http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/is-the-zimmerman-case-really-open-and-shut/
It's by a brand new conservative! Welcome to sanity, Sasquatch!
Here is the full post. He has other posts at the link.
Sasquatch • 19 hours agoThis article, like so much of the coverage of this case, is incredibly fact-deficient. First off, let me personally dispel, or at least help dispel the notion that conservatives rushed to judgement on this case in the same fashion, but opposite direction as compared to liberals. I was a liberal when this case broke. It is precisely because of how incredibly fact-ignoring, judgement-rushing, and race-baiting my fellow liberals, and formerly trusted liberal news sources were toward this case, that I ended up ceasing to be one.
It is also not true to portray views on this case as though they are just six of one, half a dozen of the other... or that both sides are equally guilty of viewing it through their political prism. I spent about the first week knowing about this case as someone thinking Zimmerman was an obvious racist, and murdering monster. My perspective changed as a direct result of exposure to more FACTS and EVIDENCE from this case. Increased knowledge of the circumstances of that night, and of the relevant law... is directly connected to being a "pro-Zimmerman" person. The more ignorant and emotional a person is regarding the facts of this case, the more firmly they will support Trayvon. I've noticed white talking heads on TV about this case are jumping ship as more information comes out during trial... blacks are circling the wagons which has been the entire story of this case.
Let me now address a couple of the errors in this article, or possible errors:
1.) The bushes do exist, David. There are bushes alongside the houses in that dog walk area, and Zimmerman never expressed certainty that Trayvon had been using them to hide. If you look at the totality of his first few statements, all within 24 hours of the incident, it is clear that when he initially mentioned bushes, this was his attempt to make sense of where this person had come from. He at that time wasn't aware of the likelihood that Trayvon got home and came back to attack. He was called out to from behind, and turned to see Trayvon there. He was trying to make sense of how Trayvon had suddenly reappeared, and suggested the bushes as a possibility. Never did he say he was certain of it, and at the on scene walkthrough he made it clear it was merely the "darkness" that Trayvon had emerged from. So you're doubly wrong on this, bushes were there, and he wasn't firm on them anyway. It was him attempting to explain something to police.
2.) Hannity asked him "before this all happened,had you ever heard 'stand your ground'?" now this is where you'll need to pay close attention. "Stand your ground" is a nickname for a 2005 modification of self-defense law, castle doctrine. One can have taken a class that dealt with self-defense law, and not necessarily heard it referred to in that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I mostly just heard his professor talking about teaching self-defense law... if anything it seemed he was saying they didn't focus on state-specific law. But if they did cover SYG, it may have merely been in using the statue number. So, GZ may have merely meant he hadn't heard that phrase before. Which could be true.
3.) Zimmerman did not lie about bail money, though it can be argued his wife probably did. However, she offered during the bail hearing to get GZ's brother on the phone, who had the most up to date figures on the balance of the PayPal account. The prosecutor didn't take her up on that. Why would she offer to get the exact amount in the account for them if the goal was to hide the funds? Code talk about the funds on prison phone conversations may merely have been GZ not wanting fellow inmates to hear about the money. I will agree that it does seem the Zimmermans were a bit deceptive on this issue, but it's an unclear situation at best. I find it telling that the prosecutors didn't include the line about offering to get the up to date figure when they filed charges against her, but included the lines immediately before and after it.
4.) People assume GZ wouldn't have behaved the same without a gun but based on paying exhaustive attention to this case, and every bit of available information, I believe he would have. I believe he was 100% certain Trayvon would keep running until he was out of the gates. I don't think he entertained the idea they'd come into direct contact, at all. I also don't believe Trayvon was scared in any way, I believe he knew what capacity GZ was acting in and took out frustration at authority and consequences he'd been experiencing lately, on GZ. GZ was the last straw.
What got into Horowitz? Did someone pressure him to write this?