An Impartial Jury of One’s Peers for George Zimmerman

So yesterday, Florida State Attorney Angela B. Corey charged George Zimmerman with second degree murder, as was reported here.  I first noted this development when I clicked over to Drudge, late in the day, who had the story emblazoned front and center on his site in bold red lettering, which I guess is supposed to represent the importance of this bit of news.  Though this morning the importance of Zimmerman’s being charged with second degree murder has been relegated to a mere side column story at Drudge’s site, as the importance of whether Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life, or not, seems to require more prominence, for one reason or another.

Now that Zimmerman has been charged, the nation can breathe a collective sigh of release, I guess, and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, the New Black Panthers, and neo-Nazis can all stand down and have a beer together.  Maybe Obama can set up this beer diplomacy.

So, what do we know, now, in regards to the events of that evening when Zimmerman and Martin had their unfortunate meeting?  Well, we know that the State of Florida, represented by Ms. Corey, considers George Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder, or said charges would not have been filed.  We also know that Martin’s parents, amongest others, are thanking the Lord that Zimmerman has been arrested, though I doubt very much that the Lord was assisting Corey and the State of Florida’s authorities in reviewing the evidence compiled which will allegedly prove Zimmerman’s guilt.

George Zimmerman’s fate will now be decided by an impartial jury of his peer’s, if such an impartial jury can indeed be seated after all the prejudicial commentary expended to date in regards to this event, up to and including the prejudicial remarks of the POTUS, which were made as “racial tensions” were peaking down Florida way, at least according to the mainstream media.

And just what must be proved by the State of Florida in order to compel an impartial jury of Zimmerman’s peers to convict him of second degree murder?  This.

Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.

Though the State of Florida may consider George Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder, Americans must remember that George Zimmerman, especially at this time as he sits incarcerated, remains an innocent man.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/12 at 07:57 AM
  1. I was going to comment, but I turned it into a post.

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/12  at  10:33 AM
  2. Yabu, thanks for letting me know.  I am posting a link to it here.

    I hope you don’t mind.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/12  at  10:40 AM
  3. We have reverted to the “guilty until proven innocent” of the Brits, from whom we secured our divorce . . . once upon a time, anyway.

    And as they are caving as a civilization, so are we.

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  12:56 PM
  4. Yabu - good post at your site!

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  12:57 PM
  5. Not at all…I was thinking along the same lines, and I was going to put it up. You caused me to type directly into the engine and hit publish. This whole situation, is so wrong.

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/12  at  12:59 PM
  6. An armed man shoots an unarmed minor dead on a public street and then gets charged with a crime.

    What is this world coming to?

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/12  at  01:11 PM
  7. Oh, Erin . . .

    The simplicity in which you reason is commendable, and damnable at the same time.

    Were that case, and the world, as simple as you would hope.

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  01:57 PM
  8. Were that case, and the world, as simple as you would hope.

    Although you know nothing about what I “hope,” I’m pretty sure this case is not simple, which is one reason why it’s headed to a court of law.

    I’m still waiting for y’all to clock in on this FLA “stand your ground” defense case that left an Iraq Vet dead, with his daughter as witness.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/12  at  02:10 PM
  9. Erin

    One - fix your link so it works.

    Two - if you want to go comparing matters of the recent weeks, there are plenty of examples to counter the Jackson, Jr., Sharpton angles - matters of which those two Ole Sons haven’t the testicles to approach.

    Three - I am not trying to guess what it is you hope, because you are making it immeasurably clear.

    And ask yourself why a grand jury was not empaneled before the prosecutor, obviously now the only one to benefit (cui bono?) from this entire matter, avoided a grand jury and proceeded with second degree murder charges (read the requirements for that charge!) - JV has them above.

    You have bought into a matter emotionally, and it is skewing your rationality.

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  02:28 PM
  10. Sorry about that. Now the bots are not allowing me to post the link, so I’ll just cut and paste a portion of the copy from KSDK here:

    When David James, an Iraq War veteran, escaped combat in the Middle East unscathed, his wife Kanina breathed a sigh of relief.

    “I would worry about him but I thought he’d be safe here,” she said.

    Kanina was wrong; and now wants to know why Trevor Dooley, a 71-year-old retired bus driver, shot her husband in broad daylight, right front of their eight-year-old daughter. Dooley claims it was self defense. Kanina James calls it murder.

