Justice Is Done

This trial should never have happened, but at least it came out the right way, despite prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. I particularly enjoyed O’Mara’s indictment of the media at the end of his press conference.

But as Glenn writes, “But count on Obama, Sharpton, et al., to use this to promote racial division.”

That was always the point, and there was never any other.

[Late Saturday night update]

As I predicted, the inevitable lynching threats, on Twitter.

You know, Twitter accounts aren’t really anonymous. I’ve never been that big on prosecution for speech, but I think that this really is fire in a theatre.

{Update a few minutes later]

This was another loss for race-baiter Barack Obama:

By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a former law professor, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.

It is also the work of a narcissist who thinks of himself first, of his image, not of black, white or any other kind of people. It’s no accident that race relations in our country have gone backwards during his stewardship.

Nope, not at all.

And I’m glad it was a loss for such a moral atrocity.

60 thoughts on “Justice Is Done”

  1. I’m more than a little tired of the word ‘tragic’ being used to describe young Trayvon and his ultimate demise. Yeah, I suppose a big part of life is surviving your childhood stupidity, but it’s not like he was struck by a bolt of lightning or something. He chose to make this a violent encounter, and chose poorly. Trayvon is dead because of Trayvon.

  2. I commend the jury for making the right choice.

    I hate to say this, but let’s not forget that this is not over.

    There are criminal charges against Zimmarman’s wife, for alleged perjury (misreporting their bank balance by committing the donations for his defense.) I think that’s normally be a wrist slap at worst, but in this case, I would not at all be surprised to see them throw the book at her (and probably charge him with perjury too).

    Who is prosecuting Zimmarman’s wife? Angela Corey – even though the alleged offense occurred out of her jurisdiction. Why? Because she can: she was appointed as special prosecutor by the governor for all aspects of the Zimmerman case, and used that to take over the perjury issue.

    Oh, and John Guy, on the of the prosecutors of Zimmerman, attended at least one of the wife’s court dates.

    I really hope the defense wins its motion for sanction, as that may help.

  3. As CJ says, this isn’t over. There is a possibility that the feds could step in with a civil rights indictment. There will likely be civil actions, as Mr. Zimmerman’s attorneys said in the press conference.

    1. Which is totally obvious. In other states, crazy states, Zimmerman would have to prove that he attempted to flee before acting in his own self-defense. He’d be assumed guilty before proven innocent.

    2. Sorry Alan, but your analysis is wrong. It doesn’t really matter who started it. What matters is if either reasonably believed the other would do him harm. The jury has the duty of defining reasonable on a case by case basis. Note this does not even require a belief that your own life is in jeopardy as is commonly believed (although this may vary from state to state but we’re talking about Florida here.)

      Yes, this means that Trayvon could have legally killed Zimmerman if a jury found this reasonable. This is why we have juries. The jury could and should consider who started it, but that is not part of the legal requirement.

      Let’s be very clear. Trayvon got what he deserved.

    1. I see 2 factors last night:

      – A verdict released Saturday evening too late to hit the major news cycle, limiting the scale of immediate protests.

      – Police prepared for a reaction.

      A banner behind speakers at a local protest is reported to read, “No justice, no peace!” This isn’t over.

    2. The ‘protestors’ were looking for an excuse to ‘protest’. They didn’t give a crap about the ‘tragedy’ of little ‘Trey Trey’ dying so young. And I wish someone would explain to me, how breaking windows in CA, proves anything, or affects this outcome.

      If Zimmerman is smart, he’ll move to TX or AK. So he can defend himself without having to explain that he was defending himself.

  4. But was it really a loss? Neither the judge nor the state DA will ever pay a price for their actions, the Democrats and race hustlers (but I repeat myself) will be fundraising off of Saint Trayvon’s image for years to come, Martin’s family will get their history and behavior whitewashed, the Florida governor who signed off on the ‘Special Prosecutor’ will slide… the only real loser is that white Hispanic guy.

      1. Didn’t mean to imply he wasn’t injured (and the other police victims of L’Affaire Zimmerman), but he can get another job. Zim now faces the NEXT set of trials, and the one after that, and may never have peace again.

  5. Yes, this means that Trayvon could have legally killed Zimmerman if a jury found this reasonable.

    Indeed. This doesn’t mean Trayvon could have assumed Zimmerman was stalking him and kill him. Stalking is not the same as threatening someone’s life or great bodily harm. But, if there was any piece of evidence supporting the notion, as Gerrib claimed numerous times, that Zimmerman approached Trayvon with gun drawn; then Martin was free to defend himself. If that evidence existed, I’d be happy to see Zimmerman thrown in jail for life (or if there were signs Zimmerman did this often, put to death).

