Zimmerman walk after shooting Trayvon Martin, you would expect humility.   You would expect Zimmerman and his star studded defense team to respect how the case dealt a deep blow to the nation’s communal consciousness.

Get this.  Zimmerman is about to ask the state of Florida to reimburse him for as much as $300,000 in expenses he racked up to pay for his defense.  Zimmerman and his attorney’s claim he deserves to be reimbursed because he was acquitted of second-degree murder.

Zimmerman's request is based on a Florida law that says a defendant who's acquitted isn't liable for costs associated with his or her case. It must be approved by a judge or a clerk. Attorney fees for the defense team wouldn't be part of the motion.

The request is troubling for multiple reasons. To begin, the amount of the request reveals the price tag to win a murder case.  Zimmerman’s attorneys are seeking refunds for money spent on fees for expert witnesses and court reporters for depositions, travel and other expenses.

One is left pondering how much it took to defend Zimmerman.  What is the actual cost after considering the legal team’s pro bono work in the case?  How much does it cost to win when the odds are against you?

The Zimmerman case disturbs me due to how it unearths the influence economics plays in the court of law.  The scale of justice s weighed not by the evidence, but by the cash placed on the scale.

But, it’s the request that troubles me in this situation.  Zimmerman’s legal team has the right to demand reimbursement for expenses. It’s common practice in cases involving second-degree murder.

Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s attorney, told the Orlando Sentinel he's been paid nothing by Zimmerman but has kept billing records. O’Mara took the case on a pro bono basis, and now wants to be paid for he expenses he incurred to defend his client.

Can’t blame him for that.

With that being said, wouldn’t the wise move be to not push for the reimbursement?  Wouldn’t it serve the purpose of national healing for Zimmerman and his attorneys to concede enough damage has been done?  Couldn’t they simply walk away rather than forcing the state to pay for the trail?

Can’t we let this rest?  Just because you can doesn’t make it right.

Finally, should state taxpayers reimburse attorneys for expenses related to those cases that the prosecutors can’t prove? Is this a form of punishment for bringing the case to trial? How are expenses applied when the accused is forced, due to economic restrictions, to use a public defender?

Conclusion? The system is designed to support those with massive resources.

Mad again.

The Zimmerman decision exposes deep-rooted assumptions regarding black men.

Now the hard part begins.  Black America has to contend with what we know to be true.

We know that look of disdain that keeps many at a safe distance.  We know the look of judgment when all we seek is to purchase a bag of Skittles.

We’re not surprised by the verdict to acquit George Zimmerman.  We saw it coming.  We know the elaborate ploys to protect the interest of those invested in keeping black men in their proper place.  The hard part is not in hearing the verdict, but in listening to commentary aimed at convincing us it’s not about race.

We’re forced to listen to ceaseless narrative that will blame prosecutors for failing to prove their case.  The trial will be taken apart, piece by piece, in hope of persuading us it was a lack of evidence rather than race that freed Zimmerman.  We’re expected to concede the errors of prosecution while ending the racial pontificating at the root of the story.

Are we to approve the summation of legal expert’s intent on deflating the angst that has black parents afraid to allow their boys to walk alone at night?  Are we to refute the mounting evidence of rulings that discredits the value of black life taken by a person who makes a judgment before saying hello?

Should we accept the notion that prosecutors failed to prove their case, or should we question assumptions surrounding the evidence?

What is implied in jurors rejecting a lesser verdict of manslaughter?  Should we decry the suggestion that Zimmerman acted in a reasonable way to protect his own life when the evidence proves he put himself in danger by following Martin?  Shouldn’t he be punished for racial profiling and failing to honor the recommendation of the 911 dispatcher?

This case rationalizes racial profiling.  In claiming the absolute innocence of Zimmerman, the jury has added muscle to those who presume guilt based on a profile.  That position is rooted in racism, yet we are asked to discount its significance in Martin’s death

A mostly white jury believed Zimmerman had the right to defend himself because he was afraid.  That fear didn’t prevent him from stalking Martin.  He had a gun.  He was trained to use that gun.  Martin was unarmed.  Zimmerman’s harassing of Martin was enough to trigger Martin’s fear; however, the jury brought into Zimmerman’s fear.

Why wouldn’t they? Most people fear black men.  Accepting Zimmerman’s argument of fear played into conceptions of race.

The jury downplayed Zimmerman’s pattern of “profiling”. Prosecutors played five calls to police made months before the shooting.  The phone calls made to the dispatcher that night wasn’t enough to prove “profiling” and “ill-will”. 

“These a------ always get away,” Zimmerman said followed by, according to prosecutors, Zimmerman muttering “f----- punks” under his breath.

His comments assumed guilt.  Those words suggested intent, but the evidence was not enough.  Why?

Maybe the jurors view Zimmerman as a hero for protecting people from the “f ------- punks”.  Maybe the jury agrees with his assessment – they always get away.  Who are they?

Isn’t that a position based on a racial stereotype? If so, isn’t this about race?

Isn’t it troubling that the age of Trayvon was disregarded? Shouldn’t we consider the youth and innocence when discussing the matter of fear? Rachel Jeantel, 18, was on the phone with Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Trayvon told her he was being followed.

Trayvon told her of a “creepy-ass cracker” was watching him as he walked home from the convenience store. She heard Zimmerman angrily demand to know what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood.  She heard a bump – the sound of Trayvon’s cell phone headset hitting the ground.

She heard Trayvon’s voice: “Get off! Get off!”

Isn’t that enough to prove aggression?

