Mr. Zimmerman “Not Guilty” (Was there ever any question?)

Okay, the show trial for the purpose of political correctness has run its course and Mr. George Zimmerman has been judged ‘Not Guilty’.

Which is what the police department said in the first place, if anyone remembers.

Then Al Sharpton got involved, remember?  I have a serious question for anyone willing to chime in:  Who in the world would take Al Sharpton seriously?  I really want someone to answer this question.  Sharpton was the spearhead for the Tawana Brawley case, remember?  Remember the completely fraudulent claim of rape?  Remember Sharpton’s comments on the Bernard Goetz case, where Bernard Goetz was approached and threatened with violence to surrender his money?  Mr. Goetz shot the four stickup men in self-defense and Sharpton declared Mr. Goetz a racist because he didn’t surrender his money.

Why is anyone going to take Sharpton seriously?

George Zimmerman was a citizen legally in place and legally armed.  Trayvon Martin was a huge (four inches taller than Zimmerman), tattooed, thug-looking man of only seventeen years.  Martin took exception to Zimmerman looking him over and attacked Zimmerman, throwing Zimmerman to the ground and beating Zimmerman’s head against the ground.  In fear of his life, Zimmerman shot Martin, ending Martin’s life in the course of the attack.

The local police investigated the event and concluded Zimmerman acted in self-defense – as did, one notes, the jury in the recent court case.  So why was Mr. Zimmerman later charged with murder and put on trial?

To placate Al Sharpton.  To placate the parents of Trayvon Martin.  To placate the demonstrating crowds of racist minded people who were demanding revenge on an honest man who resisted being beaten by a black thug.

Much has been made of the fact Martin was ‘unarmed’.  What is important in self-defense is the actual ability and willingness to commit harm.  Mr. Zimmerman’s physical condition following Martin’s attack demonstrates both the ability and willingness to do bodily harm to Mr. Zimmerman.  For the period 2007 to 2011, 811 people every year were killed by ‘bare hands’ (officially ‘personal weapons’ which include feet and teeth).  Martin not being in immediate possession of a ‘weapon’ does not diminish the threat to Mr. Zimmerman, nor protects Martin from self-defense.

Now Mr. Zimmerman has been acquitted of the charges.  Already the racial hatred group called the NAACP wants the President to pursue ‘civil rights’ charges against Mr. Zimmerman.  So, defending oneself against a violent attack by a black man is racist?  What a curious idea.

The Attorney General of the United, Eric Holder, made a public statement wherein he stated Mr. Zimmerman’s killing of Martin was “… unnecessary and tragic…”  Unnecessary?  How so?  The jury in the case said it was self-defense.  What isn’t necessary about repelling an attacker?  Also, how can the Attorney General make such sweeping comments – a conclusion, by the way – PRIOR to an ‘investigation’?  It seems the results of the investigation are not in doubt; just finding the facts to support the conclusion is left.

And for those who have been able to avoid the news, the FBI did an extensive investigation in the lead up to the Zimmerman court case and found no evidence of ‘racial’ prejudice.  Of course, since a white (more or less, George Zimmerman is also Hispanic which is not white) man defended himself against a black attacker, there MUST be white prejudice involved.  At least, that’s the claim of the Sharptons and Holders of the world.

How about this:  Let’s have an end to violent attacks and see if the number of self-defense caused injuries abate?  How about if the citizens of the United States start teaching their children to operate within the law, not commit crimes and conduct themselves like proper people?



Filed under Civilization, Idiot Politicians, Political Correctness, Politics, Racism, Uncategorized

11 responses to “Mr. Zimmerman “Not Guilty” (Was there ever any question?)

  1. Alex Jones

    It seems the court findings based upon the known facts and the interpretation of the law was correct. The case highlights the sad reality that on both sides of the racial divide people scream and shout based upon the colour of a person’s skin. Neither public opinion or the words of a politician should be allowed to determine the outcome of a trial.

    • Yes, Mr. Jones; the court finding was based on known facts and the law.

      However, if one looks at what is going on, only the defenders of Trayvon Martin, the attacker, is screaming about race and skin color. By the way, what do you feel about ‘public opinion or words of a politician’ over-riding the facts and forcing a trial?

      • Alex Jones

        Public opinion and politicians deny an individual a fair trial. if this happens a trial should never proceed.

      • Mr. Jones, you are correct in your first statement. Public opinion and politicians can and do on occasion deny a fair trial. However, in our legal system there is no mechanism for dropping a trial due to ‘outside influence’. In the immediate instance, all the public opinion and political influence was correctly ignored and the verdict was given on the basis of the law involved and the facts of the matter. That is a good thing.

