As a potential lawyer I want to sit and watch this trial without bias. But as I continue to watch it I cannot help but to be bias. I feel the same way I did when I first heard of the case. I may be accused of putting in a racial bias but I also took out that bias and looked at this case. I sat back and thought of taking out the race and what am I left with. Still I would be bias because I am so tired of young people losing their lives to senseless violence. And I hear the defense wants to only mention the law and leave out the moral aspect of the case. However, laws are made with morals in mind are they not? So, legally was Zimmerman allowed to follow Martin? Yes he was. Morally should he have followed Martin? NO! I could talk about this all day. Lastly I just want to say that the stand you ground law is as stated: You are allowed to stand your ground when you believe that they are in imminent harm. When you have a car a gun and you are much larger then the person walking then there is in no way that you thought you were in imminent harm. When you are on the phone with the cops in your car following someone you are not in imminent harm. When you chose to step outside of your vehicle with a concealed weapon it is then the there is imminent harm. But the imminent harm was not for Zimmerman but for Martin. In this case I would say that we can easily say that imminent harm existed and was proven to be there when Martin died. Never have I heard anyone feeling that they were in imminent harm when following an unarmed person who was on the phone and only carrying snacks at the time of contact. Let God have a high hand in this case and if Zimmerman is truly not guilty let God reflect that in the verdict. If he is indeed guilty as many of us believe not due to our own biases please justify that guilt with a guilty verdict. That is all I ask.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:27:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015