It seems that the verdict of a sworn jury in our criminal justice system means little to the haters, who are still screaming that George Zimmerman killed “an unarmed seventeen-year-old.” Given that seventeen is old enough to enlist in the Marine Corps and to be tried as an adult – the Gainesville Sun recently headlined that a “sixteen-year-old man” was to be charged with murder in the selfsame Florida criminal justice system – the age issue doesn’t hold a lot of water when seen through a clear glass.
“Unarmed?” Actually, NO. The history of adjudicating deadly force actions shows that Trayvon Martin was “armed” two or three times over.
First, the haters (like the prosecution) assiduously ignored George Zimmerman’s statement that while Martin was “ground-and-pounding” him, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster, told Zimmerman that he was going to die tonight, and reached for his victim’s pistol.
If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand. If I announce my intent to murder you and reach for a gun, I’m bought and paid for right there. And it doesn’t matter whether the gun I’m reaching for is in my holster, or yours. That’s why every year in America, when thugs try to grab a policeman’s gun and are shot, the shootings are ruled justifiable.
Even before Martin’s reach for Zimmerman’s still-holstered pistol, the circumstances that were proven to the satisfaction of the jury showed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting his attacker. Remember when defense attorney Don West said in the defense’s opening statement that Martin was armed with the sidewalk? That sounded ludicrous to lay people, and I would have phrased it differently myself, but professionals understood exactly what he was talking about.
The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.
Position of disadvantage means that the opponent has full range and freedom of movement, and you don’t. You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…or you are down and helpless in a martial arts “mount” while your opponent pounds you at will.
Finally, we have the clearly proven element of Martin smashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. If I picked up a chunk of concrete or cement and tried to smash your skull with it, you would certainly realize that you were about to die or be horribly brain-damaged if you didn’t stop me. It would be what the statutes call “a deadly weapon, to wit a bludgeon.” There just isn’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between cement being smashed into head, and head being smashed into cement.
Clearly, Trayvon Martin possessed the power to kill or cripple Zimmerman. That is why, under law, Zimmerman was justified in defending himself with a per se deadly weapon.
The jury got it. Too bad the haters didn’t understand…or didn’t want to understand.
Mas,
It does not serve the haters’ purpose to look at this objectively.
Only through the ferment of discord can they justify their reason for being.
Vince
Mas – Thank you for sharing your info on this case. Particularly as it comes from the perspective of a subject matter expert.
One of the things about this case was that there was only one persons word for what happened on that night. I am interested to hear what “hard” evidence supported Mr. Zimmerman.
As usual Mas, you have succinctly with few words, got to the crux of the discussion. The only thing left is, did Zimmerman provoke Martin by following him after leaving his vehicle.
It seems to me that the tape between Zimmerman and the non-emergency dispatcher has not been played in its entirety or transcribed in its entirety. Each talking head on the news only plays what they want you to hear. Many people have pointed to the dispatchers words that the Police don’t need Zimmerman to follow Martin. However, in the defense’s closing arguments O’Mara showed a time line of the dispatchers and Zimmerman’s words. I believe that after the dispatcher had said that Zimmerman ,””need not do that” then 15 seconds or so later asked Zimmerman, “what is he, the suspect, doing now”. That would lead a person to believe that they needed Zimmerman to keep them informed.
It has been amazing how much of this case was directly covered in our Mag-40 class. I am glad I took it.
“Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster” means there must have been enough light out to see a gun. Do we know for sure there was that much light on a dark, rainy night? (I am not saying the outcome of the trial was not correct by the way.). I also remember mention of Zimmerman having a flashlight. Anyone know?
Mas, the “Haters” are beyond comprehension. They are being aided and abetted by the current administration.
There is so much discussion – still – about this case. So much of it inflammatory. I wish this simple description and explanation could go viral immediately, to get people to just say: Oh.
And finally move on.
The biggest thing I can hit you with is the Earth.
Thanks for the straight dope on this, it will be very helpful when talking to friends and family.
More to come?
Hi Mas:
Glad you’re discussing this one. I have a feeling that your analysis is going to provide one heck of a refresher to those of us who sat through LFI in your classroom.
One question. In Truth about Self Protection, you told the story of a police officer who went into a bar for a drink, and came across a group of people who were known to him from his police responsibilities. They started to verbally abuse him. You advised tossing them a $20 (wrapped around a matchbook) while suggesting that they buy themselves a round of beers on you. You’d then depart the scene, and deal with the issue later when the odds were much more in your favor.
