SIGNIFICANCE OF ZIMMERMAN VERDICT

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara’s post trial remark, “If Zimmerman were a black man, he would never have been charged”, strikes at the heart of the George Zimmerman verdict. This statement is true but not for the reason O’Mara implies. The reason the statement is true is that if George Zimmerman were a black man there would have been no crime regardless of the race of Trayvon martin. The only reason there was a crime was Zimmerman’s racially motivated reaction to someone walking down a dark street.

There was a fight only because Trayvon was provoked. Obviously, people pass one another millions of times everyday without swinging punches—an observation so trite it is ludicrous even to have to mention it. There was no evidence at all of Trayvon doing anything to cause Zimmerman to be suspicious. We can be sure of this because O’Mara would have used that information in the course of the trial. What we do know is that there was a fight and Zimmerman was losing. We cannot be sure but can be very suspicious Zimmerman and not Trayvon called for help, which proves he was losing the fight. We also know that he had a gun and in his mind, he used it for self-defense; he used the gun to defend himself in a fight he probably would not have started if he did not have a gun—gun ownership arrogance. We also know that Trayvon is dead. Therefore, the entire case rested on one thing, which was what provoked Trayvon to hit Zimmerman in the nose. The jury could not see, right or wrong, O’Mara based the entire defense on the truth of Zimmerman defending himself from begin beaten, which he did. That is not justice. Rather, the jury’s wrong-headed decision reinforced a Floridian wimp’s motivation for gun ownership. As already pointed out, because it is inconceivable that Trayvon would have started the fight, it was Zimmerman’s motivation, and that motivation had to be racial for lack of another reason.

With this in mind, the most disturbing post-trail discussion has to do with taking the case to the Department of Justice, which would be a direct challenge to Florida laws. The Supreme Court of the United States appears to have as a primary objective strengthening states rights because of a misguided belief that weakening the Federation of States we call the United States would strengthen our nation. This is more of the Republican Vietnam village logic; we have to destroy them to save them. They seem to feel they have to destroy the Federation to save it. The recent damage done to voters civil rights by that Court’s decision indicates, in the name of strengthening states rights, which prove to me that this is the objective of the court.

The gun laws in Florida, the stand your ground laws in Florida, the inability of a six-person jury to convict a person for killing another person in what was obviously a hate crime in Florida added to black voter suppression are strong indicates that the laws in this state are not progressive. If the DOJ becomes involved and the Trayvon Martin killing trial ends up in the hands of this rogue Supreme Court, when added to voter suppression laws, gerrymandering of district, and mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients, great harm will be done to racial relations in our country in the name of Florida States rights.  

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated