Sunday, July 14, 2013

Justified

This isn't the first time I've said that Justice in America isn't about the law, it's about the lawyers.  It won't be the last time.  The web footed honkers and quackers at CNN were still telling each other as I switched it all off and went to bed that we have a pattern of letting killers go free, but if you have a memory longer than a goose and if you still make an effort to look past the selected stories the angertainment industry allows us you'd be aware that if there is a pattern, it's a pattern of  framing the innocent.

I was appalled last Friday night when Cornell West told us on Bill Maher's show that Florida's Stand Your Ground law allowed everyone to carry a gun, but not surprised.  The level of ignorance about gun laws is shockingly high, stubbornly held and sadly near universal amongst those most vociferously opposed to public ownership of weapons. Tragically sad because the  law is written to exclude the right to chase down, confront and threaten or even to escalate a dispute if one wants to claim self-defense, but as I said, it's not about the law, it's about glib and sarcastic trial lawyers, dull witted jurors and ignorance.

I dread to read the news this morning. I don't want to lose my breakfast over yet more railing against guns, I don't want to hear that the decision to acquit Zimmerman was all about race or any of the other stale arguments imposed on this case before Trayvon Martin was interred. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another flim-flam defense based on making the law seem to say what it doesn't, and it doesn't say that you can shoot someone -- an unarmed someone who knocks you down or gives you a bloody nose particularly when you instigated the fight and violated someones civil rights in the process.  In fact, the law was designed to allow someone like Martin to use deadly force to defend himself against someone, some "crazy cracker" posing a credible threat to his life to force him out of any place he had a right to be.  He brought his fists and some skittles to a gun fight.

Innocent people wind up on death row. People are incarcerated for decades and their lives ruined for smoking Marijuana or receiving naked pictures of a girlfriend on a cellphone. People are locked up with false accusations and to me, that's worse than that a guilty man should go free, but although the NRA will doubtless try to make him a folk-hero like Bernhard Goetz, there is little similarity. Martin wasn't carrying a sharpened screwdriver and demanding money and Goetz didn't corner the muggers in a dark alley. Goetz wasn't a vigilante, Zimmerman I think, was, defending a community against burglars by carrying weapons and confronting and chasing suspicious people, something the gun laws do not permit.

But again, it's about the lawyers and while it's a respectable and necessary profession in any civilization, people like Mark O'Mara disgust me, convincing a jury that his "muscle tone" and perhaps his dangerous, hoodie wearing image was responsible not only for Zimmerman having chased him down but justified shooting him.

No doubt many axes of all sorts will be ground on this case.  Perhaps as with OJ and Bernhard Goetz there will be a wrongful death suit and I think there's a good case for it. Although I don't think either victim or vigilante was without fault or are in any way heroes, I do think the preponderance of responsibility is on Zimmerman.  There is a responsibility on us as well -- not to traduce the law, misrepresent it or to make more of this case than it is for the purpose of furthering our politics, but of course, this being America it's a false hope to expect us  not to -- as false as we are.

22 comments:

  1. Although I don't think either victim or vigilante was without fault or are in any way heroes, I do think the preponderance of responsibility is on Zimmerman.

    Do you stand by that statement? What fault do you assign to Mr. Martin? Not allowing Zimmerman to make a citizen’s arrest? I make that statement somewhat facetiously as there are no true eyewitnesses to what happened between the two men. His friend Rachel testified that she told him to run. Do you believe Zimmerman’s account that Martin doubled back and surprised Zimmerman by jumping him from the dark shadows? Zimmerman’s account did not include a foot chase.

    The only credible near-eyewitness to the altercation was the neighbor who ran from her kitchen to her sliding glass door after she heard two people running as if giving chase. This would not gibe with Zimmerman’s account whatsoever. She looked out the window to see the two men struggling both with their feet on the ground. Less than thirty seconds later she heard the fatal shot from her kitchen as she turned off the fire on the stove.