Instead, the cop told the group off, and found himself getting stomped by four pair of engineers boots. The copy fired to stop the assault. He killed at least one of the perps.
The cop was found guilty, fired from his job, and spent time in prison.
Wasn’t Zimmerman guilty of escalating the conflict, and not walking away when he had the chance?
Excellent points, all. I have many friends who are appalled by the verdict, whom I’ve been gently trying to steer toward the facts of the case. Unfortunately I can’t show them this article, because I think they’ll stop listening after the word “haters”. Even though they don’t understand the issue, my friends are some of the most compassionate people. Certainly there are people on that side of the issue who are genuine haters, but I don’t think of my friends that way. That word is really not conducive to understanding. I hope you will consider a gentler mode of persuasion in the future, because apart from that critique, your reasoning is excellent and easy to follow. Thank you for writing about this!
I found this piece through The Cornered Cat on Facebook, and am very glad I did! Thank you for your insight!
I watched the trial, but even before that, have been standing for 2nd Amendment rights with my American neighbors (I am Canadian).
The haters were ready to accept the jury’s verdict – as long as it went their way. They are fed by an overzealous prosecution team who missed the entire point of self-defense tenets, as well as media who are deeply in the pockets of the current administration ready to tighten gun laws to the point of unconstitutionality.
I wish there were more people who *got* it – who could see the truth and understand that is how justice works. But it’s good to find more like yourself, willing to stand up and speak out for true justice and the rights of citizens to bear arms, and use those arms if in fear for their lives.
I’ve been using an analogy that seems to help.
In a typical “MMA” fight the ref pulls the winner off before the loser can take severe damage. At that point it’s clear who won the fight. Even in matches where the loser was no longer able to defend himself when the ref stopped it, he usually goes home instead of to a hospital.
That’s as it should be.
On the street there’s no ref. Martin, according to witnesses, kept on pounding once Zimmerman was down. Had a ref been there he’d have stopped the fight because without such a stoppage Zimmerman could have died.
Zimmerman’s gun had to do the ref’s job.
If there’s a lesson to be learned here, it’s that nobody has the right to get so violently angry that they put somebody in fear of dying.
Methinks that the lessons learned (and those lessons/facts conveniently ignored by MSM/Prosecution/Race-baiters) could fill a book. Looking forward to reading more, and will pass this post along via FB.
Randy, leaving a vehicle or following someone is not a provocation. Shouting to them or threatening use of force or actually using force, is a provocation. It is not unlawful or threatening to exit a vehicle (sans a freeway) or unlawful or threatening to follow and observe someone. As much as the media and Martin supporters are apt to point out that Martin was followed by Zimmerman, that by itself does not warrant or justify assault. Instructions from non-emergency dispatch, equally, are not lawfully binding. You are a free citizen, to do as you please. Are there moral or safety issues at play when discussing leaving the vehicle or following? Certainly, but those issues are more subjective and less objective. The morally right thing to do can be illegal, but it can also be justified (i.e. self-defense). It’s still illegal to kill someone, but justifiable if done to prevent great injury or death.
As we learned in Mas’s class, these situations are fluid — disparity of force is not determined at the onset of the encounter, it evolves throughout and must be constantly reevaluated, even in mutual combat (which it appears GZ/TM was NOT).
Recall the discussion of a gang of assailants attacked a lone armed man: the dynamics must dictate exactly when the lawful use of deadly force is no longer justified, which probably falls somewhere after the time the next-to-last assailant falls, and before the last one turns to run away.
The idea that the police dispatcher asked GZ “what is he doing now” after telling him not to follow TM is a myth introduced into the trial by defense counsel. The entire dispatch call is available both in transcript form and in audio form at several places on the Internet and no such question or other inquiry about what TM was doing was posed by the dispatcher after the dispatcher asked GZ whether or not he was following TZ and when GZ said he was then said “Ok we don’t need you to do that”. It is, however, a myth which some jurors apparently believed, and which is now being repeated in the media.
I remain confused…I don’t understand WHY it matters so much HOW the fight started. Zimmerman could have started it and still been justified in using deadly force after the verbal threat followed by a violent physical attack during which he could suffer permanent injury or death. Am I way off base on this?
Another great article Mas. Appreciate your insight.
