The Court of July
Sunday, July 7, 2013 at 2:10PM The Gregorian Calendar has been the most widely accepted date-keeping standard since 1582. It means that, in most parts of the globe, July 4 is just another day of the year. In the United States; however, it’s not. It’s our birthday and we love to celebrate. Yankee Doodle. Feather in the hat. Macaroni salad. It’s a time for festivities of all kinds, including some of the most impressive fireworks displays the world has ever seen. We call it Independence Day because it’s the date signed on one of our nation’s most cherished symbols of liberty, the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire in 1776. This is a holiday to eat apple pie. It’s also a great day to munch on a hot dog while taking in an American staple — a good, old fashioned baseball game. How much more patriotic can we get than that… baseball, hot dogs and apple pie? Well, we can celebrate the US Constitution and our system of justice. That’s a good part of what it’s all about. Many of us saw it in action during the Jodi Arias trial and, before that, Casey Anthony. Now, there’s George Zimmerman. Charged in the February 26, 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, his second-degree murder trial began began June 24.
Speaking of baseball and Casey, and I’m not referring to the 1888 Ernest Thayer poem, Casey at the Bat, July 5, 2011, was the day Ms. Anthony received her declaration of independence from the justice system. Not guilty. While most Americans have been able to enjoy an extended four-day weekend this year, death took no holiday in Seminole County on July 5. Court was in session. Ironically, two years later to the date of her verdict, the State of Florida rested its case against Mr. Zimmerman. While some might call this the 7th inning stretch, although the defense did put two people on the stand, Zimmerman’s mother and maternal uncle, I do not. Sadly, I have heard lots of people in the courthouse and elsewhere refer to trials almost like sporting events. Who won this day and that day. Points made in the courtroom are points on a scoreboard. Most certainly, any time a matter of life and death is brought into an equation, it’s not a game. Young Martin is dead. He will never play another game of baseball. Zimmerman might not, either. Nelson’s courtroom is not a stadium and she is not an umpire calling balls and strikes. We are not eating Cracker Jacks in the gallery. Did I say Cracker?
What we have is the Constitution in action. The right to a fair trial. Part of our Declaration of Independence guarantees that we are all equal.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There is no doubt that the United States is still a land of golden opportunity. Everyone has a chance to follow the path to success. We see it in action every day, but in some situations, it’s not really equal; not that it has to be, because we do not live under any kind of Utopian rule. We do not live “where nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.”
That statement is attributed to French thinker and novelist, Étienne-Gabriel Morelly. Where am I going here? Proof positive of the American system at work. Look at Jose Baez, speaking of the Casey Anthony case. He walked into a gold mine. What was he before she came along? An ambulance chaser? A DUI lawyer? While I am making no accusations against his background, Casey got his name from two women sitting in a holding cell at the Orange County Jail. The rest, they say, is history. Mark O’Mara, on the other hand, worked very hard throughout his career as an attorney to get to this point. He earned it through many long and arduous hours. Granted, Mark NeJame referred Zimmerman to him after turning him down, but he wouldn’t have done so had he given a thought that O’Mara’s solid credentials were less than stellar. While some of you may wonder why I bring this up at all, let me remind you that you can read about daily trial events in the newspaper. You can see and hear all about it online, on radio and on television. What I am is a pundit; a purveyor of private opinion made public. It’s my own brand of commentary, and here some of it goes…
§
A very powerful conservative blog, strongly favoring Zimmerman, splintered over O’Mara. Some believed his intention, all along, was to sabotage his client. Well, look at him now. He has done a splendid job dissecting many State witnesses, neutralizing some while turning others into Defense allies. This is the “mark” of a great attorney in the making, although I knew all along it was in him. He’s a great orator and thinks fast on his feet. There aren’t too many in the field of law that can pat you on the back while stabbing you in the gut — and — at the same time, keep you smiling. That’s O’Mara. That’s class, no matter what his courtroom adversaries and the public may think. His partner, Don West, on the other hand, is blunt and direct; straightforward to a fault. He is quite effective, too. In my opinion, they complement each other. West goes in for the kill and O’Mara soothes the pain. Or is it the other way around? O’Mara numbs you first. Either way, it’s a talented team.
