Skip to comments.The Tribune's View: Zimmerman, Standing his ground
Posted on 04/16/2012 12:33:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The state of Florida has charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second-degree murder for shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman will defend himself by claiming Florida law allowed him to "stand his ground" against Martin's threatening behavior.
Evidence of what really happened is scant. Martin is dead, and no eye witnesses saw the encounter. A 911 recording casts doubt on Zimmerman's account, but the Florida law will make it hard to get a conviction.
It's hard to believe under the circumstances that a large armed adult had to shoot an unarmed teenager in self-defense, but the extra layer of justification provided by the ridiculous "stand your ground" law invites this sort of mayhem.
The law, passed at the behest of the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights promoters, gives people the broad right to use deadly force without having to retreat from a fight. It gives a decided edge to someone like Zimmerman, who hauls out a gun and eliminates an adversary. In defense, he need only show "by a preponderance of evidence" he was acting in self-defense to get a judge or court to deny a second-degree murder conviction.
Many observers think prosecutors made this relatively tough charge expecting it to fail, moving the onus to the court.
The basic culprit in this and similar cases is the law itself. Unless indisputable video or eyewitness evidence exists, proving self-defense is easy. Martin and Zimmerman did meet face to face. Who is to say which one was trying to "stand his ground?" Even without anything beyond the evidence at hand, a reasonable person would conclude the big, adult neighborhood watchman confronted the teenager.
That this is a "white on black" killing injects a toxic racial overtone. If Zimmerman walks, the surrounding black population might erupt; but regardless of race, the law is misbegotten. The only justifiable defense in such cases is "self-defense" without the legal encouragement for deadly force. Since hardly ever will evidence to the contrary clearly exist, shooters are almost always assured of protection under the law.
In a perverse sense, it's too bad the black kid was the victim instead of the shooter. If the killing had been black on white, the white public might be more eager to recognize the paucity of the "stand your ground" law, a sad but true indication of continuing racial bias.
In an earlier day when white vigilantes threatened black people, nobody proposed a "stand your ground law." Today the law tends to cast the likes of Trayvon Martin as a predator in an interracial encounter. If the killing had been black on black, would the "stand your ground" law be in play?
Good luck with that.
Fat Albert has a nasty history of not paying judgments against him.
By not getting to the point of needing a jury.
The case can be dismissed by showing that there is no evidence of “mens rea” (to wit: guilty mind), and to the contrary there is evidence of justified self defense (injuries consistent with being a victim of assault); if there is nothing which could be construed as evidence of the charges, there is no point in convening a jury to evaluate that non-existent evidence.
Remember: it’s “innocent until proven guilty”. If there’s nothing which anyone could construe as proof of guilt, he’s deemed innocent.
A competent lawyer should be able to pull this off (assuming Z _is_ in fact innocent) notwithstanding the “stand your ground” law.
“Have the toxicology reports come out yet?”
It would be interesting to see this info, but if the “pro-Zimmerman” narrative is correct, no drug-induced aggression was needed. Adrenaline and landing a heavy sucker punch to the nose provide enough edge to win most fights. The text message Martin had received, “I didn’t know you swung on no bus driver,” indicates prior experience with slugging authority figures he didn’t like. Is there any info on that incident out there? Was the driver hit in the face? (Apologies that this is off topic, but the linked editorial is too mendacious for comment).
Henry, your account of th Zimmerman shooting sounds like you got the script from NBC. No witnesses. I heard there was one or possibly two. One said they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman pounding away. The audio being portrayed as Trayvon screaming is weak at best. You sound just like the Leftists who jumped to a LYNCHMOB conclusion in hopes to score political points painting Zimmerman as a white racist out to kill the poor inocent black child.
I’m honestly confused here. Why, if the the video and photo evidence clearly doesn’t match with the police reports (no blood from either of them or grass stains on zimmerman’s clithing, no wounds or even swelling on Zimmerman’s head or face, etc.) why are we so readily leaping to his defense? Is it just because the libs, Sharpton, Jackson, et all took the other side, or is there actual logical honesty here? Why are we following their lead in being so certain of what happened before a trial?
First of all, who is this “we” you speak of? You got here exactly 10 days ago. Secondly, you need to keep up: The “video and photo evidence” was enhanced and does show wounds and other things consistent with Mr. Zimmerman’s account of what happened.
Another smelly turd of an article from the Lynch Mob Media.
The problem I have is that even the enhanced video is ambiguious at best, showing what could be something on his head, and only really supports presupposed conclusions on both sides. And, then there’s the nose, and like said earlier, no blood evidence. It’s amazingly cloudy, which is keeping me from jumping on the “I support you George” wagon.
You also have to claim that the Sanford police officer at the scene and the Sanford Fire Dept. fireman who treated Zimmerman at the scene lied about him bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.
That original police report is available elsewhere on the Internet.
If I was Zimmerman’s attorney I think I would demand that a life size cut-out of Martin be placed in a chair at the prosecution table or standing in the court room in view of the jury. My argument to the judge for this would be because of the vast amount of publicity that showed pictures of Martin as a 12 year old kid. I would argue that this meme prejudices my client’s ability to get a fair trial and that to offset this meme and the impression that all jurors most likely have is to allow them to see Martin in the court room daily, just as they will see Zimmerman daily.
Huge lie, there was at least one eye witness and probably more.
Trayvon Martin’s killer showed signs of injury: neighbors
“Proof” does not figgure in this case. The is a case of legal politically inspired lynching.The strong message that is to be sent to Whites is that if attacked by a Black and or a group of Blacks, should you successfully defend yourself, the law will come after you.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised. I agree with Ann Barnhardt...every member of Congress and every member of the current administration is a piece of sh*t.
>>If I was Zimmermans attorney I think I would demand that a life size cut-out of Martin be placed in a chair at the prosecution table<<
It was a stroke of luck (or genius) that Z’s attorney is about the same height as Trayvon, making Z look very short standing at the defense table.
Nope, did not notice!
“Everyone in this country should feel shame looking at this picture...every one of you.”
I’m not following your comment. Why should “...every one of you” feel shame?
Because they're the GOOBERMINT, and inconvenient laws shouldn't keep them from persecuting/prosecuting you, unless you can PROVE you're innocent. If something even casts doubt on your account, that should be enough for a conviction.
I thought leftists were all about the civil rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.