I’ll assume by this point you’ve heard of the story. A 17 year old African-American boy shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a member of the neighborhood watch in his area. This happened in Sanford, FL, which is very close to where I live, in Daytona Beach. News reports on this shooting vary greatly in opinion as they do in details. What is clear, is that citizens are furious, and want justice for the shooter. But what is justice in this case? Why is this such a big deal over other shootings that happen every day? Let’s discuss this for a moment.

In the state of Florida, we have what’s referred to as the “Stand your ground” law. Loosely interpreted, this means that a citizen does not have the duty to attempt retreat prior to using deadly force in an act of self-defense. Remember “self-defense”, because that’s the important term here.

More specifically translated, in the official statute, the law does state that you may only meet equal force with equal force. An eye for an eye if you will. In other words, you cannot respond to someone shoving you by shooting them.

The law does, however, through precedent, allow an exclusion regarding equal force, if the situation is dire enough, like say a teenager beating up an older person who may not have the means to defend themselves in a physical altercation. This is why we have concealed carry permits and laws, and why citizens need to make use of the right to arm themselves. Carrying a handgun is what puts a 90 year old woman on the same level, defensively, as a 20 year old thug. In her case, would she be unjustified in shooting an assailant? Of course not, that brings me to the point.

Everyone is up in arms about the shooting of this young man, who was determined to be unarmed. However, many who are upset about this shooting are ignoring other available facts, including the truth that many details of the case have yet been unreleased. Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime because authorities have yet to determine if one was even committed.

One important fact that people overlook, is that when police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman appeared as if he had been assaulted, and had a bloody nose. Zimmerman is not an old man, at 28 years old, an in fact seems to be a decent-sized fellow. Here’s his photo:

He’s not a small man by any means. He could probably defend himself in a fight. Or maybe he had a concealed carry permit because he can’t fight, or doesn’t know how. It’s not uncommon.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to defend this guy. It is possible the shooting was racially-driven. What is known, is that there are many unknown factors. It is not our duty, as citizens, to judge before we know facts.

It is, in fact, entirely possible that this could be me in this situation. My neighborhood used to be a great one. Then we started to get section 8 housing sprouting up all around the area. Young black men from all the surrounding areas started wandering into and around my neighborhood. In one year alone, my neighborhood (with about 100 residents) had a dozen home invasions, where at least one person was injured or killed, all perpetrated by these same individuals. Hundreds of burglaries, several in which the residents were home. Even my own vehicle was burglarized. It was these events that lead me to purchase firearms, and obtain a concealed weapons permit. If I see suspicious activity, I call the police, and I keep an eye on it. If someone is doing something wrong, and knows you’re on the phone with police reporting them, odds are pretty good they might attack you. And if they attacked me, I would defend myself accordingly.

Zimmerman may have very well perceived Martin reaching for a weapon. He may have even been going for the weapon Zimmerman had on him. The only people who know the truth about that are Zimmerman and Martin, and one of them is dead, so unless an eye witness comes forward, the truth may never be known.

There have also been reports that two shots were fired, one warning shot, and then a second, killing shot, fired after the 17 year old allegedly begged for his life. It is interesting to note, though, that recent news reports have proven this to be not true, that only one round was fired from the gun that night.

Source:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view.bg?&articleid=1061118717&format=&page=1&listingType=natsouth#articleFull

So there we already have one “fact”, a major one that has everyone so upset, proven to be false. Who knows what else there is that we don’t know. What we do know is that the Sanford police have deemed it unnecessary to arrest and charge Zimmerman at this point. If there’s lack of evidence to even arrest him, accept that maybe he was justified in his actions.

Last weekend in the city of Chicago alone, gangbangers slaughtered ten people and wounded another forty. The youngest fatality is only six years old. The youngest person wounded is only one-year-old. Many of the victim were pedestrians sprayed with bullets in drive by shootings. The national news has said nothing about this.

So why does one shooting in Florida warrant weeks of national news? Why has there been thousands of articles a day, for the last four days, about one single shooting?

Almost all of the news items about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin contains a combination of false statements, opinions presented as facts, transparent distortions, and a complete absence of some of the most relevant details. Almost all news items are written soley from the point of view of the grieving family. The media also fills their articles with outdated baby-faced pictures of Trayvon. Very few include that he was a towering 6’2” football player. Is the media really reporting the news, or is this classic agitation/propaganda to advance a political agenda.

Literally thousands of articles contain at least one false statement in the first couple of lines. They usually read "George ZImmerman, a white man," or "shoot by a white man." Zimmerman is described by family as a multiracial Hispanic. His appearance is clearly that of a Latino/Mestizo individual. However, the media wants him to be white because that better fits the political narrative they are trying to artificially create. Many news articles have also claimed the neighborhood is "mostly white." This is also a lie. The neighborhood is only 49% white. It is over half non-white.

