Search This Blog


Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The Zimmerman Trial Illustrates One Thing Very Well

Liberals would be perfectly happy to destroy the rule of law. They didn't get what they wanted in the Zimmerman trial from our rule of law soooooo..... I tried to find a clip of the jury scene in A Man for All Seasons. The jury is about to leave the courtroom to deliberate, when Cromwell stops them saying they certainly can come to a decision right there and then. And, of course, like the Catholic bishops who gave Henry what he wanted to keep their heads attached to their bodies, the jury does the same. Is that what will happen the next time we see a Zimmerman-Martin type altercation?

I'm not a fan of hard rock but the lyrics of this song are exactly where we are, "If you listen to fools, the mob rules."

Cui bone? Who benefits from mob rule? Not the mob that's for sure because chaos always ends in tyranny, and tyrants couldn't care less about the mob that brought them to power? Study the French Revolution  and one of its greatest critics, Edmund Burke, who championed the rule of law. Sadly, the U.S. is beginning to resemble Paris in 1789  more than Philadelphia in 1776. George Zimmerman is a victim of a new reign of terror replacing the rule of law with mob vengeance. I pray he will not be murdered, but what American in his right mind doesn't see that as a possibility?


Kiersten Walsh said...

You are generalizing. I definitely lean to the left but certainly understand why the jury decided the verdict the way they did. Under Florida law, given the judge's instructions, they chose correctly. That does not make Mr. Zimmerman innocent of any wrong-doing. Our society is too obsessed with violence, guns, and vigilante justice. I'm surprised that someone who professes to be pro-life could espouse any sort of useless violence. The bottom line is that a gun is what turned this situation into a tragedy instead of just two thugs having a fist fight. So, since guns don't kill people... then in this case, Mr. Zimmerman killed someone. The whole thing is such a waste. It's sad.

Anonymous said...

Well if Zimmerman gets murdered his murderer will get death penalty. After all he is not black.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Kiersten, when have I ever espoused "useless violence?"

And self defense isn't vigilante justice. Lynching rustlers in the west was vigilante justice.

As for the fight...none of us knows what the outcome would have been if Zimmerman didn't have a gun. They aren't the only way to kill someone. I sometimes wonder what I would have done if someone was slamming my head into a concrete sidewalk and beating me in the face and I couldn't get him off me.

Anonymous said...

What this allustrates is the insanity of American gun laws.

According to current Florida law you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following [the minor] and choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, get into a confrontation with them, and if at any point during that process you get scared you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say, "Well, look: you did what you could."

That is what happened. And you support that.

Kiersten Walsh said...

Being pro-gun is espousing violence. Guns are objects of violence. The only purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being. That's it. That is what they are designed to do. Again, I agree that the jury's verdict was correct based on the laws of Florida. However, these "stand your ground" types of laws are horribly flawed. For example, see the article below:

When the state's can't reliably regulate their own judicial system, the federal government should step in. That's not going against the "rule of law," that is advocating for fair laws for everyone.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

"Being pro-gun is espousing violence."

No it isn't. Millions of people own guns who use them for target practice or skeet shooting. They may never use a gun for self defense because they don't need to.

But every killing spree in the country in the past 20 years (at least) has taken place where guns were banned. I remember the Luby Cafeteria shooting. A gal with a concealed carry permit testified to the state legislature that she had a clear shot at the perpetrator who killed dozens of people including both her parents, but she left her gun in the car which she will always regret.

There are many cases like that where a gun-carrying citizen uses his gun to save lives. Why do you think police officers carry them?

And I've read too many cases where innocent people were killed because they couldn't defend themselves. Why don't you read some of those cases.

Anonymous said...

So murdering unarmed teenagers can be excused by Virginia Tech massacre?

And Trayvon martin's life most certainly wasn't saved by Florida gun laws. he was murdered in cold blood and his killer walks free because of them.

And you esposuse this travesty. What if had been your grandchild that got shot because he or she looked suspicious?

Would you still make excuses for the murderer?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

George Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of murder by a jury of his peers. Obviously the jury's decision means nothing to you. Interestingly, when O.J. was found not guilty many did not agree with the decision, but you did not see whites rioting over it or trying to get the Justice Department to bring a federal case against him.

Trayvon Martin was not killed because he "looked suspicious." He was killed because he attacked and was beating up George Zimmerman.

Martin had marijauna in his bloodstrea at the time and the autopsy report showed liver damage consistent with regular use of "lean" a recreational drug made of codeine, candy like skittles, and soft drinks like the watermelon fruit juice cocktail Martin purchased at the 7-11. Over time "lean" can make the user aggressive and psychotic.

All Trayvon Martin needed to do was go in the house. Instead he precipitated a violent confrontation by assaulting Zimmerman. All the evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's story.