But has it always been effective? No, it hasn’t. Take the case of Ms. Rachel Jeantel, the State’s reluctant key witness. She was the last person who spoke to Martin before his death, other than Zimmerman. That is a matter of fact that cannot be disputed. The problem lies with her testimony, and what is left in its wake is quite complex. It falls into two vastly different camps; the thems that believe her and the thems that don’t. Granted, she lied under oath on more than one occasion, so why should anyone choose to believe her now?
Witness Rachel Jeantel gives her testimony to the prosecution during George Zimmerman’s trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla. Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (Jacob Langston/Orlando Sentinel)
In order to understand Ms. Jeantel, one must consider her style in the courtroom, not just her substance. Let’s say she will never be a diplomat. Nor will she ever be a United Nations interpreter, although she is multilingual. English is just one language and it’s not her first, obviously. De la Rionda established that she grew up in a Haitian family speaking Creole. From what I’ve learned, she lives in a ghetto section of Miami. She and her friends understand urban-speak. She knows hip hop. She comes from a different world of imperfect grammar and Ebonics, living in a different generation; under separate rules of engagement. Ghetto people of all generations have no respect for the police. If you must ask why they disrespect law enforcement, then you know nothing about inner-city culture. Why then, would anyone, in all seriousness, ask her why she didn’t call 911 after Martin’s phone disconnected? So the police would come banging at her door to interrogate her? We’re not talking about someone with visions of white knights in shining armor, anticipating that “help is on its way.” That is so delusional in her world where whites, let alone knights do nothing for her. Is it any wonder why she was adversarial?
What we got was a frightened 19-year-old girl, 18 at the time, who lied about going to the hospital because she didn’t want to see Trayvon laid out dead in his coffin. She lied under oath because she was questioned in front of the boy’s mother. She didn’t want to hurt or offend her. Was it wrong? Yes, but it shouldn’t have discredited all of her testimony. Admittedly, she also lied about her age, but she said she did so because, as a minor, she knew she could deflect the media from herself to her mother, meaning there could be no direct contact.
Where she had me at hello was when she told the Court that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker.” Who would possibly make something like that up to hurt the person she cared so deeply about? Immediately, one would think of anti-racism, like antimatter. Pot? Call the kettle black. Profiler profiling profiler. West jumped on it upon cross-examination.
“Do people that you live around and with call white people creepy ass crackers?”
“Not creepy,” replied Jeantel, “but cracker, yeah.”
“You’re saying that in the culture that you live in — in your community — people there call white people crackers?”
“Yes, Sir.”
This was, in my opinion, an attempt to transfer the racial profiling onus from Zimmerman to Martin. Did it work? The answer is two-fold. No and no. The term Florida cracker came from the cowboys that cracked their whips to herd cattle because they didn’t use lassos. That’s one version. There’s another theory for its usage. Slave foremen in the antebellum South may have used bullwhips to discipline slaves. Hence, they cracked the whip and became known as crackers.
Without going into fine detail over what Jeantel said on the stand, I believe that the longer West crossed her, the more credible she became. He overdid it. Call it overkill. My father put it best when he later told me, “He made the sale, and then he bought it back.”
Incidentally, my father is quite conservative, but doesn’t support either side. What’s your opinion of Jeantel?
§
Now, we’re left with several problems. One is that the State has rested. Did it prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? At this point, I would have to say no, but I do feel that the general consensus among media types is that Zimmerman is guilty of something. The man is, by no means, innocent of everything. The State did cast him in a very negative light, but will it be enough to convict? In my mind, he was a creep the night of February 26.
However…
Looking at (1) FLJI 74 MURDER - SECOND DEGREE
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
While some may conclude that Zimmerman was depraved when he followed Martin, it’s not as simple as that.
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
This was the major contention on Friday after the State rested. This was what O’Mara fought vehemently for in his JOA, a Judgement Of Acquittal, argument. What Zimmerman did had nothing to do with ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. The judge disagreed and said the State had presented enough evidence for the trial to continue. The jury will return on Monday morning. The State will now cross-examine and we will see how they do.
