July 9, 2013
-
Politics and Trials
I have watched the entire Zimmerman trial, and I must say that throughout the prosecution's presentation he looked like he was working for the defense team. Of course that is probably due to the fact that he didn't have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman committed a murder. That being the case, the question has to be asked just why was a murder charge brought instead of manslaughter.
The answer clearly is politics. This is a political trial; nothing more; nothing less; and no good can come from it. If Zimmerman is convicted of 2nd degree murder, given the evidence presented at the trial, that would be a miscarriage of justice. If he is acquitted, that will be a socially unjust verdict. Even if he is convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, that won't satisfy the needs of those who insist on blood for blood.
Unfortunately, that puts the judge in the hot-seat, and I suspect (based on some of her rulings) that she is biased against the defendant just because she doesn't like the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. The maximum sentence would give her a change to express her thoughts in that regard. If the sentence is anything less than the maximum for killing a minor with a gun, outrage will follow from some of the public (those who want to make it a case of racial discrimination) will follow. This makes it too easy for the judge to pass judgment based on her political views.
Who is to blame for this state of affairs? That's easy. It is all of those people and organizations who make their living through sensation mongering. It is the ones who poison our society with their prejudgments and conclusions even before the evidence is presented. It is those who turn local events into national media events. It's people like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson.
Comments (1)
I think you are too hard on the prosecution. They have a job which was determined by a FL Grand Jury decision - which ,as you say, was probably in part political.The bare facts are really pretty clear and undisputed: Zimmerman noticed an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood. He called the police and was told not to confront that person. He chose to ignore that order, pursued and confronted Martin. Martin reacted to the confrontation and in the ensuing struggle was shot and killed.The question is whether or not Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. In my opinion, he probably did not, which makes him ,as you say, guilty of manslaughter. The question seems to be his motives in confronting Martin and his responsibility for the argument. The FL stand your ground law is not part of the trial as Zimmerman's lawyer chose not to use that defense. There is no question that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. This trial is about responsibility and punishment for a really stupid act on Zimmerman's part.
Comments are closed.