She’s only 18.  Legal experts say she was not polished or articulate.  Her testimony never changed, yet we are told to discredit her testimony because it failed to impress.  Isn’t the unwillingness to concede her testimony rooted in notions regarding race? Has her testimony been minimized by those who make judgments of black people?

The jury was asked to rule based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.  The law eliminates a citizen’s “duty to retreat” before using lethal force.  We are asked to buy into the argument that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was at risk while all the evidence suggests the opposite claim.

Lead Detective Chris Serino refuted Zimmerman claim that he never “followed” Trayvon. Zimmerman’s statement to the police was full of inconsistences, a point that failed to sway the jury.  What is implied by their decision not to consider those discrepancies when weighed against other testimonies?

What about the 911 call made by the neighbor near the scene? Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon’s mother, and Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon’s older brother, identified the voice on the recording as Trayvon.

The defense called eight witnesses who claimed the voice was Zimmerman’s, including his mother.  In the end, it came down to who the jury believed – the mother and brother of Trayvon or the friends and family of the man who, according to the evidence, chased the 17-year-old while assuming his guilt.

The judge’s decision not to allow the testimony of an audio expert may have decided the case.  The expert was ready to testify that the voice on the tape is Trayvon Martin. 

How should we feel about that exclusion of evidence?

What about the sound of the wind on Zimmerman’s call to police, suggesting he was chasing Trayvon? The defense claimed Martin was the aggressor, but all the evidence says otherwise.  That is for those capable of seeing how evidence can be tainted by those who bring their own notions of race to the case. The fact that Zimmerman may have been beaten by Martin doesn’t negate the truth related to Zimmerman’s aggression.  It merely proves that he approached the wrong person and took his beating poorly.  He pulled the trigger to end the beating.

At issue is who won the fight.  Shouldn’t the question be who started it and why?

Zimmerman was the aggressor with a gun.  Martin was on the phone when approached. Martin had no way of knowing Zimmerman’s intent.  He defended himself. He may have won the fight, but Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

Help me understand how this is not about race.

This is about the right to kill a black man after you start a fight and find yourself on the bad side of that decision.  This is about validating racial profiling.  This is about affirming the fear of a black teen when there is nothing to fear.

This is not about the law. It’s about the application of that law from the position of white fear.  The defense team used that fear to convince the jury Zimmerman had the right to kill.

What is the lesson?  Don’t assume I’m up to no good.  In your mind, I may look like a criminal. In my mind you look like a person looking for a fight.

 

Rest in peace Trayvon. Justice knows the truth.

Zimmerman trial about the value of a black man's life

The nation is standing on pens and needles as we wait for the jury to decide the fate of George Zimmerman.  The jury can convict him of second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, convict him of manslaughter or declare him not guilty.

The Zimmerman case is this generation’s version of the O.J. Simpson trail. The dreadful death of Nicole Simpson forced deeper conversations related to domestic violence and race. Martin’s death exposes issues related to assumptions about black men and the value of their bodies.

On Trial is taking the life of a black man with little risk.

Are the lives of black man is not worth protecting?  Laws are created to make it difficult to punish those who take a black man’s life.  The criminal justice system is conceived in a way that keeps black men trapped. 

Those are a few of the underlying messages.

The Zimmerman case places America on trial for making it easy to take a black man’s life.  If acquitted, a message is Martin deserved to die.

He deserved to die for walking at night.  It’s his fault for wearing a hoodie.  He shouldn’t have been there.  He deserved to be followed and shot for not honoring Zimmerman’s role as a watch commander.

He should have stopped.  He should have trusted Zimmerman’s authority. Is there a different set of laws governing black men?

When followed I should assume the person following has good intentions.  I should discount the examples of black men being chased, robbed and killed.  I can’t run. I can’ fight back. If I’m killed, it’s my fault.

Zimmerman is a wannabe cop.  He had no badge. Are black men being told that we have to honor anyone who suspects us of a crime merely because of our race?  Do you expect me to accept a verdict based on a law designed to empower a person to kill based on their assumptions?

What do you say to black boys? Don’t walk at night.  Never wear a hoddie. Never run from a person following you. Don’t defend yourself if he comes at you with a gun.

"He automatically assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal," Bernie de la Rionda, the prosecutor said. "And that’s why we’re here."

Martin was an “innocent 17-year-old kid” who had just celebrated his birthday three weeks earlier and was just walking back from buying Skittles and a drink a convenience store when Zimmerman started following him, de la Rionda said.

Zimmerman “decided he was up to no good,” the prosecutor said.

"He assumed things that weren’t true. Instead of waiting for the police to come and do their job, he did not. He, the defendant, wanted to make sure that Trayvon Martin didn’t get out of the neighborhood."

De la Rionda stressed what he said were inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story, repeatedly focusing on the defendant’s statement to police that Martin hit him 20 to 30 times, even though witnesses said his injuries appeared minor.

"Why exaggerate them unless he’s lying about the whole thing?” the prosecutor asked.

The prosecutor addressed the dispute over who is heard yelling in the background of a 911 call during the struggle —  by showing jurors a slide that asked which item’s owner would be more like to scream for help above a picture of a gun and a picture of a juice drink.

Jurors were also shown Martin’s autopsy photo.

“They [Martin’s parents] can’t take any more photos and that’s true because of the actions of one person, the man before you, the defendant George Zimmerman, the man who is guilty of second-degree murder.”

Don’t send a message to black parents that the lives of their sons are disposable. 

How we feel about black boys in on trial.

Still standing on pens and needles.