Posted on 07/05/2013 7:10:43 PM PDT by Nachum
Is the Zimmerman case really open and shut?
Many conservatives seem to think so. But are they letting leftists dictate their conclusion? Are they not guilty of the same rush to judgment that made liberals convict Zimmerman before the facts, and merely reacting to that injustice rather than to the actual elements of the case? Is it not possible that they are themselves victims of a toxic environment that polarizes all things racial?
It is a fact that many, if not most conservatives have already concluded that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime in connection with Trayvon Martin’s death and should be acquitted if justice is to be served. Indeed, this opinion was formed long before the trial began as a reaction to the outcry of liberals that Zimmerman was guilty — and guilty of being white – and that the crime was murder, and must be punished. But just because a lynch mob has formed to condemn Zimmerman in advance of the facts, does not mean one must conclude that Zimmerman is innocent of Trayvon Martin’s death.
The political melodrama that surrounds, and often overwhelms the judgments in this case reflects a culture war that has been roiling in this country for decades. It is a war in which the liberal ethos of “political correctness” requires that whites are bad and blacks are victims. Right-thinking individuals are justified in rejecting this poisonous standard. But in the interests of justice, the political melodrama should also not be allowed to obscure the reality of this trial: it is about the death of an unarmed 17-year-old, who was not a felon, who was on a neighborhood run to get Skittles, and whose life has been extinguished. Given that the young man was unarmed and that he inflicted very superficial injuries on
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Horowitz is an uninformed idiot on this one. The Stand Your Ground law does not apply here. This was a straight-up self-defense shooting.
From my one experience as a juror, I agree with this. I was impresses with many things from how we were treated in the process. The judge was very clear as to our responsibility and our power. He was also very clear about what it was we could and could not do.
You make a great point I think that television has actually altered the way prople think.
You're thinking Dershowitz, not Horowitz?
You’d think Nancy Grace would have learned something from her Duke lacrosse debacle. That any network puts her on-camera after that is a complete travesty.
Jon Stewart got this one completely right:
Duke (Non) Rape Case
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-12-2007/duke—non—rape-case
If you’ve never seen this, it’s funny as all, and totally eviscerates Nancy Grace.
AFAIK, no juror can be questioned as to why they reached the particular conclusion that they come to.
They can in the jury room amongst themselves and I expect that in this case they will. If there is one long holdout the other jurors will want to know why. If she gives a reason other than what was presented in court then she is in trouble.
No, YOU pay attention.I was answering another poster's comment about the SYG law. I KNOW Zimmerman did not plead SYG, in fact, I was one of the first posters on FR to point out that HIS defense didn't involve SYG and that in fact an SYG plea would comprise his clear-cut self-defense claim.
That is right on the money. I had hearrd this "jumping out of the bushes" meme break forth and I knew it was inaccurate. Thanks for setting that straight.
I guess David is back to being a liberal again?
Has he not followed the case, nor the evidence uncovered by various groups and websites?
The problem with the Zimmerman case is that too many GOP/Alleged Conservatives have bought and supported the liberal media spin....even as leftist lawyers in Orlando area are absolutely freaking out about how innocent Zimmerman is
The bushes do exist....
Also, it was dark and raining that night....try seeing a black kid in a black hoodie with no light
THC was found in his system though the judge won’t allow it to be admissible in court.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trayvon-martins-marijuana-use-2013-7
Trayvon created the confrontation, he could've been at his Dad's girlfriend's place watching the second half of the NBA All-Stars. But he had a bad attitude and he decided to take it out on a smaller guy.
It's like robbing a 7-11 with a plastic gun and the clerk has a real gun and blows the perp away. Stupid is as stupid does.
Did Trayvon "deserve" to die? No, stupidity and a bad attitude aren't capital offenses. The path wannabe gangsta Trayvon was on, could've lead to him killing other people or getting himself killed. How many young Black men are killed every year in this country? How many are just like Trayvon, young, bad 'tudes, gangstas and aggressive? Lots and lots of them are.
God works in mysterious ways. Only he knows who Trayvon would've hurt had he lived.
NOTE:
It is my understanding that Omara’s presentatation will include this witnesss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
Because L’il Debbie, after pre-trial hearings, disallowed the defence from using his drug report(autopsy).
On 7/05/13, Dr.dummie Rao in testimony referenced toxiccology reports he made and discussions he had with experts in that field. He testified that the victim could act diferently with MJ in his system, which he did.
Hence automatic grounds for an appeal if GZ is convicted of ANY crime! Per Judge Sheafer(WFTV-local) and a few other attorneys.
Let me punch you in the face and break your nose, @$$hat, then write another article talking about superficial injuries....
Only a doctor can deem whether injuries are "superficial" or not. Imagine the brain being banged around in the skull when someone's trying to pound your head against the curb/sidewalk.
