Slate.com: You Are NOT Trayvon Martin! (Was going to be a Hitpiece on Zimmerman...until He ACTUALLY saw Vids & Documents)Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 15:53
Wow, a L vs. R 'Movement'-Liberal ADMITS he's wrong and decides to actually study an issue before going off on an emotive rant; an actual, measured, common sense piece / mea culpa:
You Are Not Trayvon Martin
His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.
By William Saletan|Posted Monday, July 15, 2013, at 5:15 PM
Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.
But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.
I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.
It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.
UPDATE 1: Just when I thought it was safe to give some sanity brownie points to a L vs. R false paradigm 'Liberal' online rag, Slate.com...for one day, comes this nonsense...from a "Law professor" no less!
Apparently the 'law professor' deludes you should be 'guilty, until proven innocent'!!!
Hey, what the heck, so what that we now throwout centuries of "presumption of innocence" in Common Law?? Or, Coffin vs US, the 1895 SCOTUS decision that re-affirmed it? Or, the 5th, the 6th, or the 14th Amendment (UCC scholars, bear with me, for the sake of argument)??
They've done away with everything else! WhyTF not!
Why It Was Too Easy for George Zimmerman to Get Off for Self-Defense
The problem isn’t Stand Your Ground. It’s who has to prove what.
By Joseph Kennedy|Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 4:35 PM
Much debate about the jury’s decision Saturday to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin has focused on Florida’s Stand your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they can safely retreat. One juror even cited Stand Your Ground as the basis for his decision.
Having Stand Your Ground laws is a bad idea because the law can too easily turn into a license to kill when bad blood, not fear, motivates the killing. But the big problem for the prosecution in the Zimmerman case wasn’t really Stand Your Ground. It was about a broader problem with the law of self-defense—showcasing an aspect of the law that this case urgently shows should change.
The evidence suggested that Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman drew his gun, so Zimmerman could not retreat. That’s why the central aspect of Stand Your Ground didn’t come into play. Instead, what really mattered was who started the fight. Zimmerman only gets to stand his ground, under the jury instruction the judge gave, if he was behaving lawfully in the first place—if he did not attack Martin. And this is a general principle of self-defense. All things being equal, people who start fights don’t get to end them with deadly force unless the victim clearly escalates things to that lethal level.
NOT sarcasm, but certainly defines irony: Joseph E. Kennedy is a professor of law at the University of North Carolina School of Law where he teaches and writes about criminal law and procedure.
*** As if this should come as a surprise to any of us here, that those who 'teach' the law, are almost always the biggest violators and usurpers of law, who instead are the biggest propagandists for lawlessness!
So what else is new in the land of crazy statists?