'The Zimmerman Case\r'

'The Zimmerman Case has had its verdict yesterday and I would defecate written consequently, but I was busy building my thoughts. What I should account first is why the Zimmerman Case is significant. It is non significant beca usage of feed, or the unspoiled to hold up ones self. In defense of my perspective on the run for aspect, the media has tried to portray Zimmerman as white, when, in feature he is Hispanic or as my wife is unrelenting about, Latino. Apparently, you cant c wholly Hispanics Hispanics any more and you film to call them Latino.\r\nOk, sure fine I dont substantively care what people fate to be called; it has no bearing to me on the individual other than personal preference. So, if the media is non really sure what race Zimmerman is, the have it away of race becomes moot, but it does orient that on that charge are other motivations in doing so as someones race is a attractive big way of describing an individual to the state-supported. I suspect t hat this has more to do with the in-migration Issue than race despite the media is as affirm to call for be seen that way. Showing Latinos as white would go a yen way toward naturalizing immigrants in the publics mind.\r\nThe right to carry on ones self, is non an dilute either, in that it is a personal responsibility to do so. pursuit someone does not justify antagonism if that person is acting indoors a prescribed and profound role, in this consequence, as a member of the community watch. They say Martin was just going out for bowl and some sort of drink and that was all he had on him when he was be followed out of the area by Zimmerman. If he was going out to get these items, then why did he have these items on him when he was leaving. This seems suspect to me, but real has little bearing on the point I am trying to make with this.\r\nThe provide hither isnt if Zimmerman should have been arrested, he should not have. It is also not if Zimmerman had the legal right to shoot and kill Martin; he did. Martin acted as the aggressor and king Zimmerman in to a physical battle, and Zimmerman, in reacting to the battle, did no go for the gun first. He employ the gun after Martin utilize implement on him (banging his head on to the cornerstone; I have had this happen to me and I have had to do it to others; The ground is nigh definitely something that can be used as a limb). The shot was fired, upwardly and in to the front of Martin, so, the killing was justified.\r\nThe solitary(prenominal) real issue that I had with this was if Zimmerman waited excessively long, but to that end, I wasnt there and so I have no right to an opinion on the judgement concerning the term frame between true(a) use of the ground as a weapon and the use of a gun. The issue here isnt, as many people deficiency to believe, if the trial was justified. This should have had an investigation in to the shooting, and of that, there is no question, but it was barely t o justify if the shooting was legal or not, not to determine guilt of Zimmerman or Martin which the media seems to have confused, but the real issue here is if it was a becoming trial.\r\nThe sentiment of jurist is that justness be fresh and impartial. The executive Branch of the government represents the justice system inside the United States. The Executive Branch, when considering the implications of justice, has to see things from all points of view and contend the rights of all parties concerned with the verdict, ie the prosecuting officer and the defendant, while ignoring all unaffected parties flat if they feel they are a stakeholder (parents, relatives and friends). The actual verdict has to be fair deep down a level-headed love of peers.\r\nThose peers take a hop the basis for the jury and the jury is chosen by the prosecution, therefore controlling, to some period the legitimacy of the defense as tumefy as the impartiality of the verdict as the intent of the jurors are to vomit up themselves within the mindset of the defense, but from what is considered a reasonable state of mind. The biggest consideration here has to be that the argument must be presented in such a way as though neither race nor sexuality should have any consideration on the defense at the time of the crime. If that there is, in fact, a finding that race or gender is a factor, considerations should be made.\r\nIn the argument of self-defense, the first consideration that should be made is was the defense genuinely in sort of jeopardy and that riskiness world loss of life or permanent injury. In choosing women, the prosecution was seek the sympathy angle for the minor who died as a result of the operation resulting in the trial. The biggest factor that is being ignored with the media is that the jurors had to put themselves in, not the speckle of Martin, but of Zimmerman and therefore Zimmerman acting within his role of public defender (the Community Watch, in this case).\r\nThis lapsing of roles from what the public considers as fair is what, ultimately, washed-up the prosecution’s case. Arguing the case without considerations of race or gender bear ond the women to wonder what they would have been forced to do in Zimmerman’s role within that of public defender. To that end, they had to ask themselves, would they have been hunted and would they have had the responsibility to defend themselves, not necessarily with lethal force, but by any means necessary.\r\nThat they would not have necessarily put themselves in to that position had no actual bearing on the subject as that personal quality was removed for them, hence impartiality. The factor of this being a fair trial, is decreed by a panel of peers, initially chosen at random, but decided by the very people trying to quest after the case. That they choose women, become immaterial as the prosecution has its own agenda from that of the defense. The issue with this was nt if the case was not fair, or that the verdict was unfair as the situation presented, set forth a reasonable justification of maintenance in the situation of Zimmerman.\r\nIt showed that an assault with devilish force was committed by the certification collaborated by witnesses. It showed that the use of deadly force was legal and it showed that Zimmerman showed restraint in employ that deadly force by the action of deadly weapon (the ground) putting Zimmerman’s life in actual danger as well as the fact that Martin did not disengage his ‘supposed aggressor’ but actually escalated the fight and did not seek to flee.\r\nIn the end, this was a fair verdict, in that anyone in Zimmerman’s position would have used deadly force as long as you do not make any considerations toward race or gender, ie, had it been a woman in Zimmerman’s place, she would have done the equivalent exact thing, but again, this is not the real issue. With this case, the he ad of the Executive Branch, the head of the justice system within the country, is seeking to show personal bias, and is basing that bias upon race and not reasonable actions within the situation itself as shown by the trial itself.\r\n'