I think it is ironic that as Snowden is revealing the skill with which our government is able to monitor our communications one of the disputed claims in the George Zimmerman trial is who made the 911 call. Can’t they trace the number? Can’t the determine from whose phone the call was made? Does it have to come down to the assertions of a grieving mother who has lost a son or to a mother who knows what is at stake for her accused son each asking jurors to believe it is their child’s voice on the 911 recording?
Clearly I am not on the jury so I haven’t heard all the testimony. As our justice system demands, I am trying hard to assume that Mr. Zimmerman is innocent. However logic seems to demand that he is not. In my mind the simple question is – was the encounter which left a young, black man dead avoidable? The answer is yes. Had Mr. Zimmerman just driven home or sat in his car and allowed the police to do the job the citizens of that community paid them to do – Trayvon would be alive.
Isn’t that the definition of guilty? Had Mr. Zimmerman not acted, no crime would have been committed. Because Mr. Zimmerman voluntarily took it upon himself to do what he was told by the police not to do, a death occurred. He is 100% responsible for the death. Guilty. Unfortunately that must not be the legal definition of guilty because the prosecution hasn’t presented the case in this way. The legal system cares only about what happened at the moment that Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon met. That is ridiculous if you ask me. The law should be interested in who or what set the dominoes in motion.
If Zimmerman is found not guilty I think it would be a total travesty of justice. Perhaps the “stand your ground” law will be repealed so people like Zimmerman can’t use it as a flimsy excuse to take the law into their own hands.