Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Another view of the Zimmerman case
My analysis of the Zimmerman case has been based on the facts as reported in the media. But what if these aren't correct? I recently saw a post by attorney Jeralyn Merritt on TalkLeft in which she analyzes the statements of witnesses to police, and concludes that the most likely scenario is that Zimmerman did not approach Martin, and couldn't find him when he looked for him. Instead, Zimmerman was returning to his truck when Martin confronted and then attacked him.
It matters who assaulted whom. If Martin started the fight, Zimmerman has a defense. In her analysis, Merritt thinks the state has little chance of winning its prosecution.
I am unlikely to post much on the subject of the shooting itself, so long as there is due process. What disturbs me about the case is its politicization by left-"liberal" progressives. The dishonest thugs of the Brady Campaign are going berserk, calling S.B. 2213 and S.B. 2188 -- both of which would establish national reciprocity for concealed weapons permits -- the "George Zimmerman Vigilante Acts," even though these have nothing to do with vigilantism nor Zimmerman. They also call Zimmerman "NRA's poster boy." Paul Krugman dishonestly refers to "Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution..." even though the 'stand your ground law does not change the criteria for justifiable use of deadly force and doesn't say anything evenly vaguely like what Krugman says it does. Krugman goes on to use this as a springboard to attack the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Koch brothers, the NRA, Exxon Mobil and the rest of the conspiracy. For some time ALEC has been a target of the left (e.g. the "liberal" Center for Media and Democracy), and the left has gone all out in exploiting the Zimmerman case to attack ALEC. The left will also use this episode to try to reverse shall issue CCW laws, the Castle Doctrine, and to impose new gun controls.
Interestingly enough, here's what self-described liberal Jeralyn Merritt says about this issue: "56% of Floridians support Stand Your Ground laws. I support them as well. I don't understand why progressives have chosen this issue. Limiting any constitutional right is not progressive. It's reactionary."
Well said.
It matters who assaulted whom. If Martin started the fight, Zimmerman has a defense. In her analysis, Merritt thinks the state has little chance of winning its prosecution.
I am unlikely to post much on the subject of the shooting itself, so long as there is due process. What disturbs me about the case is its politicization by left-"liberal" progressives. The dishonest thugs of the Brady Campaign are going berserk, calling S.B. 2213 and S.B. 2188 -- both of which would establish national reciprocity for concealed weapons permits -- the "George Zimmerman Vigilante Acts," even though these have nothing to do with vigilantism nor Zimmerman. They also call Zimmerman "NRA's poster boy." Paul Krugman dishonestly refers to "Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution..." even though the 'stand your ground law does not change the criteria for justifiable use of deadly force and doesn't say anything evenly vaguely like what Krugman says it does. Krugman goes on to use this as a springboard to attack the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Koch brothers, the NRA, Exxon Mobil and the rest of the conspiracy. For some time ALEC has been a target of the left (e.g. the "liberal" Center for Media and Democracy), and the left has gone all out in exploiting the Zimmerman case to attack ALEC. The left will also use this episode to try to reverse shall issue CCW laws, the Castle Doctrine, and to impose new gun controls.
Interestingly enough, here's what self-described liberal Jeralyn Merritt says about this issue: "56% of Floridians support Stand Your Ground laws. I support them as well. I don't understand why progressives have chosen this issue. Limiting any constitutional right is not progressive. It's reactionary."
Well said.