I think it’s interesting how soon America forgot about Brian Stow. Yes, this was a man who was beaten with fists in a parking lot, and his head hit the ground. He was essentially killed when you compare what his life was like before, and what it will be for the remainder of it. There were no guns involved at all in that beating, just fists and pavement, and the loser lost all quality of life from here until death. Frankly I would have wished for death if what happened to Stow happened to me.
Self-defense used to be an affirmative defense (that’s certainly what we learned in my CCW class, but that’s been a few years). Cowardly Zimmerman didn’t even dare to testify to the proposition that his life was in danger. (Which of course was a joke: he had a busted nose, some cuts, and NO CONCUSSION.) With a jury of six middle-aged white ladies, all it took was innuendo to “prove” that proposition. Fistfights are scary! All of them should be stopped with gunfire!
Everyone who “identifies” with the cowardly, stupid, culpable actions of this defendant and “celebrates” this verdict should look forward as happily to the inevitable backlash against their gun rights. Once power-tripping losers realize they can fight with unarmed kids and then kill those kids with impunity, they’ll do it a great deal more often. (I don’t expect many *grown* men will be victims of this phenomenon, because even Zimms would stay in the car when there’s an actual criminal on the prowl.) Eventually, the stench will reach DC, and this folly will be reigned in. But hey, in the meantime, it’s open season!
The ignorance of “haters” I can understand, but the sickening bias and negligence throughout the media is beyond belief.
Phrases like “Martin’s killer was acquitted” and “the man who killed 17 year old Martin” are invariably the introduction to every news story. The phrase “self-defense” is never mentioned, and the stories now jump to how a civil rights lawsuit can be crafted and the opportunity for a civil suit.
Facts and evidence appear to be irrelevant. It’s a media lynching.
Mas, after taking MAG 40 from you I thought of exactly what you said in this post before and during the trial. With a little knowlege of the law and legal precedents the outcome seemed obvious. It amazes and troubles me how many people have a strong opionon of this case born out of ignorance or bias. Thanks for spreading the word and educating those willing to listen and understand.
The jury got it. Too bad the haters didn’t understand…or didn’t want to understand.
The forces that profit from race baiting can not afford for inconvenient truths to get in the way of the approved story. Sadly many otherwise intelligent Americans appear to be buying into the lies.
I see you have accepted Zimmerman’s testimony and reenactment to the cops as undisputed fact right from the get go. If I have to rely on his word to decide this was self defense then the argument fails.
I’m curious what you would have thought if Martin had killed Zimmerman. Would he have been able to succesfully convince a jury that the man carrying a gun was obviously stalking him and that he had a right to stand HIS ground and defend HIMSELF?
My understanding of self-defense law (and I’m no lawyer, so I really am interested in answers and not just arguments) is that you can’t start a fight and then claim self defense. You can’t, for example, walk into a bar and punch a biker in the face and then shoot him when he starts to fight back. But where is the line? I never understood why the prosecution was so focused on the fight itself and not everything that led up to the confrontation. If Zimmerman provoked the attack, why does he get to pull a gun when he’s about to lose? Why should it matter if Martin was on top if Zimmerman started the fight?
“You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…”
No too long after the Zimmerman-Martin shooting this exact scenario happened in Taylor, Michigan. The shooter was arrested and spent two or three nights in jail. He retained counsel and ultimately was not charged.
I believe the arrest happened because of the temporal proximity to Zimmerman-Martin. I think the Taylor PD Chief did not want to be second guessed in the media.
@Fruitbat44:
Doesn’t actually matter what “hard” evidence supported Zimmerman – you are NOT required to prove your innocence in court.
Rather, the prosecution has the requirement to prove your guilt.
Which it clearly failed to do.
Mas,
Clearly based on what you have been teaching and what I know from other experts, the case law supports your assertion that there was a disparity of force at the time the Zimmerman drew his weapon. I’d like to hear your opinion, however, on how Zimmerman’s actions prior to this final confrontation – his initial pursuit/search of Martin, initial confrontation (if there was one) – affect his responsibility for the final outcome.
