Posted on 07/04/2013 11:33:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I started this article over a year ago, when the wounds of Trayvon Martins death were still fresh. I never finished it, in part, because the emotions were still so raw. There hadnt been enough time to process what had happened to that young man who only wanted to get back home with his Skittles & tea and watch basketball, only rage and disgust. Then there was the feeling that nagged me, a sense that Trayvon Martins killer might get off. The rage and disgust are gonenot gone, never gonesubsided; but I still cant shake that feeling.
Keeping up with the case, as presented so far, the prosecution has done a fine job of establishing many of the facts, but a number of the prosecutions witnesses have played into the hands of the defense. Some of the testimony has bolstered their claims that, at the moment of the shooting, it was the killer who felt his life was in danger, that regardless to what happened prior to the shooting, the killer thought he needed to kill in order to survive.
Whether thats true or not doesnt matter. What matters is what the twelve jurors believe to be true. And if weve learned anything after the Rodney King, OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and so many other trials of the recent past, juries are a tricky thing. You can, like me, listen to all of the testimony, but were not sitting in that jury box watching through their eyes, thinking with their minds, feeling with their hearts. Their job is not to determine whether the killing of Trayvon Martin was right or wrong, just or unjust. Their job is to determine whether the defendant abided by Floridas Stand Your Ground law. Did Trayvon Martins killer reasonably believe it [was] necessary to [stand his... ...ground and meet force with force, including deadly force] to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony? Was he within the law?
I dont think that question is an easy one to answer for any jury, so much so that I would not be surprised by a hung jury, and I certainly wouldnt be shocked at an acquittal. Trayvon did put up a fight, the same way I taught my children to if they were ever accosted by some creep that could have easily been a pedophile. Id go so far as to say that Trayvon would have whipped his assailants ass, were it not for the gun.
So, what would that mean? Would we see rioting in the streets, again, if Trayvons killer is found not guilty? I hope not. I hope people could look past the apparent miscarriage of justice and understand that a verdict of not guilty is the only way to change how things are done in Florida, not to mention other states with similarly barbaric statutes.
Dont get me wrong. Trayvon Martin deserves justice. His death is nothing less than murder, plain and simple. But too many states have essentially legalized murder with laws that allow anyone to kill anyone else on the pretext that they fear for their life. MMA training or not, there is nothing fiercer than a teenager whos afraid for his well-being. I would have been afraid. I wouldnt have been carrying a gun, though. A verdict of guilty will put the killer in jail for a bit, but it will also justify the law. Florida can say, See, the law works. Nothing changes, until the next poor, unsuspecting victim falls prey to an overzealous vigilante with deluded aspirations of grandeur.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, Which outcome would be best for everyone? Travon Martin is already a martyr. No verdict will bring back all that lost life and potential. Trayvons legacy will be measured in how his tragic death affects this country and its laws. While I would love to see Trayvons killer locked away for what he did, moving this country in a more humane direction would be the bigger prize. A verdict of not guilty may not accomplish that, but I think its the only chance. Brace yourselves.
The Author
Mentally ill racist.
I stopped reading after this.
-PJ
“....only wanted to get back home with his Skittles & tea and watch basketball.”
So how come it took 40+ minutes to get back to his place from the 7-11 a few blocks away?
“Stand Your Ground law”
Yeah - he mentions this like the idiot that he is. And it took him a YEAR to write this crap!?
Then why didn't he go on home instead of attacking the "cracker"?
Zimmerman had LOST him. That being the case, there was certainly plenty of time and opportunity for a lanky 17-year-old - who was athletic enough to have played football - to trot on home in the dark and rain and watch that basketball game.
Fact is, "Saint Trayvon" didn't WANT to go home. He wanted a confrontation. He wanted to smash George Zimmerman's nose and pound his head against the concrete.
That being the case, "justice for Trayvon" has already been administered.
“Id go so far as to say that Trayvon would have whipped his assailants ass, were it not for the gun.”
The defense rests your honor.
It took him a year to write that emotional drivel?
Justice is BLIND.
Not the brightest bulb on the tree.
What a misguided idiot. He has so many facts wrong it’s pointless to list them. He comes to almost the right conclusion through stupidity
BooHoo. Shed me a tear.
Yep... 12 jurors???
Clearly this guy is following the trial VERY closely.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, Which outcome would be best for everyone?
Good idea considering this clueless dork doesn't know there are only six and not twelve.
I dont agree with very much of what 2nd Vet says on this matter though I have agreed with many of his other posts. If you REALLY study the story and get as many facts pertaining to the history, witness testimony, the evidence and the timelines what you have is two asteroids that were hurling towards each other that resulted in death which could have been averted if either one had decided to pull back and let it go. It could have been Zimmerman’s death just as easily but then it would only have been a passing story that would have been forgotten within the week. I wont go into all the facts that led me to this conclusion as its been repeated on these forum ad nauseum. The who fiasco has been politicized to the hilt for maximum effectiveness in regard to polarizing black against white votes at the voting booths (IMHO of course).
Was he within the law?This is an easy one - Yes.
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.