But, for the moment, let's ignore the whole "Wild, Wild West," shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later attitude that the "Stand Your Ground" law engenders. Just for now, let's concentrate on the trial.
Let's also ignore the fact that the defense attorney opened with a knock-knock joke. A knock-knock joke that bombed.
"Sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying," he explained. "So, let me — at considerable risk — let me say, I would like to tell you a little joke. I know how that may sound a bit weird in this context under these circumstances. But I think you're the perfect audience for it as long as you — if you don't like it or find it funny or appropriate, that you don't hold it against Mr. Zimmerman, you can hold it against me. I have your assurance you won't?"No, really, dude. If you're begging them to laugh, it was a bad joke. Trust me. I should know.
"Knock, knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who?" West said. "Alright, good, you’re on the jury."
"Nothing?" he added when the jury apparently failed to laugh. "That’s funny. After what you folks have been through the last two or three weeks."
Instead, let's highlight another part of the defense attorney's opening statement. He tried to claim that Trayvon Martin was not unarmed.
"Trayvon Martin armed himself with the concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman's head; it's no different than if he picked up a brick or bashed it against a wall," Mr. West said, "and the law is very specific as to when you can defend yourself if the other person has a deadly weapon."Really, that is an awe-inspiring defense. In order for it to work, you have to completely redefine the legal definition of the word "unarmed."
Because if Trayvon Martin was "armed," by the prosecutor's definition, then nobody who exists in a three-dimensional environment can ever be defined as "unarmed."
Armed himself with the concrete sidewalk? That's a new one on me.
ReplyDeleteIt's a new one on all of us.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Zimmerman is a lying, murdering piece of shit. Whether the defense can convince the jury otherwise is their job; if they do it by lying or suborning Zimmerman's or another person's perjury then they are no better than he is.
ReplyDeleteJust so I don't get in trouble sparring with the gun lovers, tell me if I'm wrong. Aren't the only photos of Zimmerman with the tiny lacerations on the back of his head, and I guess the swollen nose, all taken the next day after the police dropped him off at his condominium and he had all night to sort of "dress" his wounds, so to speak? The video of him getting out of the patrol car in the police garage the night of the murder didn't show any apparent trauma or even blood. He declined medical help. If an attacker was really slamming a skinhead like Zimmerman against the pavement, one would expect a large amount of blood, blood stains picked up by forensics from the sidewalk and anybody in their right mind would go to the ER to be checked for a concussion.
ReplyDeleteSidewalks don't kill people; people who use sidewalks kill people?
ReplyDeleteThat makes my head hurt.
Only a attorney, and one of questionable ability at that, could come up with the idea one arms him or herself with a sidewalk.
ReplyDeleteOy Vet...
I quess despetaton can be the mother of invention?
Recently saw a documentary wherein the author of the Florida SYG was interviewed and he confirmed my reading that the law offers no protection to the instigator, does not protect the aggressor, the pursuer, the confronter or the escalator of the situation. Yes, that law absolutely is being misinterpreted, but then many people who have lawfully and justly defended thier own lives have been dragged through courts for years, gone to jail and have lost everything. The documentary interviewed a former IRS agent who wounded one of two assailants and yes, had his life destroyed even when he was exonerated.
ReplyDeleteThis law does not protect Zimmerman because a bloody nose is not grievous bodily harm, because he had no authority to chase Martin out of his neighborhood where he had a right to be, and having read the law over and over, that's what it says.You do not have the right to kill someone for knocking you down in self defense. The law was meant to protect the victim here, not the aggressor.
West is groping, hoping to trick witnesses, confuse the facts and I delight when they slap him in the face with the snark he deserves. I got particularly angry yesterday when he launched in on the word "cracker" which in Florida is no more a racist term than "Yankee" is in Massachusetts.
This trial is about homicide, not racism and I'm disgusted by those trying to make it seem that way. Bullets don't give a damn what color you are.
And by the way, I think that OJ got away with two murders in large part because the defense made it about racism. I think Mr. West is very conscious of that.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point Capt. One to which I am in agreement with.
Delete@ Capt. Fogg:
ReplyDelete"I think that OJ got away with two murders"
As did many others which is probably why he got the sentence he did for the armed robbery in Nevada.