Racial division problematic
To the Editor:
This is in regards to a July 17 letter (Doubtful of reasonable doubt) by Jay Bell with regard to the Zimmerman verdict. I only wanted to address that the gentleman was discussing equality, but referred to Trayvon Martin as "African-American" and Mr. Zimmerman as "white" in the same sentence. Why not call the so-called white guy a German-American and call the other guy "black?" Equal treatment demands equality of ethnic designations, rather than making one people sound exotic and the other bland. And for the 10,000th time, George Zimmerman is "Hispanic." Not "white," not "white Hispanic, not "identifies as Hispanic," not "whose father is white and mother is from Peru," but Hispanic with no disclaimers! If he won the Nobel prize, he would be called "Hispanic," but instead the left chooses to make him as white as they can for purposes of racial division. President Obama "identifies as black," and I don't think he's doing a good job, so should I call him our white President? Should I say our President, whose mother is white and whose father is from Kenya? I think I speak for the multitudes who are tired of having our intelligence insulted with this racially incendiary Orwellian newspeak which only harms race relations.
Two wrongs don't make a right
To the Editor:
George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were both wrong, but for different reasons. Although it's not against the law, George Zimmerman was wrong to follow Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin was wrong to hit and pound George Zimmerman to the ground. The evidence presented proved that point.
George Zimmerman instigated the contact, but the accountability shifted to Trayvon Martin when he became the aggressor. He could've called 911 and told them he was being followed. He could've walked to his father's house while he was on the phone with 911. The District Attorney screwed up by not charging George Zimmerman appropriately. He wanted to appease the public outcry and charge murder, or manslaughter.
George Zimmerman should have been charged for voluntary manslaughter. He took the first step, which led to the end result. I'll always defend the right to bear arms, but that doesn't make me the law. The law needs to work the way it was intended, instead of how the lawyers play it in order to win. Another failed trial based on what's become a mockery of our judicial system.
A jury needs to understand and agree with exactly how the system works, or in this case, doesn't. Their only choice was an acquittal due to a lack of evidence for murder or manslaughter because of self-defense. The only other option for the jury would have been to nullify the court's charges and insure that George Zimmerman would be retried for the appropriate crime. The guys in charge need to come up with a way that works, and then make it happen.