If you had any doubt…

…that George Zimmerman will be going to jail (and will be dying there), read this. It’s the story of another cut-and-dry case of self-defense that ended with the self-defender’s imprisonment, subsequent release, and re-imprisonment after four years of leading the life of a model citizen.

O Lord, spare us the judgment we surely deserve!

About these ads

25 thoughts on “If you had any doubt…

  1. Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results. Proph, you are extrapolating from a case in New York to one in Florida. That’s a very small sample.

    In this case, I don’t know all the facts, but that he was told by the 911 person not to approach the subject, and then he does so, it looks pretty damning.

    When carrying a gun, you can stand your ground, but you also have the responsibility that entails carrying a deadly weapon. The first one is to avoid a situation in which you have a reasonable belief that you might have to use it. If I go and confront someone, knowing that he could react violently, but I have a gun, the responsible thing is not to confront that person. For how I believe someone with a gun should behave, I refer to Massad Ayoob’s In the Gravest Extreme. He explains the different aspects of the law, and in my view, ethics of carrying a weapon.

    I don’t know what happened between the call and the time where Martin was smashing Zimmerman’s head to the ground. I don’t even know if Zimmerman approach Martin, or if Martin approached Zimmerman (the latter being an evident case of self defense), but there are definitely things in this case that are not clear. Zimmerman could be guilty in reality, and in court.

    I am somewhat discomforted of the charges, though. Why this late? Either the D.A. was sleeping on her job, she is preparing a malicious prosecution, or she is wasting taxpayer’s money in a case she knows she will lose. Any scenario is not very encouraging.

    • I really need to get my spell check working, guys. I sincerely apologize. Someday I will even learn how to enter hyperlinks in my text.

    • In this case, I don’t know all the facts, but that he was told by the 911 person not to approach the subject, and then he does so, it looks pretty damning.

      If this were true, and it is disputed, why would it be damning at all? Are citizens in FL required to obey 911 dispatchers’ orders? Assuming we even agree that “We don’t need you to do that” rises to the level of an order.

      Unless the DA is sitting on some pretty convincing evidence we don’t know about (and this is possible, of course), the prosecution looks malicious to me.

      • Malicious is understating it. I’m increasingly beginning to think Zimmerman should’ve fled the country when he had the chance.

    • “but that he was told by the 911 person not to approach the subject…”
      Where did you hear that he was told this?
      I read he was told that there was no requirement to approach the subject. Thus he was not in violation of an instruction.

    • According to both the 911 transcripts and Zimmerman’s own testimony, he disengaged after the dispatcher told him they didn’t need him to follow the guy. (Note, at any rate, that it wasn’t a command, simply a declarative fact — dispatchers aren’t cops and so have no authority).

      • It’s not the issue of authority here, it’s that being armed, he may have provoked a situation in which deadly force might have been required. The 911 call seems to provide evidence to that effect. Regardless of the call, if you are armed, if you provoke a situation where you have to defend yourself with deadly force, you lose your claim to self defense.
        Now, if, as Proph states, both the 911 transcripts and Zimmerman’s own testimony, he disengaged after the dispatcher told him they didn’t need him to follow the guy , then the self defense claim can be upheld.

      • According to the Alan Dershowitz interview that Auster linked to, even if Zimmerman was the provocateur, if Zimmerman was on then on the ground being beaten by Martin he would have the “traditional right of self defence”.

      • Ralph, I think you are mistaken here. Why would Zimmerman’s obligation to avoid a situation where deadly force might be necessary be any higher just because he is armed? The fact that he is armed just means that the deadly force is more likely ultimately to be used against Martin than Zimmerman.

        The neighborhood watch captain following some guy he doesn’t recognize through public places does not constitute “provocation” under any reasonable definition of that word. I don’t think either as a matter of law or of morality, Zimmerman had any obligation whatsoever to stop following Martin. In fact, I think following him (if, indeed, that is what he did) would be praiseworthy.

      • Bill,
        Why would Zimmerman’s obligation to avoid a situation where deadly force might be necessary be any higher just because he is armed? .
        Because in a situation like that, when someone is armed, someone may get killed. So, suppose you don’t like a person, you can provoke this person to attack you, then use your weapon and claim self defense. Because you are armed, you have more power, thus more resposibility. You should restrain yourself from entering into a potentially violent confrontation. The law, as I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), reflects that.

        The neighborhood watch captain following some guy he doesn’t recognize through public places does not constitute “provocation” under any reasonable definition of that word. I don’t think either as a matter of law or of morality, Zimmerman had any obligation whatsoever to stop following Martin.
        You may have a point there. It does not constitute a provocation. But, if there was, following Martin would be the first step.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think there is something horrible going on with this prosecution. I happen, for the first time in a while, to agree with this liberal lawyer. That he was punched and then had his head bashed against the floor also gives credence to the claim that he only acted in self defense. If he hadn’t, wouldn’t he unholstered his gun first and shot Martin? I mean, he didn’t seem to reach for that gun until the very end.

