Is the Zimmerman Case Really Open and Shut?

george-zimmermanIs the Zimmerman case really open and shut?

Many conservatives seem to think so. But are they letting leftists dictate their conclusion? Are they not guilty of the same rush to judgment that made liberals convict Zimmerman before the facts, and merely reacting to that injustice rather than to the actual elements of the case? Is it not possible that they are themselves victims of a toxic environment that polarizes all things racial?

It is a fact that many, if not most conservatives have already concluded that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime in connection with Trayvon Martin’s death and should be acquitted if justice is to be served. Indeed, this opinion was formed long before the trial began as a reaction to the outcry of liberals that Zimmerman was guilty — and guilty of being white – and that the crime was murder, and must be punished. But just because a lynch mob has formed to condemn Zimmerman in advance of the facts, does not mean one must conclude that Zimmerman is innocent of Trayvon Martin’s death.

The political melodrama that surrounds, and often overwhelms the judgments in this case reflects a culture war that has been roiling in this country for decades. It is a war in which the liberal ethos of “political correctness” requires that whites are bad and blacks are victims. Right-thinking individuals are justified in rejecting this poisonous standard.  But in the interests of justice, the political melodrama should also not be allowed to obscure the reality of this trial: it is about the death of an unarmed 17-year-old, who was not a felon, who was on a neighborhood run to get Skittles, and whose life has been extinguished. Given that the young man was unarmed and that he inflicted very superficial injuries on his adversary during their scuffle, Zimmerman’s claim that he was in fear for his life has to be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least.

What we have learned through the process of the trial thus far is that the only surviving witness, Zimmerman, is not credible. He has lied on several revealing occasions. First about not having any money to post bail when he had $150,000 in his account. Second, about not being aware of the Stand Your Ground Law, when he had taken a class that discussed the law. Third, and most importantly, about Trayvon jumping out of the bushes to attack him — because those bushes don’t exist. So, one has to ask, did he also lie about returning to his vehicle and that only then was he attacked? Or was he still following Trayvon, provoking the alleged attack?

Most disturbing to me is the interview Zimmerman gave to Sean Hannity before the trial began. Sean asked him if he regretted anything he did that night. He said no. Sean rephrased the question and asked him if there was anything he did that night that he would do differently. He said no. Then Sean asked him to explain why not. He said, “it was God’s plan.”

I thought to myself, even if I had been jumped and beaten until I was scared for my life as Zimmerman claims, now that I knew my victim was an unarmed 17-year-old with no criminal record, angry that I had followed him, wouldn’t I have had some second thoughts? Wouldn’t I have felt I should have phoned 911 from my vehicle and left it at that? Wouldn’t I have wished that I had been more careful with my firearm and aimed it away from his chest? Or not carried it at all that night? Wouldn’t I have been full of remorse that I had taken a man’s life?

Might it not be possible that the toxicity of the racial environment also affected Zimmerman so that he saw in Trayvon an image from the melodrama and not the actual young man who was walking in front of him? Might Travyon have been a victim of the same racially poisoned atmosphere then, as Zimmerman appears to be now?

We’ll never know.  What really happened that night is buried with Trayvon Martin. We cannot hear both sides and split the difference or reject one and embrace the other. What we do know is that a young man  who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead. And shouldn’t there be some penalty to pay for that?

Here is what I think as a result of these reflections. The Stand Your Ground Law should be rewritten to apply only to home invasions since then it is clear that the intruder is the aggressor and the response is self-defense. Second, Neighborhood Watch guards should not be permitted to conceal and carry. If you are carrying a weapon it changes your attitude and can well lead you into dangerous situations (such as following someone who doesn’t want to be followed) that you would otherwise avoid. And worse it can lead you to take the life of someone who whatever he did, did not deserve to die.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • wildjew
  • krinks

    Sorry David but if I was questioned by a stranger at night wondering why I was there it would not result in my beating him and getting shot as a result. It would result in me telling him to go bleep himself and then going on my merry way. If Martin did the same Martin is still alive today. Your mindless liberalism is showing.

  • Jeff Norman

    Zimmerman’s inconsistencies/inaccuracies could be attributable to dishonesty, poor memory, confusion or imperfect choice of words. Or some combination of the aforementioned. David Horowitz offers no insight when he simply declares it’s dishonesty and dishonesty only.