    “What person brings a gun to a park when there’s children? I mean, he killed my husband. He could’ve just talked to him,” James said.

    Whether or not Trevor Dooley fired in self-defense is at the heart of this case. Also central to the story is Dooley’s defense-Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law-which allows a person to stand their ground and use deadly force if they fear someone could seriously harm them.

    Here’s what witnesses said happened on that September Sunday in 2010. Forty-one-year-old David James was playing basketball with his daughter when witnesses said Dooley, who lived right across the street, started yelling at a teenager who was skateboarding, to get off the court. That’s when witnesses said James intervened.

    James yelled back to Dooley, asking him to show where any sign said no skateboarding. Dooley then crossed the street to the park to confront James.

    A tennis player at the park, Michael Whitt, testified things turned ugly when Dooley reached for his waistband. Whitt said James then lunged at Dooley. The two men struggled on the ground before James was shot once through the heart. On the 911 call, Whitt is heard trying to help.

    Dooley tells a different story; one that contradicts witness statements. Dooley told authorities when he took the gun out of his right front pocket James saw the weapon and knocked him to the ground. At a hearing to get the charges dismissed, Dooley testified, “he was choking me to death.”

    Dooley’s lawyer said his client turned to walk away towards home and that James was the aggressor. He said Dooley did show a gun, but did not use it until he felt his life was threatened. He said charges against his client should be dropped given the Stand Your Ground law.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/12  at  02:45 PM
  11. That has exactly nothing to do with the Msrtin/Zimmerman case, and in reading your site, I know you are an intelligent individual who should not be putting forth emotional arguments about a case none of us knows the details.

    Unless you are part of the prosecution team.

    Otherwise, suspend your judgment, as John has most wisely suggested.

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  02:56 PM
  12. Erin’s link has been repaired.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/12  at  03:00 PM
  13. Thanks, John.

    The FLA “Stand your ground” law is at the heart of both cases. In both cases, an armed man shot and killed an unarmed man that seemed to be minding his own business. Once those guns went off, of course the shooters were going to claim self defense. Yes, both men are innocent until proven guilty, but I’m just not as quick to believe them as you all seem to be.

    I am in Ohio. These cases are in Florida, so what I think is hardly of the essence (although the NRA would sure love to bring this law to my backyard:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/26/143145/nra-helped-spread-stand-your-ground.html  )

    But I’ll tell you a little of what I think nonetheless. Extending Castle Laws outside of the home is a terrible idea that gives people like Dooley and Zimmerman an imaginary license to kill when they have a very real permit to carry their guns and a vague self defense law floating in the back of their minds.

    Dooley shot that guy in a park with kids roaming around. Zimmerman shot that kid in a residential area. Either one of those men could have botched the shot and killed an innocent bystander.

    What I do find simplistic is the idea that one man can kill another unarmed man in a public space with or without witnesses, say that he did so because he felt threatened, and hope to walk away free as a bird. It’s not only simplistic, it’s wrong.

    Frankly, if architects of “Stand your ground” didn’t see a case like Zimmerman’s coming, that is simply naive. In the meantime, it is a very good thing indeed that the Zimmerman case might give the next trigger-happy gunslinger pause before drawing his weapon.

    Now Zimmerman, Dooley and the families of their victims can all have their day in court. As for what I “hope,” that would be that legislators in Florida take a very serious look at “stand your ground.”

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/12  at  03:42 PM
  14. Erin -

    I had to go out for a bit, or my answer to your posting to my site would have been up earlier than the above post to John’s site.

    This is not about the “stand your ground.”  This is about WHAT HAPPENED, and justice being done, and you must allow justice to play out, or you are worse than anyone involved.  State your opinion if you feel you must, but as a Christian must err on the side of grace . . .

    So should you, as an America, err on the side of justice.  To date, you have not done so.

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  04:08 PM
  15. What I do find simplistic is the idea that one man can kill another unarmed man in a public space with or without witnesses, say that he did so because he felt threatened, and hope to walk away free as a bird. It’s not only simplistic, it’s wrong.

    Zimmerman has obviously not hoped to walk away free from this matter, the racial bigots have assured that he and his family, as well as another innocent family wrongly targeted by the racial bigots, had to go into hiding.  At least be honest with your facts, or quit commenting.  This is, with all that is known, getting downright silly.

    You don’t know shit but what the MSM has given us, nor do I, so at the very least try to moderate your opinions until you know what the hell you are talking about.