    I don’t know if Zimmerman is truly innocent. He is legally innocent, before and after the trial now. I just cannot reasonably conclude he is guilty. That’s the law. If we want to change the law to “you kill someone regardless of reason, you go to jail”; then let’s discuss it. I have an idea that many people won’t go for that change. If there was a desire for such a change, Nidal Hasan would have been convicted long ago.

    1. If he had approached Trayvon Martin with gun “drawn”, it is hard to understand the injuries Zimmerman got. The prosecution was just hoping for a jury that would convict based on “at fault for causing the situation”, i.e. following Martin in the first place. They were hoping that sympathy for Trayvon Martin and his family, would trump the law which clearly showed it to be self-defense, at the point he was pined to the ground. Kind of like the media deciding it was about “stand your ground” law, the fact that neither prosecution or defense cited it was beside the point.

    2. I never said Zimmerman approached anybody with his gun drawn. I did say that, once Martin became aware of the gun, then it was clearly a fight to the death.

      I also said I don’t believe Zimmerman’s version of how the fight started. Either the jury did or they decided that reasonable doubt meant that they had to give Zimmerman the benefit of that doubt.

      1. I have to agree with you on all points. The problem is that the only other witness to the fight is dead, so it became Zimmerman’s word against that of a ghost. Since the ghost wasn’t likely to testify, the jury had to side with the defendent.

        1. “Zimmerman’s word against that of a ghost”

          …and all of that testimony from witnesses, and all of that actual hard evidence, and all of that professional testimony. Looks like either you came up with the verdict pre-trial or your ghost is a lying hoodrat.
          Stop watching so much CSI: SVU.

      2. Chris, that’s ridiculous. When a gun is pulled there is always the smarter option of stopping fighting and if possible walking away. You’ve already lost.

        1. Indeed. Most of my friends in Florida carried guns (I haven’t been there in years so no idea if they still do). The only time one ever pulled out that gun, the other guy made his excuses and left.

          The vast majority of people are not going to shoot you unless you attack them. Aside from the fact that they don’t want to kill anyone, they’re highly likely to end up in jail. So attacking someone because they’re carrying a gun would be a really, really dumb idea.

        2. My take is slightly different. *If* Zimmerman had, while face to face with Martin, pulled his gun, then Martin’s logical option would be to attack. Why? Because he can’t outrun a bullet, and there’s no way he could have known that the act of drawing a gun would not end up with firing it. I also think Martin would have been legally justified in attacking in that scenario.

          The above scenario is what I believed *might* have happened when I first heard of this case. I no longer do. Far too much evidence contradicts it, while none supports it. Also, even if we ignore all the exonerating evidence entirely, there’s still nothing more on the state’s side than theories (That’s being generous, as they never actually came up with a theory of the crime) and guesswork. Therefor, “not guilty” for Zimmerman would have been the appropriate verdict even in the absence of Zimmerman’s exonerating witnesses, wounds, and evidence.

      3. Yes, once the guy on top banging his victim’s head into the concrete became aware that his victim could defend himself, he was in trouble.
        If Martin had just called the police, he’d be alive today.

          1. It shows exactly how little a case the DA had that they were forced to use her as their star witness. If there was any proof of GZ’s guilt at all, the never would have called her.

        1. Or if Martin had punched Zimmerman, knocked him down, and walked away, he would still be alive.

          With civilized people, once one man is knocked down and doesn’t get back up, the fight is over. If Zimmerman had then pulled his gun and shot Martin in the back as he was walking away, he would have been guilty of at least Murder 2 if not Murder 1. As a legal gun owner, I’m sure he was aware of that.

          There’s an old-fashioned piece of advice I remember from my childhood: “Never hit a man when he’s down.” Martin either disregarded it or never learned it.

          1. Ummm.. where I grew up, if you knocked a kid down but didn’t pin him down, you were indicating that you wanted to continue the fight. Getting the other kid to say uncle was the only way to end it. Even running away would just postpone it.

          2. Trent, pinning a guy is one thing, MMA roundhouse punches (or repeatedly banging somebody’s head into the sidewalk) are something else. Zimmerman apparently never got the chance to “say Uncle”.

          3. Eric, sure he did. He even called for help. Trayvon kept going after that point, which is why Zimmerman shot him.

            I was simply debating rickl’s idea of “civil people”. He might as well be saying “no true Scotsman”.

