{"id":27397,"date":"2012-04-12T07:17:49","date_gmt":"2012-04-12T12:17:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=27397"},"modified":"2012-04-12T12:42:46","modified_gmt":"2012-04-12T17:42:46","slug":"it-took-about-six-weeks-of-investigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=27397","title":{"rendered":"It Took About Six Weeks Of Investigation…"},"content":{"rendered":"

…for the prosecutor in Florida to charge George Zimmerman <\/a>with Second Degree Murder.<\/p>\n

Corey also had a message for those who have been rushing to judgment on the case.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou cannot know what it\u2019s like to launch this type of investigation and come to this conclusion,\u201d State Attorney Angela Corey said during the press conference.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t prosecute by public pressure or petition. We prosecute cases on the relevant facts of each case and on the laws of the state of Florida.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The worst thing about how the left has treated this case – as a stage prop for Obama’s re-election campaign – is that it causes doubts in the justice system, among both those who are inclined to support it or not.<\/p>\n

Naturally, the Obama administration and the media who push his narrative had every reason to portray the local prosecutors and police as racist peckerwoods who didn’t care that a black kid was dead. \u00a0And the claque that has been benefitting from that perception for decades now – Al Sharpton and the various race-war pimps – benefit handsomely from that perception.,<\/p>\n

Which is, of course, not to say that the local cops and prosecutors did <\/em>do a good job – in fact, we don’t know. \u00a0But prosecutor Corey is right – these ambiguous shooting cases frequently do <\/em>take a long time to work out. \u00a0A great example – of both the time it takes to work out an ambiguous shooting and <\/em>of a justice system horribly skewed by official tush-covering – is the Treptow case<\/a>, from five years ago in Coon Rapids.<\/p>\n

So there is much we don’t know about this case.<\/p>\n

But one thing that any rational person – and by “rational person” I mean “one who rationally assesses the facts as they know them = does <\/em>know is that this case is no indictment of “Stand Your Ground”.<\/p>\n

Let’s compare and contrast the genesis (so far) of this case, and war-game out its resolution under Florida law (with its Stand Your Ground provisions) and Minnesota law (which still has a vague, ambiguous “duty to retreat”).<\/p>\n

Assumptions<\/strong>: \u00a0We’ll assume that the episode went like this: Martin was walking (we won’t ascribe motives to him yet). \u00a0Zimmerman, being a diligent (maybe over-diligent) neighborhood watch guy, followed Martin in his car, then got out and confronted Martin. \u00a0The encounter went south – accounts vary<\/a> – and either Zimmerman ended up attacking Martin, or Martin attacked Zimmerman (you can believe whichever you want, because only the jury’s perception really matters at this point). \u00a0At some point, and with whatever motive, Zimmerman shoots Martin, who dies. \u00a0 The police arrive. \u00a0Zimmerman claims self-defense.<\/p>\n

Under Current Minnesota Law<\/strong>, if the case were being tried under Minnesota law, the prosecution would have to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman, while not planning to kill Martin, did in fact intentionally kill Martin without justification. \u00a0Zimmerman and his attorneys, claiming self-defense, would have to prove to the jury that…:<\/p>\n