The Zimmerman Trial Clarifies the Situation
Regardless of what you may think about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, the trial is finally clearing up several key points that have been spun in the media. The media is biased either for Martin or Zimmerman, there seems to be few news organizations that are 100% impartial. Of these, MSNBC is very pro-Martin, CNN tries hard to be fair, but tends to slant to the Martin side especially with Piers Morgan, whose already convicted Zimmerman from day Day 1 with mantra of a teen with a pack of skittles and tea was gunned down.
Ice tea or skittles have little to do with anything except convey some sort of false innocence. What if Trayvon was carrying something much more sinister, would it matter? Of course not. It has nothing to do with the case.
Some of the facts that have now been substantiated is that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman using martial art punches on Zimmerman which accounts for the busted nose and back of the head cuts. Someone was screaming. So, since there is no eyewitness but evidence shows Z was on the ground and T on top, the jury will likely think it was Z yelling. However, the real critical point is at what point does Z feel his life is in danger? His injuries do not show that his life was in danger yet, although, T was getting the best of him. The law states that it is in the eyes of the beholder regarding when he would have fear for his life. What you or I think does not matter. It is possible that Z overreacted too soon out of fear for his life and maybe he could have or should tried harder to escape the punches but the law is not written like that at all. It is a little like sexual harassment in that, it is viewed from the victim point of view not from the person doing it in a joking or innocent way.
If the jury thinks Z overreacted, then the murder is only manslaughter during the heat of the moment, which is what did happen. Z did not stalk or hunt T down with murder in his mind. That is rubbish. It always was. Just because 911 tells him not to follow, there is no obligation to do so, it is mere advice to keep the watchman out of danger. In this case, had Z done so, T would would be alive. Z had too much suspicion in his mind about T on that dark, rainy night, so he followed at a distance.
The other critical detail needed is who actually started the confrontation that quickly went bad. It still is disputed and it is hard to know and the jury will have the same problem. When does pursuit as a watchman suddenly turn into stalking? Is it just semantics? At times, it seems like T was fed up of being followed and when they met got confrontational about it in short order and before Z knew, he was on the ground. Other times, it is Z who seems like the one for he continued to follow, maybe too close, and asked T what he was doing. Yet, what else would Z ask, I mean, he is the watchman. Is this question confrontational or did T simply take it that way because he was black and Z was not? Sometimes, fear and suspicion creates a false sense of what the other is doing in a negative manner, when the reality is the opposite. Obviously, both T and Z were scared. It was dark and rainy. T probably thought that Z was a mugger of some sort, it is logical. That thought in itself creates one to act either afraid in order to escape or confrontational, depending on one's personality. It seems T at first avoided it and then when they both met unexpectedly, he chose to confront. What else could either do?
By the time the two were face to face, their emotions were at high tilt for a variety of reasons but mainly out of fear of the unknown. Like in war, one wrong move can ignite the situation. If T was not happy with Z's response and then thought Z was reaching for a weapon (in reality, it was his cell phone) this explains why he lunged at Z and the scuffle began. Makes total sense. If Z sought to kill T from the start, T would already be dead by that time. Once the scuffle began, like world wars, they take a course by themselves. Emotions peak and clear thinking is unclear.
With Z on the ground getting whipped, it is logical to think that Z might suffer death or serious harm, depending on T's action. One can say, T could have simply get off and said FU to Z and run home. Or, at the moment of confrontation, run at full speed away. Some would do that.
In any case, who started the scuffle and when did Z think his life was in peril are the critical elements remaining.
Do you think the jury will convict Zimmerman or not?See results without voting
More by this Author
Anyone who was between 8 and 20 yrs. in 1965 and was cognizant of the world around them knows instinctively 1964-1965 was a turning point. It set the stage for how the world be in the USA. Trying to convey this to those...
Slowly, like insidious cancer, Sharia law creeps into Western societies. Donald Trump's Muslim ban has some logic to it.
Join this long list of consumer problems and complaints about this car. Most o the problems are on models pre-2009. Many sad stories.