What I’ve always understood based on my training is that the there is a good amount of case law that supports the assertion that if you can be criminally liable if your actions contribute directly to the circumstances that necessitate the use of deadly force, e.g, you start or escalate a conflict. I’ve always been told that as an armed citizen, to avoid confrontations and to certainly not pursue people if I want to avoid any potential liability. That why we have armed officers of the court a phone call away. It seems Zimmerman’s actions in the beginning went completely in the face of this advice. It’s important to state that Zimmerman’s actions in no way reduce Martins responsibility in escalating the situation. Clearly his actions lead directly to his death, but my understanding is that both people can be at fault or contribute to the outcome from a legal perspective.
From your position as an expert and based on your specific knowledge of the case, I’d like to get your opinion on Zimmerman’s earlier actions and how they affect of don’t affect the final outcome, and how this may be interpreted by CCW carriers? Maybe in part 3?
I have for years found myself having conversations with other gun carriers who love to quote the statutes, but have zero awareness of precedent. Most people don’t seem to understand that this is in part a common law country where precedent is law, and the vaguely defined statutes are open to interpretation. In general, I have found that people have a much more liberal understanding of the situations under which they can legitimately use deadly force, e.g. defending property, brandishing, etc. Although I strongly believe in the basic right to carry for self defense, the understanding of use of force of many of my fellow gun owners often gives me pause. In fact I often direct them to your videos and articles for education. Regardless of Zimmerman’s guilt, I still feel that his actions were not those of a prudent CCW holder.
I have one further question. Most states, including my state of Virginia, already accept the principle of “Stand Your Ground,” without the need for a specific statute. The common law simply supports it. I have read from some unbiased sources that the flurry of SYG statutes that have been passed in various states have actually led to confusion amongst law enforcement and prosecutors. I reject the opinion, as you do, that this case has anything to do with SYG laws as asserted by commentators and parroted by mainstream media, but I’m curious as to your opinion of these laws, there necessity or lack there of given current precedent, and whether you have seen them become an issue in the cases you see?
Thank You
Excellent points, Mas, as usual. One thing I noted is the disparity in viewpoints between whites and blacks. I remember very distinctly two black ladies discussing the shooting shortly after it happened. They were commenting on why that man shot that baby. Over and over I heard them referring to Trayvon Martin as a “baby.” I don’t think this attitude is exclusive to this incident, either. Rather, I believe it reflects a protective attitude on the part of black women over youngsters, and thus a failure to conceive of older teens, even gangbangers, as dangerous.
Wonder whether these new protests, and near riots, are being aggitated, and caused, by the same Dept. of Justice, Communityn Relations Service (CRS) employess that were sent to Stanford, FL, in order to insure that Zimmerman would be tried for murder, to pay for his crime of killing someone Obama viewed as “Being just like the Son Obama would Like to have Had”.
This is just further persecution of a guy that happened to approach a young Black man, intent on making a “Free Living”, with other peoples Stuff, that escalated from a “Mole Hill”, into a “Mt. Everest” sized mountain.
As always, your expert discussion helps us understand real law
and self-defense in real circumstances. I wish all had access to
it. The link at the end of your first column on the subject was
a great resource which I have already supported and will continue
to follow.
And let us remember where hate comes from. From fear and hurt.
Individually and collectively. Those who exploit this are the real
problem makers.
The jury was split 3-3 in the beginning. Mr. Zimmerman is very
lucky someone convinced the others to apply real legal standards
in this case. Very few others did including the prosecution. As
always, it’s the mothers who suffer most in these situations and
we could say some prayers for both of them.
Motive?
Rachel Jeantel tells Piers Morgan she and Trayvon feared Zimmerman might be gay rapist… It was on you tube last night & the google today
Funny, I was tempted to ask you if you were approached in this case, and I decided that because it was an ongoing case, either you wouldn’t or couldn’t answer anyway.
It’s a deep and dreadful shame that our elected “leaders”, who either know or should know the facts are using this volatile topic to stir their pot.
Thanks for presenting the simple facts!
So post-acquittal, Zimmerman is free to flee with Eric Snowden since he can’t live or work in the states anymore?
TWW- No flashlight mentioned that I know of, if so, a flashlight could have possibly prevented this incident. Martin may have not felt as if he was being stalked and believed Zimmerman was in fact a concerned citizen or even a police officer. If in fact he was up to no good, most burglars, vandals, etc. don’t like light and their first inclination is to flee. Having said that, in most apartment complexes it is never complete darkness, but varying degrees of ambient light. Not enough to make out all details at distance but usually enough to see objects such as a gun at arms length. In my opinion a good light is a necessary companion to a firearm whether day or night. If you are a civilian who chooses to get involved, good verbal communication is a plus also.