    Clear?

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  04:15 PM
  16. “you must allow justice to play out”

    I couldn’t agree more, jb. Zimmerman and Dooley will be found innocent or guilty and that will be that, just as it was with OJ or Casey Anthony. In both of those cases, I argued heartily that the defendants were found innocent and everyone should go on home.

    Regarding the gist of this post, Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara (again, the only one who really counts in the matter) doesn’t seem particularly concerned about an impartial jury:

    “Florida has a very good process in place to make sure we get a fair and impartial jury,” he told CNN. “Other high-profile cases have been able to do so. I trust that the system, the judge, the prosecutor and I will be able to, should the need arise, to get ourselves a fair and impartial jury to hear the case. It may not be in Seminole County.”

    source:

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/12  at  04:23 PM
  17. I most certainly would have my lawyer dismiss you ASAP from the jury, were you to present yourself as a jurist in any case for which I might be accused.

    You are incapable of admitting your own bias in a case about which YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but what the lobotomy box/MSM has put before you.

    You cannot stick to what is known in this case, you continually try to reference other cases which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever, and you refuse to admit yourself to the one thing that truly matters in all of this - objectivity.

    You do not intend to be deterred in what you want to say and defend.  Welpers, Girl, you are admitting openly and for all the world to see, that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

    But talk you will, anyway, apparently.

    Posted by jb  on  04/12  at  04:33 PM
  18. @ Erin

    One question, Yes or No answer.

    Do you believe the case should have been presented to a Grand Jury?

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/13  at  06:23 AM
  19. Obviously, I phoned Corey and advised her that no grand jury was needed.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/13  at  04:19 PM
  20. C’mon, Erin, the question only required a Yes, or a No.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/13  at  04:50 PM
  21. I apologize, gents, but I really don’t know much about the process and don’t feel much like researching it.

    Perhaps Corey’s reasoning will become clear as the trial unfolds.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/13  at  08:51 PM
  22. I apologize, gents, but I really don’t know much about the process and don’t feel much like researching it.

    That’s a cop out, Erin, and in most instances I think you would criticize individuals for being unwilling to research such a pertinent matter to the subject at hand.

    Perhaps Corey’s reasoning will become clear as the trial unfolds.

    It is not Corey’s “reasoning” which should be relied upon to issue an indictment in this case, or any other.  It is evidence which should be relied upon to issue charges against an individual, and only with the full concurrence of these folks.

    Here’s the full State of Florida Grand Jury Procedures.  They do not take long to research, or read through for a complete understanding.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/14  at  08:42 AM
  23. “That’s a cop out,”

    No. It’s typical liberalspeak for “My emotions are more important than the facts, and anyway you’re racist!!”

    This is why treating liberals as anything more than happy meals for packs of feral hogs is a waste of time.

    Posted by og  on  04/14  at  01:49 PM
  24. “Character is what you are in the dark.”  (Moody)

    Og - I do not believe, given how this thread has flowed, that Erin honestly has a clue as to her role as a stooge for the progressive (incremental) wing of the marxists.  And when challenged, she retreats.

    I know this may not seem connected, but I about had a coronary laughing when Orin Hatch, so long a holder of his present office that his face should be emblazoned on the GOP elephant, got outraged that there were folks in Utah who were actually holding him to account for his GOP version of progressivism, and advocating someone else.  He figures he has earned his little progressive desk in DC, and that we proles who find most of his machinations abhorrent need to be dealt with.  Funny stuff.  Put a lid on the “Hatch!”  Heh!

    All of which is to say - it is no longer “liberals versus conservatives” (it never was, really!).  It is marxism on the march, it has never taken prisoners, and will not begin to do so now.  That some willingly choose to be ignorant, and thus, the “useful idiots” (may or may not be Lenin who coined the phrase), is amazing to watch.  And it is in both parties!

    Erin can choose to research matters, as John suggested.  She might discover a need to research further, and discover for herself, perhaps for the first time, some of the timeless principles that have been eviscerated by our present two-party political system.

    She has the option to really “think” in the dark, if she chooses.  We all do.

    Self-examination is not an easy task, but it is most certainly one of the most rewarding.  jb

    Posted by jb  on  04/14  at  02:27 PM
  25. @ Erin…again

    One question, Yes or No answer.

    Do you believe the case should have been presented to a Grand Jury?

