Recent comments

Link does not work--tried at 2:30 CDT

Dear Sir or Madam: I'm not sure who you think the people in my "camp" are, but we have been crystal clear from day one that the long-standing laws of the U.S., which recognize the right of self-defense and that protect murder victims who cannot speak for themselves by letting an impartial jury consider the evidence, should not be supplanted by an NRA-drafted/ALEC-ratified law that tilts the scales of justice. The way SYG was initially applied in the Zimmerman case was to exonerate the shooter, without letting either the family of the dead child or the public see the evidence, and to attempt to prevent a jury of Zimmerman's peers from evaluating the evidence and truthfulness of his claims of what happened that terrible day. If you think the claim of racial motivation has been "proved to be untrue" then you have not read all of the evidence, but one would not expect you to have examined all the evidence since you are not duly sworn juror in the case. And, if you think we "tried to prove zimmerman had no injuries" then it is quite clear you have not even read what we have written about the case. The fact that "it is clear he did have injuries" does not exonerate Zimmerman; that is for a jury to determine, whether his use of deadly force was justified. And regardless of the various claims about how serious zimmerman's injuries were or were not, we did not "then" attack SYG. We have been critical of this terribly irresponsible and dangerous model bill from the outset, for the reasons discussed in the earlier reply. Frankly, I too think it is best not to convict people in the court of public opinion--or exonerate them--based on partial or incomplete information. That's why we have a jury system, but that's the very system that the NRA-ALEC model bill has sought to pre-empt. A jury trial is a critical component of the idea of fairness and justice. A jury trial, though an imperfect process, is designed to provide all parties with a stake in the outcome, the accused and the victim's family, with a fair opportunity to be heard and to hear the evidence, and it provides a transparent process for the public to observe whether justice was served. I'm shocked and appalled that you would dare to compare our reporting and analysis of this case (by people of my "persuasion," whatever that means) to a lynching. A lynching is precisely what our modern criminal justice laws are hopefully designed to prevent. That is, the law is supposed to ensure that a black man does not have to walk the streets in America afraid that he will be summarily executed, shot in the heart, or lynched. The very idea that you would conflate public concern--about Trayvon Martin's killer just walking free without an arrest or a jury trial to uncover the truth of what really happened that day--with a lynching demonstrates, regrettably, a serious misunderstanding of the terrible history of lynching in Florida and other states. An African American teenager walking home from the store eating skittles and talking to his girlfriend should not have to be afraid that he will be stalked by a man the police told to stand down and then ultimately lose his life as a result of being in a neighborhood the killer thought the kid did not belong. This situation re-opens old and real wounds over numerous African American young men who were lynched for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or not responding deferentially enough to an aggressor. Quite frankly, it is fundamentally disrespectful to equate the public concern over Zimmerman avoiding a jury trial due to the NRA's wishlist becoming law with a lynching. Zimmerman is still alive and a young man has lost his life at Zimmerman's hands. For a person who is expressing deep concern for the shooter and objecting to others pre-judging the case, where is your sympathy for the fact someone's child was killed walking home from the store? Pre-judging goes both ways. But that's one of the reasons that cases where a person is killed and the other claims self-defense should be heard by a jury empowered to decide whether that killing was justified--without the NRA and ALEC putting their thumbs on the scale of justice--rather than decided by pundits or even police speculating based on partial evidence. And, had the public not expressed its sincere and righteous outrage over the effort to prevent a case like this from being tried by a jury, the case would never have been re-opened so that a jury might provide the measure of fairness and justice to all that any good citizen would desire.