Did Zimmerman violate the rules of engagement while carrying a firearm for Self-Defense?
Or a better question, Did Zimmerman deliberately put himself in a situation when better judgement would have served all affected parties?
The ‘haters’ do not understand and don’t want to understand. They’re closed minded.
I have never seen anything to equal the disparate reactions to this case. People who are otherwise reasonable, logical and rational have turned into raving moonbats. I just do not understand why they are having this absolute blind spot to the accepted facts of the case and the verdict.
Mas – The most compelling evidence that confirms, in my mind, that Treyvon Martin (TM) attacked George Zimmerman (GZ)with malice was never given to the jury. This evidence comes from his cell phone and strongly suggests that Treyvon Martin belonged to a “fighting” culture.
It includes a video of two homeless men fighting with someone commenting, and a video of two kids fighting with others looking on. There were also close up pictures of a semi-automatic pistol (Mass, what is it?), two people getting ready to fight, and some women’s jewelry on a bed. Lastly, there are text messages about TM fighting in general and a specific fight of which he wanted a rematch so he could make the other person “breed” (bleed?) more. In some of his texts he discusses the buy and selling of a handgun. TM seemed to be heading in the direction of being a “thug”, if he was not already one.
Thank God GZ had a concealed carry permit and ACTUALLY carried his handgun. This case represents exactly why law abiding citizens should have the right to carry. All of us who believe in the right to carry should be strongly defending Zimmerman and his actions instead blaming him for not being perfect. Remember, TM had four minutes to get to his home, less than 130 yards away, but decided not to.
I feel sorry for TM’s parents and believe they are good people, but they knew their son was going in the wrong direction. In one of the texts TM talks about his mother kicking him out of her house and sending him up to his father.
The Obama administration has already begun to use this case to try to change the stand your ground laws and get more gun control laws passed. Instead of being on the defense we need to start an offence using this case to justify our right to carry.
Fruitbat44, hard evidence in Zimmerman’s favor included but was not limited to:
The full recording of the 311 call: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNCvr9V2pig
The timeline of events as indicated by Martin’s calls to his girlfriend and Zimmerman’s 311 call before the incident, the first 911 call from a witness during the incident, and the gunshot heard 44 seconds into that call. Also the location of the incident in relation to the timeline fit Zimmerman’s account.
Photos taken of Zimmerman’s wounds before paramedics cleaned him up and expert analysis of the wounds he received: http://i.imgur.com/u0iXcJ5.jpg
Martin’s autopsy:http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf
Martin’s clothes and expert analysis thereof.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement report: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/07/12/zimmerman.fdle.lab.reports.pdf
The FBI report: http://lawofselfdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FBI-interview-of-Chris-Serino.pdf
Other than that, a witness saw Martin mounting Zimmerman and beating him. Police testified as to Zimmerman’s condition and grass on his back before paramedics arrived.
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday strongly criticized stand-your-ground laws that allow a person who believes he is in danger to use deadly force in self-defense.
Holder said he was concerned about the case of Trayvon Martin, in which George Zimmermann was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges, and said the Justice Department has an open investigation into what happened.
But he added: “Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.”
In an address to an NAACP convention, Holder said it’s time to question laws that “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense.”
The attorney general said the country must take a hard look at laws that contribute to “more violence than they prevent.”
Such laws “try to fix something that was never broken,” he said.
Florida is among the states that have stand-your-ground laws, and the issue played a role in the prosecution of Zimmerman, whose acquittal has spurred calls for the U.S. Justice Department to file criminal civil rights charges against the former neighborhood watch volunteer.
Legal experts say a federal case would be a difficult challenge, with prosecutors having to prove that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity to kill Martin, who was 17 when he was shot during the fight with Zimmerman in February 2012.
On Monday, Holder had called the killing a “tragic, unnecessary shooting death” and urged the nation to speak honestly about complicated and emotionally charged issues.
On Tuesday, Holder seemed to be shifting away from the Martin case to one of those issues — the debate over the stand-your-ground laws.
“There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the ‘if’ is important — no safe retreat is available,” Holder told the NAACP.
“But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely,” he said.
In his comments referencing the Zimmerman case, Holder offered a story from his own personal experience — describing how when he was a young black man his father had told him how to interact with the police, what to say and how to conduct himself if he was ever stopped or confronted in a way he thought was unwarranted.
