The case against Zimmerman is very weak (but that’s been clear from the start, and it hasn’t made any difference, has it?)

Alex Zarkov writes:

The very liberal lawyer Jeralyn Merritt presents her “George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario” at TalkLeft. She reviews the various witness testimony and presents her reconstruction of what happened the night Martin got shot. Her analysis makes the prosecution’s case look very weak. After pointing out all the problems with the known evidence against Zimmerman, she remarks:

What is the state left with? Its motion for protective order is being misinterpreted by the media,. The state does not say that George Zimmerman’s statements prove he’s guilty.

Read it carefully. It says there are some inconsistencies and contradictions in Zimmerman’s various statements. It doesn’t say those make him guilty. It says Zimmerman’s statements “in conjunction with” physical evidence and witness statements, establish his guilt. Which is another way of saying that GZ’s statements, by themselves, don’t make their case.

Then she concludes:

The state is unlikely to prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him. Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin and call to the non-emergency number were not contemporaneous with Martin’s attack. Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin’s use of force against him. Demanding someone account for their presence does not provoke the use of force. Even if it could be construed to be provocation for using force, all it means is Zimmerman had to attempt reasonable means to extricate himself before using deadly force in response. W-6’s steadfast insistence that Zimmerman was struggling to get up and out from under Trayvon, right before the shot went off, fulfills that requirement. Zimmerman will say the same. And no witnesses saw anything different.

Zimmerman should prevail on classic self-defense at trial regardless of stand your ground. Raising stand your ground before trial gives him the possibility of a quicker win, and the opportunity to preview the state’s strategy before it gets to a jury.

Under normal circumstances Zimmerman would have never been indicted, and indeed he wasn’t until the race hustlers got into the picture, making everyone afraid of race riots if Zimmerman doesn’t get convicted of something serious. Now is our government so morally bankrupt it will railroad an innocent person to appease the black mobs? I think the answer is “yes” until white people willing to riot.

LA replies:

I agree. As I’ve said before, Angela Corey’s indictment of Zimmerman was the act of an ideological regime seeking to destroy an ideological enemy (or rather someone who had been cast as an ideological enemy). There is no reason to believe that a regime that would do something this blatantly monstrous will suddenly stop in its tracks and behave legally and properly.

Remember also that Corey faced no official reprimand, let alone removal from the case, for her blatant identification of herself with the Martins.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 29, 2012 10:56 AM | Send