AP: Zimmerman has too many rights
April 15, 2012 by Don Surber
Through its news analysis by Curt Anderson, management and editors at the Associated Press apparently believe George Zimmerman has too many rights to defend himself in court. The editors at the nation’s largest news organization are befuddled by the notion that prosecutors actually have to prove that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense, rather than merely accept Al Sharpton’s version of the story.
The analysis began:
MIAMI (AP) — George Zimmerman persuaded the police not to charge him for killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, but the prosecutor has accused him of murder. Soon, armed with unparalleled legal advantages, Zimmerman will get to ask a judge to find the killing was justified, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll get to make the same case to a jury.
Unparalleled? Throughout the English-speaking world, a person charged with a crime can ask a judge to dismiss the charges and if that fails, be tried before a jury of his peers. The only aspect of this case that is different from others is that if acquitted, Zimmerman would be immune from civil damages.
And the Associated Press listed Curt Anderson as “AP Legal Affairs Writer”? Maybe he is a graduate of the Barack Obama School of Constitutional Law.
Mind you, this crap will be in Sunday newspapers across the country and people will see the word “unparalleled” and think that Zimmerman is getting something no one else has.
The very next paragraph blames the wicked NRA for this dastardly presumption of innocence:
The wave of National Rifle Association-backed legislation that began seven years ago in Florida and continues to sweep the country has done more than establish citizens’ right to “stand your ground,” as supporters call the laws. It’s added second, third and even fourth chances for people who have used lethal force to avoid prosecution and conviction using the same argument, extra opportunities to keep their freedom that defendants accused of other crimes don’t get.
Of course, the Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with the case. It is simple self-defense. Martin was pummeling him while Zimmerman’s back was to the ground. Maybe the old Lay On The Ground law should apply.
And it is nonsense that you get extra chances. Guess what, not only does every defendant get the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers, but he can appeal that verdict if found guilty. The AP routinely takes the side of killers, especially those facing execution. The AP legal writer apparently does not understand basic criminal law. He wrote:
One area that sets Florida apart is the next step Zimmerman faces: With the police and prosecutor having weighed in, a judge will decide whether to dismiss the second-degree murder charge based on “stand your ground.” If Zimmerman wins that stage, prosecutors can appeal.
I am pretty sure prosecutors can appeal any judicial ruling, including a dismissal of charges.
But what bugged me in reading this story is the relentless attempt to cast this case as usual when it seems to me to be a sad homicide, in which a man claims he had to kill or be killed. Apparently, the Associated Press as an institution has a problem with self-defense:
An Associated Press review of federal homicide data doesn’t seem to bear that out. Nationwide, the total number of justified homicides by citizens rose from 176 in 2000 to 325 in 2010. Totals for all homicides also rose slightly over the same period, but when adjusted for population growth, the rates actually dipped.
Justified homicides are just that. Man gets attacked, draws a gun, kills his assailant. States are easing gun control laws and homicides overall are dropping. That sort of analysis should be in this article because it is, well, an analysis.
I might also point out that criminal homicides still outnumber justified homicides 50 to 1.
From the AP:
At least two-dozen states since 2005 have adopted laws similar to Florida’s, which broadly eliminated a person’s duty to retreat under threat of death or serious injury, as long as the person isn’t committing a crime and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Other states have had similar statutes on the books for decades, and still others grant citizens equivalent protections through established court rulings.
I am curious as to where AP would have Zimmerman retreat? His version is he was on the ground having the snot neat out of him...
blogs.dailymail.com |