The case will revolve around one question: are the female jurors more interested in the law and the facts, or are they more interested in avoiding personal danger and riots?
Many conservatives seem to think so. But are they letting leftists dictate their conclusion? Are they not guilty of the same rush to judgment that made liberals convict Zimmerman before the facts, and merely reacting to that injustice rather than to the actual elements of the case? Is it not possible that they are themselves victims of a toxic environment that polarizes all things racial?
I thought Z was guilty at first. The more I learned, the more I realized this may be a case of self defense. I now have zero doubt. I think it went down thusly:
Z saw the guy looking really up to something. In fact, so suspicious is the guy that it warrants one of his bi-monthly phone calls to the dispatcher. And when the subject sees him, what does he do? He approaches and circles his car like a shark. Think about that for a minute. Imagine you are in the car. How do you take that?
And then, while Z is on the phone, M takes off running. Zim takes off following him and they say, “we don’t need you to do that”. He says, “OK” and stops. He then wonders down the street to get a street name for them and on his way back Trayvon “fight club” Martin completely surprises him by stepping out of the bushes, gets in his face and sez, “you got a problem?!” Z says, no (which fits the persona if one looks at Z’s MO) and Martin sez, “Well, you do now!” and cold cocks him.
Z goes down and so the beating of his life begins. The guy is literally screaming like a little girl and, after about half a minute, the gun is exposed. They both see it and Z wins the fight for it. In the ensuing fight for the gun, Z pulls the trigger, hoping, if nothing else, it will scare M off of him. But it actually hits him.
I’m not saying this is what happened, but based on all the testimony heard so far, this is the most likely scenario.
The defense can rest first thing in the morning if the Jury is “normal and reasonable” people that will do the right thing.
Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong. If only he had known he was dealing with a punk with such hubris he might have been looking to get bushwhacked. Maybe the shark circle should have been a clue.
I’m surprised to read a Horowitz column this ill-informed.
He mentions “stand your ground,” despite the fact that Florida’s “stand your ground” law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case. He parrots the prosecution’s tiresome lines about superficial injuries, which is equally irrelevant to this or any other self-defense case. It is a simple, legal fact that lawful exercise of self-defense (in every state) requires no injury at all. If it did, you could only defend yourself against a gun by allowing yourself to first be shot. Think about that. He then lists out Zimmerman’s “lies,” taking each in the worst possible light (”the bushes or something” is not a lie at all, for example.)
Finally, he takes up Zimmerman’s interview on Hannity. Doing this interview was obviously idiotic, and certainly against his lawyer’s advice. Was his response that he had “no regret” creepy? No doubt. There is also little doubt that when facing serious legal jeopardy, as well as potential civil liability, he’d been advised by his lawyer not to admit any kind of wrongdoing. Zimmerman obviously does not have the media-savvy or communication skills to pull that off without looking creepy. That doesn’t make him guilty of a crime, it makes him guilty of terrible judgment in choosing to go on TV.
I’m pretty sure that by now he regrets that.
There is ample evidence that Trayvon Martin was not “guiltless of any crime,” as Horowitz says, unless I missed the part where aggravated, felonious assault is now legal. There has been eyewitness testimony to that. And you can’t theorize that Martin, having sustained no injuries at all, was defending himself, once you’ve dismissed Zimmerman’s injuries as “minor.” You can’t have it both ways.
A lot of things could have happened differently that night, and both men could have made other decisions that would have changed the result. It’s too bad Trayvon Martin is dead. I bet George Zimmerman replays it all in his head a hundred times a night, trying to make it come out differently - but that doesn’t mean he is guilty of a crime.
This case ought to be decided by the facts and the law, but I am afraid is more likely to be decided by Horowitz’s frightening standard that “somebody should pay a price.”
Horowitz is projecting. In his case, opposition to self-defense blinds him to clear facts, both as seen in court, and widely promulgated throughout the web, and causes him to sympathize with the perpetrator.
The second fallacy he pushes is the notion that it’s all about GZ’s guilt or innocence. It is not, and he knows it. GZ has no legal requirement to prove his “innocence”, and as far as the law goes, I do not care. What matters is that the State vigorously pursued serious charges, when it knew the evidence could not support conviction, to placate a racial/political constituency and manipulate a Presidential election. What matters is that the State has presented zero evidence in court that proves the charge “beyond a reasonable doubt” as required under Florida and US law. It hasn’t even come close, despite extensive help from the bench.
If the State gets away with arbitrarily charging people it knows it connot convict, any of us can be charged, jailed, bankrupted, forced into plea deals to save families, etc., even if at the end of the day, all evidence shows us not guilty. This case has exposed major collusion between the prosecution and judiciary. Using accusations and show trials to ruin political enemies cannot be allowed to become the American Way. I don’t want Horowitz to drop his pants, but I suspect those red diapers left stains.
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.