    I find it hard to ascribe blame to Trayvon Martin. Maybe you are watching too much television. All those talking heads only confuse the straight facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curious as to where you got those straight facts and how you know they're straight. Wuz you there Charlie? as the old saw used to go.

      I actually didn't watch much TV coverage. I prefer to read, it's faster and of course there's a whole lot happening that's a hell of a lot more important.

      Delete
    2. I took the young woman who heard the foot chase from her kitchen as giving factual testimony. It's the only testimony that seemed credible to me. It seems to gibe with Zimmerman telling the dispatcher, "Oh shit, he's running!" or something to that effect. You might be interested in what she had to say. I'm sorry that I never got her name. She was living with her sister and her niece. She heard the chase while she was cooking dinner, took about 15 seconds to walk to her back sliding glass door where she actually observed the two men in a struggle. She ran back to the kitchen to turn off the fire on the stove and heard the fatal shot from her kitchen. Unfortunately, Zimmerman's attorney, O'Mara was aware of her facebook page in which she liked Trayvon Martin's page and stated on her own page, "Prosecute the killer of our son."

      Delete
    3. She was relating the fact as she saw and heard them, I'm sure -- just like the woman who saw OJ fleeing from the crime scene. That's what I meant when I lamented that it's not about the law, but about the lawyers.

      Being able to exclude evidence and smear witnesses can be extremely powerful and indeed the guilty often get off because of it, but I think the long standing idea that it's better for the guilty to go free than the innocent be punished - which a regretfully have to agree with must be served.

      Delete
  2. There's only one eye witness and he has every reason in the world to make himself look like the victim, but I'm assuming that Martin did scuffle with Zimmerman and I'm surmising that he didn't have to and could have avoided getting into a fight, as most any 17 tear old would do, including myself. It's a minor point, but perhaps if he had said "look, I live here so go ahead and call the cops" things might have worked out differently.

    Yes, easy for me to say in the comfort of my office, but I think an adult might have handled it differently although without a doubt, Zimmerman shot an unarmed person for giving him a bloody nose, deserved or not. To may that's not justification for deadly force nor do I read the law as justifying it, but as I said, it's not about the law, it's about the lawyers.

    I just don't want to present the victim as some sort of hero or saint to be worshipped -- nor is it necessary. He didn't deserve to be shot, but I suspect he could have avoided violence. That's what I meant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was funny both the defense and the prosecution came up with an eyewitness and both testified on the same day, if I recall. The Hispanic lady said she saw the guy in red and white on top and the white guy said he saw Martin on top. Neither one came off as very credible IMO. I wasn't actually watching live coverage at the time, only saw video highlights. I did see the young woman who heard the chase from her kitchen. I felt certain her testimony would carry the day. Too bad about her facebook page.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Martin had long and delinquent wrap sheet .Even his own Mother kicked him out of the house For HAVING had recently been arrested for possession of Burglar Tools and Stolen Jewelry.
    He was in the morgue for 3 days before his father reported him missing also. Sounds like a little charmer or should I say a 6'2" charmer. By the way Purple lean is made with skittles and Iced Tea. But I am sure you already knew that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His character has no effect on whether his shooting was or was not justified. Are you able to see that or are you just looking to make the argument mor irrational than it already is?

      Delete
  5. homicides between 2005-2010 Black killing Black 16,708 out of 18,048 (92.5%) Black killing White 3,060 White killing Black 1,340 Out of the 40,712 homicides total, 20,097 were committed by a African American. They are 13% of the population but committed half of the murders. Ratio of Black killing White of 2.28 times as many as White Killing Black White makes up 56% of the population, Black makes up 13% of the population In summary, African Americans kill 93% of African Americans. African Americans kill more than twice as many Caucasians as the other way around. When you factor in differences in population African Americans are 9.8 times more like to kill a Caucasian than the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lies, Damn lies and satistics!

      I have no idea why you're dumping this unsourced data, but you're not saying anything that relates to why Zimmerman thought he was bound to chase someone out of his neighborhood or why he thought he had the right or even more foolishly, the ability to do so. I'm not interested in a this sad, poorly worded and ungrammatical attempt to justify a stereotype with numbers.