All the way back on February 27th, the local Orlando Fox station interviewed the witness who dialed 911. Almost none of the thousands of articles since have mentioned any of the details described by the witness. Some, however, have attributed false statements to this witness. On March 16th, the Sanford police department released new details to the Orlando Sentinel. Once again, these details have been ignored or changed by the media.

1. The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.
2. The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.
3. Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.
4. Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin’s father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

The neighborhood this took place in has seen a lot of crime. Would you be surprised to learn that there were eight burglaries, nine thefts, and a shooting just in the past year? In fact, the local homeowners’ association reports that George Zimmerman actually caught one thief and aided in the apprehension of other criminals. The Miami Herald wrote about this on March 17th. None of the thousands of articles and cable news segments that came after, thought this was important.

In fact the Miami Herald goes on to interview neighbor, Ibrahim Rashada, who is black. Rashada ​confirms that there has been a lot of crime in the neighborhood and indicates to the reporter that the perpetrators are usually black.

The media also characterizes Trayvon as a "model student." In fact, he under a five day suspension when the shooting took place. That is why he was staying at a house so far from his school on a school night. A laywer for Trayvon’s family has blocked access to his school records. However, you have to do something pretty bad to get suspended for five days.

Now that you know the suppressed facts of the case, you can for form a better more balanced opinion. Maybe you still think Zimmerman was wrong to pull the trigger. However, I think you will come to the conclusion that the "mainstream" clearly is pushing an agenda. Even when they have to grossly alter and adjust a story to fit that agenda.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin – Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin#ixzz1pyXYu6Sv

All we know for sure, is that we don’t know. But let’s not, as a people, have such a thirst for blood that we force our own justice system to railroad this guy into death row, because that’s just simply our own form of vigilante justice.

Just remember how many criminals get off on technicalities all the time, that are set free to roam our streets and harm us again. Even if Zimmerman was wrong, and Martin was just being an “innocent kid”, that tossing this guy under the bus could lead to less people willing to do anything to stop criminals, and only make things worse in the long run. Or has anyone not heard of the case where the guy broke into a house with the owner home, was shot, sued the owner of the house, and won?

Short version of what I am saying here: Let the state decide what to do. We can get all pissy after we know the facts, people.

Need more proof?

Note: I am fully aware that the “recent” pic of Trayvon is claimed not to be him. Of course, that may or may not be true, but it illustrates a point. Neither pic used of these two is relevant or recent, as far as what the media has presented.

And now, Zimmerman has been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder, as of April 11, 2012.

I would like to share with you yet another perspective, courtesy of my close friend, Stephen Allen:

To my number of friends who’ve been pretty vocal about the Martin / Zimmerman situation, I thought I’d finally share my two cents openly with you. Before I do, I’ve got to say that I’m honestly more concerned with how much the shooting has polarized the event into a politically driven rage circus. A lot of effort has gone into the demonization of both Zimmerman and Martin. This has been done based on volumes of speculation, with little consideration to the limited (but important) established facts.

With that being said, I feel compelled to address one of those small (but significant) bits of information that a lot of media outlets have failed to discuss when covering Florida’s "stand your ground" law. It seems that most individuals believe that the law, in essence, provides legal justification to shoot someone if the life of the would-be shooter feels threatened by them.

Given the context of that explanation of the law, this assertion is not correct.

The actual text of the law makes twelve references to the condition of what a person "reasonably believes." I must place emphasis on the word "reasonably" because, in cases such as the Trayvon Martin shooting, the legal justification of such lethal force is not determined by the shooter’s judgement or circumstances alone. The shooter’s judgement must be determined to have been "reasonable" (or, at least, it must not be determined to have been unreasonable) given the circumstances.

If you read the "stand your ground" statute (here at http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All), you’ll see that the use of the word "reasonable" is not a semantic triviality. I’m no legal expert, but here’s the layman’s translation of the law. (Please consider reading the actual statute. It is quite easy to understand, especially when compared to most other state statutes or federal laws in general.)

—–
776.012: Only non-lethal force is justified for self-defense or defense of another, with one exception:

(1) Lethal force is justified if one reasonably believes that it’s necessary to prevent one’s own death.
—–

If Zimmerman should be acquitted, his defense will depend on arguing that Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened, and reasonably so. It will be up to the court to determine whether an unarmed teenager could reasonably be considered a lethal threat. The big question is what would be considered reasonable. (Notice the emphasis yet?)

