INDEPENDENT ADVOCATE With Capitol City Newsletter Volume 27, Issue 98 July 19, 2013 IAE-ISSN 0893-9470 IAE-IRS-EIN 47-01752-60 Founded in 1986 © Marlin Pals, 2013 “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAW CHALLENGED Adversarial Court Process Failed Trayvon Martin was dead and only Zimmerman could tell his story. Martin’s side should be presented as well as possible from available information. The “Stand Your Ground” law is the product of the Tea Party operatives who want to believe that only the Republican Party is the authorized political party of the U.S. That is what they mean when they say they want to return to the Constitution. They get that from their interpretation of the Fourth Article; Section Four of the Constitution; but that is another whole subject. There were no substantial witnesses to the situation which Martin encountered and that situation is a prime target for interpretation. The Martin/Zimmerman confrontation shows that a person who is intent on murder can get away with murder by use of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Early reports stated that Zimmerman had disobeyed his dispatcher by getting out of his vehicle when the dispatcher said that the cops didn’t need his help. Zimmerman also used a slur word in reference to Martin when talking to the dispatcher. It most likely was the N-word. Zimmerman then took his weapon from his vehicle and that action showed that he had the intention to kill. That act should be “prima facie” evidence of intent to kill. The words “prima facie” would seem to mean “first face”. Although Zimmerman said that he was only walking through the neighborhood when Martin attacked him, it is more likely that he attacked Martin after pursuing him. Zimmerman told seemingly different stories of what happened. In one, Martin had initially come to his, (Zimmerman’s) vehicle and asked what he was doing. In another, he had confronted Martin outside his vehicle and Martin had asked what Zimmerman was doing. From those versions there doesn’t seem to be any reason for Zimmerman to have pursued Martin. He had another version; Zimmerman claimed that he was merely walking the neighborhood when Martin “jumped” out of the shadows and attacked him. The information indicates that Zimmerman pursued Martin after referring to him an “N” person and knocked him down and beat up on him and then decided to shoot him at point blank range. The cops should have tested Martin’s hoodie for powder burns, but apparently didn’t. They lost evidence with their neglect. Also, initial Police reports said that Zimmerman didn’t have any injuries immediately after the incident. The injuries came later; probably after he was informed that he might have to face a charge of murder. People have been known to break a leg in order to get out of a test which they knew they would fail and Zimmerman, no doubt, would have been willing to get royally beaten up in order to escape a murder rap. The beating which Zimmerman got was excessive for the situation. Martin was an unarmed kid and couldn’t have administered such a beating. A conservative blogger said that all of the information which supported Martin was irrelevant, and he proceeded to denounce Martin for being African-American and for the life style associated with Black people. That conservative blogger alleged that Martin wasn’t a “kid”. The conservative rant was irrelevant to the killing. That conservative was blaming all blacks for the death of Martin and that is a racist action. The conservative ranting angered Blacks, and was intended to anger them, so that they might riot and get into more trouble. Conservatives are extremely hate filled and pursue their hatred by setting people up to defend themselves and then, as a result, facing charges. Conservatives are the essence of Nazism. They have proven that to me with their attacks on me and this paper and they recently stole another bicycle light from me. The adversarial approach to trying people failed because only one person was alive to present his view. The adversarial approach has no place in American jurisprudence. Supporters and editorial writers like to praise the American system of jurisprudence because it results in a jury trial. However, all of the dictators who have existed have conducted jury trials. The trials were all loaded against the defendants. However, had any pundits existed in their system they could have, (and no doubt did); praise their system for using trials. Lawyers in the adversarial system can use any description of the defendant and accused that they wish in an effort to make their client look innocent. That approach worked well for Zimmerman. The Zimmerman verdict shows the defect of the adversarial system. Also, in medieval and in dictatorial jurisdictions the jury can be instructed to find the defendant guilty regardless of the evidence. That happened in the French Chamber of Deputies courts and the British Star Chamber courts of the Middle Ages. The U.S. Constitution and system of jurisprudence was set up so that such wouldn’t occur in U.S. courts Such appears to have happened in reverse in the trial of Zimmerman who was found innocent. However, thereby, Martin was found guilty in absentia; like in the old French Chamber of Deputies and British Star Chamber courts. The jurors said they had no choice, but to find Zimmerman innocent. They were specifically instructed on how to interpret the law, but they should have been allowed to interpret the law as they saw how it fit for the Martin/Zimmerman incident. That trial is over and Constitutionally Zimmerman is protected from facing another trial without there being new trials. However, if one is black, like O.J. Simpson is, one will be subjected to double jeopardy; which is two trials on the same charges; and even more trials than that. Also, blacks have subjected to continuous harassment due to the 1715 Virginia law which declared all blacks to be criminals. That law should have been voided when the Constitution was established.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:29:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015