Showing posts with label George Zimmerman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Zimmerman. Show all posts

Monday, July 15, 2013

A Miscarriage of Justice

A 17 year old young man is dead.  His family are emotionally wounded, perhaps shattered.  The man who killed him walks free; his conscience is the only punishment (outside of punishment of standing trial) he will receive- provided someone seeking vigilante justice does not kill him.

And none of that is a miscarriage of justice.  The miscarriage of justice is that he was tried in the first place.  The miscarriage of justice is that the young man's family was told their son was murdered, and that the murderer would be jailed.  The miscarriage of justice is that people today want the gunman dead.

I speak, of course, of the case of Florida v Zimmerman, in which George Zimmerman was prosecuted for acting in self defense.  A case in which the special prosecutor did not maintain the properly- even necessary- distance from the case and instead promised young Trayvon Martin's family "Justice for Trayvon."  A case in which a family court judge ran a criminal court in the manner of family court.  A case which should have ended with the Prosecution failed even to prove there was a crime, let alone that Zimmerman was guilty of it.

On that rainy night, George Zimmerman called the police.  His story- a story which has not changed materially since the night of the shooting- is that he exited his vehicle to check the street name and street numbers to better guide police to the correct location.  I do not believe it incredible that he also attempted to locate young Mr. Martin, but there is no proof of that. 

Zimmerman's story continues: after hanging up with police and realizing he had no sight of Martin, he moved to return to his vehicle.  At this point, he was confronted my Mr. Martin.  This was no 12 year old cherub, as the media would have you believe.  He was a 17 year old football player, nearing the prime of his physical life.  He was a thug who liked fighting, and in a series of texts would lament that an opponent had not bled enough.

We do not know the specifics of that conversation.  We do know it was brief.  We also know that it was brief because of how quickly it became physical.  Zimmerman maintains that Martin attacked him, punching him in the nose, and that he (Zimmerman) was too stunned to defend himself until he was on the ground being straddled by Martin.  Zimmerman claims it was at this point he cried for help, and continued to do so until Martin discovered Zimmerman's concealed weapon, whereupon Martin (says Zimmerman) said "You're going to die tonight."

Zimmerman grabbed his gun and fired one shot.  That shot was fatal.  Martin would have lost consciousness within seconds.  He would have been dead within a number of minutes which does not require two digits to count.

All of this is Zimmerman's story.  On the record.  Repeatedly.  Never once has any material claim he made changed.

But what did the evidence say?  What did officers believe?  Evidence showed that Zimmerman had a damaged face, and abrasions on the back of his head.  Evidence showed no outward signs of physical trauma to Martin except scraped knuckles (as may have occured when punching someone in the face), and the single gunshot wound.  When they interviewed him, officers believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.  He was arrested and interrogated that night; he submitted to both without counsel.  The next day, he walked the investigators through his version of events- on camera.

The police decided all the evidence pointed to self defense.  The DA decided all the evidence pointed to self defense.  Mr. Zimmerman was released.

That should have been the end of it.  As tragic as that tale was, it should have ended there.  But it was not to be.  For a variety of reasons- I personally believe because Barack Obama was flagging in the polls- the Media picked up the story.  They decided that the Hispanic Zimmerman must be a white guy.  They decided that Zimmerman must have racially profiled Martin, and edited the 911 call to prove their point.

Because of Rick Scott's cowardice, special prosecutor Angela Corey was assigned to the case.  Using deceptive, even criminal, prosecutorial practices, she indicted Mr. Zimmerman on a charge of 2nd Degree Murder- a charge which requires more than mere rage, it requires a "depraved state of mind."  Ms. Corey promised "Justice for Trayvon."

