That’s the rallying cry we have been hearing ever since George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges. While I am sure certain low-information types believe that justice has not been served the truth is Justice spent far more time on the case that was warranted. The initial decision not to charge George Zimmerman was correct. As I suspected the foremost expert in the nation on the judicious use of force was involved in the case very early on. Which is why he has remained silent while the courtroom drama played out.
So far Massad Ayoob has written eight columns dealing with the case that was brought against George Zimmerman and where the facts did and did not support the defense. Ayoob first debunks the theory that Martin was “unarmed.” True Martin carried no weapons, Martin was the weapon. Under the rules of “disparity of force” his physical advantage over Zimmerman justified Zimmerman’s use of lethal force. From the MMA mount witnesses testified Martin had Zimmerman in, to the repeated impacts Martin subjected Zimerman’s head to on the sidewalk. Martin represented a clear danger of grievous bodily harm or death.
Ayoob’s next installment looks at who started it. As Ayoob points out there is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman started the confrontation. However there is plenty that says the only way the two could have met face to face is if Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman. Ayoob acknowledges that Zimmerman leaving his vehicle may not have been the wisest tactical move, but it was neither illegal or proved hostile intent. Ayoob also wisely asks if as the low information types like to claim even absent any evidence Zimmerman had his gun out when he and Martin met why would he wait until his nose was smashed and his skull was being bashed in to pull the trigger? Why if Martin felt threatened did he not call the police?
Ayoob touches on the stand your ground law that did not come into play during the trial. He does discuss how the law was changed from one of a duty to retreat that has often been abused by over-zealous prosecutors to one that allowed Floridians to respond with lethal force when confronted with a situation that would lead to grievous bodily harm or death. I have personally read accounts where Prosecutors have argued that someone could have escaped via a one square foot bathroom window or turned their backs on an armed attacker and attempted to run before using lethal force. Both arguments seem ludicrous, but much like the charges against Zimmerman have been used to place someone whose life was in jeopardy into financial ruin. For more on what stand your ground really is pleas watch the following video presentation given by Mr. Ayoob. (You Tube)
Ayoob briefly touches on the firearm Zimmerman carried but thanks to a good defense team neither Zimmerman’s choice of firearm nor ammunition came into play. Don’t think that this means they can’t be used against you, just be sure that you can reasonably and logically explain your choices. I’ll have more on that at a later date.
Ayoob’s sixth installment (fifth dealing with the case) eviscerates “what if” as compared to “what is.” In his seventh installment Ayoob covers “what is” including what the jury rightfully (to the consternation of some supporters of Zimmerman) did not get to hear about Martin. You can look at the full discovery of the case here. Cliff notes version as Mr. Ayoob puts it: “If Guy, Bloomberg, or Crump had ever met 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in life, and called him a helpless “child” to his face, I strongly suspect Martin would have kicked them in the balls.”
Continuing with “what is” Ayoob covers the physiology of Zimmerman’s injuries and why lethal force was a reasonable and prudent response. As with much of the case against Zimmerman the extent of the injuries he suffered is a false argument. What really mattered is the potential those injuries posed should the brutal assault continue as it appeared it would. Finally Ayoob goes on to explain how propaganda led to a show trial that will have far reaching effects into the fabric of this nation.
Conclusion (for now)
I have to wonder if all the rage and furor have anything to do with youth on a path of self-destruction or revenge for his justifiable death at the hands of an armed citizen. Anti-Civil Rights activists, celebrities and even the President have seized on this incident as a vehicle to attack self-defense laws that are a foundation of our society. Some say they want to see stand your ground laws repealed even though they didn’t apply to this case. Zimmerman would have had no duty to retreat because he was pinned in an MMA mount.
So what change would have given them an outcome they would have preferred? A lack of CCW laws would have only meant that Trayvon would have missed his High School Prom and Graduation because he was in prison. The only other option would be to change the burden of proof from the Prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the Defense would have to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If that is their intent they should reconsider carefully as such a standard imprisons far more innocents than guilty.
I know I will be asking questions every time I see Tracy Martin or Sybrina Fulton on TV or at a rally decrying the laws that let George Zimmerman go free. Foremost in my mind will be about how with that their son is dead they seem to have a lot of time to speak out about how they feel the justice system failed them. Yet where were they when their son was abusing drugs, getting suspended from school, beating up bus drivers and street fighting?