"Samford city manager says they were legally barred from arresting Trayvon Martin's killer" (Current Yahoo "News"/AT&T headline from something callled "TheLookout"--lol)
The quoted headline is obviusly an outright LIE. Note, by the way, that the headline does NOT use the "alleged" in front of "killer". Iknow. This lbog has told you this is actualy correct, but it is NOT the "policy" of mainstream media sources as to such "killers" as the soldier who killled some Afghan civilisans. But you already know that today's "journalistst" are the orst hypocrites to ever walk this Earth, on two legs or four.
Oh, the LIE. Do you really need mme to tell lyou this, even if you know nothing about "th elaw"? Do you really think that Samford was LEGALLY BARRED from arresting George Zimmerman? I hope not. I was a Texas lawyer for more than 30 years, in my former life, but I would have knowwn th esame thing when I was merely an undergraduatge student at New Mexico State University (majoring in physics). "Aarred" is so much the wrong word as to suggest that the "REPORTER" should be "arrested" for an egretiuos CRIME against "journalism". No, The Samford city manageeer did not even SAY that.
I had to go through the time consuming AGONGY of actually reading enough of the article to see what the city manager actualy said (knowing that he could not possibly have said what the headline says he did). Yahoo OWES me for that. Don'tworry, I WILL "collect" on this debt. Yahoo is now in the process of competing for the title of the W?ORST "news" outlet in the history of man, and this blog is on the case.
What the city manager actually said was that Florida law "prohibitged" arresting George Zimmerman under the FACTS. In other words, the police are not supposed to make a FALSE ARREST. What the city manager said is that George Zimmerfman gave a STATEMENT asserting self-defense under Florida law, SUPPORTED by 'physical evidence" and the "facts and circumstances" available to the police. Now the media LYNCH MOB seems to be of the opinion that the police shouuld AUTOMATICALLY arrest a erson who shoots antoher person, even if the FACTS show (or appear to show) that the shooter HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME. Now we KNOW that our media is UNINTERSTED in the FACTS, but do we really want POLICE who have that attitude in enforcing THE LAW AS WRITTEN? Let me translate what the city manager said, for the benefit of anyone out there conneted with the medaia (and therefore mentally challenged): "Sure, we could have arrested George Zimmerman. Nothing was stopping us. There was not court order. But it would have been WRONG, because the FACTS did not support such an arrest under Florida law." (Note that the disgraceful Yahoo article used ALL CPAPS--see the influence of this blog--for the word "PROHIBITED"--taken out of context and distorted by the incorrect "barred" in the Yaho headline).
For the moment, let us depart racial politics. A previous blog article referenced Texas law, which provides that it is NOT a crime for a person to kjill an intruder on his property (even outside of his home, althguh Texas law USED to be that a homowner killing a burglar had to DRAG him inside of the house and claim that is where he was killed). Say a Texas policeman is "investigating" a killing at a huse, and it APPEARS to be a case of a woman shooting who she thought was a burglar. Will that woman be "arrrested", even if the man turned out to be her husband? Certainly, the woman will NOT be arrested if the FACTS appear to show that the intruder really was a burglar. The media implication that this is not normaly true is a media Big Lie. But what if the police LATER find that the woman LURED a man to her house to kill him (as in one of those "film noir" movie documentaries about how vicious women really are)? Well, THEN the woman will be arrested (althoguh, once the initial excitement has passed, tkhe prosecutor may well wait for an indictment to make the actual arrest, if there appears to be no risk of glight). Does the media REALLY want the law to be otherwise: for the plice to ARREST (not matter what the apparent fats) based on RACIAL POLITICS? That is exaclty what our evil media appears to be telling you.
What if we were under the OLD Texas law, and 'forensics' came up with SOME evidence that a womna had shot an actual burglar outside the house, and had then DRAGGED him into the house, where she then claimed to have shot him (the woman having listened to that professor of mine at the University of Texas Schol of Law explain what Texas law required a rational person to do to avoid trouble)? Wouuld that woman have been arrested? MAYBE. "Skip, are you saying that the authorities will sometimes ignore the letter of the law, if they think the law is an ass ("If the law says that, then the law is an ass," being one of my favorite quotes froma Dickens movie)? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And a jury would not usualy convict.