        The bad thing, a very bad thing, are those who argue that ‘…even if the verdict was correct by law, then the law should be changed…’ What does that mean? That self-defense should be illegal? Or merely self-defense against ‘minorities’ should be illegal? Or that persons should be guilty on the basis of what the mob ‘feels’ at the moment?

  2. Panos48. If you wish to make a comment, you must make sense, not just yammer stupidly.

  3. I’ll admit I didn’t follow the trial closely. I hate “show trials”, because just having cameras there presents a false impression of the importance of the case.

    I have to take a bit of exception to your characterization of what happened. I’m not saying the verdict is wrong, because to me the Floridian legal concept of self-defense is a bit screwy. The jury probably did follow the law. But – even though Zimmerman was legally armed and legally in place, Martin was also legally in place, not a dangerous intruder as Zimmerman assumed. The young man was certainly no angel, but at the time of the event he was doing nothing wrong.

    Zimmerman followed the young man in direct violation of the advice of a 911 dispatcher. He caused an escalation of violence between two individuals who already regarded each other with distrust. He’s not a policeman. His service mission was to keep watch, not to guard, tail someone he (falsely) assumed was a suspect, nor to confront or detain them. If Zimmerman had not chosen to follow, the conflict between the two would not have occurred and he would not have had to shoot when the two fought. His choice to follow Martin lead to the death, even if the life was taken in self-defense.

    This may not be the kind of crime that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but it might still be either a civil rights violation, since Martin was not committing a crime by walking through his father’s neighborhood (no matter how criminal he “looked”), or a wrongful death case by civil law standards – a preponderance of the evidence. I’m not a lawyer. I guess we’ll see what happens.

    • Mikey, you miss the screamingly obvious.

      Trayvon Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman without cause. That is what justified the shooting. What part of that evades your grasp?

      • Cause (motive) for Martin’s action was not supposed to be what the case was focused on. It was supposed to determine Mr Zimmerman’s motive, whether the shooting was justified, which the jury ruled on. Of course if you reverse the whole purpose of the case and instead try the dead victim as a suspect (for being black or looking dangerous or other nonsense), you can easily come up with a conclusion like you just presented (as being screamingly obvious). That’s exactly what I meant by the Floridian concept of self-defense. It’s implied in the law that it’s okay to kill someone if they “look wrong” and make you afraid. I was born in St. Louis. The attitude isn’t unfamiliar to me.

        The young man may have felt threatened because he was being followed, which he reported to his friend on the phone. He wasn’t committing a crime by walking through his father’s neighborhood, and most teenagers are more prone to anger and acting out than adults. The entire event was precipitated by Zimmerman disregarding his role to watch, when he chose to follow with intent to detain, confront or some other action beyond his legal authority, against the advice of 911. Two people already prone to distrust fought as a result. The incident was avoidable. Zimmerman’s actions, while not legally culpable in this case, made it happen.

      • Correct, Mikey; the case was to decide whether Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense. He did.

        The jury found Mr. Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life, or great bodily harm (or other legal wording to that effect). In other words, the jury agreed Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman NOT in self-defense, or other legal ground.

        Your reading that Florida law implies “…it’s okay to kill someone if they “look wrong” and make you afraid” is clearly inaccurate. Feel free to look this up if you don’t believe me:

        Florida Statutes
        776.012 Use of force in defense of person.–A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

        (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

        (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. (This section refers to defense of home, which does not apply.)

        Since at the time of the shooting, Trayvon Martin had George Zimmerman on the ground, beating Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk, George Zimmerman could not retreat had he desired, could he? Further, having one’s head banged on pavement can easily result in ‘… death or great bodily harm…’

        So tell me, how did George Zimmerman cause Trayvon Martin to attack him? I really want to hear your logic.

      • I believe I already answered that. He chose to follow him. That’s an indirect cause, rather than a direct cause. If he had not followed him, which Martin probably incorrectly perceived as a threat, the attack upon him would not have taken place. Both these men felt threatened. To me, neither had justification for use of force. The tragedy is that the entire incident was completely and easily avoidable, if neither man had decided to approach the other.

  4. So, walking down the street behind another person is provocation? You are aware George Zimmerman was active in the Neighborhood Watch program, and doing things reasonable and customary pertaining?

    Mikey, that’s absolutely absurd and defenseless. Mr. Zimmerman being on the street is not provocation for an attack. If it is, I suggest you refrain from walking down any more streets.

    Great alternative for a honest, law-abiding citizen, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s