I know that I said that I had made my last comment about the George Zimmerman trial, but then I read today's column by Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. Robinson concludes in his piece that the outcome of the trial was purely the result of racism. Indeed, his legal analysis came down to this:
To me, and to many who watched the trial, the fact that Zimmerman recklessly initiated the tragic encounter was enough to establish, at a minimum, guilt of manslaughter. The six women on the jury disagreed.
Amazing! It was not the jury that disagreed with Robinson's point, it is the law that disagrees. Initiating a "tragic encounter" is not a criminal act, not in Florida, New York, DC or any state in the country. Zimmerman, like any other person in the USA was entitled to respond to a threat of death or severe bodily harm by using force himself, even deadly force. Anyone who gets jumped on the street and knocked to the ground with a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head from being banged into the concrete can take action to defend himself, anywhere. And that's the point. The issue the jury had to decide was not who began the confrontation. It was not whether or not Zimmerman is a racist. It was not whether or not Zimmerman "stalked" Martin or Martin jumped Zimmerman. In simplest terms, the actual issue was whether the jury thought it possible that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he shot Martin. They did not have to conclude that Zimmerman had acted in self defense, just that, based upon the evidence, they could not rule out that Zimmerman had done so. No reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise; the prosecution presented a fatally flawed case.
When a columnist like Robinson writes about racism and why Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, he does nothing but stir up anger and resentment. Robinson should know better. The Washington Post should know better. But I guess they don't.
To me, and to many who watched the trial, the fact that Zimmerman recklessly initiated the tragic encounter was enough to establish, at a minimum, guilt of manslaughter. The six women on the jury disagreed.
Amazing! It was not the jury that disagreed with Robinson's point, it is the law that disagrees. Initiating a "tragic encounter" is not a criminal act, not in Florida, New York, DC or any state in the country. Zimmerman, like any other person in the USA was entitled to respond to a threat of death or severe bodily harm by using force himself, even deadly force. Anyone who gets jumped on the street and knocked to the ground with a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head from being banged into the concrete can take action to defend himself, anywhere. And that's the point. The issue the jury had to decide was not who began the confrontation. It was not whether or not Zimmerman is a racist. It was not whether or not Zimmerman "stalked" Martin or Martin jumped Zimmerman. In simplest terms, the actual issue was whether the jury thought it possible that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he shot Martin. They did not have to conclude that Zimmerman had acted in self defense, just that, based upon the evidence, they could not rule out that Zimmerman had done so. No reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise; the prosecution presented a fatally flawed case.
When a columnist like Robinson writes about racism and why Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, he does nothing but stir up anger and resentment. Robinson should know better. The Washington Post should know better. But I guess they don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment