Letter on Zimmerman trial was ludicrous
July 22, 2013 11:39 PM | 910 views | 4 4 comments | 34 34 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

As a longtime reader of the MDJ opinion pages, I’ve always applauded your editors’ selections of syndicated columns and letters submitted by readers. Though I may disagree with various positions, the postings are invariably well-thought and reasonable. However, the letter Sunday from Jean Durham regarding the Zimmerman trial was so ludicrous, inflammatory and illogical that I question why it was chosen for publication.

She purports to know six “facts” in this case. Yet not one of her claims is indeed a “fact.” Each is merely her conjecture. She was not present at the scene and her knowledge is based solely on after-the-fact media reports, many of which have been contradictory depending on political viewpoints.

Her babbling that Zimmerman was “drunk on power and frothing at the mouth to shoot somebody” is so outrageous that it would be laughable in any other context.

Beyond all that, her tone is beyond offensive, demeaning anyone who disagrees with her — your editors are “knuckleheads,” Editorial Page editor Joe Kirby and Geraldo Rivera are “mindless zealots” who use their pens to “foist poisonous figments of (their) vicious minds.”

What Ms. Durham and those demonstrating for Trayvon conveniently ignore is that justice was served. Zimmerman was charged, after much outside racial pressure, with murder. He was found “not guilty” by a jury of his peers based on their unanimous decision that the facts did not convince them of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That last point is the universal underlying premise of our judicial system, and unlike Ms. Durham’s conjecture, that is indeed a “fact.”

William Lewis

Marietta

Comments
(4)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
willie leroy
|
July 26, 2013
re: Zimmerman verdict - AH schadenfruede
anonymous
|
July 23, 2013
Lewis' argument is nonsensical. Here's proof. He says the first two facts listed by Durham aren't facts:

Fact 1: Zimmerman had no legal or articulable authority whatsoever to pursue, stalk or otherwise accost Martin. He was simply a volunteer watchman (the operative word here is “volunteer”).

THIS IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT.

Fact 2: After numerous (47) calls to the dispatcher and the 48th regarding Martin, Zimmerman was told “not to pursue.” Of course he did, with dire consequences.

THIS IS ALSO IRREFUTABLE.

If he got this wrong, the rest of Lewis' silly letter can be dismissed.

Another comment
|
July 23, 2013
Fact 1 is incorrect. You need to hone up on Florida Condo Law, Section 7. An Owner of condo in Florida only conveys the use of the Common Grounds to the renter. Not the Renter's guests. The Renter's guests must be accompanied by the renter at all times while they are on common grounds of the condo property. By-laws of the Condo Association in Florida are filled in the County. They usually set forward the number of guests allowed per unit. Then the Boards send out Rules and Regulations which require that Owners and guests must carry at all time identification that identifies to the condo they are staying at. Most require common area bracelets to be worn at all times on common areas. The Condo HOA's in Florida tell Homeowner's at their annual meetings to challenge guests. It is either that or pony up enough money in assessments or dues for numerous security camera's or guards ( who sleep on the job) I had to condo's in Florida. We caught people from the trailer park across the street drunk in our pool. We had people who stayed at cheap motels caught in our pools. Then we had someone take all the weights out of our gym and throw them in the pool. Some owners reported that people would break-in their units and drink all their booze and eat their food when they were not their. Remember their are a lot of part-time residents who have condo's in Florida.
Guido Sarducci
|
July 24, 2013
anonymous, you are wrong, Zimmerman had the authority, as does every other citizen to make every attempt to prevent a crime from being committed. Since Martin was a stranger, in an area in which he had no business, and since the community had experienced a recent rash of burglaries, he was nmroe than justified in keeping this young man under watch. Further, Zimmerman did not stalk or accost Martin. The accosting was done by Martin, not Zimmerman.

Secondly, Zimmerman was not "told" anything. A 911 dispatcher is not a police officer and is not allowed to give orders to anyone. As to the 48 calls, try looking up the pweriod of time in which they were placed.

The only statement in Ms. Durham's letter which was true was that the incident was not racially motivated. The rest of her letter is hogwash.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides