Fair and Objective Profiling Required, No Emotions Allowed

Crime Scene of Cat Hit-and-Run

I have been accused by some who don't like my profiling conclusions that I am misinterpreting evidence and accusing people of things simply because I don't like them. I have long stated that I do not approach my work in a subjective manner, that I focus on the physical and behavioral evidence and whether I like the suspect or not has no impact on my final viewpoint. I use the scientific method and not some gut feeling or psychic vibes. I may make comment on certain suspect behaviors that I feel are immoral or unethical, narcissistic or psychopathic, but I am not commenting on them as some personal vendetta.

For example, I may comment on George Zimmerman being a cop-wannabe who appears to have a personality disorder of some sort. Trayvon Martin appears to be no angel either. What is important about their personalities and behaviors is how they play out in the crime that occurred, not that I need to like or dislike anyone or want them to be my friends or designate them my enemies. Likewise, with the McCann case. I feel there is no evidence of abduction and the McCanns' behaviors indicate their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. I find Gerry to have a controlling, narcissistic personality and Kate, although I think her to be quite beautiful, willing to go along with his program in order to save what is left of her life. I find their fund to be extremely unethical and, therefore, both of the McCanns are responsible for any wrongdoing with that moneymaking scheme. I am horrified by the incredible amount of money spent searching for a live child when the investigators (Scotland Yard and the private detectives) ignore the evidence in front of them that indicates a long dead child and no stranger involvement. Other missing children's cases go unfunded and ignored while millions are spent in this bizarre case of likely parental neglect and a likely massive cover-up.

Today, I found my missing cat, Juliette, dead in the driveway. She had been missing since yesterday and I believed she might have gone off into the bushes to die as she was 17-years-old and flies were following her about. However, she was not in the bushes. She had been run over by my renter. It was clearly a case of hit-and-run but, in spite of the fact I actually can't stand my renter (who I think exhibits a personality disorder of his own and is rather creepy and has behaved badly in the past toward my cats), I am not going to blame him for Juliette's death. Why? Because the evidence exonerates him.

Juliette had been acting in a strange manner for the last month. She had taken to sitting in the middle of the driveway and not moving or moving so slowly I questioned how long it would be before my son or I or either of our two renters would run her over. I tried hard to scare her out of the driveway by spraying her with a water bottle and running her off of the gravel. I also saw my renter actually shoo her away from his car, quite surprising to me since he wasn't aware I was watching, and he used to kick at the cats before I read him the riot act. Then, in recent days, Juliette had taken to actually sitting under the cars, under the front tires.

My renter leaves for work at four in the morning and it has been raining heavily over the last few days. The tire tracks show that Juliette was lying behind his left front tire, the left tire angled in. He would not have seen her upon entering his vehicle. With the rain pouring down, he no doubt jumped in the car, started the engine and backed up quickly, then took off down the driveway. Juliette would have been run over when the tire back over her abdomen and rear legs, and I believe she would have died quite quickly. Because of the heavy rains and my renter returning after dark, he wouldn't have seen her when he came back down the drive. That time I don't believe his tires ran over her, but her body remained hidden under the vehicle until today when he left for work. Then I found her lying there.

Believe me, if I felt he was truly wrong and guilty of purposely or even extremely carelessly causing my cat's death, he would have found her body on his pillow tonight a la the Godfather. But, the evidence proves his innocence, so I have to accept a senile cat met her fate and no one is particularly to blame.

My son and I buried Juliette today and no charges will be filed against my renter for feline homicide.

What Exactly is George Zimmerman Guilty of?

The trial of George Zimmerman is about half-way though and the six woman jury is gong to have to decide what George is guilty of and if what he is guilty of deserves any time in prison. It is an odd case in that there is no disputing the man on trial killed someone, but there are two questions which make the final verdict a tough one; did George shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense and how responsible was George for instigating the incident in question?

