About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

An utterly absurd view of the Zimmerman trial

By Scott Tibbs, July 24, 2013

The following quote from a "jury consultant" in USA Today illustrates how completely absurd the George Zimmerman trial became, and how absurd it continues to be.

I would have done almost a memorial about Trayvon Martin. I would have shown these are the things he's not going to be able to do: He'll never have a family or he'll never see his graduation.

See, this is the problem with the whole situation. The Zimmerman trial was treated as a political contest or controversy, not as a matter of following the law or determining the facts. The lost potential of Martin may have been relevant in the sentencing phase of the trial had Zimmerman been guilty, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case or the application of the law to those facts.

The primary question was one of fact. Did Zimmerman reasonably fear for his life? It has been established (and prosecution "star witness" Rachel Jeantel admitted) that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and had the upper hand in the fight. We can debate whether Zimmerman should have had a "duty" to retreat, but when he was lying on his back with Martin punching him and slamming his head into the concrete, Zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat.

The jury, thankfully, did not make a decision based on politics. The jury did not make a decision based on who they liked more. They made a decision based on the facts and the application of the law to those facts. That so-called "experts" are treating this as a political matter rather than as a legal matter demonstrates how our criminal justice system has been completely corrupted. When cases are decided based on political considerations instead of facts, no one has any hope of a fair trial.