14 July 2013

On the various reactions that I have seen from the Zimmerman trial

I was hoping to only write one entry and be done with this topic, but alas, the stupidity of the human race prevails once again, and I thus must come out and educate those that are reacting out of emotion and not reason. Allow me to help all of you :D

Not guilty: means the evidence that was presented in the court was not enough to convict the person of the crimes that were charged against them....It does NOT justify an end, nor does it mean that a person may be completely innocent. Is it possible for a jury to come to a wrong conclusion? Yes, but all things being equal, this is what a not guilty verdict means...lawyer friends of mine: Digi, Mariana, and Kit, can assist me if I'm in the wrong.

No, the death of Trayvon is not in vain because of a not guilty verdict, it means, the evidence that the prosecution presented (you know, Travyvon's Lawyers, the guys prosecuting Zimmerman) did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman had committed murder or manslaughter.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps it seems subjective in a sense, but perhaps it is not the case. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that the evidence that is presented in court must show that the charges are justified. If for any reason they do not connect to the charges, the logical conclusion must be to acquit the person of the charges that are filed against them.

It saddens me to see everyone react on an emotional level to these situations. Is it too much to ask people to use logic, and take their biases and leave them and measure things based upon what is known.

Should Trayvon have died that night? Of course not, the death of anyone is tragic, No one should be rejoicing in the death of this person. Indeed people should be in charity praying for his soul and for his family as well, the loss of a loved one (regardless of criminal record) is a painful thing for anyone.

Did Zimmerman have a right to be suspicious of Trayvon? Absolutely, if there is someone that you don't recognize in the neighborhood, regardless of their background, one will probably be suspicious of them at least until you get to know them, or they come around often enough and are not a bother.

Should Trayvon have kept a low profile because of his criminal past? Absolutely, if one is constantly in trouble with the law, one ought to try and not get in trouble, and keep to themselves, and not do anything to attract attention to themselves.

Should Zimmerman have kept following? Absolutely not, once Trayvon was out of sight...Turn around and go back...

Should Trayvon have come back in the direction of Zimmerman afterwards? Absolutely not, if some one's following you, you go away, to a point where you can't be found, or where you're at a safe distance, or a populated area with people as to cause a distraction.

Did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself at the altercation? Absolutely, there's no need to take a beating if one can defend oneself. This can even mean a gun if the situation calls for it...As I recall, Trayvon died from the injuries, not directly at the scene.

That is to say BOTH SIDES did something wrong, again as we say, the ends do not justify the means, no one needed to die that night...since intent could not be shown from the evidence that was presented, the logical conclusion was to reach a not guilty verdict.

In America when one is acquitted of a crime, one can't be charged again for the same crime. This situation is called double jeopardy. It's basically to prevent an abuse of the system, where if one doesn't get a verdict that one likes, one can keep charging until a conviction is brought...But of course since the law does not matter to the "administration" in charge....they will find a way around this....

I'll repeat what I said in the beginning, a not guilty verdict means that the evidence did not prove the charges that were filed...It does not imply that a person is completely innocent from wrong doing?

Because I know someone would probably think of this, let's talk about the OJ case. In the OJ case, there was tampering with the evidence, which lead to the acquittal. Ironically, the same thing happened in this case, but not in the way that you'd expect. The media (MSNBC) edited the tapes of what happened to fix the narrative of the story...but this time around the correct conclusion was reached based upon the objective evidence that was there...

This shouldn't even be a story, or even news, but happened, so prayers for everyone involved..

Now I hope we're all able to screw our heads on straight and not react out of malice and emtoion to a particular narrative just because we want to interject our own strifes and struggles in with various situations that happen around the country....

Kyrie eleison, Pax Vobis

No comments:

Post a Comment

Remember you are guests, and you can be kicked out at anytime by the owner of this blog :p...Please use a name or a pseudo name to identify yourself....it makes my life easier