Zimmerman, Martin, Race Baiting, Racial Profiling and Hannity
Both Zimmerman and Martin were free to be where they were when they encountered each other and to profile, or not profile, each other.
The acquittal of George Zimmerman on both murder and manslaugher charges based on his shooting of Trayvon Martin by a six women jury (five white and one self-described black hisppanic represents a third strike for the race baiters in their efforts to twist the facts to promote their political agenda and a second success for Sean Hannity in resisting them.
Strike One was the Tawana Brawley case (long ago, before Hannity was a tv and radio star). It was disgusting, but Al Sharpton is an MSNBC host anyway (and last year he pushed hard for the unjustified prosecution of Zimmerman that just became Strike Three).
Strike Two was the notorious Duke lacrosse case, in which the bogus gang rape claim of Crystal Gail Magnum and the disgusting conduct of an opportunistic white Democrat district attorney (Michael Nifong) subjected the Duke Three and their families and friends to outrageous prosecutorial abuse and agony. Nifong posed as the protector of black women, but the charges brought were bogus (and Hannity was significant in the truth ultimately prevailing).
Strike Three, the Zimmerman case, was a politically motivated prosecution that never would have been conducted if Zimmerman too looked like a son that President Obama might have had or Martin was white or, in the words of The New York Times, "white hispanic" (and Hannity this time was even more important in the truth ultimately prevailing, this time because he interviewed Zimmerman at length soon after his encounter with Martin and much of the video was played by the prosecution as part of its case, sparing Zimmerman the possible need to testify).
It's time to identify the real victim and the real villain and for people to stop pretending otherwise.
It is tragic that Zimmerman felt the need to shot Martin in self-defense, but that appears to be exactly what the jury determined and the evidence at trial supported that determination.
So Zimmerman is the real victim, of both Martin and the prosecutors, and Martin is the villain, not Zimmerman.
"Villain" is defined as "someone who behaves in an immoral way, or something that is responsible for a bad situation" (www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/villain).
That covers Martin, who attacked, and the prosecutors, who persecuted.
"Victim" is defined as "someone who has been harmed, injured, or killed as the result of a crime" (www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/victim).
Under that definition, Martin is not a victim, unless his attack on Zimmerman is the crime and a perpetrator can be a victim of his own crime.
The prosecutors lost the case, but are still calling Martin a victim. If they accept the jury verdict, as they said they do, they should stop with their distortions.
Yes, "victim' is also defined as "someone who has suffered as a result of the actions or negative attitudes of someone else or of people in general," but Martin suffered as a result of his action and negative attitude."
Now the NAACP wants the federal government to prosecute Zimmerman, but Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch captain, not a law enforcement official, and he has his constitutional rights regardless of NAACP wishes.
The unpassed End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 helps to explain that even if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin (and that has not been proven), he did not violate the law by doing so. The proposed Act was intended to apply to law enforcement agents and law enforcement agencies. "Law enforcement agency" meant "any federal, state, local, or Indian tribal public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws" and "racial profiling" meant "the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme." See www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-end-of-racial.html.
Both Zimmerman and Martin were free to be where they were when they encountered each other and to profile, or not profile, each other. Neither of them was free to attack the other. The jury appears to have determined that Martin was the attacker, and the physical evidence supports that determination. Martin's gunshot would ended, not started, the conflict, and Martin's only other injury was an offensive hand wound obviously the result of striking Zimmerman. Zimmerman's blood on both the front and back of his head supports a finding that Martin struck first.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.