Thursday, March 22, 2012

When is Innocent Until Proven Guilty Not Enough!

My emotions weighed very heavy on me today in my decision to write on such an emotional matter.  At first, I did not know what to think because I needed all of the facts.  However after viewing many media outlets about the story, I instantly knew what I needed to do.  I needed to write for truth and justice, which is sometimes brushed under the rug, until it has been uncovered and brought to light by the adamant whistleblowers who believe everyone should be treated the same.  Can you blame them or as it is sometimes referred to, us?

So, I am pretty sure that many of you are familiar with the story about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.  For those who are not aware, I will provide a brief synopsis about the very tragic event.  
Trayvon, 17, was headed back to the home of his father’s girlfriend shortly after 6 pm on Feb. 26, 2012 after a trip to the convenience store.  George Zimmerman, a 28 year old neighborhood watch member, reported Trayvon to the police and told the dispatcher that the teenager looked ‘suspicious.’  Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher not to follow Martin, but a few minutes after the police call, Martin lay dead from a gunshot to the chest.  Zimmerman admitted to police that he shot Martin, but claimed he acted in self-defense; he has not been arrested or charged.
Zimmerman, neighborhood watch member and previous  Security Guard in 2005, was given a duty to protect the community.  His duty was also to follow the orders of the dispatcher who stated not to follow Trayvon.  Zimmerman neglected those duties by not following the direct orders of a dispatcher and failing to protect those within his community.  Disobeying strict orders, Mr. Zimmerman found himself face-to-face with an individual who would be dead at his own hands in a matter of moments with a claim of self-defense keeping him out of jail.  I would like to know what type of laws in Florida allows someone to defend themselves with a gun, in a public area?  I know Ohio law states that if any individual breaks into your home, you have grounds to protect yourself in your home.  Anything that occurs outside of your home will not be viewed as self-defense and you may run the risk of being convicted of a crime for doing so.   Sandford, why are laws like this being inacted in this case?

As you follow the story, you will notice that there are a lot of unanswered questions on Zimmerman’s behalf.  These questions are: Why did he feel like he needed to protect himself from Trayvon?  What did Trayvon, a young man that had just bought candy and a drink from the store, do that would make him kill him?  Why has Mr. Zimmerman not been convicted of a crime or brought in for questioning?  Although Mr. Zimmerman proved that he suffered bruises from Trayvon, were the bruises actually self-inflicted or were they scars from Trayvon fighting back in order to save his own life?  There are a lot of unanswered questions on Mr. Zimmerman’s part and the passing of time only makes his self-defense statement less believable.  I am also wondering where is the preponderance amount of evidence that individuals must submit in order to prove their case or accusations?  Why did the police not gather this information?

Some of the comments around this case is that it was a matter of racial profiling, which was the cause of his death.  Do you actually believe in this time and age racial profiling still exists?  Well, I would be lying if I said it did not.  We all would be lying to ourselves if we believed such truths.  In this particular case, the presumed innocent Zimmerman has enough against him to prove some type of wrong doing took place.




No comments:

Post a Comment