Would Trayvon beating up Zimmerman without a weapon meet the criteria? (That, by the way, is still a speculation at this point, unless one has already made up their mind about the discrepancy between testimony and video tapes) Would the dynamic change if Trayvon went for Zimmerman’s gun?

Here’s more on my layman’s interpretation of the law. (Again, I’m not a lawyer. The link above is really worth reading for yourself.)

—–
776.013 (3): If a person is not doing anything illegal, and gets attacked in a place where they have a right to be, that person can "stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes" that it’s necessary to prevent one’s own death.
—–

I believe that this will be as useful an argument against Zimmerman as it will be for him. Obviously, Trayvon had every right to be in the neighborhood. Nothing indicates that he was doing anything illegal. Trayvon knew he was being followed by a stranger (to him) in a vehicle. He might have been addressed verbally in an aggressive manner (speculation), and might have believed that this stranger had a gun (again…). Ironically, if Trayvon did use force against Zimmerman, it’s not out of the question that Trayvon may have also been within his right (under "stand your ground") to defend himself. (Yes, that’s a lot of speculation, but it’s no more speculative than whether or not Trayvon snuck up behind Zimmerman to attack him, or whether he attacked him at all.)

—–
776.032:
(1) A person is justified in using lethal or other force if it was done by the rules set in this law.
(2) That person cannot be arrested, charged, detained, or prosecuted, but law enforcement can investigate the use of force
(3) That person will be awarded damages if they are brought to court and they were determined to be in accordance with this law.
—–

This seems like the trickiest part of the law, especially for Zimmerman’s situation. According to this, the police were right for not initially arresting Zimmerman if they didn’t have enough evidence at the time. (Is it reasonable to expect a police department access and analyze minute details from 911 tapes within the very limited time they had for initially questioning Zimmerman? Would it have been reasonable to expect the police department to arrest him anyway, so that he could automatically be acquitted because of the department’s own violation of the law?). This might be portrayed as a problem with the existing law; however, law enforcement still had the authority to continue investigating. In my opinion, the law seems pretty reasonable with one exception: shouldn’t the law mandate that law enforcement conduct a comprehensive investigation in the event of a death?

There’s more to this complex situation. If Zimmerman was arrested, the law essentially says that something must have come from the investigation that could put Zimmerman’s actions or judgement into question. If not, Zimmerman will be acquitted and compensated for the problems that the whole debacle has caused him.

Just as there was outrage about Zimmerman not being arrested initially, so too there is growing outrage by other groups that he has been arrested. Ironically enough, however, law enforcement was right again in doing so if they discovered new information that could show Zimmerman as not following the reasonable belief standard of the "stand your ground" law. There are already individuals that I know personally who might still disagree, but to them I would ask one question. How would arresting Zimmerman be inappropriate or an exception to the way in which our current justice system works? If sufficient evidence is gathered to support a case against any person suspected of breaking the law, what alternative to our constitutionally established system would be more appropriate to employ? The public now knows that Zimmerman has been arrested. What is not known is the significance of the evidence that will be used against him. To say that Zimmerman was arrested in response to public outrage, without knowing what evidence has been collected to determine what happened, is no less the product of one being susceptible to speculation than the initial public outcry over the police department supposedly letting Zimmerman scott-free for murder.

In summary, there is no shortage of speculation, public opinion, leaked video and audio, and unknown details about what really happened between Trayvon and Zimmerman. It’s time for the advocates and outspoken outrage to let our justice system do its job. Just as importantly (if not more so), it’s time for advocates, opponents, and media outlets alike to better understand what "stand your ground" is–along with what it is not. This will be a media spectacle for quite a while. During that time, raging emotions will probably degrade into heated fights over gun rights, racial profiling, self defense, and civil rights.

Politically shameless organizations will demonize Martin for the advancement of gun rights, while equally politically shameless organizations will demonize Zimmerman as a racist vigilante.

The problem with doing so is that, in the process, too many people will forget entirely about what’s ultimately going to determine Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Whether he goes to jail or gets set free, it will essentially be determined by Florida’s "stand your ground" law. If that outrages anyone who hasn’t yet read the law, I *strongly* suggest reading it first–or at least understand that, by not informing one’s self with anything more than sensationalist reporting and unwarranted opinion, that anyone’s understanding and feelings of the Trayvon Martin shooting are subject to being manipulated by the same shameless political groups whose supporting interest have seldom been anything but their own.

In my less-than humble opinion, civil rights and gun-rights advocates alike would do well to deflate their egos and realize that this is not about them. This is about figuring out if Zimmerman followed a well-crafted law that, in essence, provides reasonable protection to individuals at the the requirement that they use reasonable judgement.

(..I’ll throw one more "reasonable" in there, just in case there wasn’t enough emphasis.)