Tweet
As a trial lawyer myself, I have learned that trials often unearth and expose unpleasant truths. The Zimmerman trial did this.
The unpleasant truth is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman with intent to kill or severely injure. Zimmerman has been criticized for being outside of his car while reporting Martin's loitering. Whatever one's opinion is about this, the fact is that this was not against the law. And that is the standard. There is no evidence that Zimmerman even verbally confronted Martin. Which would have been legal, by the way.
The evidence supports the conclusion that Martin hid in the bushes with the intent of surprising and attacking Zimmerman, which he did. Laying in wait and attacking, if it leads to a death, is grounds for a first degree murder conviction in most states. Thus if Zimmerman had died from the attack, Martin would likely have been liable for what many states term "First Degree Murder." (I don't know the specifics of Florida law.)
The evidence supports the conclusion that Martin resented Zimmerman's presence outside of his car, Zimmerman being lawfully walking in his own neighborhood at the time. This resentment provided the motive for Martin to assault Zimmerman, strike him, wrestle Zimmerman to the ground, and then pound Zimmerman's head into the concrete pavement. Martin used deadly force against Zimmerman in this fashion, and as experts testified, this battery by Martin against Zimmerman had the power to kill or maim.
The jury clearly believed that the evidence revealed the foregoing scenario to be what happened. It is what happened.
Zimmerman drew his pistol and shot Martin as a result of Zimmerman's objectively correct decision that to do otherwise was for him to risk his own death or severe maiming at the hands of a full-grown vicious attacker: Trayvon Martin.
Any rational society would conclude that Zimmerman was fully within his rights to use his pistol to stop Martin's vicious and deadly attack. Zimmerman was properly licensed to carry the pistol and this right derives from precisely the possibility that the pistol will be needed to exercise the legitimate right of self-defense, as happened here.
Another key fact: this has absolutely nothing to do with the "stand your ground" law. Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. Even if he had been in a "duty to retreat" jurisdiction, he would have had the right to defend himself as he did. This is a natural right, not conferred by the Constitution, but *protected* by the Constitution.
The rhetoric employed by the Democrats and Left (same thing) particularly by the Obama Administration represents nothing but an attempt to distort and ignore the objective facts. Next time you think about voting Democrat, remember the deceit with which they have approached this fairly simple situation.
__________________
The unpleasant truth is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman with intent to kill or severely injure. Zimmerman has been criticized for being outside of his car while reporting Martin's loitering. Whatever one's opinion is about this, the fact is that this was not against the law. And that is the standard. There is no evidence that Zimmerman even verbally confronted Martin. Which would have been legal, by the way.
The evidence supports the conclusion that Martin hid in the bushes with the intent of surprising and attacking Zimmerman, which he did. Laying in wait and attacking, if it leads to a death, is grounds for a first degree murder conviction in most states. Thus if Zimmerman had died from the attack, Martin would likely have been liable for what many states term "First Degree Murder." (I don't know the specifics of Florida law.)
The evidence supports the conclusion that Martin resented Zimmerman's presence outside of his car, Zimmerman being lawfully walking in his own neighborhood at the time. This resentment provided the motive for Martin to assault Zimmerman, strike him, wrestle Zimmerman to the ground, and then pound Zimmerman's head into the concrete pavement. Martin used deadly force against Zimmerman in this fashion, and as experts testified, this battery by Martin against Zimmerman had the power to kill or maim.
The jury clearly believed that the evidence revealed the foregoing scenario to be what happened. It is what happened.
Zimmerman drew his pistol and shot Martin as a result of Zimmerman's objectively correct decision that to do otherwise was for him to risk his own death or severe maiming at the hands of a full-grown vicious attacker: Trayvon Martin.
Any rational society would conclude that Zimmerman was fully within his rights to use his pistol to stop Martin's vicious and deadly attack. Zimmerman was properly licensed to carry the pistol and this right derives from precisely the possibility that the pistol will be needed to exercise the legitimate right of self-defense, as happened here.
Another key fact: this has absolutely nothing to do with the "stand your ground" law. Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. Even if he had been in a "duty to retreat" jurisdiction, he would have had the right to defend himself as he did. This is a natural right, not conferred by the Constitution, but *protected* by the Constitution.
The rhetoric employed by the Democrats and Left (same thing) particularly by the Obama Administration represents nothing but an attempt to distort and ignore the objective facts. Next time you think about voting Democrat, remember the deceit with which they have approached this fairly simple situation.
__________________
Comment