"The attempts to assassinate Trayvon Martin's character are irrelevant to his Murder/Execution."
The question I have, is when did we start allowing armed vigilantes to roam the streets with the job title of Judge, Jury and Executioner?
Let us assume for a moment that Trayvon WAS a criminal... And let us even assume for a moment that he had JUST committed a crime (that Zimmerman was unaware of)... What right did George Zimmerman have to get out of his car after he had already alerted the police to the existence of this shady character in the hooded sweatshirt and physically confront, then execute him?
If Zimmerman were a professionally trained police officer (with years of training and experience) he would be in danger of losing his shield for an unjust kill, but Zimmerman walks the streets a free man with no repercussions on the horizon thus far. Where is the justice in that?
We know that there is no evidence that Trayvon was in the act of committing nor threatening, retreating or escaping from any such caper. Zimmerman has spoken of no such crime (real or imagined) that gave him just cause to confront Mr. Martin. So what was he standing his ground from? He was not guarding or protecting anyone or anything from a boy walking home from the store. So again, what was he standing his ground from?
You see, in my eyes, in order to legally dispense lethal force one must show cause. Cause can be anything from protecting property to protecting people, but with this wacky "Stand Your Ground" law you can even dispense lethal force to someone that is in retreat (and posing no current or imminent threat. I will even accept the insanity of this law (at least for the moment). But how can you stand your ground absent a crime or appearance of the crime?
We can talk all we want about suspensions from school, traces of Marijuana, photographs of money and machismo thuggery. But unless he was in the act of committing a crime, it is all irrelevant. If Trayvon were Jack the Ripper (a serial killer whose identity was never discovered) walking home from the store... Zimmerman had no right to stop him, physically confront and execute him. But of course that would never have happened because Jack was more than likely White and we know Whites are never criminals or suspicious. But most importantly, even if Trayvon were Jack the Ripper, this would not have been a righteous kill.
I think any lawyer would have trouble finding fault with my interpretation of the law. So this leaves me with a dilemma. Why are people so quick to side with the killer. More importantly why are so many White people willing to side with the killer of a black boy who was committing no known crime?
The only defense I hear is that Martin was beating Zimmerman. So I ask, how many among us would allow someone to grab and physically abuse them while walking home from the store knowing you did nothing wrong or illegal? Is someone now allowed to walk up to you, punch or hit you in the face and then shoot you because you were the better fighter and won the fight? My guess is that would not be acceptable... So why was it acceptable for Trayvon Martin?