NOT GULITY

Well, as everyone knows by now, the verdict is in, and it was in my view a correct one.

I wasn’t there on the night of Trayvon Martin’s death.  I only know what I have heard and read and at sounded like self defense to me.

Shortly after the incident, the police had released him and determined him to be within his rights under the ‘stand-your-ground’ laws, as self-defense and in fear of losing his life.  And the D.A. was not going to charge him with a crime…until there was such public outrage from race baiter Al Sharpton and all his racist followers.  A Hispanic shoots a young Black man – hey, it’s got to be racism.  

Of course, it wasn’t just Sharpton and his fired up mob, it was also the President of the United States.   This is not the first time he has spoke out and made a national racial incident out of what should have a local thing.   If he would just say “I don’t have enough details to comment on that case”.   From the moment he chose to insert himself, and, as Judicial Watch has discovered, his cohorts at the Justice Department into what should have been a local incident in Sanford, Florida, a travesty of justice has unfolded.

This administration’s orchestrated discontent was aided and abetted by a media more than willing to alter reality with doctored audio, (courtesy of NBC, attempting to make George Zimmerman appear racist); doctored video, (courtesy of ABC, who purposefully covered Zimmerman’s head wounds with a strategically placed graphic); and the execrable New York Times, which referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”   How did they come up with that term?  Zimmerman is an Hispanic who just happens to have a BLACK GRANDFATHER.

The Florida judicial system yielded to the pressure of both the Obama Administration and the mob of racists incited by the likes of Al Sharpton… and Zimmerman was arrested and charged with murder.

This man spent the past 18 months not knowing whether or not he would spend the next 20 years in prison.  I’m sure during that time he wished he’d walked away that night. That is… if he could have.  There’s an old saying, “It’s better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.”

Zimmerman’s problems may not be over yet.  The racist mobs are rioting and the Obama Administration is considering charging Zimmerman with a federal civil rights crime.

This case is a text book example of the legal nightmare you could find yourself in if you use your gun in self-defense.   If you carry, be VERY well versed on the state laws.  This can be difficult if you travel a lot.

Florida has a “stand your ground” law which means a person (any person) does not have to leave any area he or she has the legal right to be.

So Zimmerman had the right to be there that night, but so did Trayvon. Neither was required by law to retreat to avoid the conflict.  In theory, they could have ended up standing face to face staring each other down and NEITHER would have had the legal right to use any force against the other.  (You can’t use force because someone is giving you a mean look, or verbal threats).

So the question becomes: Who struck the first blow?  If it was Zimmerman, he has no legal standing to escalate a fight he started and therefore should be found guilty. If it was Trayvon, well, the fact that a man is following you (I don’t know from what distance) does not give you the right to approach the man, punch him in the face and bang his head on the sidewalk.  IF that is how it went down, then the final question should be: Did Trayvon reasonably believe that the person following him was preparing an imminent attack?

Either party could have just walked away. Neither party was compelled by law to walk away. Neither party had the right to escalate the incident to a violent encounter.

Take away race and this case becomes a question of who struck the first blow and why. The use of deadly force is legal if used to stop “any action that has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or great bodily harm.”

If Zimmerman struck the first blow, he should go to jail. If Trayvon struck the first blow and ended up winning the fist-fight and Zimmerman believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he was within his rights under law to fire in self-defense. The jury is going to decide this.

This is not about color or hoodies or the Rambo mentality or Skittles or anything else other than who elevated the situation from one guy following another to the point where Zimmerman pulled out a gun.

All of the “what ifs” and “yeah buts” are moot.  If  Zimmerman didn’t have a gun…he would have gotten his ass beat for following a teenager.  But there is no law that says the teenager can beat someone’s ass for following him.  If Trayvon had just walked home, none of this would have happened.  But there is no law that said he had to walk home. Trayvon had the legal right to be where he was.  What we are looking for is the legal justification for an action.  

It seems like a simple question, but when it comes to deadly force, there is no easy answer.  And, if you go into a fight without an understanding of legal consequences, you could win the battle, but still lose the war. 

I sincerely believe that in this case, the jury got it right.

TODAY'S HEADLINES
Demonstrators in cities across country...
CA protesters break windows, start fires...
Teen threatens 'mass homicide' on TWITTER...
NY Giants Star: 'Zimmerman Doesn't Last a Year Before the Hood Catches Up to Him'...
Beyonce holds moment of silence at concert...
Celebs React...
AP REPORTER: 'SO WE CAN ALL KILL TEENAGERS NOW?'
Sharpton: 'Slap in the Face'...
NAACP calls on Obama admin to pursue civil rights charges...
Holder Faces Big Decision...

Did you know that during the Zimmerman trial, there were four kids gunned down in Chicago. Three were teen minors, and one was a 5-year-old. CNS News summarized the cases:

• On June 28, five-year-old Sterling Sims was killed in a double murder that also claimed the life of his mother, 31-year-old Chavonne Brown. Both were shot in their apartment, and police believe the motive was robbery.
• On July 1, 16-year-old Antonio Fenner was gunned down on the sidewalk next to the body of a 32-year-old man who had gang ties. No arrests were made, and no suspects have been named. Fenner’s mother believes her son was in the wrong place at the wrong time, because no one in her family knew the other victim or what Fenner’s association was to him.
• On July 3, 14-year-old Damani Henard was murdered outside a high school. His body was found next a bicycle.
• On July 9, 15-year-old Ed Cooper was shot and killed while spending time with friends at the park. A gunman got out of a black van and began firing as the boys ran away. Cooper was shot in the street and continued running to a vacant lot where he died.

Holder said that his department had opened an investigation into Martin’s death and will possibly press civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Since Eric Holder is so concerned with violence “involving or directed at young people,” like Trayvon, I wonder what his Justice Department is going to do with these Chicago youth murder cases.
Or do they not count? Is black-on-black violence not really anything to be concerned about? After all, it happens everyday in Chicago, and they hardly spur even local investigations. “Another day, another murder,” right?
I guess Holder doesn’t care about those cases. It’s not like he can capitalize on them in any meaningful way, since usually only blacks are involved. He wouldn’t want to bring attention to that. That would make blacks look bad. But just wait. Liberals will find a way to blame Chicago black violence on “white privilege.”