Some people have wondered during court breaks whether this case would have made it to the courtroom had it not been for Civil Rights leaders. Is that true? I don’t know, but were the original powers that be too quick to jump the gun (no pun intended) and take one person’s perspective as the truth; the shooter, of all people? We cannot simply overlook the accounts of all witnesses, and that should have been enough for an arrest then, not 45 days later. Ultimately, it’s all the victim’s family wanted out of this — a day in court. For that reason alone, I do not believe there will be riots at the courthouse if Zimmerman is found not guilty.
In my closing argument today, I will say that the State did not prove its case. With the possibility of a jury in doubt and the Defense lurking about, waiting to pounce, a conviction on second-degree murder is a long shot. This defense team is very strong and smart. I mean the entire team. In my opinion, it is O’Mara’s trial to lose, and I doubt he will, although I will not predict whether the six-member panel will contemplate a felony manslaughter conviction. There’s no doubt in my mind, something went horribly wrong that night. Just remember, this is not a game, the judge is no one’s teammate, and neither is the jury; not even among themselves, yet the verdict must be unanimous. No timeouts for them. There is no score card.
Dave Knechel | tagged JOA, Judgement Of Acquittal | in 18th Circuit Court, Bernie De la Rionda, Casey Anthony, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Donald West, Eighteenth Circuit Court, George Zimmerman, Jose Baez, Judge Debra S. Nelson, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark NeJame, Mark O'Mara, Sanford, Seminole County, Seminole County Courthouse, Trayvon Martin, marinadedave | Share Article | 1 Reference 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (18)
Great post, Dave! From what I have seen and heard I don't think the State proved their case either. I do have a different opinion than you though on what "creepy ass Cracker" means. Thanks for being our eyes and ears in the court room.
Thought provoking post, Dave. In this old girl's lingo.. "t'is damn fine, son." Of course, I do not agree with everything you wrote but that should not alarm you.
For instance Ms. Jeantel did not fool me for one iota. From street smart to court smart, it is amazing what some coaching will do. She lied and said she was 16 because she knew being a minor would protect her. Where did she come up with that? Did she also know that O'Mara could not depose a minor without making special provisions?
Has anyone had the pleasure of reading Ms Jeantel's tweets...not verbatim...."I need a smoke" and "I need a drink"...along with very colorful words. Of course they were not allowed into evidence.
Who made the decision for De La Rionda to interview Ms Jeantel in Sabrina's living room? Betcha it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Intimidate a witness and they will say exactly what you want.
I have always maintained that a trial is a contest of lawyers. It is very difficult to win the game when the umpire comes across as a 'snapping turtle.'
I can certainly understand why O'Mara did not proceed with the immunity hearing. Yes, regardless if Z is found guilty or not guilty, Ben Crump is already preparing a 'wrongful death' suit on behalf of his clients.
Thank you for your thoughts and ruminations, Dave, especially about Ms. Jeantel, whom I greatly admired for her honesty. Hearing her admit that the reason she did not want to attend the wake was because she didn't want to see Trayvon's dead body was a moment that will stick with me my whole life.
You are kind to the prosecution, I think. I thought that Mr. De La Rionda was simply awful (talk about not being able to think on your feet) and that whoever planned the witness order and questioning should find a day job. The only way this jury is going to bring in any conviction at all is if they do so through jury nullification (if you can have that for a conviction). Unless one of the other two lawyers puts it together in closing arguments like nobody's business.
I remain incredibly sad and frustrated that my country and especially the state that I spend four months of the year has organized it laws in such a way that it is legal for Mr. Zimmerman to do what he did. If we as a society are going to give people guns and encourage them to follow people they do not know, this is going to happen again and again. Watching the gun lobby and so-called second amendment enthusiasts vilify the Martin family and their supporters simply because they asked for the killer of Trayvon to face a jury of his peers remains sickening. If they want to defend the existing conceal carry and stand your ground laws, repulsive as I find them, I can respect that, but anyone who doesn't see this as an utter tragedy for the Martins (obviously including Trayvon) is pretty heartless.