        2. Martin didn’t even have to call the police. All he had to do was tell Zimmerman, “Oh, I’m stayin’ with my uncle in unit X, but I’m tryin’ to figure out which building it’s in again. Only been here a couple a days.” Then Zimmerman would’ve said, “Oh, okay,” and told the dispatcher not to bother with sending anyone out.

          That’s what normal people do, all the time.

      4. “I did say that, once Martin became aware of the gun, then it was clearly a fight to the death.”

        When in a fist fight and the other guy pulls a gun, sensible people would make the correct assessment this this is a fight only to THEIR death if they choose to continue. So sensible people surrender and get away.

      5. ” I did say that, once Martin became aware of the gun, then it was clearly a fight to the death.”

        And what you said is pure codswallop…….

        If a sensible person, engaged in a fist fight, sees the opponent pull a gun, the sensible person knows it’s a fight to pnly THEIR death and immediately surrenders and/or tries to get away.

        1. So if a rapist pulls a gun on your wife, sister or mother they should just surrender?

          Martin had no idea who Zimmerman was or what his intentions were. Zimmerman, by his own account, never identified himself.

          1. Chris, I would like to hear your answer to your own question: if a rapist pulls a gun on your wife, sister or mother should they just surrender?

            And for that matter, Zimmerman had no idea who Martin was or what his intentions were. George hit the nail on the head…perhaps if Martin had simply said “I need your help…I am staying with my uncle in unit X and apparently have gotten turned around in the dark” we could all be debating another subject

          2. “So if a rapist pulls a gun on your wife, sister or mother they should just surrender? ”

            Not the same situation at all, especially since you totally ignored “and/or get away”. But even given your selective ignorance, the answer is the same:

            Yes as bad as it is to get raped don’t you think it’s a trifle worse to be dead?

            Are you actually serious about that question? Do you mean to tell us all that your advice to your wife/mother/sister if they are confronted with a rapist with a gun is to fight them?

            Wow you are very brave when it’s your wife/mother/sister facing the gun. I bet you’d wet your pants.

            “Martin had no idea who Zimmerman was or what his intentions were. Zimmerman, by his own account, never identified himself.”

            More totally irrelevant codswallop…are you taking lessons from Jim on how to introduce irrelevant and meaningless issues when you are wrong? It is irrelevant if Martin knew who he was, what his name was, why he was there, or anything else, once GZ pulled the gun. At that point, the only two options for Martin is to stop or get shot.

            Sounds like your advice, to him, is to get shot. Very nice.
            It was *you* who said that once the gun was pulled it was a fight to the death. It was that comment and that comment only to which my reply was given.

          3. “Would I tell my mother and sister to fight a gunman? If they thought they were going to get shot anyway, yes. ”

            Ahh but you didn’t say that. YOU said that if a gun is pulled, the fight is a fight to the death and the person without a gun should always fight. So you change the situation again…..showing that you’re twisting in the wind and that you know it.

            Because you know that you have no idea whether or not the gunman will kill if the other person surrendered and ran.

            You know you have no idea what GZ would have done if Martin backed off (always assuming, of course, that Martin knew a gun was being pulled).

            You know you know nothing.

          4. “Isn’t the standard advice to charge a gun and run away from a knife?”

            In a different context, you have a valid point. If for instance two guys are standing less than ten feet apart and one pulls a gun, the other has to assume that the next steps are point and click, and he has no hope of outrunning – in that case a charge is logical, as the body-on-body impact would be enough to divert the aim and buy a few more seconds of life.

            In the context of the Zimmerman case, however, as far as the jury knew Zimmerman did not pull the gun until after the charge, on his back with his skull being beaten against the pavement. As any blow to the back of the head is potentially fatal, the jury was correct in concluding that Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense.

            The Zimmerman case differs from my example above in the order of the sequence of events. In the hypothetical the gun appears before the charge, in the Zimmerman case the gun appears after the charge and only appears once Zimmerman’s life is in peril.

            The concept of self-defense lies at the heart of all rights. Abandon that idea at your peril.

          5. Most likely I would run as most people who are armed with a handgun are lousy shots, particularlly thug class types.

            The overwhelming majority of Handgun calliber wounds are non-lethal as well. If you can get 20 yards between you and your assailant, you are likely golden. Close distance negates skill with a handgun, more distance is the enemy of a poor shooter.

            If I was within 5 yards I would briefly consider skinning my knife and attempting to diarm him.

          6. Gerrib,

            Earlier, when I made a statement claiming you believed Zimmerman had the gun pulled, this is why:
            So if a rapist pulls a gun on your wife, sister or mother they should just surrender?

