gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
Link Removed
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013Much of this case came down to speculation versus fact. We saw it in the trial, we saw it in the prosecution’s case, we see it even in comments on this blog. In the spring of 2012, in the question/answer session that followed the CATO Institute “Stand Your Ground Symposium”, a sincere young man who happened to be African-American asked me if SYG protection would have been in effect for Trayvon Martin if he had been violently attacked by George Zimmerman, and had killed Zimmerman in self-defense. My answer was “Yes, of course.” And I would give the same answer now.
The only problem with that hypothetical is, there is nothing to substantiate it, and there is a large body of facts in evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder, or any lesser included offense. A large body of collective evidence showing that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman, and not vice-versa.“What if Zimmerman hadn’t gotten out of his car, and just driven on to his destination, the Target store?” Well, certainly, the confrontation would not have occurred. But that pales in comparison to what if Trayvon Martin had not attacked him and smashed his head into the sidewalk? In following a strange man who was looking into windows in a community riven by burglaries and even a home invasion, Zimmerman never broke the law. Indeed, had it not ended in death, most would have appreciated him taking notice and calling the authorities…as people had done earlier, when the head of the homeowner’s association in that community had chased down and captured a burglary suspect.“What if Zimmerman had avoided any danger by not getting involved at all?” Well, if the nineteen firefighters killed last month in Arizona hadn’t “gotten involved,” they wouldn’t have died either. Does that make them responsible for their own deaths? Review the case of Kitty Genovese and then get back to me with your “Don’t get involved” argument. But take a long look in the mirror, first, and ask yourself how long you’d want to live with looking in the mirror of the face of someone who “didn’t get involved” enough to pick up a phone to help Kitty Genovese, and didn’t do what a reasonable and prudent person would construe the voice of authority on that phone asked you to do.“What if Zimmerman hadn’t carried that evil gun?” Well, with Zimmerman having his head smashed against the sidewalk and being unable to escape, Trayvon Martin would probably have stood trial for the murder of George Zimmerman. The evidence and testimony are consistent with Zimmerman’s account of what happened. So is something the jury never learned of during trial: the lie detector test (voice stress analysis) which Zimmerman passed shortly after the shooting, and which confirmed that he was telling the truth. He also passed the “******** detector test” of not one but two veteran police officers who expertly and vigorously interrogated him, without defense counsel present.“What if it turned out that Zimmerman had made the first confrontation and pulled his gun on Martin, causing Martin to jump him and beat him in self-defense?” That WOULD have been justifiable for Martin…but there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT IT DID HAPPEN. Stop and think: would a man hungry to kill, with a loaded gun already in his hand, have taken the savage beating Zimmerman did, for at least 40 seconds, before firing?“What if” is not the standard of the law, nor the standard of logic. “WHAT IS” remains the standard for both. The evidence, not a hypothetical “theory of the case,” is what counts in every aspect of the real world…the real world of the courts, and the real world of the streets.A duly empanelled jury determined the truth from the facts in evidence and the testimony presented. Even the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses overwhelmingly favored the defense.And that was only the evidence the jury was allowed to see. There was much more evidence which was confirmatory to Zimmerman’s account of a clear-cut self-defense shooting. We’ll get to that soon in this space…and why the jury was not allowed to see it.
Link Removed
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013Much of this case came down to speculation versus fact. We saw it in the trial, we saw it in the prosecution’s case, we see it even in comments on this blog. In the spring of 2012, in the question/answer session that followed the CATO Institute “Stand Your Ground Symposium”, a sincere young man who happened to be African-American asked me if SYG protection would have been in effect for Trayvon Martin if he had been violently attacked by George Zimmerman, and had killed Zimmerman in self-defense. My answer was “Yes, of course.” And I would give the same answer now.
The only problem with that hypothetical is, there is nothing to substantiate it, and there is a large body of facts in evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder, or any lesser included offense. A large body of collective evidence showing that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman, and not vice-versa.“What if Zimmerman hadn’t gotten out of his car, and just driven on to his destination, the Target store?” Well, certainly, the confrontation would not have occurred. But that pales in comparison to what if Trayvon Martin had not attacked him and smashed his head into the sidewalk? In following a strange man who was looking into windows in a community riven by burglaries and even a home invasion, Zimmerman never broke the law. Indeed, had it not ended in death, most would have appreciated him taking notice and calling the authorities…as people had done earlier, when the head of the homeowner’s association in that community had chased down and captured a burglary suspect.“What if Zimmerman had avoided any danger by not getting involved at all?” Well, if the nineteen firefighters killed last month in Arizona hadn’t “gotten involved,” they wouldn’t have died either. Does that make them responsible for their own deaths? Review the case of Kitty Genovese and then get back to me with your “Don’t get involved” argument. But take a long look in the mirror, first, and ask yourself how long you’d want to live with looking in the mirror of the face of someone who “didn’t get involved” enough to pick up a phone to help Kitty Genovese, and didn’t do what a reasonable and prudent person would construe the voice of authority on that phone asked you to do.“What if Zimmerman hadn’t carried that evil gun?” Well, with Zimmerman having his head smashed against the sidewalk and being unable to escape, Trayvon Martin would probably have stood trial for the murder of George Zimmerman. The evidence and testimony are consistent with Zimmerman’s account of what happened. So is something the jury never learned of during trial: the lie detector test (voice stress analysis) which Zimmerman passed shortly after the shooting, and which confirmed that he was telling the truth. He also passed the “******** detector test” of not one but two veteran police officers who expertly and vigorously interrogated him, without defense counsel present.“What if it turned out that Zimmerman had made the first confrontation and pulled his gun on Martin, causing Martin to jump him and beat him in self-defense?” That WOULD have been justifiable for Martin…but there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT IT DID HAPPEN. Stop and think: would a man hungry to kill, with a loaded gun already in his hand, have taken the savage beating Zimmerman did, for at least 40 seconds, before firing?“What if” is not the standard of the law, nor the standard of logic. “WHAT IS” remains the standard for both. The evidence, not a hypothetical “theory of the case,” is what counts in every aspect of the real world…the real world of the courts, and the real world of the streets.A duly empanelled jury determined the truth from the facts in evidence and the testimony presented. Even the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses overwhelmingly favored the defense.And that was only the evidence the jury was allowed to see. There was much more evidence which was confirmatory to Zimmerman’s account of a clear-cut self-defense shooting. We’ll get to that soon in this space…and why the jury was not allowed to see it.
Link Removed
