ABC News is touting an interview with one of the George Zimmerman jurors tonight in which she contends that the Florida man who shot Trayvon Martin “got away with murder.”
However, there seems to be more to it than that, if one reads the story now posted on-line, and being covered by other news agencies, including the New York Daily News. The juror, identified only as ‘Maddy,” a nursing assistant and mother of eight from Chicago who had moved to Seminole County, Fla., where she was picked to sit on the case, also tells ABC’s Robin Roberts, who asks whether the case should have been tried at all, “I don’t think so.”
“I felt like this was a publicity stunt,” Maddy says in the published interview, which will be aired not only Thursday evening on World News and later Nightline, but also Friday morning on Good Morning America at 7 a.m. Maddy is identified as “Juror B29…the only minority to deliberate in the racially charged case.” She is Puerto Rican, says ABC, which identifies Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic.”
Does one get the impression that this case might not be “racially charged” if ABC and other mainstream news agencies weren’t doing the charging? Maddy, according to the story, “said the case was never about race to her, although she didn’t want to speak for her fellow jurors.” So, whose narrative is the story following?
According to the published story, Maddy also says some other self-contradictory things that further muddy the water. While insisting that she “fought to the end” on the belief that Zimmerman was guilty, she acknowledges – according to the ABC story – that “the law couldn’t prove it.”
“That’s where I felt confused,” she reportedly tells Roberts, “where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”
There might be an explanation for that. It’s because Zimmerman really wasn’t guilty of anything other than self-defense. Homicide is justifiable if done in self-defense. In Washington, the use-of-force statute is matter-of-fact, and it has stood up in court for decades.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is..—RCW 9A.16.050
Perhaps the best detailed explanation about this case is coming from nationally-recognized self-defense expert, firearms authority and author Massad Ayoob, mentioned the other day in this column. His multi-part series appearing on the “Backwoods Home” website should be required reading for anyone interested in cutting through the rhetoric and getting to the raw meat of the Zimmerman case.
What is presently happening with these post-verdict stories is beginning to take on the aura of a witch hunt on the part of a mainstream press that was not satisfied with the trial’s outcome, so they have to demonize Zimmerman. Attorney General Eric Holder is also part of this with his Justice Department investigation that leaves Zimmerman fearing federal prosecution, and the annoyance of having his pistol seized as part of the evidence in that investigation.
The Zimmerman case appears to have become a political football in a much larger game aimed at changing gun and self-defense laws, discouraging legal concealed carry and making the nation’s armed citizens feel somehow guilty for a crime that wasn’t committed, according to the jury’s decision, to which Maddy agreed.