Additionally, the judge
instructed jurors to consider Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in their
deliberations, but it was not an issue in the case because Zimmerman wasn’t on
trial for violation of that criminal statute, but for Second Degree Murder and
Manslaughter. To me this is a technical error that should be challenged
legally on the grounds that such statements would or should have cast some
doubt in the minds of jurors, causing bias and possibly influencing them to
render a fair and impartial decision. The other aspect of the trial that was
the most important concerns the charges of Second Degree Murder and
Manslaughter. In order to prove this
accusation or charge in Court the Prosecution had to raise the threshold from
“beyond a reasonable doubt” to almost “absolute certainty” in the mind of
jurors to get a guilty verdict.
I don’t think the evidence and witness
testimony were sufficient to prove that George Zimmerman “murdered” Trayvon
Martin intentionally, but rather that there is the likely possibly he
unwittingly “caused the death” of this teenager. Using BUT/FOR and “IT IS
REASONABLE THAT” analogy in Criminal law- BUT/FOR George Zimmerman
stalked Trayvon Martin he would not have died [on that day]. IT IS
REASONABLE THAT in a struggle involving someone with a gun such a person
could get killed. The issue for me is not so much the absence of any person of
color on the jury panel, but that the elements were present according to FL Criminal Law Statutes, as in the following:
782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a
human being:
2. When committed by a person engaged
in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
n. Aggravated stalking,
784.048 Stalking
a) “Harasses”
means to engage in a course of conduct, directed at a specific person that
causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate
purpose. “Aggravated stalking” requires the stalker to willfully, maliciously,
and repeatedly follow or harass another person, and make a credible
threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or
bodily injury.
Also, was there structural racism from
the very beginning because the Sanford FL police initially arrested then quickly
released Zimmerman at the beginning and the Police Chief refused to even charge
George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin until public opinion and comments
by President Obama put pressure on law officials to at the very least re-arrest
Zimmerman? Although the State has the Burden of Proof and in this trial
strategy Prosecution orchestrated the appearance of equal justice, and
entertained trial-watchers like a Three-Ring Circus, the outcome had all but
been decided, as the evidence submitted during Discovery was flimsy or
inconclusive they more or less ensured Zimmerman’s acquittal on all charges?
I think one of the things that everyone seems to gloss over is what the
one unnamed juror that has been speaking out about the case. She says that
initially 3 of them (including her) found Zimmerman ‘not guilty’ but 2 jurors
found Zimmerman ‘guilty’ of Second Degree Murder and the final juror found him
‘guilty’ of Manslaughter. My question is this: “How could 3 jurors after the 16
½ hours of deliberation reverse their previous positions in such a radical
shift of opinion where all of them
completely change their minds and found Zimmerman innocent of all charges?” I
can understand if one, maybe two of the jurors changed their minds, but all
three; this is highly irregular and I think there should be an investigation
into jury tampering because at the very least the verdict should have resulted
in a hung jury (5 votes for acquittal and 1 vote for guilty). This would have
meant a retrial at a later date and a more reasonable judicial outcome instead
Zimmerman walking with no culpability for Trayvon’s death whatsoever.
I am also critical of the media’s role in
‘racializing’ the issue in such a way that everyone is so caught up in this incident
that they are using Trayvon’s death, as well as his parents grief to further
their own personal agendas. There has
been a lot of talk about possibly revising “Stand Your Ground” laws in about 30
states, and even the NRA has weighed in on this by saying that this is a Second
Amendment issue, and still for others it is another case of “racial profiling”
(wearing a ‘hoodie’). While all these concerns are legitimate there might be an
even bigger debate that needs to be enjoined besides the one race relations,
namely-America’s wild, wild, west shoot-em’-up mentality; and walking around
with a gun on your hip. All of the frenzy distracts us from the real deal here,
and that is George Zimmerman made a stupid decision, a rush to judgment, and
because of his careless and reckless abandon of common sense and responsible
behavior, unwarranted and unprovoked actions, caused the death of a black
teenager.
President Obama was mistaken when he said that if
Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun when Zimmerman came up on him then he
would have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman under the “Stand Your
Ground” law. The problem with his example is that if Trayvon would have had a
gun, and being a Black teenager, I am not so sure that the FL law and the
Prosecutor would have seen it quite so simply. I think Trayvon would have been
charged with felony Assault or attempted Murder, and if Zimmerman would have
been killed, Trayvon would have been charged with Murder and convicted by an
all-White jury. The reality is this-If Trayvon had been a White kid that
Zimmerman shot and killed we wouldn’t even be talking about this because
Zimmerman would have been charged and found guilty of Murder-case closed. The one good thing about our system of justice is that it has many
layers and Zimmerman is not out of the woods yet because the attorney for the
Martin family can appeal the decision to the Justice Department on Civil Rights
violations or as a Hate Crime -so it’s not over by a long shot.
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 22, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