Both of these questions revolve around the definition of self-defense and one's right to resort to lethal force. Basically it comes down to this: you have the right to defend yourself from injury if you are being attacked (the key words here are "being attacked" and not that your opponent is fighting back after you attacked him nor are the two of you brawling with equal participation) and you have the right to  resort to lethal force if you are in immediate danger of extreme injury or death (and you can't shoot someone because you start losing a fight; you must have conceded and your opponent must be continuing to beat you up). I think anyone listens to this 911 call would easily conclude that George Zimmerman was screaming in terror and felt he was about to be killed.

Let me pause for a minute and discuss whether that is Trayvon or George screaming "Help me!" in the 911 call. Even if we ignore George's statement about how Trayvon punched him in the nose, knocked him down to the pavement, mounted him and started doing an MMA "ground and pound," the scenario one hears in the background of the 911 call has someone repeatedly screaming for help which would be the guy who is losing the fight. George Zimmerman clearly was not winning the battle since Trayvon had no injuries other than the bullet wound. A person who is punching the daylights out of someone or smashing their head into the pavement is not going to be screaming "Help me!" at the same time. Only someone needing a referee to stop the fight is going to be screaming for someone to save him and that someone would be George Zimmerman.

So, George passes the first test of rightful self-defense; he really was on the receiving end of a brutal assault and he thought he was going to die. It is interesting to note that one hears a bunch of screams in the tape so it is clear that George didn't get punched once and then blow away his opponent. This meant Trayvon had ample time to stop beating up George. George's screams also show that Trayvon knew George was terrified and he was not fighting back and, therefore, continuing to attack George is nothing but straight-up assault.

However, one thing that has always troubled me; George Zimmerman's cop-wanna-be attitude and some of his behaviors while in jail and in court. George has issues and one of them is taking on the role of a cop, an armed cop, while patrolling the neighborhood. Clearly, the dude can't fight for shit and following tougher, younger, possibly violent men when you are a wuss and come off like a wuss can only invite trouble. The Guardian Angels patrol neighborhoods, too, but these are usually tough young men and women who don't carry firearms. When they approach someone they think might be dangerous, they do it with the full realization they are putting their life on the line and may have to protect themselves with their fists. If a fight ensues, likely both will walk away, albeit with some damage. And, if you aren't going to carry a gun, you better go out on a group patrol or be a pretty big, tough dude.

George Zimmerman, on the other hand, brought a gun because he felt unsafe, probably because he knew he would lose if he ended up in a fight with anyone. Since George obviously hasn't spent much time in a gym, he quickly did end up on not being able to defend himself with his fists after Trayvon hit him, leaving his only resort to pull his weapon and shoot. Of course, Trayvon clearly went on far too long fighting a man who was no match for him and you do take your chances that the man down is going to pull out the only weapon that will work for him...in this case... a gun.  George says that he only pulled the gun when he realized Trevon was going for it, which actually gives George even more right to pull the weapon and fire. Considering how long the screaming went on, I would have to give George credit for holding off for as long as he did (assuming the reason wasn't that he simply couldn't get to the gun).

So, I conclude that George Zimmerman legally shot Trayvon Martin at the moment he pulled the trigger, but, I still feel like he deserves some penalty for instigating the confrontation, only because anyone carrying a weapon (except the police) should avoid trouble. George, carrying a gun on patrol bothers me because Trayvon might not have retaliated for having his presence be questioned if it had been a police officer. Doing so while armed and without a badge raises the level of risk for both parties. However, manslaughter does not really work in this case and the sentence would likely be way too high.

It is a difficult case for six untrained jurors to decide (and most of you folks know I dislike the jury system). I don't know if I could fault them for going any direction with their verdict because there the beginning of the exact confrontation is unknown although evidence seems to indicate Trayvon circled around and then sucker punched Zimmerman which would mean at that point Trayvon was the aggressor and the attacker. I wish them the best in trying to come up with a satisfactory conclusion and I hope the public will not burst out in anger regardless of which way these jurors go. Sometimes the law cannot so clearly address a complicated scenario in which both parties deserves some of the blame for the outcome, although Trayvon Martin actually is responsible for the criminal action.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 1, 2013