George Zimmerman’s Acquittal – Thoughts and Implications – Video by G. Stolyarov II

George Zimmerman’s Acquittal – Thoughts and Implications – Video by G. Stolyarov II

Now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in a court of law of the charges of murdering Trayvon Martin, Mr. Stolyarov offers his reflections on the Trayvon Martin case in light of the information that emerged during the trial. These thoughts include a re-evaluation of the comments made in Mr. Stolyarov’s earlier (March 2012) video, “The Travesty of Trayvon Martin’s Murder“.

– “Shooting of Trayvon Martin” – Wikipedia

5 thoughts on “George Zimmerman’s Acquittal – Thoughts and Implications – Video by G. Stolyarov II

  1. Trayvon Martin did indeed get justice. The evidence is that he was a thug and that he’d likely have beaten Zimmerman to death had he not been shot. Do you think anyone who defends himself should be charged with murder and brought to trial, regardless of facts? Is that “due process?”

    I think you are very, very badly mistaken in this video reconsideration. Both the Sanford police and the local prosecutor agreed that the evidence was that George Zimmerman shot in self defense and that there was no evidence that warranted charging him. The public “evidence” of Zimmerman’s supposed guilt was almost entirely manufactured by the mainstream media. I too was taken in by this.

    But now we know that George Zimmerman was beaten by Martin and that this was suppressed by the media. There’s substantial evidence that Martin was a criminal, also suppressed by the MSM. There’s absolute evidence that Zimmerman himself fought for the civil rights of black people. We know that prosecuting attorney Angela Corey illegally withheld exonerating evidence from Zimmerman’s attorneys; her behavior was so unprofessional that legal scholar Alan Dershowitz of Harvard says she should be disbarred. Professor Wm. Jacobsen of Cornell Law School goes farther and suggests a special prosecutor ought to be investigating her. The entire account that prompted yours and my respective condemnations of Zimmerman was fiction, designed by the groups like Media Matters and promoted by the MSM for political purposes (e.g. attacking “stand your ground” laws and especially for attacking ALEC.) We now know that left wing groups, the mainstream media, and — most chillingly — the president of the United States and the USDoJ (using taxpayer money and govt personnel) — engaged in a campaign to frame Zimmerman, largely for political purposes. Now DoJ has a special hotline for Zimmerman-haters trying to find *anything* they can hang him with. Justice? Due process? Bah!

    This was a political show trial worthy of Stalin — indeed, the black juror called it a political stunt and said it should never have gone to trial. (Of course, ABC then edited her words to make it sound like instead she thought Zimmerman actually was guilty.) Happily, the American justice system isn’t Stalinist yet, but the attempted lynching of George Zimmerman ought to terrify everyone who favors justice and Constitutional government. If we let this kind of outrageous behavior continue (and call it “due process”) we will end up with a Soviet-style justice system, where cases are determined by the rulers’ politics rather than by law and evidence. We are moving towards it now.

    You should look more closely at the facts of this case and then issue a reconsideration of your reconsideration. You might start here.

  2. Dr. Steele,

    I have read the articles you cited, and I agree that there was prosecutorial misconduct and misconduct by the US government in this case. However, this does not take away from my point that a trial should have taken place. (Of course, it would have been much better if the prosecution had been fair in its presentation of the evidence and did not withhold any crucial information.) Obviously, not every instance of self-defense should go to trial, but this was not a typical instance of self-defense. There was considerable doubt as to whether the killing of Trayvon Martin was self-defense or unprovoked murder. A trial was needed to sort the truth out from the falsehoods and conjectures. A refusal to hold a trial would have been a statement that, in Sanford, Florida, the authorities are perfectly comfortable with a non-negligible probability that someone has walked away with murder. The possibility of murder should give rise to a trial. However, at trial, the possibility of self-defense should give rise to acquittal. This is what happened here, and it is why I disagree with your statement that this was a political show trial. The jury considered all of the evidence, found the prosecution’s case deficient, and gave the verdict that was prescribed by law and is consistent with long-standing principles of the American justice system. No show trial could end this way.