            Isn’t the standard advice to charge a gun and run away from a knife?

            Even the Prosecution contends that Martin didn’t know Zimmerman had a gun. The gun was brought out at the final moment of the altercation. So why do you describe a scenario and ask our opinion about it, when the scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the situation being discussed?

            Apparently the jury accepted a possible scenario in which Martin charged who he thought was an unarmed man.

  6. Waiting for Eric Holder’s minions to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman in 3, 2, 1 …

    1. That’s a good case in point Alan. I’ve long been interested in the Cory Maye case.

      In my opinion, it hinges on whether or not the police announced themselves. It is also incumbent upon them to prove it. Otherwise, reasonable doubt applies.

      Then we get to the other circumstances, such as why the police were there (no one knows), etc, and so I think Cory Maye was railroaded.

      This case stands, to me, as an ongoing travesty of justice. Yes, I know he’s no longer in jail, but that doesn’t make it right, not by a long shot. He had to plead guilty to manslaughter to get out.

      So, in the Cory Maye case, I am also (as in the Zimmerman case) on the side of the defense, and on the side of legitimate self-defense.

  7. The reactions (and things being linked to) by my Progressive friends on the Facebook are, as usual, a baffling indication of living in a completely different worldview, mostly or entirely thanks to the mass media.

    (One, this morning, linked to a Very Sincere Academic who is just absolutely sure that Mr. Zimmerman committed cold-blooded murder.

    You know, there’s just no doubt. Because … feelings, I guess.

    I mean, I can understand someone thinking Zimmerman was in the wrong, or over-aggressive, or guilty of manslaughter. Or even that he could have been a murderer.

    But to Just Know, with absolute assurance, that he murdered Martin?

    I wanted to ask the pompous fool where he learned to read minds, or where his psychic powers came from, but it wouldn’t have been worth-while.)

  8. I see in the news the usual gang of idiots and mountebanks are incensed at the Zimmerman verdict. Meanwhile, however, the White Hispanic Anti-Defamation League will be picketing Chris Gerrib. Admiral Gerrib is threatening to sue citing some obscure “Stand Your Illogical Ground” law.

    1. Including at least one member of the jury.

      What is going on with jurors giving interviews? If I am called to be on a jury, how can I be candid and frank and explore every possibility if the jury deliberations are an “open meeting” because someone is going to blab.

      And this business of wanting to convict Mr. Zimmerman “of something” and how they all cried afterward because the law didn’t “give them anything to go on.”

      On how “both were are fault” (Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman) as “Mr. Martin threw the first punch” but that Mr. Zimmerman “ignored police orders to stay in the car.”

      Even the jury thinks that a phone conversation with a police dispatcher “You don’t have to follow him” followed by Mr. Zimmerman saying “OK” and standing in place where he was, constituted not following a lawful police order?

      And jurors now retain attorneys? That Mr. Zimmerman was acquited seems to me to be just “the breaks.” To appears to me that trial by jury is as barbaric a practice of the Monty Python scene where “If she is a witch, she will float (after being dunked into the water to drown)!”

    1. What is that supposed to mean? This use of a grammatical form in supposed imitation of the vernacular speech used by some black persons.

      Is this snark to the effect that this case is all about race? That persons commenting here claiming Mr. Martin brought on his death by assaulting Mr. Zimmerman, that such persons are racists?

      Or do you believe that Mr. Martin was not the victim and brought this upon himself, and you are using African American slang as a way of mocking those persons who in sincerity believe Mr. Martin was a victim of a criminal act by Mr. Zimmerman, whether they are black or of any other race and ethnicity?

      In either case, I believe that a remark like that needs to be “called out.”

      1. He’s the author of something called “The White Book”. His comments here are always tinged with racism. I think your questions answer themselves.

        1. Sorry, I don’t know that he’s the author of that trash book. But he links to it if you click on his name/handle, which I take as some kind of endorsement.

          1. 1. I don’t give a damn what you believe.

            2. I am not the author of The White Book, as anybody who had actually read “that trash book” would know. The author’s name is on the first page.

            3. Since you evidently have not read The White Book, your opinion of it (e.g., “trash”) is null and of no consequence. Why don’t you try reading it with an open mind before you judge it?

            Oh, right. You’re afraid of the ugly truth about race in America. I forgot.

          2. I already admitted I was mistaken in assuming you’re the author. And for the record, I read enough of that book to recognize it as racist paranoia and secessionist codswallop.

  9. Oh you guys. It’s nice to know in an ever changing world you continue to deliver on my expectations.

Comments are closed.