Dave, I love your insight. Listened to your radio show---you were the only informed participant. The others opined based on media hype and non-evidence. I'm amazed that the State didn't explore the recoil issue with the gun experts. The empty chamber is important to me--the gun should have automatically loaded the next bullet into the chamber. Something (contact?) interfered with loading the next bullet into the chamber. Do you think that will come out later on re-cross? Closing arguments?
Dave ~~can the state bring on rebuttal witnesses once the defense rests?
When the defense rests, the prosecution can present rebuttal witnesses to refute undisclosed evidence presented by the defendant, such as a witness not on the defense list. If O'Mara brings direct evidence or testimony that wasn't expected, de la Rionda would probably be granted an opportunity to rebut it.
Sabrina Fulton and her son should have been the last two witnesses for the state. Instead, the state put on that kooky medical examiner. I wonder if his notes were on a body he did an autopsy on 2 weeks prior. I found De La Rionda tried to use shock tactics in his feisty presentations of the questions. He even started to battle with his own witnesses. Just my observations and I watched the trial gavel to gavel.
Dave~~then O'Mara or West gets to cross the rebuttal witnesses? I should think by now that De La Rionda may be a bit timid about bringing on any more state witnesses to be turned into defense witnesses, if you get my drift. I watched some great lawyering going on in that courtroom but I expected nothing less. I still think Z will be found guilty of manslaughter if that lesser charge is included. We must remember that the 'snapping turtle' gets to hand out the final sentence.
I just read another report that said there was a new bullet in the chamber. Conflicting posts. Surrendered gun had "full" magazine means there were 6 remaining in magazine plus 1 in chamber? Before firing he was "overloaded" meaning he had 7 in magazine and 1 in chamber. I'm gun-stupid and confused by the semantics and abbreviations in the official report. Did GZ's gun auto load a new bullet in chamber after he shot Trayvon?
Great Read and on spot.
My dear Dave, I have been absent on this one as far as posting, but I have read your articles which are always enlightening. You are better than ever at giving insights as to the ins and outs of this case.. Thank you.. I posted at the very beginning that this trial bothered me because of the possible outcome that I was afraid might happen.. I hope and pray that Justice is done on the merits of the of the law and not outside influence..In my opinion the two of them {TM and GZ} made so many wrong decisions, beginning with the gun. I can't understand why there was no attempt to communicate with each other as TM walked around GZ car. I believe that both made decisions that just escalated the situation and ended with TM dead because of the gun.
Now there are people as I watch the evening broadcasts about the trial it seems they have forgotten TM and have turned it into a black and white case. Justice for TM has been shifted back to a racial conflict. Trayvon has been forgotten and that is so shameful.
I have checked tv during day just to see your handsome and very attentive face. Looking good..Take care of yourself God Bless.
Missyou Snoops..
It has been a while Dave, although I visit to get your expert writings of the situation I've not commented in what seems like forever....
I think its time to change your slogan to just plain: Mind Boggling....
My guess is there will be no shortage of outrage over the release of Zimmerman. No doubt that he will have to go into hiding but as the doors of justice close behind him and he breaths in the salty Florida air I wonder did George beat the murder wrap or did justice?
I've heard many who found fault from the very beginning when they sat almost an all female jury, I looked at it as a good thing because women, in general, can hear through bullshit but, not to sound negative, they can be easily fooled and persuaded by good acting. Is that the case, well I hope not but with a race card a more powerful card can be played...the sympathy card?
Was there not enough focus on the 15 minutes that lapsed? George stalking, pursuing Trayvon; how is that not considered? The eyes of justice are blind for the sole purpose that biases, race, creed are not factored while determining guilt but I'm having a hard time in considering that that's not what happened.
Florida has had many cases to share the limelight and many of those cases have been written in such a way that there is no plausible outcome but to find guilt but seldom, does it seem, that those words are spoken when they are needed most, in the courtroom.
Indeed, there is a lot of confusion and a great many unanswered questions but "why" will remain on top of the list. Who was defending themselves and who had the right?
