So what do you guys think about the Zimmerman verdict?

As far as the verdict,  it went the way I thought it would.  Especially after watching some of the State’s case.  They really did not do a very good job, from a legal standpoint.

But I really think this whole incident drives home many of our philosophies.  Regardless of your political ideals or how you thought the jury should have returned, there were some major points getting proved in this case.

Mainly that many many times even if something is legally just, maybe even morally just….the price is way too high.  Clearly the decisions Zimmerman made forced the end result.  But could he really foretell that much of the future?  You’ve all heard us say it time and time again “if it is predictable, it is preventable”.  It just begs the question of how much is too much.  Should Zimmerman have stayed in his vehicle?  Or not got involved at all?  So what if he didn’t?  And Trayvon Martin had in fact committed a crime?  The what if’s are insurmountable in this case aren’t they.

But is the bottom line truly that at the moment of Zimmerman’s action he felt like he was going to die?  Or is the bottom line that Zimmerman, by his actions prior to pulling the trigger, created the situation where the shooting was inescapable, destined to occur, a probability of 1?  None of us can do anything but speculate on that and let me tell you, I’m very glad this jury basically refused to get drawn into that argument.  It would have become a dark day for this country and how our legal system looks at use of force by it’s citizens.  But how far off in the future is that argument?  We are obviously already seeing again and again juries looking into “pre-incident” indicators.  It may be slightly opaque right now but the window that our system is using to observe citizens use of force is certainly becoming more and more transparent toward them looking at the “before’s” to see if they equal and justify the “end’s”.

In classes when we discuss the 5 arenas of combat, we really hit home some of these issues.  Zimmerman is a poster child for that block of instruction isn’t he?  In hindsight, do you think he would make the same decisions he did prior to shooting Martin?  To think about the issues he has faced since the shooting, which he has been cleared of, makes me shudder.  How dramatically life changed for him and his family, not to mention the tragedy the Martin family will have to face the rest of their lives.

I am certainly not using this forum to show support for or against, or to say right or wrong on either party.  But I am using it to ask you to keep using those great brains of yours and to continue to be heads-up shooters.  Don’t decide that since you can use and choose to carry a gun, your probability of using it is 1.  That you are stuck with that option.  Every situation has tens if not hundreds of outcomes based on very rapidly changing circumstances.  Make you’re ability to survive the probability of 1, the guarantee.  If you must use the gun to support that then so be it, but remember your brain, your instinct and your ability to move are the tools you will survive because of, the gun just supports them, not the other way around.

 

Come shoot–Rich

One Response to “The Verdict?”

  1. Chuck Hunt,

    Some good points to think about, Rich.
    Zimmerman was acting neighborhood watch that night. Some have speculated that he should not have gotten involved. What kind of neighborhood watch would that be? By definition, he was SUPPOSED to follow Martin; calling 911 was correct, but following long enough to get a description and location/direction is part of the job. So he got out of his car, so what? Just as an innocent person has a right to walk down a street, Zimmerman had every legal right to follow Martin, even to walk up to him and ask him what he was doing. What information I have says that Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when confronted and assaulted by Martin.
    Now for something that Zimmerman may have goofed on. Perhaps, instead of just getting pounded on and screaming for help, a full-grown Zimmerman should have stood on his hind legs and delivered an ass-whipping to the 17-year-old punk that assaulted him. I know that is an easy thing to say from the comfort of my couch but, having been in that situation, I can tell you that my first inclination was to pound the snot out of the creep, not shoot him. Be that as it may, once Zimmerman, being unable or unwilling to get Pentecostal (Laing on of hands!) with Martin, and perhaps thinking he was about to suffer “grievous bodily injury or death” , was in that position, he probably felt he had no option other than shooting the little thug.
    It WAS a homicide. Sometimes, the line between manslaughter and justifiable homicide is razor-thin. But, with the evidence available, charging Zimmerman with Second-Degree murder was an overreach driven solely by political consideration. Why was this not presented to the Grand Jury? Whatever. The prosecution deserved to fail on this one, their evidence was weak to non-existent, their witness were either not credible or barely literate imbeciles, or both.
    Was Zimmerman I’ll-advised in his actions? Possibly. Was Martin? Absolutely. Did he need to die because of them? Maybe not, but he did, and that because he was a wannabe thug that had skated out of other charges in the past, and felt like he could act out on that “creepy-ass cracka” without consequence.
    Aggravated Stupidity? Yes. Second Degree Murder? No way.