George Zimmerman, the Constitution, and the shifting politics of self-defense

csmonitor.com ^ | 7 July, 2012 | Patrik Jonsson

[marktwain]

George Zimmerman’s lawyer says at the heart of the Trayvon Martin murder case lies a constitutional prerogative: The right of Americans to carry guns and use them in self-defense. Is he right?

Within 24 hours of Seminole County, Fla., Judge Kenneth Lester issuing a stern order allowing George Zimmerman, the defendant in the Trayvon Martin murder case, to post a $1 million bond, the volunteer neighborhood watchman received over $25,000 in donations, bringing his defense war chest to nearly a quarter of a million dollars.

Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s attorney, wrote that donors have been lining up for several reasons – that he’s been unfairly treated by the media, that he’s been falsely labeled a racist, and that donors, if they were in a similar position, would likely have done the same thing.

But in making an appeal for more funds, Mr. O’Mara also suggested on Friday that many Americans have given because they feel “this case is an affront to their constitutional rights,” namely the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

IN PICTURES: Trayvon Martin

To be sure, many commentators say the case has mainly to do with Zimmerman violating Martin’s equal protection rights by profiling him and then illegally depriving the boy of his basic constitutional right of life.

But judging by the speed and size of donations to the defense fund, it’s clear the case continues to provoke a separate debate about America’s shifting stance on gun rights and the constitutional case for self-defense.

“People … are definitely thinking and talking about it,” Terrence Mayfield, 61, a Florida gun permit holder, told the New York Times a few weeks before the latest bond hearing. “This whole thing rests on who threw the first punch. Either the gun saved Zimmerman’s life or we had a cowboy, someone who

[Bringbackthedraft]

I like to see Zimmerman get off, not because he was carrying a gun and had to use it, but so he can sue all the MSM that created this show with their bias and provocative reporting.

[Socon-Econ]

“This whole thing rests on who threw the first punch.”

**********

Are people totally without common sense nowadays? Nobody with a hidden gun would initiate a fist fight and thereby risk getting put into a position where he could not use his gun.

[freeangel]

Kind of makes me hope that a criminal type druggie makes Lester and his family a target and then let’s see him try and proclaim his attacker an innocent.

[Uncle Chip]

Are people totally without common sense nowadays? Nobody with a hidden gun would initiate a fist fight and thereby risk getting put into a position where he could not use his gun.

So very true.

And how could a 5'7.5" short obese 28 y/o office worker possibly chase down a 6'2" tall lean 17 y/o street fighter who has a 20 second head start on him and was only 100 yards from home to start with???

If you listen to the 911 tape, GZ was out of breath and hardly able to talk after running for a mere 15 seconds.

[battletank]

Oh yes. I’m a Treeper as well as a Freeper and I am appalled with what is going on with this case!!

[Uncle Chip]

The most appalling of all. Note this from the Order to Set Bail by Judge Lester:

"Notably, at the initial bond hearing, this court had only limited evidence; to that point, the State showed that the Defendant had shot and killed Trayvon Martin."1

And now the footnote from Judge Lester:

1 "This is undisputed. The Defendant apologized on the record for shooting and killing Martin."

What?????

Thank You Mark O'Mara for putting your client on the witness stand to apologize "on the record". You gave the State that one undisputed fact that Judge Lester cited as outweighing all others and subjected your client to needless cross-examination. Did you really think an apology "on the record" would calm the madding crowd???

Instead by doing so Mark O'Mara delivered his client's head on a platter and "on the record".

He's got to go before he does any more damage. GZ had better wake up to this quickly.

[khelus]

Here’s partial transcript per AP:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/20/excerpts-from-zimmerman-apology-testimony/

which opened up opportunity for Crump:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-tells-trayvon-martins-parents/story?id=16177849

[Uncle Chip]

Thanks. Add that to this from the conservative treehouse:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2904366/posts?page=6#6

[khelus]

Today is the first time I saw the testimony. Those words you emphasized are the ones that caught my attention. O’Mara allowed Zimmerman’s actions to labeled as a crime in court without an objection.

I get the impression that George is a very naive and trusting soul who needs someone to inform hum of the realities of politically correct justice and legal repesentation.

[Uncle Chip]

Those words you emphasized are the ones that caught my attention. O’Mara allowed Zimmerman’s actions to labeled as a crime in court without an objection.

Yep. Where was he??? Sleeping??? What was the purpose of allowing his client to take the stand for an apology in the first place??? Did he think they were going to accept it and say all is forgiven and let's all shake hands and go home???

And amazingly the same thing that happened at the April 20th hearing was about to happen again at the June 29th hearing. Mark O'Mara was all set to put his client on the stand again for another apology that would only be taken by the Court as an admission of the commission of a crime.

He needs a defense attorney not someone surreptitiously working for the State. Mark O'Mara needs to go or GZ is toast.

[Uncle Chip]

I get the impression that George is a very naive and trusting soul who needs someone to inform hum of the realities of politically correct justice and legal repesentation.

Yep -- he's a registered Democrat. Need I say more???

[khelus]

Ah.. That may explain that deer-in-the-headlights I’ve seen in pictures. George’s entire Weltanschauung has been turned upside down.

[cycjec]

Thanks for this comment. “The Last Refuge”/theconservative
treehouse.com has been indefatigable in researching many
facets of this prosecution. So many that I must refer
readers to the site.

[cycjec]

the entire CSMonitor item is a classic of liberal FUDD
and distraction, especially the closing lines (which aren’t
especially relevant to the Zimmerman situation). Note that
the title is “the shifting *politics* of self-defense” not
the “Constitutionally recognized right of self-defense.”