Margaret: In my opinion the two of them {TM and GZ} made so many wrong decisions, beginning with the gun. I can't understand why there was no attempt to communicate with each other as TM walked around GZ car. I believe that both made decisions that just escalated the situation and ended with TM dead because of the gun.
You really are ignorant of the evidence.
First there was a vehicle-pedestrian chase initiated by George.
After George stared Trayvon while he was sheltering under the mail kiosk for the weather to break Trayvon ran AWAY from George and George lied about following him (going in the same direction, looking for an address, keeping an eye on Trayvon for the dispatcher)
Trayvon did not circle George's truck. Several bloggers have proven that it was impossible given the amount of time it would have taken.
Trayvon did ask George why he was following him and George responded that he wasn't following him which made Trayvon believe Rachael's theory that George was a rapist or kidnapper.
When George was interviewed by Serino and was asked why he didn't identify himself George stated "it wasn't his job".
Seriously, you are never getting press cred again if you cant even bring yourself to write about the outcome, I mean come on now.
I think I've waited long enough. Please post your lastest article about the verdict.
It's like the ole' ketchup commercial with the song , Anticipation, playing in the background.
Dave:
This was just an opinion and my view but I've no where to put it, I do know that in past posts my "opinions" were welcomed so I hope its still the same.
I imagine that us "armchair" detectives love a good mystery to solve; and crime puzzles are my favorite. They are ultimate games of Clue and hopefully your intellect and common sense plays out and you walk away the victor. daily in new papers, blogs like yours, on network TV, we are inundated with crime stories/shows; and there are so many to choose from. True they're not the "real thing" and for that we have the cable network shows that showcase "real life/real time" crimes; I.D Discovery for example. True I have no degree in criminology, nor an associates in law but I do rely on lessons learned from these shows, and blogs like this and understand, to a degree, a criminal mind. With every case comes a psychological profile/evaluation as well as what is considered "normal", although subjective.
As other articles have suggested, I think the "macho man" aspect played a role, probably more so than in any recent case. Is George a "good deed doer" well sure. To be a volunteer of anything shows just plain respect for where you live and compassion towards your fellow man, to be involved in change, especially for the positive makes you feel good. But is that the case on that fateful night in February? George, like I can imagine so many others, have delusions of grandeur, they want to be the one who catches the criminal, or be insurmountable in their capture, to rush into the burning building and rescue a family and the family's pet, to resuscitate a motorist involved in an accident, dawning that cape and becoming Superman, being an insurmountable figure in the "Halls of Justice".
As this story unfolded everyone's "private life" became public record. Trayvon had no shortage of disparaging issues: from fights at school, on the bus, being a number 1 bad ass to his cousin, posing like a Boss but when I see this I'm quickly reminded that he is an adolescent and that he is still finding himself. I incorporate the knowledge that all children live lives different in front of people and social settings. I know that when I lived at home I spoke and acted a lot different in front of my parents than at school, I was lovey-dovey in front of my girlfriend, or "not skeered of anything" in front of my friends. Young life, to a degree, is an illusion. We learn to balance these lives and no, they are not intended to be deceitful but that's how we grow.
George, on the other hand, is an adult who is active in his community. He hates the high crime rate and wants desperately to wear a badge, and what better way to show your seriousness why its the Neighborhood Watch. Whether or not he is self appointed is irrelevant but reviewing some of his "Myspace" comments (beit from 2005) he too lead a different life outside the eyes of authority.
Take for instance these two quotes: (excerpts from Marinade Daves article: George, Trayvon and Other Trials and Tribulations;Sunday, May 6, 2012 at 6:33PM)
“I don't miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) don't make you a man in my book… Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”
“I love the fact that I can still go back home and crash on my boys couch as if i had never left, I can hit my boy up to handle a lil somethin with my sister and he’s at my house with his boys on bikes before i hang up with her! They do a year and don't ever open thier [sic] mouth to get my ass pinched.”
