Alan Dershowitz's ridiculous legal opinion on the Zimmerman-Martin case

By Richard K. Barry

I continue to be confused by the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case in Florida. I have no legal training. The only thing I can bring to it is common sense. Based on that, I've always had a pretty good idea of what I think happened and what a fair legal resolution might be. But I guess the law can work in a way that defies common sense. I don't know. Based on a recent article by Alan Dershowitz, it seems that way.

Dershowitz is a lawyer. I get that. He's supposed to understand what the law says. But when he writes that recent findings are that Zimmerman had "a fractured nose, two black eyes, and a back injury on the day of the shooting," and that this somehow changes everything, I don't get it.  His further statement that Martin had traces of marijuana in his system damns the young man as a point of law is additionally confusing.

There is also mention that a bruise on Martin's ring finger, which may indicate he punched Zimmerman, is also relevant.

As Dershowitz writes:

If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

Okay, this is what confuses me. If there was an altercation of any kind between the two, a fight, then Zimmerman should necessarily be exonerated? Huh?

My guess has always been that George Zimmerman, a self-appointed community vigilante, who always wanted to be a cop, habitually hung around his neighbourhood waiting for supposedly suspicious characters to show up so he could call 911 and then, in his own way, be a part of the law enforcement brotherhood.

He saw Martin. We know he called 911. We know he was instructed not to follow Martin, direction which he ignored. What we don't know is precisely how it went down once Zimmerman confronted Martin.

It seems logical that Zimmerman provoked Martin in some way, that he threatened him. What other intent would Zimmerman have had? Obviously, the junior G-Man's goal was to "apprehend the suspect." It seems equally obvious that Martin, who we know was simply returning from the store, got freaked out by the confrontation. If it were me, I'd be freaked out by that kind of confrontation too. Even if Zimmerman wasn't the first one to "lay a hand on Martin," Zimmerman was still the instigator of the confrontation and his aim was to "control" the situation. Again, if it were me, I would want to get away from that whole thing as fast as I could and if the best way to do it was to physically defend myself, I wouldn't hesitate.

So, they got into a fistfight. Zimmerman took some lumps and at some point decided to take out his gun and end things.

If Dershowitz is right, that the available evidence suggests Zimmerman did no wrong, it all seems like a pretty nifty way to get away with murder. Confront someone you want to kill. When they resist you in any way, take out a gun and shoot them in the heart.

Again, I just don't understand why Zimmerman's injuries necessarily suggest he did not commit murder.

And the comment about marijuana, well, Dershowitz will have to explain that one to me. Perhaps he sat through too many screenings of Reefer Madness in his youth. Whatever the case, if Dershowitz thinks this is the way the law should work, he must be smoking something.