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/15  at  07:42 AM
  26. She routinely goes to a blog and deliberately slanders the reguars and then wonders why they snap their feet off in her ass.

    Posting imitates reality for Erin.
    Abused in life, slammed on the blogs.
    The premeditated victim.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/15  at  12:31 PM
  27. Ah, Erin. Were she still in high school, her mindset would be endearingly naive. In her middle years, however, it is, sadly, a willful rationalization-hamster on its wheel.

    Posted by Joan of Argghh!  on  04/15  at  01:35 PM
  28. Here you go, Yabu:

    http://erin-obrien.blogspot.com/2012/04/charge-it.html

    Sorry I went over my word count limit.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/15  at  02:02 PM
  29. Indeed. Typically, can’t follow instructions, can’t answer a straight question, can’t think, can’t learn, don’t bother.

    yabu: Never wrestle with a pig & etc.

    Posted by og  on  04/15  at  02:42 PM
  30. @ Erin again and again.

    I read your post…nothing there. Nothing at all.

    Just answer my question…Yes or No?

    Don’t dance around it, just answer it. Yes or No.

    Can’t answer? Why?

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/15  at  04:19 PM
  31. The “entrance” . . .

    An armed man shoots an unarmed minor dead on a public street and then gets charged with a crime.

    What is this world coming to?

    (Gasoline, meet lit match)

    When addressed as to the stated “judgment” made - she shifts to another case.

    Then, when further challenged, the ground shifts again, and it is now about SYG.  Lacking substance, as she finally admits, and - that she doesn’t know what it is she is talking about, even when encouraged to retreat to neutral ground, which is where the rest of us are (except on the matter of Corey, who in a most convoluted, exceptional, and racially-charged matter, decided she knew better than any grand jury).

    When more than adequate research material was proffered, there was silence until she placed an emotional appeal to her groupies on her site, no less capable of having their “boxers in a bunch” than those at JV’s Joint trying to expect a tad of logic to perhaps shine forth.  Instead, most amazingly! - she goes “ALL CAPS” on her own site finally admitting she has no idea what she is talking about.

    And despite JV taking the time to place a very good response at her site, we have the very courageous “Anonymous” stepping forth in a great show of anonymity, ensuring that regardless of the lack of gender or some sort of public knowledge of said anonymity, loudly proclaims ITself to be:

    One with Erin’s original comment, and further lack of argumentation, and the SYG argumentation, which it is now becoming apparent was the real target of the marxists, and the plantation blacks like Sharpton and Jackson, who still cotton to doin’ Massa’s bidding.  Frederick Douglass would make literal mincemeat of Sharpton and Jsckson!

    I, for one, am letting this go.  It has followed such a predictable course.

    Marxist simply cannot tolerate being pinned down, and when that happens, hilarity ensues . . . except, well . . .

    We have a full-blown marxist running the show in DC.  That is not funny.

    Posted by jb  on  04/15  at  04:29 PM
  32. You are correct jb, except for the letting go part.

    Later this year the pot is going to boil over and the only solution when rabid animals go wild is to pop heads as fast as you can pull the trigger.

    You can’t reason with these people, they are unreasonable. But you can force them to leave you alone in the only method that is sure.

    SYG my ass. I will defend myself anywhere, anytime using any means available and Corey, bonehead Erin or Obama/Holder have anything to say about it. period.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/15  at  05:18 PM
  33. Don -

    I just meant I am letting go of any argumentation with Erin.  She has clearly identified her pure emotionalism, sans any logic, and she wishes to escape any consequence for the fallacy of her thinking.  Pursuing any discussion with her further is useless.  She is unable to argue.

    That the Bammster is taking us down the tubes, with voters imagining Romney is the stop-gap, is what concerns me even more.

    Polishing yet another turd is not going to solve what is happening.  Ya think some would have learned after trying to polish McCain.

    Heh!

    Posted by jb  on  04/15  at  05:36 PM
  34. The Zimmerman case, to liberals is not about Zimmerman.  You can see it in EOB’s comments it is about the GUNS. He should not have a gun in a residnetial area, thbe other guy should not have a gun at a park where there are CHILDREN! Hysteria ensues. Alredy you can see it on the MSM reports, the race card is not working, so now it is about the guns.