    The tragedy here, and the reason why I maintain that Trayvon Martin did not get justice, is because the entire confrontation did not have to happen. Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow or report Trayvon Martin to begin with. He could have driven away, and that would have been that. Trayvon was not threatening anyone that night; he was walking home with Skittles and iced tea (maybe ingredients for a drug, as some have suggested, but this is ultimately unverifiable, and would still have been a self-inflicted harm only). As I stated, only two people know who started the physical violence, and one of them is dead. We will never know Trayvon Martin’s side of the story, and that is already a lack of justice. Even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, he probably did not do so with the intent to kill. Zimmerman may have had reason to fear death when the confrontation came to blows, and this is where the possibility of self-defense comes in. Perhaps each of them perceived himself to be engaging in self-defense, and perceived the other to be the aggressor. But Trayvon had no record of violent crime, so calling him a “thug” is entirely unjustified. Had he not been followed that night, he may not have ever committed an act of violent aggression in his life.

  3. What do you mean “this was not a typical case of self defense?” What is a “typical case?” You have evidence this case was fundamentally different? Explain, with evidence, or I will assume you are making this up.

    The things you are citing to suggest that this warranted a trial are the things the media made up.

    It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that Zimmerman approached Martin to murder him. An eyewitness saw Martin atop Zimmerman, beating him, with Zimmerman yelling for help. Only after this did Zimmerman finally draw his firearm and shoot. That’s not murder. You have no understanding of the law at all if you think it could be. Even if Zimmerman had attacked Martin and Martin was acting in self defense — and there’s no evidence at all that this was the case — once a threat has been stopped, one can no longer legally use force. There’s no way at all that a murder charge was warranted.

    You entirely miss the point about Martin’s drug use — it’s not that drug use should be illegal (it shouldn’t), it’s that people coming down from a high on this particular drug often report feelings of aggression and paranoia.

    You claim it’s a “lack of justice” that we will never know Martin’s side of the story. That’s absurd. How can uncertainty — which is omnipresent — equal lack of justice? In one sweeping statement you have tossed out both rational epistemology and the very possibility of justice. And to say “we will never fully know what happened” as a defense for holding fast to a position for which there is no evidence at all makes no sense.

    And yes, it was a show trial, with Obama, Holder, various leftist groups, and the mainstream press doing all they could to convict Zimmerman in the public eye, concocting a false story and then preaching and speechifying so as to whip up public passions against Zimmerman, against firearm ownership, against promoters of limited government and free markets, and so on. But the actual evidence shows zero indication of racism on Zimmerman’s part, zero criminal intent by Zimmerman, zero evidence of assault by Zimmerman, no evidence of any illegal behavior on his part at all. And we know darned well that Martin was beating Zimmerman’s head into the pavement. You have been duped by the MSM propaganda (as was I, initially), and I am astounded that you now cannot see this. It was a show trial, but not a show verdict, because the jury paid attention to evidence and law. You should do the same.

    It pains me to speak in such harsh words, but your position is so infected with leftist political correctness that to be less harsh would be doing both you and truth a disservice.

  4. Dr. Steele,

    I think I will make only one more point on this matter.

    Suppose that the confrontation had arisen in the same manner, but that Trayvon Martin had killed Zimmerman instead. (Perhaps, in this alternative history, Zimmerman would have failed to draw his gun.) Suppose, then, that Trayvon had claimed that he killed Zimmerman in self-defense. Suppose, also, that Zimmerman’s family had reacted with outrage and demanded that a trial be held – otherwise Trayvon might have walked away with murder. Would you have supported letting Trayvon go without a trial? I would not have. And yet, in light of the very same uncertainties present in this case, if Trayvon had gone to trial, he would probably have been acquitted, precisely because enough of a possibility exists that he could have been engaging in self-defense. This is precisely why this situation was not a typical instance of self-defense, where the identities of the aggressor and the defender are clear-cut (e.g., a home invasion, a street mugging, or a brawl in a public setting with multiple witnesses). Irrespective who had survived, the survivor could have made a sufficiently plausible case for self-defense as to result in acquittal. Irrespective who had survived, we would not have found out the complete truth, because the dead cannot tell their side of the story.

    I think that all of your allegations about “leftist political correctness,” “MSM propaganda,” and “throwing out rational epistemology” are completely off-base, especially since (i) I agree with the verdict, (ii) I agree that the US government has misbehaved, and (iii) I have never, ever suggested that this case has anything to do with the “stand your ground” laws, free markets, limited government, or any of the other canards that have been brought up on both sides. In fact, I am the one who is refusing to make a partisan spectacle out of the matter, because I wish to see it confined to the circumstances of the case at hand and to analyze it from the standpoint of fairness to all of the people involved. It is true that I am out of step with various conservative pundits on this issue, but this is not a new tendency for me; I have always judged each situation on its own merits and have refused to take a position just because a particular group of people espouses it or opposes it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.