George Zimmerman was prosecuted for who he is, not for what he did. He was prosecuted to keep the peace in a political show trial no different from the “brotherhood and unity” trials of the Iron Curtain. In the days of Tito’s Socialist Yugoslavia, if a member of one of the three major Bosnian groups (Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslim) was charged with a crime, the Communists would be sure to prosecute members of the other two groups to make everyone happy.This was called “kluc”, or literally the “key” to keeping Bosnia together and peaceful. And while it worked for a few decades, when it fell apart, it fell apart in disaster. Mr. Zimmerman’s prosecution was the same key to keeping America together, and its failure has been spectacular.
He never should have been charged with any crime, much less second degree murder. Of course the craven prosecutor Angela Corey, could not have actually thought she would convict Mr. Zimmerman of second degree murder. Instead, she did what prosecutors do every single day: overcharge a defendant with a crime they cannot prove with the expectation the defendant will plead to a lesser charge. It is a practice as vile and un-American as anything Stalin’s KGB or Tito’s UDBA did decades ago.
And while American police are not quite as violent or brutal as the Stasi, a bit more polite perhaps, the results are exactly the same. Men and women are wasting their lives in custody when they should be at home free. And in the process of overcharging Mr. Zimmerman, she raised expectations among the general public to ridiculous levels. She is nothing more than a grandstander. I hope the Florida state bar goes after Ms. Corey with the same zeal she went after Mr. Zimmerman.
How can I be so sure? Because the prosecution against Mr. Zimmerman was based on pure speculation. My point has never been that Mr. Zimmerman was a good person or that Trayvon Martin was a thug. I don’t know the first thing about their character, nor is it relevant. There is no evidence that Mr. Zimmerman is a racist, that he profiled or stalked Mr. Martin, or that he accosted him. Maybe all those things are in fact true, but the government never came remotely close to proving any of it.
The only fact proven was a disinterested witness with no dog in the fight who said he saw Mr. Martin on top of Mr. Zimmerman hitting “MMA-style”. At the very least, Mr. Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, which under the model penal code is “serious physical injury” and makes the attacker guilty of aggravated assault. At that point Mr. Zimmerman shot and killed Mr. Martin. Certainly all that is tragic, but there is no crime, not murder and not manslaughter, that the government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even if the government could have proven that Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin, which they did not come close to proving, that would not have entitled Mr. Martin to beat the living hell of Mr. Zimmerman. The use of force must be reasonable and proportional to the threat perceived. If he was in fact followed, he could have run away or used less force. Being followed does entitle one to break the follower’s bones.
Instead of presenting facts and evidence, the government played an interview that Mr. Zimmerman did with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in which Mr. Zimmerman said he was grateful to be alive and did not regret his actions. Of course, the government played this tape in a lame effort to “prove” Mr. Zimmerman was guilty because he was unrepentant.
That tactic obviously backfired against the government. Why should Mr. Zimmerman be repentant if all he did was save his own life? Certainly he should not take joy in the death of a young man, Mr. Martin, but why shouldn’t he be happy that he was still alive? Someone who rightfully saves his own life, even at the expense of someone else’s, has nothing to apologize for.
Compare that with Jodi Arias, who never learned that lesson, which is why I believe the jury did not accept her self-defense argument. Instead of telling her jury she was happy to be alive, when she testified all she said was how sad she was and how scared she was of the consequences. In other words, she was implicitly telling the jury she did not even herself believe she acted in self-defense.
Mr. Zimmerman was consistent and clear from day one. Maybe he is a secret member of the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood. Maybe he attacked Mr. Martin and tried to shoot him. Maybe, maybe, maybe… The government’s entire case against Mr. Zimmerman was “what if?”. “What if” is a great way to start a fantasy novel; it is no way to prosecute a man for murder.
For all my previous posts on the George Zimmerman trial, see this link.