      What the Fuck is a caucasian anyway? If Zimmerman is one, than Martin might be one by the same calculus, as so many people of his ancestry in the US have a significant 'caucasian' component and Zimmerman's ancestors aren't all German, but all this is moot and has no bearing on guilt and innocence. It's not about stereotypes, true or false. It's about two people and a gun.

      For what it's worth, almost all violent crimes are committed by young males, so is a universal curfew in order? Should we lock them all up and let God sort them out? Maybe we should ban alcohol again as it's a very significant factor in violent crime statistics?

      Delete
    2. That "Anonymous" posted the same two comments at my blog. It is a spammer.

      Delete
    3. mangled word order, "wrap" sheet and all?

      Delete
  6. Zimmerman was not defending anyone. As his history of 911 calls demonstrates, he was looking for a black person to stalk and kill. Well, he got away with it. That doesn't change the fact that he is nothing but a racist murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think he thought he was defending his community. That's one thing, but being an armed vigilante is another thing. As to whether he has a thing against African Americans or he was simply going by a description of recent vandals I don't know, but it's not a crime and it's not a thing I attribute easily to people I don't know.

    My little unincorporated area has been plagued for a couple of years by smash and grab burglaries -- hundreds of them. Some have been caught, but it's a big gang and all of them have been young black males driving rented and expensive cars with blacked out windows, so if I see a new blacked out BMW with young, black males parked in front of my neighbor's house and I know he's not home, I'm going to be suspicious. That doesn't make me a racist, but no that doesn't make it smart or legal for me to chase them or confront them while carrying a gun -- but then it doesn't make it legal for one of them to jump me either if I ask them what they're doing here, does it? Whether or not I'm presumed racist by virtue of my complexion and whether or not I actually am.

    As to whether the initial decision not to try him was racially motivated, we have no way of knowing either. It's easy to say it was, if you're a liberal and take pride in fighting racism and maybe in finding racism, but that's a prejudice. We really don't know what would have happened if Martin had been a white kid. Suppositions, opinions, prejudice and 'things we all know' aren't admissible as evidence.

    Yes, I think Zimmerman wasn't justified in shooting, but that's an opinion and from what I've been lead to believe a reasonable doubt is an impediment to a criminal conviction and from what we've heard from the jurors who have spoken up, They were not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not Martin on top, pummeling the smaller man who was screaming for help and that was the deciding factor. As I said, if the kid jumped Zimmerman, that means he started the fight and legally that's a whole different matter whether or not the damage he did was life threatening. The jury has to consider this and accept the possibility that the evidence does not answer the question and the law says they must acquit as much as they obviously felt grief and sympathy for the Martin family. Lets not turn this into a witch hunt.

    It's interesting to see the knee jerk accusation of racism and people out yelling in the street when we didn't see much of that when OJ was acquitted as his lawyers said -- to send a message to the man -- and remember he got away with murder because of an unfounded accusation of racism in the police because as we liberals all know the police always plant evidence to frame black men, even sports stars. It's bullshit.

    All white people aren't racists, not even southern white people and I'm beginning to think we're distorting the truth when the facts don't bear it out or explain someone's actions and that doesn't make us any better in my opinion, than bigots.

    I'm sorry he got off, but then his life is ruined and he's going to spend the rest of his life paying off the inevitable lawsuit. He's got years of massive legal expenses one way or the other. Remember OJ.

    Just as an aside, I'm licensed to carry a gun but I don't and this case confirms my decision that depending upon one to defend your life is as risky, if not more so, as leaving it locked up at home. As it says in the lengthy literature one receives with the license, "you are not a law enforcement officer" and that means you're not arming yourself to police a neighborhood or chase or apprehend suspects. Zimmerman made that mistake and I'd like to see him punished for that bit of stupidity, well intentioned or not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Racially inspired murder is not stupidity. It is evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evil is a religious concept alien to and outside of the law. Murder is a crime. There's a difference and the law recognizes gradations of homicide rather than lumping it all into murder.