“I’m sure my father felt certain — at the time — that my parents’ generation would be the last that had to worry about such things for their children,” Holder told the NAACP convention. “Trayvon’s death last spring caused me to sit down to have a conversation with my own 15-year-old son, like my dad did with me. This was a father-son tradition I hoped would not need to be handed down.”
But didn’t Zimmerman lose his self-defense when he chose to follow Martin? I’m a strong supporter of the right to self-defense, but at that point, it seems he (Zimmerman), escaleted the situation. He was note in imminent danger at that point.
Thank you, Mr. Ayoob!
I do wish the haters could see the situation reversed – and similarly see what they advocate from the other side.
Imagine an honest, law-abiding black man – short, a little pudgy perhaps, but trying to do his part for his family and his community. He joins the neighborhood watch program because he’s sick of the recent rash of burglaries. He sees a suspicious character one night – walking around in the dark, peering into people’s houses, not trying to get out of the rain. He calls 911, summarizes the situation, hangs up – and suddenly a thin, well-muscled six-footer of a Hispanic teen is in his face, knocking him to the ground with a single blow that breaks his nose, sitting astride him, pounding his skull repeatedly into the sidewalk, and saying “you’re gonna die tonight, m****r-f****r”.
Explain to me, please, why this pudgy, law-abiding black man should be deprived of the right of self-defense? Or why the age of his would-be murderer should matter, or what brand of candy he has in his pocket?
For extra credit, make his attacker a “white Hispanic”… whatever that means in this context. (Perhaps that would make his getting shot more palatable, or something.)
I’d be totally satisfied with this if Zimmerman had been the one walking down the street and Martin ran up and grabbed him. Since it’s the inverse, though, I still don’t see it.
Someone with a gun attacks you. You die defending yourself. No one did anything wrong.
Certainly the perpetrator of a crime is the entirety of Florida voters who elected people who wrote laws to make this exactly right.
Well said, and no they DO NOT want to understand. Period.
In my mind, the only way he could have been found guilty is if they could have PROOVED Zimmerman threw the first punch. Failing that, it was self defense.
It’s not about people “getting it.” They don’t want to get it. It does not fit what they want to have happen. People do not wish to make the paradigm shift from denial to people in power who are hostile to thier way of life because then they feel they should move from thier comfort zone into some form of action against an illrational force.
The struggle of Good and Evil is on going and the stakes get higher everyday. The choices will get clearer and the cost of doing the right thing will be greater. It’s the best answer I can give you.
Those promoting this get fame, power and money. Take the money out of racism and it would disapear.
Tthank god some have sense. Thanks Mas.
SharptonShooting of Trayvon Martin
Estefania Jalvis, from Jacksonville, Fla., wears a hoodie as she holds a sign Tuesday, July 16, 2013, …
.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Rev. Al Sharpton announced Tuesday that he will lead a national “Justice for Trayvon” day in 100 cities this weekend to press for federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman’s acquittal over the weekend in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin has touched off protests around the country. The Justice Department is investigating whether Zimmerman violated Martin’s civil rights when he shot the 17-year-old during a February 2012 confrontation in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman said he fired his gun in self-defense.
“People all across the country will gather to show that we are not having a two- or three-day anger fit. This is a social movement for justice,” Sharpton said as he announced the plan outside the Justice Department with several ministers.
The rallies and vigils will occur in front of federal court buildings at noon Saturday in cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and New York.
Sharpton admits there are possible legal hurdles, but says “there is also a blatant civil rights question of does Trayvon Martin and the Trayvon Martins of this country have the civil right to go home.”
Sharpton says vigils will be followed by a conference next week in Miami to develop a plan to address Florida’s “stand-your-ground” law. The law gives people wide latitude to use deadly force if they fear death or bodily harm.
A six-member jury acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges.
Great analysis, Mas – and right in your wheelhouse. As a concealed carrier, I would be very, very interested if you would give any different advice than normal based on this case, what preceded it, and what comes after it. My concern is if this in any way alters the recommended actions of those who carry.
Interesting data, Mas, still not clear to me that Zimmerman was correct in leaving his car, essentially laying the ground work for him to have to kill someone. As noted, being judged not guilty is not the same as being innocent.
Zimmerman will lose big time in civil court for damages, IMO.