There are things I can’t understand about this Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman is a law-enforcement officer. He saw a man “just walking about...when it’s raining”, not an offence by any stretch of the imagination. Did the jurors ask themselves: WHY then did he contact the police dispatcher?
OK, let’s say he had a good reason to contact the police dispatcher. Was the reason, to ask for advice or reinforcements? As a law-enforcement officer, what does the LAW REQUIRE him to do, once he gets the advice he is seeking? If the law requires him to follow the advice, then he is guilty as hell for disobeying the law, leading to A FIGHT, and death of an innocent man. If the law is silent on how he should proceed after getting the advice, then the law is to blame for Trayvon Martin’s death. Of course if it’s reinforcements Zimmerman was asking for, he would have been expected to wait in his car as advised, until they arrived, instead of STARTING A FIGHT.
I wonder if the jurors asked themselves WHY the police dispatcher told Zimmerman “not to follow Trayvon Martin, but to stay in his car”. Was that perhaps a legal requirement, given the circumstances as reported, and the law-enforcement status of the reporter, Zimmerman? If it was a legal requirement, how then did Zimmerman’s actions NOT contribute to TM’s death?
No comments:
Post a Comment