      We prosecute crimes but we do not prosecute moral judgements or motivations or worse, your personal estimations of someone's motivations based on not knowing either party, not having been a witness and being influenced by mob psychology. You simply don't know what the motivation was and have no right to presume. He didn't shoot anyone from his car and from all indications he simply panicked when the kid jumped at or on him and shot the kid.

      I'd say thank God for the presumption of innocence, but of course God had nothing to do with it, such things being basic liberal principle long since lost in the witch hunt.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Captain,

      I can't believe that YOU actually believe that Martin jumped Zimmerman.

      That's the whole crux of the lie. And there are certainly zero eyewitnesses to this false and incredible account. Much more believable that Zimmerman chased Martin down.

      Delete
    3. I believe the jury had to consider the possibility and if that possibility exists they felt they had to acquit. It's a necessary weakness of the way we try people. Yes, it seems likely that Zimmerman chased him down and in some way confronted him. Maybe he tried to tackle him maybe not, but the standards of proof aren't met and 'believable' is not enough in a criminal trial. A civil suit is different and I think inevitable and I think he'll be found liable and I think he is liable.

      We don't try people in the court of public opinion however. Thank God.

      Delete
  9. "Although I don't think either victim or vigilante was without fault or are in any way heroes, I do think the preponderance of responsibility is on Zimmerman."

    Absolutely!!! IMNHO the only rational conclusion.

    Having said this the DA bears the greatest responsibility for bringing the wrong charges against Zimmerman. Charges that the preponderance of evidence does not support, and a reasonable doubt remains. Therefore the jurors delivered the only verdict they could.

    However, it is unlikely the left, headed up by Sharpton, Jackson, and others of their ilk will let the clarion call of racial profiling, (for which their is no evidence) and racism die.

    Pathetic IMNHO;.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scary, but I agree. The Jihad against permitting self defense scares me too and I can't believe the level of outrage that Zimmerman won't go to jail or an execution chamber so far exceeds the outrage I fell that an innocent young mother will go to jail for 20 years for using a gun to warn off a man against whom she had a restraining order without harming him or risking his life.

      'Stand your ground' should have saved her. It gave young Martin the right to defend himself. Applied as written, in my opinion, it did not protect Zimmerman as an instigator. Unfortunately no one could prove he was an instigator.

      Delete
  10. I'm not a judge or jury. I am perfectly free to come to my own conclusion about what happened here, just as you are doing. Furthermore, please remember that if a person is guilty, they are guilty whether or not it can be proven in court. The phrase is not innocent until proven guilty- it is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until found guilty.

    I think you would have to be a fool to really not understand what happened here. And as for whether I know George Zimmerman, I don't know Rush Limbaugh either, and yet I am confident in stating that Limbaugh is a professional liar, not a deluded person. I am just as confident that Zimmerman is a racist murderer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know Limbaugh's words. Your confidence is meaningless and we don't sentence people or determine guilt or innocence based on the opinions of the public as informed by the self serving media and by prejudice or political persuasion.

      We can't prevent all wrongdoing. We can't punish all the wrongdoers. We can't keep everyone completely safe all the time and the attempt to achieve absolute safety and security requires ever increasing stricture, surveillance and ever higher levels of incarceration.

      Of course you're perfectly free to form your own conclusions, but then you're not on a jury and a jury has rules to follow that don't affect you. That's the difference between a trial and vigilante justice and I think it's odd that so many are advocating exactly that as a response to a self-appointed vigilante.

      I don't like the conclusion any more than you do and I think I've said that, but the system necessarily must have some inherent weakness when it comes to prosecuting the accused and in general that we've erred far more often in incarcerating and perhaps executing the innocent - to the shame of our country.

      Public opinion is so often wrong. For half of my life I was furious about how the Rosenbergs were framed because of anti-Communist hysteria. I was wrong.

      Delete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.