    • Indeed, when armed many overly enthusiastic individuals will confidently take it upon themselves to make threatening motions toward others. It happened to me one night more than twenty years ago, while on foot and cutting through a neighborhood of upscale homes north of Canyon Creek Road toward a service station near the 91 Freeway. My defense was aggressive. Now when making his move if this particular individual had a concealed handgun on his person instead of an openly displayed water pipe I could have been shot and killed. And there is no doubt in my mind that law enforcement would have considered me the aggressor.

  2. Having lived in Florida for a large part of my life before my move to the PNW, my gut is that the jury is going to acquit him. Apparently he’s got a decent attorney now who has experience in media-driven cases. The fact that the grand jury was bypassed makes my suspicion stronger. Nobody who has to be elected or who can be removed by elected officials is going to do the right thing, but I think the jury will. If the prosecutor thought the grand jury was a slam dunk, they would’ve sent it there—and grand juries USUALLY are just a rubber stamp.
    What is likely to happen is double jeopardy by the Feds with some sort of BS civil rights charges after he’s acquitted and the blacks riot throughout the nation.

    • Larry Auster seems to think the opposite about his attorney, that he dumped a professional, high-powered fellow and replaced him with the “Rich Lowry of criminal defense attorneys.”

  3. As soon as one starts debating the micro-minutiae of media reports of each detail of incidents, political correctness has won. (Which, of course, it has.)

    This is a no-brainer.

    Things don’t ever get any clearer than this one.

    Anyone who can’t see by now what is going-on is never going to see what is going-on.

    *This* is what it is like to live in a totalitarian society – *this* is what people have read-about in Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Havel.

    If you don’t see it now, you never will.

    • *This* is what it is like to live in a totalitarian society – *this* is what people have read-about in Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Havel.

      Reading this, I’m reminded of the Indian fellow soon to be thrown in jail for the non-crime of being mean to his gay roommate. Hearing that news, the first thing I thought to myself was exactly something along these lines — that this country will destroy you on a whim, for any reason, or even none at all.

    • Some people will see it when it happens to their friends, relatives, or selves. So, it’s not quite as bad as all that.

    • Lawrence Auster has linked to this with some insightful comment

      http://www.amnation.com/vfr/#022179

      But I stand by the precise wording of my statements.

      “This is a no-brainer. Things don’t ever get any clearer than this one.”

      Things never are clearer than this, now.

      Because truth is always, to some extent, hidden or ambiguous – such that those who do not seek truth will not be compelled to acknowledge truth.

      And this matter does not require brains to understand, indeed it requires brains to misunderstand.

      What it requires is a perspective (an understanding of how things work) rooted in common sense (natural law) and personal experience – rather than ideology and abstract systems. Only intelligent people can have a perspective rooted in ideology and abstract systems; and unintelligent people can only absorb the results of this perspective, not the perspective itself – so unintelligent people will necessarily default to common sense and personal experience when removed from media/ educational/ propaganda influence.

      “Anyone who can’t see by now what is going-on is never going to see what is going-on.”

      Because many people *never* do see what is going on, and many/ most people accepted and still accept show trials as justice – which is why they are increasingly popular.

      • Liberalism and its excesses are a brainer as long as you see them as an anomaly taking over a basically healthy system still capable of being reformed. This point of view needs a lot of brains in order to work with its intrinsic contradictions. It needs constant agitation and outrage, „debating the micro-minutiae of media reports of each detail of incidents“, and as Mr. Charlton noticed, by doing this „political correctness has won“.
        But if liberalism and its excesses are viewed as the logical consequences of a system which is founded on the concept of the permanent revolution („The revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology.“ Aldous Huxley) they become a „no-brainer“. The indignation and the outrage starts historically at a much earlier and psychologically at a much deeper level and cases like Zimmermanns are viewed with bold resignation as symptoms of something very evil, of something of which America was part of since its very beginnings and of something of which America, or shall we say USG, is now the chief executioner in this world.

  4. Considering the media storm that has occurred, I find it hard to believe they’ll find anyone not tainted by it for the jury. Even his new lawyer admitted that all they knew about the case was what they heard from the television.

  5. Send the guy some cash. He’s sure, the hell, gonna need it. 2nd degree murder is ludicrous on its face. It’s likely that he’ll walk on the charge. Those who want his head on a pike will scream injustice and the USAG will go after him. No double jeopardy there… no, not at all.

  6. Only a small educated minority read the works of such as Solzhenitsyn, Havel and Orwell. Members of that minority could learn from the lessons these writers teach. But not many do, apparently, which is one reason why an even smaller minority subject ‘the way we live now’ to moral criticism.

    The vast majority of people do not form independent opinions and they are not alarmed by the drift towards totalitarianism. They are led by intellectuals who have created the climate of opinion in which scandals like the Zimmerman case are inevitable. We – meaning the tiny number of people who read blogs like this – do not have enough political influence to repair the damage resulting from the treason of the clerks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s