Messages from a Pro-Thug Lunatic


Hey folks, Well, being in the public spotlight, to a small degree, I get my share of nut job emails. Today I received a doozy. It collectively represents the tenor of a large majority of them in the nuttery department, although it's much more polite than most. Such being the case, I thought it worthy of sharing with all of you:

Mr. Andrew Branca:

Watching the Florida trial of George Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder, I felt he was guilty. I've worked for police and lawyers, and have a general interest in murder cases. In college testing, high aptitude scores for me included fields of legal and and investigative work, plus detail oriented work; e.g., "editing dictionary." Somewhere awhile back I got the impression that you might be for Zimmerman's ("GZ's") acquittal.

If you don't mind answering where you stood on FLvGZ I would like to know because if correct, we are at odds in our views. I have a particular interest in knowing whether your course covers more than the types of teaching and review of self-defense laws that Zimmerman was exposed to in his college classes. I don't know if you watched the trial but one of his instructors said they went over Stand Your Ground and self-defense quite significantly.

To me, it is very important not to create more George Zimmermans, and not to empower those who would emulate what he did. Had it been a straight self-defense case and were the circumstances as GZ claimed, then perhaps self-defense laws would have turned out to have worked as they were intended to. Instead, in this case we have a liar and murderer who forced an unarmed teen to defend himself, then used that defense as a launching pad to make the unarmed teen look violent, and as a reason to justify killing the kid and claiming self-defense; then this convoluted abuse of the laws was not recognized by a jury so the murderer has gotten off.

These are beliefs I have held and will continue to with regard to this case:

1. Zimmerman was the aggressor.

2. Rachel Jeantel's testimony is true and critical.

3. Trayvon Martin owns the screaming voice on the 911 call.

4. Trayvon Martin consistently acted with civility during the events of that night, until TM was FORCED to defend himself by GZ.

a) TM tried to AVOID GZ (running until he was BREATHING HARD). I would offer that TM was not noted to be particularly out of shape so being winded from the run, he went fast and maybe far;

b) After losing GZ, GZ reappeared & overtook TM at which time TM asked why GZ was following him. GZ ignored TM's Q, demanding an answer to his. Rachel's details that TM told her the man reappeared & was getting closer, when TM was near his Dad's. RJ heard TM SPEAK 1st, asking the Q; she heard GZ ignore that & demand an answer to, "What are you doing around here?!" Clearly TM is the civil one, trying to gain understanding thru talk, and earlier trying to avoid confrontation. So here thru talking, and earlier through running/losing GZ , TM displays civil methods -- not a rush to violence -- even though he surely was freaked out.

5. GZ dealt with TM from the beginning without giving Trayvon due respect. First of all, in all his suspicious thoughts about TM, the ONLY basis he had that resembled criminal profiling was that TM was a young black guy. The clothes were all wrong, since Serino advised GZ later that the clothes would have been black if fitting a criminal profile. Trayvon's clothes were grey over khaki over white sneakers. This also leaves the question of racial profiling more likely. GZ himself indicates he did not announce he was with NW, or his concerns to TM at any time leading up to the initial altercation.

6. I believe Witness #8 had encouraged TM to run again and TM had said he wasn't going to; he was near his Father's house. GZ had reappeared when TM was almost home and closed the gap. Witness #8 heard the physical altercation begin after GZ failed to answer TM's question and she heard TM yell "Get Off!" twice. Witness #1 saw a standing fist fight south of her resd and she lived south of the body; she heard the chase from south to north toward the "T." This means all of the made-up junk to make TM look like a thug by GZ saying it all began as he was innocently walking back to his truck, are all LIES.

Who 1st struck whom I can postulate about, and deadly force was not used, altho GZ reaching for a "gun" would easily have been the point at which TM's defenses kicked in; and drawing the gun IS assault. There are so many inconsistencies from GZ about these very moments in which he and TM first engaged physically, that it suggests to me obfuscation and so my mind is not willing to assimilate anything he describes about it unless Rachel's account corroborates what he claims.

I don't think it gets more heinous than wrongfully labeling as a suspect an unarmed kid, then hunting him down and confronting him, terrifying him then shooting him as he screams for his life. That is precisely what occurred in this case whether the jurors got it right or not.

Is there anything within your course that might serve as a safeguard so that the intended benefit of self-defense which is to protect the law abiding from the lawless is preserved, rather than to provide safe harbor for a lying killer to abuse the self-defense laws as is what has occurred in this case?

Thank you for your response.


My response was as follows:

I recommend that you not buy my book, nor attend my seminars.

Also that you seek psychiatric assistance. No person of reasonable mental health could have watched that trial and come to conclusions you have.  

Best regards,


To which I soon received the following reply:

You have some nerve trying to malign my observations and thought processes, when you know nothing about me. This isn't YouTube, but you sound just like the racists [edit: RAAACISSST!!!] and haters that resort to posting personal attacks when those of us who know the truth, state it. Further for an attorney you sound very immature and I've worked for some fine ones.

Some time ago it seemed you were trying to make a profit off of this tragic case and I get no sense that you have felt there was any and tragic loss of life that occurring when Zimmerman unnecessarily (& with depravity) murdered Trayvon Martin.

Perhaps one day you'll be disbarred sir. If you call yourself an attorney and have no more regard for the State's evidence in FL v GZ than you have described here, I would guess you might be negligent in your overall observations and affairs. Very amusing email.

Hope you improve yourself,


To which I could only reply:

Good riddance, you nut job. GO. AWAY.

Best regards,


But, of course, she WON'T go away.

Ah well.

Gotta run, I promised Maya a link to this blog post.


Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


"The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition," covers the current state of self-defense law in all 50 states. We've heard from many of you, however, that you'd like to dive even deeper into the self-defense law of your particular state--to have on hand the full-text of every self-defense statute, jury instruction, and even the full-text of the most important and controlling self-defense court decisions. Fitting 50-states worth of level of comprehensive detail would result in a book that weighs 500 lbs, which is why we didn't take that approach in "The Law of Self Defense." Due to the great demand for this further detail, however, we have begun rolling out a series of State-Specific Supplements that do provide exactly such  comprehensive coverage of each particular state's self-defense law. Right now these are available on a pre-publication basis at a 38% discount, with delivery of each to occur over the next 2-3 months--pre-publication customers will, as always, receive their books first, with shipment to the general public not beginning until all pre-publication customers have first been sent their books.  To see the five states we are starting with, vote for other states to be covered, or to place your pre-publication order, click here:  State-Specific Supplements.


Andrew is currently in the process of planning his Fall 2013 Seminar Tours. This time he'll be traveling from Boston, down the East coast, and then west to East Texas., (the "Southern" Tour) as well as from Boston to Ohio. (the "Northern" Tour)  We are also launching a series of webinars, essentially identical to the seminars, but accessible over the internet. Anyone interested in hosting or attending a seminar anywhere along that route, or participating in a webinar, please see Law of Self Defense Seminars/Webinars to get more information.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,, 2nd Edition" now available at and also at as either a hardcopy or in Kindle version.

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense and using #LOSD2, on Facebook,, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.