I had thought that with the jury verdict, we would see the last commentary on this site about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman matter, but I was wrong. I came across this piece on Salon in which Paul Campos says that everything that happened was "all about race". According to Campos, Martin was stalked because he was black, he was killed because he was black and Zimmerman was acquitted because Martin was black. In other words, the law did not matter, this was just an exercise in racism. In short, Campos was venting in a totally idiotic fashion.
Normally, I would ignore an article like this, especially on Salon, since writing on Salon is reserved for the most wacko lefties around. The problem, however, is that at the end of the article I saw that Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. A Law Professor!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!
I have to conclude that either Campos never saw or read anything about the trial and was just race-baiting or else that he is a total ignoramus. Here is an example: Campos says
Nothing above requires the conclusion that the jury’s verdict was wrong as a matter of law. Florida’s laws, in their majestic equality, extend to people of all races the right to engage in vigilante killing that eliminates the sole witness to that killing.
So what is Campos talking about? Without a doubt, this is a reference to Florida's so called "Stand Your Ground" law. Indeed, that is the only Florida law to which Campos could possibly be referring. Of course, had Campos actually followed the trial rather than making conclusions based upon race, he would know that Zimmerman and his attorneys never based any of their defense on the Stand Your Ground law. They waived their right to a Stand Your Ground hearing before trial. During the trial, they relied totally on the regular common law defense of self-defense. The right of self defense is not specific to Florida; it is the law in every single one of the fifty states and in federal courts as well. In fact, every nation that has its legal system derived from the English common law also allows for self defense as a defense to a homicide charge. That means we have a purported law professor who does not even understand what defense was used by Zimmerman and his attorneys at the trial.
I started to wonder what courses this "professor" taught at the law school in Colorado, so I checked it out. He teaches "Property", "Legal Interpretation and the Legislative Process" and "Theory of Punishment". It was "Theory of Punishment" that was the dead giveaway as to the true nature of "professor" Campos. In most law schools, the nature or punishment for criminal acts is covered in one day or less during the compulsory class in Criminal Law. Devoting an entire semester to the "theory" of punishment is one of those crazy ideas that prepares law students for nothing. Can it really be that the average law student does not understand why people are sent to prison if they steal, murder, rape or commit other crimes? I don't think so. So have some group of social scientists uncovered some new meaning for punishment of criminals. Maybe--but it will probably be just as wrong as Campos' article about Zimmerman and Martin. But Campos is teaching a full semester course on this topic.
The facts about Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal remain clear enough for us all to know one important truth: the verdict had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the law. The jury is to be commended for putting aside emotion and deciding the case on the basis of what was presented to them. This was a triumph of the American legal system.
Normally, I would ignore an article like this, especially on Salon, since writing on Salon is reserved for the most wacko lefties around. The problem, however, is that at the end of the article I saw that Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. A Law Professor!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!
I have to conclude that either Campos never saw or read anything about the trial and was just race-baiting or else that he is a total ignoramus. Here is an example: Campos says
Nothing above requires the conclusion that the jury’s verdict was wrong as a matter of law. Florida’s laws, in their majestic equality, extend to people of all races the right to engage in vigilante killing that eliminates the sole witness to that killing.
So what is Campos talking about? Without a doubt, this is a reference to Florida's so called "Stand Your Ground" law. Indeed, that is the only Florida law to which Campos could possibly be referring. Of course, had Campos actually followed the trial rather than making conclusions based upon race, he would know that Zimmerman and his attorneys never based any of their defense on the Stand Your Ground law. They waived their right to a Stand Your Ground hearing before trial. During the trial, they relied totally on the regular common law defense of self-defense. The right of self defense is not specific to Florida; it is the law in every single one of the fifty states and in federal courts as well. In fact, every nation that has its legal system derived from the English common law also allows for self defense as a defense to a homicide charge. That means we have a purported law professor who does not even understand what defense was used by Zimmerman and his attorneys at the trial.
I started to wonder what courses this "professor" taught at the law school in Colorado, so I checked it out. He teaches "Property", "Legal Interpretation and the Legislative Process" and "Theory of Punishment". It was "Theory of Punishment" that was the dead giveaway as to the true nature of "professor" Campos. In most law schools, the nature or punishment for criminal acts is covered in one day or less during the compulsory class in Criminal Law. Devoting an entire semester to the "theory" of punishment is one of those crazy ideas that prepares law students for nothing. Can it really be that the average law student does not understand why people are sent to prison if they steal, murder, rape or commit other crimes? I don't think so. So have some group of social scientists uncovered some new meaning for punishment of criminals. Maybe--but it will probably be just as wrong as Campos' article about Zimmerman and Martin. But Campos is teaching a full semester course on this topic.
The facts about Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal remain clear enough for us all to know one important truth: the verdict had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the law. The jury is to be commended for putting aside emotion and deciding the case on the basis of what was presented to them. This was a triumph of the American legal system.
No comments:
Post a Comment