While both sides are doing their best to sabotage the characters of Mr. Peacock and Office Plum I am quick to remember that the issue at hand really has nothing to do with Trayvon's past as much as it does for George. In under 15 minutes Trayvon will be lying on the ground dead from a single gunshot to the chest and the proclamation of "stand your ground" given by Mr. Zimmerman defending his actions.
IMO, All that is relevant is what becomes irrelevant in the eyes of the jury. Not to mention just basic human nature. When humans are put into situations of high stress our body's, uncontrollably, will initiate a response known a "fight or flight". We all know what happened; Trayvon is walking to where he is staying and George notices him and follows him, slowly in his vehicle. George calls in a "suspicious person"; the operators advised him not to follow[on foot] (for the record I do believe they said he didn't need too or something like that) but did so anyways. He carry's a concealed weapon, although legally, but as a Neighborhood Watch Captain the bylaws address this, at no time are they allowed to carry firearms or pursue a suspect or suspects. They are simply required to inform the police and render assistance as needed.
"Followed" and "pursue" are subjective and are problematic in their imply. I remember this was a point of contention in the beginning so IMO, when George was driving, driving slowly mind you, he was following, as soon as he exited he was pursuing (pursuing is: n. to follow (someone or something), to catch or attack them) to me George had intent to intervene in some manner or degree. George has stated in his statement to police that at no time did he identify himself to Trayvon or his intentions. Trayvon expressed to his girlfriend that someone was following him which, to me, heightened his sense of preparedness and probable paranoia. He is a black man walking alone and the man in pursuit/following him is much larger so that little thing called "fight or flight" engages. For Trayvon he's young, probably full of angst and by now full of adrenaline, George is unknown to him so instead of playing the possible victim he elects to stand his ground and confronts his attacker.
As with any case in which the only other witness is dead comes the exploitation of that fact. Many, many cases have made the headlines in which negative things have been said about the deceased (Jodi Arias/Travis Alexander comes to mind), why not, there's no one to defend it and the only one to refute it is dead. All you need is a plausible story that can fit the evidence. You just have to have basic knowledge of the victim and ascertain for yourself what coulda possibly happened. Experts, for the right price, can construct virtually anything to favor either side of an argument and as long as you look pretty and keep your mouth shut the "evidence" presented will speak on your behalf. It is obvious that's exactly what happened and whether the truth is out for all to see, well that, again, is subjective.
IMO, George is guilty. Maybe not of 2nd Degree Murder but at least of the lesser charge. There was no need to get out of his vehicle because at that time Trayvon had done nothing suspicious he only looked suspicious and what was suspicious about him...he was wearing a hood cause it was raining...or that he was black...but I digress. George was the catalyst and the aggressor of the situation which would've been easily diffused if he identified himself.
When being a macho man, and hopefully coming away from a possible confrontation unscathed, you have some quick decisions to make, do you throw the first punch or do you wait to see what your pursuer will present you with...which, in the end, was a gun.
So in closing, and in the voice of Casey Kassem: "Now, back to the halls of Justice"
Waiting....waiting....waiting....where is your article in regards to the aftermath of this very contentious case?
Hey Dave, I was thinking about how Florida's Sunshine Laws are shining a light on the inequities in the court system. In my country everything is hush hush, even cameras are not allowed (not good in my opinion), but in the state of Florida everything is out in the open for the public to freely access and readily gives info to the media to exploit. Everyone keeps saying that Florida let's off murderers, Casey Anthony, now Zimmerman. I think it happens everywhere. The media blitz only helps their cases. Except Jodi Arias (YAY!), but that was Arizona.
The Stand Your Ground Law is barbaric and reminds me of the "Old Wild West". President Obama made a good point when he said something along the lines of, "What if Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman because he felt threatened when he was being followed?". I believe that Trayvon would have been charged and convicted of murder in spite of the law simply because he is black and Zimmerman is kind of white in appearance. At least, he's not black.
My sister, who is married to an American and lives in Virginia, is visiting and was mad at Obama for speaking out, saying he was inciting riots. I think he did it for his children. I reminded her that Vancouver had a major riot when the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup in 2011. Can you imagine a city being desecrated over the loss of a hockey game? Something's wrong in this world.