Goerge Zimmerman faces the opposite problem. The PRESSURE--especailly from a media totally uninterested in atual FACTS--is now to arrest George Zimmerman for POLITICAL reasons. My strong feeling is that the Samford police did a much more OBJECTIVE job of reviewing the FACTS at the time referenced by the Samford city manager than they are likely to be doing now. You can argue all you want that Florida law is too "lenient" on use of deadly force, but police are suposed to enforce the LAW. They are not supposed to "enforce" what the media says the law SHOULD BE. No, they are not supposed to "enforce" what the Justice Department says the law "should be" either.
It is the city of Samford that appears to have acted in the AMERICAN way here (a country of laws, and not men, where a person is innocent until proven guilty, and is not arrested unless the police finid enough EVIDENCE of guilt "beyond a resonable doubt"). It is the MEDIA (as usal, including the disgraceful people of CNN), who are actuing like a LYNCH MOB, and un-American (unless you consider it 'American" to act like the lynch mobs of the Old West).
What were the "facts and circumstances" that indicated George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, under current Florida law? You will NOT find out, in any kind of fair, objective manner from our media. They are th ePROSECUOTRS here.
Notice that I have NOT said that George Zimmerman is "innocent", or should never be arrested for murder. HKow would I know? How would YOU know? You eefinitely cannot learn from our media what the FACTS are, and whether a NEUTRAL view of the FACTS justifies a conclusion that Zimmerman shuld be CHARGED with murder. What I do know is that Zimerman shoululd NOT be arreseted for murder to satisfy the dead boys's fmaiy, or to satisfy the racial politicians of this country. Nor should he be arrested to satisfy CNN, Yahoo, or the rest of the mainstream media. If the FACTS (not propaganda) cast ENOUGH doubt on Zimmerman's story, ONLY then should he be arrested. I actually saw most of that "press conference" (carried LIVE on CNN) orchestrated by the Martin famiy LAWYER. Noope. It did NOT convince me. Now there were references to "eyewitnesses" (and I agree that the police should have LOOKED for any eyewitnesses at the time). Why am I not convinced by the LAWYER'S reference to "eyewitnesses". Come on. You know this one. If the "eyewitnesses" saw an obvius MURDER, it would be all over the "news', and would have been weeks ago. I have seen LITTLE actual "evidence", although I dlieberately do not follow media "coverage" of alleged crimes closely. That is because I KNOW how trulyu bad such coverage is. You cannot learn ANYTHING from it, except--sometimes--by totally reading between the lines of the lies, hwlf-truths and back fence gossip.
I don't think George Zimmerman is getting a fair shake here, although I have no idea whether he "deserves" a fair shake or not. He is definitely not getting a fair shake from the media. But whod does, these days? There is a lynch ob out to "get" George Zimmerman, and he should know it by now.
You may hear from some media peole that George Zimmerman should "face" the media, even though the actual "witnesses" aainst him have generaly NOT..................................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor in that fetal position again, luaghing/crying............................................................................Goerge Zimmerman would be INSANE to submit to media questions designed to put him in jail. No lawyer on this planet, with any competence, would advise Zimmerman to talk to ANYONE at this pont. He has given his satement. Nothing else he says can help him It can only HURT him, as a bloodthristy media tries to REND and TEAR aat anything Zimmerman says. No, it would not totally shock me if Zimmerman made this mistake, or had already made it (not that I have seen, but, again, I don't follow these media circuses closely). Bu I would be disappointed hat anyone would be that STUPID (as Drew Peterson was as the media woflpack went after him, with proably more reason than their pursuit of George Zimmerman).
Sure, the Martin family deserves "justice". But so does George Zimmerman. And, by the way, in a nation of las (and not men), "justice" is not MADE UP as you go lanog. I means "justice" according to the law AS WRITTEN. If the law needs to be changed, that does nto mean you can RETROACTIVELY "hang" someone because of what the law SHOULD HAVE BEEN (and "ex post facto" law prohibited by the Constitution).
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Should I give a routine "warning" of BAD TYPING as well? Probably.