    Look, we don’t know what happened. That is why you take it to a Grand Jury. If there is enough evidence, the party is charged.  If you have ever been on a Grand Jury, you know it is a pretty one sided affair.  The Zimmerman prosecutor msut have a weak case to be afraid to take it to the Grand Jury.

    Posted by Joe  on  04/16  at  09:21 AM
  35. @ Joe

    You’re right. I spent a year on the Grand Jury, so I have some experience with how it functions. All I was looking for was a one word answer. She can’t or won’t do it. No matter what her answer, I will debate with her. Both sides. Nah, she put her tail between her legs and ran like a scalded dog.

    @ johnV

    I appreciate you letting all of us use your house to attempt to have debate that is logical and fair. Looks like that’s not going to happen.

    Go fishing, is all I can say.

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/16  at  11:56 AM
  36. I appreciate you letting all of us use your house to attempt to have debate that is logical and fair.

    You are welcome, Yabu.

    Go fishing,...

    I will.  This Wednesday, and the entire following week.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/16  at  01:31 PM
  37. “Nah, she put her tail between her legs and ran like a scalded dog.”

    And of course all that is wrong is your fault.

    Yabu: You cannot reason with the unreasonable, You diminish yourself by contact with them. Speak where your words and your knowledge will take root and grow, not the barren soil of stupidity.

    Posted by og  on  04/16  at  02:21 PM
  38. JV -

    I second Yabu’s “thank you” - I’m not sure you expected such a raucous group to show up, but it was both fun and instructive.  You need to get yourself a little advertising income if you are going to draw traffic like that - might let you take those fishing expeditions more often!

    And speaking to those expeditions, I will need some sort of “fix” to replace my “clinch” addiction - maybe some Bad JuJu will be up to the task.

    grin

    Posted by jb  on  04/16  at  02:26 PM
  39. Og.  I understand the point you are expressing to Yabu, you’ve expressed the same point to me in the past.

    In response, I’ll quote a thought of Epictetus, again, as he has recently been firing my mind.

    When any person does ill by you, or speaks ill of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition that it is his duty.  Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears to be right to you, but only what appears so to himself.  Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he, too, is the person deceived.  For if any one supposes a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it.  Setting out, then, from these principles, you will mildly bear with one who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion: “It seemed so to him.” (bold by ed.)

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/16  at  02:50 PM
  40. John: Excellent advice. For a lamb, awaiting slaughter. Never attribute to mere ignorance that which can be adequately explained by malice. If the willfull you encounter had the opportunity to push a button and eliminate your thought from the universe, take it for granted, they would, they have done so in the past, it is an irrefutable fact of life. The road to hell &etc;.

    At some point you have to know your limitations. Lost causes are for comicbook heroes. In the real world, people know when to cut their losses and move forward. For every person you are sure you can educate, there are a thousand actually interested in the wisdom you have to offer. Directing your attentions to the ineducable merely prevents you from accomplishing that which is possible. tell me, are you smarter than Lot? or for that matter, G-d? G-d himself knew when to cut his losses and concentrate on those who mattered. When you stand before your creator and he asks you why you preferred beating your head against a wall to making the world a much better place by educating those who could be educated, what will you say to him? Do you somehow think that you will be regarded higher in His eyes if you succeed? You will not succeed. I’m not trying to be a prick, here, I’m trying to get things done. Don’t succumb to stupidity because of an ancient aphorism telling you to play nice, the era of playing nice has ended.

    Posted by og  on  04/16  at  03:45 PM
  41. Og

    Serious question here:

    Why do you use G-d?

    Posted by jb  on  04/16  at  04:04 PM
  42. He is all over this topic . . .

    Erin . . . are you listening?

    Posted by jb  on  04/17  at  12:40 AM
  43. I have no idea who this guy is, but this is the best few minutes about the case that I’ve seen. And nothing he says in it is new. I’ve known these facts since the very beginning of the stir-up. The only way you can’t know these facts is to merely follow the media narrative and never investigate for yourself what is readily available.

    Awesome stuff: Here.

    Posted by Joan Of Argghh!  on  04/17  at  08:07 AM
  44. JB and Joan, thank you for posting those links.  I appreciate it.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/17  at  08:24 AM
  45. Yes.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  04/17  at  10:31 AM
  46. Erin.  Thank you for answering Yabu’s question directly.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/17  at  10:53 AM
  47. @ Erin

    Thanks!

    Posted by Yabu  on  04/18  at  06:51 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

<< Back to main