Now, the trial is over.  For those of us who followed the trial closely, it was a bizarre, frightening thing.  The prosecution seemed to believe it merely needed to provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's account was accurate, rather than proving the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt."  The judge made strange decisions- somehow Mr. Zimmerman's past was relevant, but texts from Mr. Martin's phone (showing above mentioned history of violence) were not.  Defense motions were denied almost out of hand.  The Defense methodically destroyed every assertion made by the prosecution.  State's witness after State's witness provided testimony which not only did not contradict Mr. Zimmerman's account, but bolstered it.

Zimmerman was, thankfully, acquitted.  He should never have been tried, but he was.  And now he should be free.  The story should end there.  But it doesn't.

The Media and so-called "intelligencia" would *still* have you believe that Zimmerman was "morally, if not criminally" responsible for the death of Mr. Martin.  And that's the kindest version.  Many believe he literally got away with murder.  The New Black Panther Party wants him dead.  NFL Players wished him dead.  Many are clamoring for Federal Charges.

Zimmerman may have been acquitted, but he will never be free.  He must live now in fear for his life, for the lives of his family and loved ones.  All because of a miscarriage of justice.

Friday, June 15, 2012

This is Disgusting: AP Uses TX Killer to Indict George Zimmerman

In 2010, Raul Rodriguez confronted his neighbor and friends over a loud party.  He took a gun, a phone, and a video camera.  He called the police and documented pretty well the whole thing.  During the discussion, he used all the "right words."  That is, he claimed to be fearing for his life, felt he was threatened, and so forth.  Then he shot three of them, killing one.

He attempted to use the Castle Doctrine in his defense.  Note: UR Doing it Wrong.  You don't get to go to your neighbor's driveway and claim "castle doctrine!"  You also don't get to "throw the first punch" (or, in this case, fire the first bullet) and claim "self defense!"  He murdered one man and seriously injured two.  He was rightfully convicted recently.

If that were all, this wouldn't be very newsworthy, but Juan Lozano with the Associated Press doesn't let that stop him.  No, this completely unrelated case is used to indict George Zimmerman and Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law.

So, let's play "whack-a-mole" with the fallacies and false comparisons.

1) Stand-Your-Ground had anything to do with the George Zimmerman case.  It didn't.  George Zimmerman claimed straight self defense: that is, the altercation had already begun, he was being physically assaulted.  Stand-Your-Ground has nothing to do with it.

1a) The Castle Doctrine is 'Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law.  No, it isn't.  It's the castle doctrine as understood in virtually every state in the nation.  If someone comes onto your property, or attempts to enter your car, you get to assume they mean you harm and defend yourself.  And, again, it doesn't even apply in this case (thus the conviction.) 

2) "Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman..."  Again, no, it's not.  Zimmerman claimed straight self-defense.  It was race baiters and the perpetual grievance lobby who made that claim.

So, we know this is wrong on every particular as it relates to the George Zimmerman case.  So why make the comparisons?  Why draw these lines, if they're so easily shown broken?  The purpose is to further defame George Zimmerman.  Not defame in the legal, I can sue you for this, sense, but nevertheless to further hurt his image and reputation.  Also to harm the public image of both the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground (which are both very popular).  Indeed, the only reason the media is so fixated on George Zimmerman is they believe his case can further the crusade against guns.

See, if these laws (SYG and Castle Doctrine) are "making vigilantes," then the laws must obviously be bad, and should be changed.  Then, when gun crime does not drop (hint: people will still shoot each other, and Zimmerman's use of his gun wasn't a crime), they can claim that the problem wasn't the laws, but the guns themselves.  It's hardly new that getting rid of guns is the Holy Grail of a certain class of Liberal.  Recall the cries of the anti-gun lobby in the wake of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

And, to prove that the laws are "making vigilantes," you have to show a lot of bad actors using them as a justification for murder.  Thus, they must draw the correlation, however false, between Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Zimmerman, and the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground.  The facts that Mr. Rodriguez was not acting under the auspices of the Castle Doctrine, and Mr. Zimmerman was not acting under the auspices of SYG can't be brought up, because they'd expose the game.