First of all I would like to preface this blog entry by
saying there is nothing good about a lost life. I think if there was any way
that any of us could go back and allow Trayvon Martin to live out the rest of
his life we would do so with gladness. Unfortunately nobody can undo what has
been done; not the politicians, not the courts, and not the idiots all over
America who scream for yet more blood, demanding a pound of flesh! For what
reason? So that justice may be served? And just what is the meaning of justice?
Has it not been served already?
The six jurors that were chosen to sit and hear this trial
had a difficult task on their hands. That task was not to get George Zimmerman
back for what he did, not to get a pound of flesh, but was to apply the current
laws of the State of Florida, regardless of how they may feel about them, to
the actions of the night Trayvon Martin was killed. It is important that we
understand this as a free nation. The purpose of a trial and those who sit in
the judgment seat (the jury) are not there to pass their own judgment, not
there to make sure the defendant is freed or convicted, but only to make sure
the current laws are properly applied to the case, no more and no less.
In a criminal trial in America, the defendant is always
innocent until proven guilty. This means the burden of proof lies with the
prosecution, or the state. In addition, there are laws that pertain to what can
or can’t be admitted as evidence in a trial. The jury is only obligated to
consider those items that are admitted as evidence. In addition, the
prosecution is required to prove “beyond a shadow of doubt” that the defendant
has broken the current law that applies to the trial. If they are unable to “remove
all doubt” of a person’s innocence (since they are innocent until proven
guilty), that person remains free under the current laws.
When the founders of this nation considered a system that
would be the best long term for governing the new nation, they decided it best
to provide for a separation of powers that would assure checks and balances.
This system was set up so that tyrannical powers could not set up shop and run
the show, more or less. In this separation of powers the founders gave us the
Executive Branch (President) serves to execute the laws, the Legislative Branch
(Congress) serves to legislate or create new laws, and the Judicial Branch
serves to interpret and apply laws. The Judiciary does not have the power to
legislate or create new laws, they only serve to interpret and provide a forum
for resolution of disputes, including both criminal (the State) and civil
disputes. A judge or prosecuting attorney do not have the power to change laws,
nor do they have the power to create new laws (except through the legislative
process) in the court room. Regardless of how they feel about the current laws,
they are obligated to operate within the confines of said statutes.
That being said, laws can be changed through the legal
process of legislation. Occasionally an incident will happen that changes how
people think about a law and the legislative process can serve to clarify the
law, add to the law, or create a new law to replace the old law. This process
happens on a daily basis in both state and federal legislative systems.
It is amazing first of all, with the media lies and
misrepresentations, that George Zimmerman was able to get a fair trial at all.
There must be a way that the media can be tempered or held responsible for the insane
bias that happens in the name of ratings. Because of the media frenzy, people
all over America had already considered Mr. Zimmerman guilty before he was
tried in a court of law. Cries all over the social media waves called for his
execution, others saying that he better not get off and go free or they would
hunt him down and kill him. I don’t know about you, but this is not the America
I grew up in.
The State of Florida has a neighborhood watch program that
includes a volunteer project called Citizen on Patrol (COP). The night of the
incident George Zimmerman was out on COP patrol. The guidelines of COP say the
system is safe and is just a way to “keep an eye on your neighborhood” because
our social system is so broken down that nobody watches out for each other any
longer. IN the COP guidelines there is no need for a firearm, in fact they
discourage the use of firearms altogether. Because there is a liberal right to
carry law in Florida, it was well within Zimmerman’s right to carry his firearm
for personal safety.
From what I understand, there had been several break-ins and
thefts in his neighborhood over the months leading up to the night of the
incident, and Zimmerman volunteered with the COP program to help stop the burglaries.
On the night of the incident Zimmerman notices a man in a hoodie passing
through whom he did not recognize, and thought him suspicious or at least wanted
to keep an eye on him to be sure he wasn’t up to anything. He followed protocol
by calling 911. The operator told him to stay back and not to follow, but
unfortunately George did not obey. Obviously looking back it is easy to say he
should not have followed, but following Trayvon was not a crime. George
Zimmerman did not cross any lines or break any laws by doing so. How was he to
know that Martin would turn and jump him and start hitting him in the face and
bashing his head into the cement (which is a crime by the way). While Trayvon
is bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete and hitting him in the face,
George decided to make the ultimate decision, to take another man’s life. He
did not know Martin was a 17 year old kid, not should that matter, so that
point is moot. If he was old enough to jump another man and starting beating
him, he was old enough for whatever consequences ensued.
The Florida law that was used to adjudicate is called the “Stand
your Ground” law and states that “a person may justifiably use force in
self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an
obligation to retreat first.” So if a person feels personally threatened and
has no way of escape, he or she is legally within his or her right to use
deadly force. So, if some guy in a hoody just jumped you and was hitting you in
the face and bashing your head into the pavement, do you think that matches the
law? Remember, you don’t know if this guy is going to continue until you die,
and he is sitting on top of you so you have no immediate way of escape. I am
not asking if you would shoot him, I am only asking if this would constitute “an
unlawful threat without a means of escape.” The job of the prosecution was to
prove without a shadow of a doubt that, a) there was no unlawful act taking
place in which Zimmerman would be in a position to need to defend bodily harm
to himself and, b) there was an easy way of retreat so he would not have a need
to protect himself, neither of which they were able to prove.
There are so many sad things about this incident. Not just
that Trayvon Martin chose violence and ended up losing his life, but that a
generation of people are so racially charged over the issue. How did this
become an issue of race? The news media made it an issue of race. Until and
unless we as Americans, regardless of our skin color, fight back against the media
machine that seems determined to destroy the social fabric of the USA, we will
see ignorance rule in the minds of men. Did Trayvon Martin have to die? No! Is
George Zimmerman Guilty under the current laws? No! Are the current laws unfair
and unjust? If you believe they are then shut your mouth, sign off of Facebook
and Twitter, put down your offensive sign, go get an education and make a
difference!
No comments:
Post a Comment