Two Cents . . .

. . . of mine. . .

The George Zimmerman trial has consumed the American public the past two weeks and certainly for good reason. I may as well weigh-in on it like everybody else because, hey, I'm not above it.  As a matter of fact, no one is. 

First, the obscene quote and knock-knock joke by the prosecution and defense respectively were totally out of order - especially the joke.  On one hand, seeing photos and film of Zimmerman and hearing comments from his parents, I can't help but think that Zimmerman sorely regrets what he has done.  He just appears to be a bit tortured.  (It's just a feeling I get.)  But that doesn't mean that what he did wasn't wrong and that he should not pay some penalty for taking an innocent, human life.  You can't antagonize someone to the point of confrontation then pull out a weapon and kill him in the name of self-defense. That appears to me to be exactly what happened. 

It also seems that by strict letter of the law, in a trial for 2nd degree murder (or manslaughter), one and only one thing has to happen.  The prosecution must prove that Zimmerman killed for reasons other than self defense. And the prosecution must convince the jury that Zimmerman killed for reasons other than self defense beyond a shadow of a doubt.  The defense only needs to place that doubt in the minds of the jurors.  And that is exactly what, I believe, happened in that courtroom.

So I do believe that by the time that George Zimmerman pulled that trigger, he did feel that his life was in danger.  Trayvon Martin was by that point very angry.  Trayvon Martin was provoked.  Trayvon Martin felt that his life was in danger. The trial did not broach anything remotely close these questions.

The trial also failed to address the series of events that occurred prior to that pulling of the trigger that led to that awful, crucial moment.  The trial failed to address how Trayvon Martin must have felt when he finally, and mistakenly, confronted George Zimmerman. Sure, it would have been better to walk away.  But it was not the absolutely-required thing to do.

Finally, if we learn anything at all from the Zimmerman debacle, it is that the contention of the NRA that the more guns we have in society the better off we will be is sheer and utter nonsense. No one should have to fear the prospect of a loaded gun being carried by another human being who is foolishly taking comfort in a law that is cartoonishly named the "Stand Your Ground" law.

What do you think?
Tell me at  
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

My latest release, Black & White Then Back,
can be downloaded digitally at:

(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak3)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Once upon a time . . .

 . . . there was. . .

. . an open-ended  law in a particular state called the "Stand Your Ground" law.  This law allowed people to defend themselves with deadly force as long as they "reasonably believed" it was necessary to protect themselves.

In this state there was a very bad man who found the opportunity to invoke this law, claiming he was acting in self-defense, and was forced to kill an unarmed teenager. The unarmed teenager happened to make a phone call to a friend only minutes before his death, which made it clear the teenager did not pose a violent threat to the very bad man, calling public attention to a law that clears a suspect from prosecution if the state does not find evidence to dispute their claim of self-defense.

In short, this was a very bad law.

The law extended what has been called the Castle Doctrine, which asserts that a person has the right to defend his or her home with deadly force if they are in "fear of great bodily injury." Unlike similar laws across the country, this particular state's provision does not require residents to retreat before using lethal force -- whether it be with a gun, knife or baseball bat -- against a home intruder, a concept that is based upon the English common-law idea that an individual's home is their "castle."

With this very bad law a person no longer needs to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the individual they shot, even if unarmed, had forcefully and unlawfully intruded. Unlike the initial Castle Doctrine, the newer law extends the principle to vehicles and public places and also does away with an earlier requirement that said a person attacked in a public place must retreat if it is a viable option.

Many people involved did NOT live happily ever after.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak

Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet