Yes, you read it right. We’re talking about political prosecution, not political persecution. Although in light of what the Obama administration is considering doing to George Zimmerman, both terms could apply.
This week George Zimmerman was found “Not Guilty” by a jury of his peers of all charges including murder and manslaughter in the case of Trayvon Martin. After hearing the jury verdict the judge set him free; but he is not free.
We should first briefly discuss the trial. As you will see, the authorities initially decided not to prosecute Zimmerman because they believed he was innocent. There were no facts to support a charge of murder, or even one of manslaughter. But the District Attorney was pressured into trying Zimmerman.
Even though they had a perfect jury for their side, and even though the case had already been tried in the media and the court of public opinion, the prosecution struggled to put on any kind of a case. One judge, commenting on the prosecutor’s summation to the jury at the end of the trial, had this to say:
“If you have the facts, you argue the facts. If the law is on your side, you argue the law. If you have neither, you shout.” That’s what the prosecutor did. Reportedly, he seldom raises his voice in trials. But in this case, he yelled, waved his arms around, and used a lot of theatrics (including referring to the dead young man as a “child” over and over again). He didn’t have a case, so he shouted.
You have heard of the principle of double jeopardy. Most people understand this to mean that no one can be tried twice for the same crime. As you will see, unfortunately that is not always the case. The federal government can override the trial court and try the same person again. This only happens in politically charged cases like this.
In this situation, because political activists and the liberal media refuse to accept the constitutional verdict of the court, George Zimmerman actually faces triple
His first trial, which should have been his only trial, was the criminal trial. His second jeopardy will come because Martin's family will undoubtedly sue Zimmerman for wrongful death. Although they are within their legal rights to do so, if they sue him it will be for all the wrong reasons. Florida law and the jury's verdict have already made it abundantly clear that there was no wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. But the statements made by the family's attorney show that he intends to make this into a political circus.
Immediately after the jury verdict, the Martin family attorney said that Trayvon’s name would go down in the annals of history beside those of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers. This is an outrageous attempt to incite racial hatred and violence, and disciplinary action should be leveled against him by the Bar Association for these shameful comments.
Emmett Till was a 14-year-old black boy who was murdered in 1941 for obvious racist reasons. There are absolutely no similarities between Till’s murder and Trayvon Martin’s death. The comparison to Medgar Evers is even more reprehensible. Evers was a civil rights activist who was assassinated. Even the Florida prosecutor, as vapid and devoid of facts as his case was, never suggested that Zimmerman deliberately killed Martin.
Although the family has not filed a lawsuit yet it is clear that they will do so. They won't get any money out of George Zimmerman because he has none. But they will undoubtedly make millions from the book and movie deals that will result from a sensational trial. They have already received $1 million from the Homeowners Association that sponsored the neighborhood watch group in which Zimmerman was a volunteer.
The third legal jeopardy George Zimmerman faces could well be worse than the terrible ordeal through which he has already suffered. He could be prosecuted for so-called "civil rights violations" by Obama's so-called "Justice" Department. This federal government overreach could conceivably result in life in prison or even the death penalty for Zimmerman, according to legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr.
How could this happen? What about double jeopardy? That principle only applies to a person being tried twice for the same crime in the same court
. This should be a non-issue, since we typically do not possess an activist, politically motivated Department of Justice. But Obama's DOJ is unquestionably the
most activist, politically motivated Justice Department by far. In our nation’s history, only J. Edgar Hoover used the awesome power of the Justice Department as cynically and skillfully as have Obama and Eric Holder.
Obama and his puppet Holder have repeatedly manipulated the DOJ to advance their political agenda. Justice is not the goal of this Justice Department. It is merely one more political tool for Obama to use to advance his own warped social agenda and the goals of the Democrat party.
After hearing the Zimmerman verdict, Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid smugly proclaimed, "This is not over. The Department of Justice is going to look into this. That is our system.” Numerous Democrat stooges have followed his lead and made similar contemptible pronouncements.
That is not our system. Our system is the citizens are tried in the proper court, and if found guilty are sentenced appropriately. If they are found not guilty the government is compelled to leave them alone. The federal government is not empowered to politically persecute citizens if it does not like the judgment of a jury of one's peers.
So why are leaders of the NAACP meeting with senior Department of Justice officials, and discussing having the DOJ bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman? Why is a private organization telling the federal government what they need to do? And why is the government complying?
There are two reasons. First, because Obama used the power of his office to attempt to convict George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion, before charges were ever brought against him. The fact that Zimmerman was found “Not Guilty” makes Obama look bad. So, since he didn't get the result he wanted, he figures, why not use the power of the federal government to persecute George Zimmerman? After all, he's the President.
The second reason is that putting Zimmerman in double jeopardy for his life fits neatly with Obama's social and political agendas. He has often attempted to inject race into situations where race should have played no part, such as in this case. He also hates the fact that citizens have the right to bear arms under our Constitution, and has repeatedly worked to undermine that right.
The reason the Justice Department has no right to interfere in the judgment of the Florida court is that race was never an issue in the Trayvon Martin case. Consider…
First, back in December of 2012, the FBI did a thorough investigation of the incident. After interviewing more than three dozen witnesses who knew Zimmerman well, their judgment was that Zimmerman was definitely not a racist; therefore Martin’s death was not racially motivated. If they had determined otherwise, the DOJ should have brought federal charges long ago.
Second, all the evidence we have seen demonstrates that Zimmerman was anything but a racist. He mentored black children. His high school prom date was a black young lady. Recently he worked hard to raise money for a black homeless man, and advocated for him with local government. This is not the profile of a racist. More than most people in this country, this man is colorblind.
Third, and most important, if racial profiling was part of this case (as the Martin family’s attorney now alleges in preparation for his lawsuit), why was it not a part of the prosecution's case? They grasped at every other straw. They made a big deal of the fact that Martin was carrying Skittles, trying to paint the picture of a young child carrying candy. They used every trick in the book. So if there were evidence of racial profiling, why did they not include it in the trial? It's because there was no such evidence.
"But wait. I heard on the news the George Zimmerman was a white racist. I heard that he used racial slurs on the 911 recording." Lies. Deliberate lies from a media that cares more about ratings and money than it does about the truth.
Why did the media repeat the lie that this was a case of a white man murdering a black child in cold blood? They knew from the beginning Zimmerman was Hispanic; but you don't get great ratings talking about an Hispanic man killing a black man.
And why did they continually refer to this teenage young man as a child? Why did they use a five-year-old picture of Martin taken when he was 12 years old hundreds of times in print and on TV, when in actuality he was 17 years old? Current pictures existed. They could have gotten them from Martin's family. There were pictures of him at ages 16 and 17 on his Facebook page. The reason they used the photo of him taken when he was a young child, was because that fit the fiction they were spinning.
We don't know much about Trayvon Martin. But we know that he was strong young man capable of overpowering George Zimmerman and repeatedly smashing his skull against the concrete sidewalk. The evidence proves that. A jury of six women, most of them mothers, saw and heard all of the witnesses. This jury, which was a prosecutor's dream, found Zimmerman not guilty after assimilating all the evidence.
So why did Zimmerman follow Martin in the first place? Martin was acting suspiciously, walking close to other people's homes, in a neighborhood where there had been many break-ins by young men. "But the news said that Zimmerman followed him because he was black."
This is just one more reason to be suspicious of the news. Employees of NBC were fired because they doctored an audio recording that was played hundreds of times in an attempt to portray Zimmerman as a racist.
It was broadcasts like this:
Zimmerman: "I am following a suspicious person."
Dispatcher: “Why is he suspicious?"
Zimmerman: "He is black."
And the actual recorded sounded like this:
Zimmerman: "I am following a suspicious person.
Dispatcher: “Why is he suspicious?"
Zimmerman: “He is walking close to people’s homes and looking in their windows.”
Dispatcher: “Is he white, Hispanic, or black.”
Zimmerman: "He is black."
By editing out the essential parts of the dialogue the media openly and underhandedly made Zimmerman out to be a racist. But I'll bet you haven't heard much about this. It's very much like when you see front-page headlines that a person has been accused of something terrible. The retraction is always found on page 32 in a tiny paragraph at the bottom right.
One aspect of this case that has received little attention was why Zimmerman was prosecuted in the first place. This may seem obvious, but the fact is that both the District Attorney and the Chief of Police believed that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he was forced to kill Trayvon Martin. If there had been evidence of a crime, charges would have been brought swiftly.
But Zimmerman was not charged with a crime for almost two months. It did not happen until pressure was exerted from mobs, the media and Obama, who forced the Police Chief to be fired, and made the District Attorney fear for his own job if he did not change his mind.
How did Obama improperly interfere? This was a local case. It should have been handled locally, so that Zimmerman could get a fair trial if one were held. But Obama used inflammatory language that so prejudiced potential jurors that it was a miracle the court was able to empanel a fair jury.
Obama does not like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law,” which says that - unlike many other states – Florida citizens do not have to run away when faced with deadly force (and risk being shot in the back). If they genuinely fear for their lives, they can also use deadly force to protect themselves. So he demonized Zimmerman partially in order to advance his political views about this law.
(In this case, Trayvon Martin turned out not to be armed. But he did use deadly force when he overcame Zimmerman and tried to crush his skull. If Zimmerman had not defended himself, Martin would probably have been tried for murdering Zimmerman.)
One side note about how ridiculous the coverage of this case has been, and how it has distorted the views of otherwise reasonable people. I was at a doctor’s office during the Zimmerman trial. All the employees were professionally dressed except for one young man who wore a “hoodie” sweatshirt – with the hood up and covering his head! I commented that I, too, found the office temperature much too cold. He replied, “I’m not wearing this because of the temperature. I’m wearing it to show solidarity with Trayvon. Convict Zimmerman!”
I normally do not comment on the criminal trial du jour. They are usually interesting only to the people involved, and to the media who sensationalize them for profit. Take the Jodi Arias trial, for instance. She killed her boyfriend. She lied about it, concocting many different versions of the event. Who cares? There were hundreds of these types of trials just in the last year in the U.S. But Arias was attractive and it was a slow news cycle. Anything for ratings.
I took the time to write about Zimmerman because Obama, his corrupt administration, and the liberal news media conspired to totally distort the information the public was allowed to see. I wanted you to "look behind the curtain" so that in the future you will be more critical of media reporting, search for the facts, and think for yourselves.
Every time a black person is killed and the killer is not black, it is not racism - regardless of what race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have us believe. Every time someone uses a gun to defend his or her life, it is not murder. And every citizen who cares enough about his community to get involved in a Neighborhood Watch program is not a stalker.