Woke up this morning and finally felt like I could move on from the Zimmerman stuff. But no. It still bubbling out there.
Now, I'm not an expert on all the facts of the case, but this attorney gets key facts wrong. That's troubling in and of itself. That is, an attorney can get something so far wrong and still be allowed to practice law. After an article like this, proceedings should begin that would disbar this attorney, if in fact, he is an attorney.
For a moment, I thought--- should I link to this article? Well, that is a question. Because my own inner peace was returning as I woke up only to be disturbed by something like this again. So, I have to inflict this upon anyone reading this if I were to link to it.
But this blog is going to be about truth and the article in question is evidence of a certain truth. Clear evidence for a candid mind. So, I will link to it here. Behold the evil therein if you dare disturb your own peace.
This attorney clearly twists the record. No doubt about it. I saw the sworn testimony in the trial itself. The police dispatcher clearly denied that he ordered Zimmerman back into his car. He denied this because of potential legal liability. He could not have ordered Zimmerman back into his car anyway, at least according to my understanding. He is not the police, but a civilian. He can't order anybody around at all. Yet, that is what this attorney claims. Even if the dispatcher was the police, he clearly testified that he couldn't order Zimmerman back into his car. The testimony was all under oath in an open court. It was not disputed by the the prosecution, according to my recollection. What he did do was to suggest that Zimmerman not follow Martin. That should be very, very clear from the record.
Now, somebody may say that is splitting hairs, but the difference was enough to protect the dispatcher from any liability, as he clearly testified under oath in a court of law. This is a fact that the attorney should appreciate. Also, did this attorney actually listen to the testimony? Did he not hear this testimony?
He claims that there was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He does not cite any testimony that indicated any such thing. If anything, the testimony indicates the reverse. Martin had no marks on his body that indicated anything other than his being the one who was doing the hitting. There are pictures of Zimmerman with a bloody and swollen nose. If Zimmerman hit Martin first, there was no evidence of this. But there is clear evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman. If there's no evidence of physical injury to Martin, how could Zimmerman be the aggressor?
This attorney claims that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin. Stalking in the legal definition means a pattern of behavior over a period of time. It would take a longer period of time than the few minutes that elapsed in the incident in order to establish the legal definition in order for this term to be used in a legal context. Perhaps he meant it in the generic sense then? Then he must meant that Zimmerman planned to kill Martin all along. If so, in the legal sense, that would be murder in the first degree. This wasn't even an issue in the trial, as this was a murder two trial. Neither was stalking an issue in the legal sense. His use of the word "stalking" then, has no legal meaning here. Yet, he is using the term and he is an attorney. The only conclusion of that you can reach is that the attorney is using the word for rhetorical effect. For it had no legal meaning in this case.
He hints a bit that Martin was only defending himself. This is very hazy here, but after reading this over a few times, he seems to think Martin had the right to defend himself from Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him--- which he terms as "stalking". So, let me get this straight here. This attorney seems to think that a black man has the right to hit anybody that he thinks is threatening to him even if that threat has not been physical up to that point. He requires that Zimmerman to vacate the premises even though Martin was there too. In other words, this "attorney" claims that a non-physical act of following warrants a physical response just because of being offended. This is not self-defense. This is aggression masquerading as self-defense.
He demands that Zimmerman remain in his car, but Zimmerman has as much right to be in his own neighborhood as Martin does. He claims self-defense for which he cannot cite any evidence of physical aggression by Zimmerman. But evidently, he admits that Martin hit Zimmerman. He has implied it in this article. He has implied it without indicating anything from the record that shows any harm being done to Martin at all, except to his overweening sense of entitlement to his own space, which isn't exactly exclusively his, but shared space throughout the community.
He then veers off into Stand Your Ground territory that once again wasn't even a factor in this case. The law could not be invoked because it was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because the facts indicate that Zimmerman had no option to flee. He was on the ground because Martin knocked him to the ground. You would think that the "attorney" would be a little more careful about his facts.
To top it all off, he demands some sort of action by the President that would rectify the miscarriage of justice that he claims here. He can cite no authority to do this, but he does cite history, yet he gets that wrong too. He equates the trial with the Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott decision openly stated that blacks had no rights that white men were bound to respect. But nobody claimed this in the trial. Again, he can cite no evidence at all of any such thing.
Besides, it took a war to erase the Dred Scott decision. So, does this attorney realize what he is saying? Does he want Obama to declare war on Florida? Does he want Obama to order the military into Florida and bring it back into the Union? Does he really believe that Florida has just returned to the antebellum Southern Confederacy? Just exactly what he expects Obama to do is not stated, but he wants Obama to do something.
As for doing "something", Obama could warn that inciting a riot cannot be accepted. He could mention that the FBI has already investigated and found no evidence of racism. He could point out that Florida law has not been declared unconstitutional and there is little that can be done according to the US Constitution itself, nor the laws. For there is a clause in the Supreme Law of the Land which forbids trying somebody for the same offense twice. If the prosecution gets it wrong the first time, that's it. Even a civil suit in Florida cannot be pursued because of the immunity conferred by the acquittal to any potential liability in a self-defense case. That's Florida law. Just exactly what is Obama supposed to do about that?
The only thing I can conclude is that this "attorney" wants Obama to break the law in order to rectify a miscarriage of justice which he cannot show from the official record. He cannot be serious unless he wants black people to get even angrier as the failures mount as Obama can legally do nothing. Therefore, he must want civil disorder. Now, there has been a Civil War once before in our history. But the war was necessary in order to restore order to the Union which had broken down. If it is civil disorder that he wants, just exactly what is his intention that he should provoke it? Instigating civil disorder is one thing that should not be tolerated in an attorney. An attorney is considered to be an officer of the court. An officer is there to keep order, not to break it. For attempting to instigate civil disorder, this attorney should be disbarred.
No comments:
Post a Comment