Politics is why George Zimmerman is on trial

The George Zimmerman trial is over except the formalities.

The prosecution has rested. And most of the prosecutions witnesses support Zimmerman’s account of what happened.

George Zimmerman’s injuries on his head and face, including a broken nose, clearly show he was beaten by the much-taller Trayvon Martin (6 feet tall vs the 5′ 8″ Zimmerman). There was a four-inch height difference.  Trayvon was clearly far more athletic than the short, overweight, out-of-shape Zimmerman.

Jonathon Good — the most credible witness, the witness who saw the most – testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining down blows on Zimmerman.

The fact that the back of Zimmerman’s clothing was wet and had grass stuck to the back of his pants and jacket is strong evidence that Zimmerman was on his back taking a beating.

The injuries on the back and sides of Zimmerman’s head (speckled bruising) indicate that Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head on the cement, which would leave that pattern of bruising.

The prosecution has all but conceded Martin was on top beating Zimmerman.

The prosecution is trying to say that the fact that Zimmerman was not grievously injured suggests he used unreasonable force in response.

But the extent of the injuries has nothing to do with the law concerning self-defense.

The prosecution, of course, knows this. The prosecution is doing all it can to confuse the jury about the law in order to get a false conviction — a tactic by the prosecution that is, at best, immoral, if not illegal.

The law says you have the right to shoot an attacker in self-defense if you reasonably fear you might be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.

It doesn’t say you have the right to shoot only after you suffer grievous bodily harm. You just need to have a reasonable fear that you might be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.

If an attacker is on top of you pounding your head on cement, this would certainly qualify, even if you manage to escape grievous bodily harm.

The police knew all this within 24 hours, which is why Zimmerman was released and no charges were filed.

It was only later, after an uproar from national black leaders  (Al Sharpton, etc) and the media that a charge of second degree murder was filed.

President Obama even jumped into the case, telling America: “If I Had a Son, He’d Look Like Trayvon”.

When the President of the United States came out against Zimmerman, no doubt the State of Florida felt it had little choice but to move forward with some kind of show trial. Black leaders were also threatening riots if there wasn’t justice for Trayvon.

So now we have this show trial, at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Of course, I don’t know what really happened that night when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. I have seen nothing in the trial so far that disproves anything Zimmerman told police that night.

We have conflicting testimony about whose voice on the 911 call was crying for help. Trayvon’s family says it was Trayvon. Zimmerman’s family says it was George. The guy who actually witnessed the event, Jonathon Good , says it was George.

So we don’t know. No one really knows what happened that night.

The prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

This means all six jurors must believe, with near 100 percent certainty, that George Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Trayvon Martin with malice.  That’s what a Second Degree Murder conviction requires.

There’s absolutely no evidence of that. Zimmerman fired just one shot. He says he thought he had missed. He says he did not realize Martin was dead until after his arrest.

If Zimmerman had malice toward Trayvon Martin, or toward black people, or if he fired out of some sort of rage or hatred, he likely would have fired more than one shot.

The forensics show that the gun was against the sweatshirt, but not pressed up against the body, that the sweatshirt and the second shirt under the sweatshirt were several inches away from the body — as would happen if Martin were on top of Zimmerman, bending over Zimmerman, raining down blows on Zimmerman and pounding Zimmerman’s head against the cement, just as Zimmerman described.

The prosecution is desperately trying to make the case that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop.

The evidence for this is that he took a criminal justice course several years ago and applied to become a police officer. So the prosecution is twisting what most people would consider to be positives into negatives for Zimmerman.

But what courses he took at a community college and what jobs he applied for are irrelevant. All that matters is what can be proven happened during those few seconds before George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.

The prosecution is trying to make the case that Zimmerman, because he took this criminal justice course at a community college, understood Florida’s “stand your ground” law and understood what to say to police.

Assuming that’s true (a huge stretch), does this mean we can’t trust the testimony of cops in trials because they know what to say? Does this mean we can’t trust police reports because they know how to tailor their reports to whatever charges they want to prove?

Doesn’t making a point like this undermine the credibility of law enforcement and our entire criminal justice system?

Never mind that this case doesn’t even involve Florida’s “stand your ground” law.  Zimmerman is not relying on the “stand your ground” law. He is claiming simple self-defense.

The state’s theory is that George Zimmerman is a wannabe cop who hates black people and who appointed himself vigilante (Charles Bronson-style). The state wants the jury to believes that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin and, motivated by racist rage, stalked Martin and gunned him down because Martin was wearing a hoodie.

The evidence for all this is that he took a course on criminal justice and applied to be a cop.

The fact that the prosecution has spent so much time on this point just underscores how flimsy their case against Zimmerman really is.

“Is this really all they have? Is this really their entire case?” I keep asking myself.

I kept waiting for the grand finale, which never happened.

I don’t think the prosecution really even believes its own case.

It’s as if they know they have to come up with something because the politics of this case demands it. So this is the best they can do.

This is a trial that never should have happened.

These prosecutors should all lose their license to practice law for bringing such a frivolous case, at enormous cost to taxpayers. Prosecutors are only supposed to bring cases they know they are near-certain to win. They are only supposed to bring cases where the evidence is overwhelming.

Not only was this evidence not overwhelming. There is no evidence to support a conviction — zip, zero, nada.

The judge should not even send this case to the jury.  The judge should summarily throw this case out for lack of evidence.

Of course, that won’t happen because this is a political trial.

This trial is happening because President Obama personally weighed in on this case against Zimmerman . . . and because of threats to riot from the black community. This is a trial about “political correctness,” not about what the state can prove happened that night.

George Zimmerman is the target of a modern lynch mob, with Barack Obama (the President of the United States) surreally leading the mob.

So, it’s come to this.

In America today, we really can be tried as a criminal  (and potentially jailed for decades) for accidentally running up against “political correctness.”