If we had not all of us been born in original sin none of this would have happened
By this logic every time anyone gets out of an automobile he waves his legal rights especially his right of self-defense. That he got out of his car is utterly irrelevant to the issues in the case just as the preposterous question, "Did the fact that Martin was black play a role in Zimmerman's actions?"
Assuming arguendo that Zimmerman hated black people-a preposterous supposition considering his heritage and known public record of working with black children-is utterly irrelevant unless one can prove a crime occurred. If no crime occurred there was no race crime. There was no crime of any kind and Zimmerman's state of mind as an alleged racist is of no legal relevance. To assume otherwise is to argue that Zimmerman had a right to shoot and kill a man bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement if the man were white or Hispanic, but not if the man were black. Why? Because Zimmerman was racist. One's legal rights to self-defense do not turn on one's degree of political correctness.
The article, perhaps in some distorted politically correct idea of journalistic "fairness," opines:
"But other evidence supports the contention of Martin's parents that Zimmerman was the aggressor."
What evidence? The first piece of "evidence" produced to support the contention is not evidence at all but opinion:
"The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him. The report was written March 13, nearly a month before Zimmerman's eventual arrest."
Zimmerman had an absolute right to get out of his car. It does not affect his right to self-defense one iota. The opinion of the officer in his report is nothing but opinion. It does not describe any violation of law or any action which would vitiate a right of self-defense.
Next, the article cites as support of the case against Zimmerman:
"He said there is no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity as he walked from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiance in the same gated community where Zimmerman lived."
So what?
Evidence of Martin's innocence of collateral criminal activity is not proof of Zimmerman's guilt of criminal activity. The author shamefully conflates the two. There is other evidence of Martin being on drugs which the author diminishes but which is certainly relevant and that which I believe the court could not rightly exclude contrary to the assertion the article.
This is evidently the sum total of the "evidence" tending to show Zimmerman's guilt. The author does adduce other factors which perhaps he intended include in his list of "facts" tending to show Zimmerman's guilt. The author says:
"A distraught woman told an investigator that she stays away from Zimmerman because he's racist and because of things he's done to her in the past, but she didn't elaborate on what happened between them."
Can you imagine a judge permitting such testimony as this to be introduced in a criminal trial? Even if true, and even if it shows racial hatred by Zimmerman against blacks, it is utterly irrelevant until a crime is demonstrated. It does not relate to Zimmerman's right of self-defense which exists quite independently of his state of mind. Remember, his right to self-defense is not subjective but objective, did he reasonably believe he was in imminent jeopardy of grave bodily harm? This has nothing whatever to do with whether he hates black people or likes strawberry ice cream.
The author has one more piece of evidence culled from the huge supply of evidence submitted by the prosecution:
"The man, who described his heritage as "Middle Eastern," said that when he first started, many employees didn't like him. Zimmerman seized on this, the employee said, and bullied him."
How did Zimmerman bully him? The article states:
"Zimmerman wanted to "get in" with the clique at work so he exaggerated a Middle Eastern accent when talking about the employee, the man said. The employee told investigators that Zimmerman made reference to terrorists and bombings when talking about him."
Please.
This travesty of justice is engaged with the media in a synergistic travesty of journalism.
If only Zimmerman had not been born in original sin.
