Could the mob have been wrong on Trayvon Martin?

The Washington Post ^ | May 18, 2012 | Jennifer Rubin

[GladesGuru]

“I neglected to mention that the above post was not directed to you, but because you were quoted therein. My apologies.”

OK -who ‘s posting under Carry_Okie’s screen name?
This has just gotta be a fake - Carry knows I like his posts. Anybody smell newbie troll?

;-)

[Carry_Okie]

I have not seen any credible evidence that Zimmermann confronted Martin. Admittedly, I don't know all the evidence - so I am forced to speak in hypotheticals.

Of which the list has serious omissions which render it no basis for a strong argument.

However, the evidence that I have heard is that Zimmermann started to follow Martin.

True.

At some point in this pursuit, he called 911.

We don't know when.

The 911 operator said he should halt pursuit.

Also true.

He did, and was returning to his van when he was attacked from behind by an indignent (and high) Martin.

We don't know that, and it makes no sense. Any crook would prefer to get away from notice. Martin has no record for unprovoked assault. Yet it is from this assumption upon which your entire premise relies.

Ok, leaving that aside (which you do not -CO) - it is not and should not be the role of the justice system to punish behavior that is not criminal.

I am asserting that this action is PROTECTING Zimmerman, for which there is good support. The police MUST keep him safe for trial. Were he simply released with no pending trial Zimmerman would have to get protection... how? With a trial, the mob will wait for the evidence and they will hear it whether they like it or not. If we're lucky, this will turn out exactly like the Duke Lacrosse case, so we do have a precedent for this being a successful course. What we've never had before is a racist provocateur in the White House... you know, the commander in chief of that National Guard upon which you rely.

That sets up the prosecution as judge, jury and executioner. Unless the prosecutor had a credible case against Martin he should not have been charged.

How then would the evidence get out? If Zimmerman is killed because that evidence did not get out, I'd call that a punishment by would be judge, jury, and executioner. Would that truly serve justice? Would the death of innocents pursuant to a riot serve justice? Your position then makes YOU the executioner, and for what?

Procedure pursuant to written law, not pursuit of justice for the purposes the law was written to serve.

That's why I offered the "filthy rags" analogy, because Christ taught that for exactly analogous reasons. "By their fruits shall ye know them."

Appealing to the thought of the consequences of a riot (which you take as a given; I do not), you argue the lesser evil is to charge Zimmermann.

We have a second precedent: Rodney King.

The government, in your scenario, is acting out of fear of the response of the mob rather than in accordance with the law.

Presuming that what you say is true it might be, yet you admit it may not be entirely true. How are we going to have an airing of the evidence without a trial? Had Zimmerman pursued and confronted Martin, the boy had reason to fear assault and what we would have is a tragic accident. All of the remaining facts would still hold.

By these little surrendars, bit by bit, the country will be abandoned to mob rule and the Constitution might as well be shredded.

Earth to In Maryland: It already has been shredded, nor does it apply here as this is a State matter... unless you have a case for how Zimmerman has been harmed by the State of Florida. Yet we do not know who landed the first blow or whether Martin was merely in a mode of paranoid 'self defense'; we only have Zimmerman's story, the physical evidence, and the witnesses recount that he was on the losing end of a fist fight with a physically superior opponent. It is true that most of his story has held up, but we do not have all of it. At this point, there is plenty of room here for doubt on either side. It is upon doubt that Zimmerman would be acquitted. Yet the prosecutor is not to use a reasonable doubt standard in bringing the case.

You admit to fear that Zimmerman may be convicted. What that suggests is that you have no faith in said law or a jury of his peers. What then is the basis for this restoration of Constitutional self-government you believe you are advancing here? You are asking the man to bear the consequences of reversing the tide you decry. I'm not sure he signed up for that.

The purpose of government is to secure life, liberty, and property. Under the conditions of mass brainwashing we have, there is observably no physical way to do that while applying the most rigorous interpretation of prosecutorial standards. Zimmerman will at the least be killed subsequent to said riot. Yet if he is acquitted, his rights were not violated. He won't have to pay for his defense. He'll get one hell of a settlement out of MSNBC (not to mention several others) and would be able to afford to get out of Dodge. Yet the government does have the absolute obligation to protect innocent life. I promise you: it cannot be done in this environment even with the National Guard. The communists will play this for all its worth because they know the jig is up in Washington and if you can't see the OWS warmups, you are brain dead (which, given your thoughtful post, I don't think you are). So I believe you merely overconfident.

I expected this argument when I first posted (even if metalurgist was incapable of it beyond his irresponsible, unsupported, obviously false, and profane shrieking, for which his posts (and mine quoting him) were deleted). We differ on a matter of value judgment. That's legit. And when it comes to a value judgment and when the facts are in doubt, I'm following the teachings of the Lord.

It is time for some patriots to stand up for the law - if a riot is so certain, call out the national guard in advance of an announcement and tell the world they have orders to shoot to kill any rioters, since as you admit, rioters cause a loss of innocent life.

Oh goody, SWAT teams under direction of a Democrat commander-in-chief bent upon exercising outrageously unconstitutional powers. Nice precedent you've got there. Look at how many homes paramilitary police have violated even the most basic rights, even with time to prepare. Look at what they did in New Orleans to gun owners. Here you are, assuming they won't mistakenly kill. You think the law a machine, when it is people.

"The law is an ass." Ever heard that? It's why we have jury nullification. Even the Constitution is not without serious flaws. Need an example? I'll give you two, one here, and one here.

We need leaders strong enough to stand up and say "I will not be cowed by threats, by charges of racism, by political considerations. I will enforce the law."

Sieg heil, no we don't. You talk about principle and WAY too easily forgo the first: Government by the consent of the governed. I am not consenting to a police state under Barack Obama. We need to get past this to rebuild the engine of liberty: truth in education, or we're sunk.