TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS

By Greg Evans

If he was wearing a mask he'd pull off the perfect villain in Despicable Me 2. But there is no telling whether or not he was truly out to become the greatest villain of 2013, or if the circumstances of poor decision making lead to him up on the chopping block. Everywhere I go I hear people discussing the case and everyone has a different opinion on what will happen, what should happen, and why they are right, hands down. I have my own idea of what the outcome should be as well as what happened on that night. Now that the trial is coming to a close and the possibility of a hung jury hanging in the balance which would no doubt cause a stir with everyone needing some kind of closure on the case even though they are in no way connected to the mysterious shooting of a 17-year old tattooed thug. The fact that Trayvon Martin was no saint, a petty burglar and dope smoker that is not what the case should be about, nor should it be about race. What the case should be about in my opinion is the fact that George Zimmerman, a vigilante should not have provoked a fight with a person, shoot the person who he engaged in a confrontation and then cry foul ball, "it was self-defense." That simply doesn't make nut. Everything else about this case is irrelevant. George Zimmerman's wounds to his head and wherever else, his wounded pride about losing the fight, Trayvon Martin's shopping list from the convenient store, what either one was wearing or what was said or whether in was raining or there was an eclipse, none of it mattered. All that mattered was that Trayvon Martin was walking down the road, Zimmerman forced the confrontation and then shot his opponent and calls that self-defense. No way buddy! Sour grapes. This is a cut and dry case that should result in a manslaughter conviction. The fact that it got so much media attention and publicity is a bit outrageous but since it is in the spotlight we might as well discuss it because there is an element of interest.

People become very tied up and sensitive when it comes to big time trials often regarding ambiguous arguments that for the most part appear fairly clear cut but time and time again we are faced with jury decisions that have seemed to have originated from Neptune. As so in the case of O.J. Simpson who more likely than not killed his wife and her friend. There was also the case of the Casey Anthony case where such incredibly overwhelming evidence pointed at her having either killed her daughter or kept her death a secret allowing her corpse to rot in garbage bags in a swamp with duck tape on her face. Of course she was acquitted but that doesn't mean that she was innocent, it only meant that the jury found reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case.

A new update in the case is that the jury appears to be confused about the definition of manslaughter. What else are they confused about? I blame the prosecution for not clarifying the manslaughter charge and providing a step by step blueprint of why manslaughter as a conviction would be rational.

P.S. The judge in this case has been a rotten mess and should be kicked off the bench.