    How could neighborhood watchmen be banned from carrying firearms? Couldn’t armed individuals who wish to behave as watchmen behave, easily circumvent such a prohibition by simply refraining from calling themselves watchmen?

  • gfmucci

    Horowitz is waaaay off base on this one.

    First of all, the “stand your ground” defense isn’t even part of this case. So that is a red herring right off.

    Second, Horowitz is chipping away at our second amendment by his suggestion that neighborhood patrols should be unarmed. If Zimmerman was unarmed he would likely be dead. What is wrong with patrolling your own neighborhood, especially knowing that there have been thuggish break ins and robberies? The police are unable to do such patrols. How much of our personal protection should we defer to “the government?” All of it? Nuts to that! Those of us who walk around our neighborhoods, whether to observe the landscaping or to watch for thugs, must maintain the right to protect themselves. It invites crime when you discourage neighborhood watch by making the watchers defenseless. That is craziness!

    Horowitz is exposing his leftist/progressive roots with his proposal to neuter our rights of self defense..

    • ziggy zoggy

      I think he is out of touch. Ivory tower, and all that.


    David does have a good point here in that we Conservatives can’t be
    sure that Zimmerman is innocent – the most critical question in fixing
    the responsibility between Martin and Zimmerman is who started the
    fight, and we don’t know the answer, nor are we likely to. If Zimmerman
    started the fight and was then overpowered by Martin, he will likely
    get away with murder. This isn’t likely, but it is possible. If Martin
    started the fight, Zimmerman was almost certainly justified. As for Zimmerman’s interview and other behavior, he strikes me as simply rather stupid. But stupidity isn’t a crime.

    Legally, the case does indeed look to be open-and-shut: the prosecution hasn’t
    come close to proving murder, nor is it likely to unless it has some
    evidence that by some miracle hasn’t been leaked. It can’t prove that
    Martin didn’t start the fight, and Zimmerman’s injuries seem serious
    enough to me to justify the use of lethal force. If someone had broken
    my nose and was still pounding my head into the concrete, and I hadn’t
    been able to fight back effectively up to that point, I’d reach for a
    gun or knife, too.

    I think David’s other suggested take-aways are far weaker: I see no reason why joining a neighborhood watch group should cause someone to lose his basic right to carry a firearm, nor why stand-your-ground should not be as applicable in the street as in the home. By the way, the stand-your-ground law is not
    likely to be very important in the trial since if Zimmerman’s account is
    true, plain old self-defense would apply.

  • Robert Govan

    Sandy Hook hoax George Zimmerman hoax. I have great news for We The People. We have the nwo EXPOSED and on the run right here.

  • Bryan Schmick

    ..with no criminal record… Now we know that he would have a criminal record except the school district police (what other school district has its’ own police force) tried to cover it up that young Martin was caught with a bag full of stolen jewelry.

  • Andy_Lewis

    Why, yes it is open and shut.

    This has been another in the series Simple Answers to Really Easy Questions.

  • brianmacker

    What a poorly researched article.

  • Black Racism

    The news media largely think it their job to create more animosity for whites (race hoaxes are useful to create more animosity for whites)

  • SparkleSalt

    Horowitz says the Stand Your Ground Law ought to be rewritten because of this case. But that law does not even apply in this case, because Zimmerman was being pinned down by Trevon and thus could not flee. In other words, Zimmerman had no ground either to defend or to flee. So this is a straight up traditional self-defense case, no need to conflate it with Stand Your Ground or any other such ancillary law.

    • ¡Jorge Libre!


  • landru

    Mr. Horowitz, you lose credibility when you claim that Zimmerman lacks credibility because he used the phrase “popped up from behind the bushes” to describe Martin basically appearing suddenly. There are in fact hedges behind all the condos and hedges throughout the neighborhood. It should be obvious that he was not claiming to have actually seen Martin rise up from a behind a bush, but was just using the term loosely to describe someone appearing suddenly behind him.
    Also, regarding the Hannity interview, if you recall, Hannity asked him not whether he was aware of the self defense laws, but “had you ever heard of something called stand your ground before this”. The question was about the phrase. The lecturer did not actually testify that the phrase was part of the lecture in any significant way, and there was nothing in any written materials produced to demonstrate it. This may sound like splitting hairs, but discussing the laws (where the phrase is not used) and using that phrase in the class in a way that it could be assumed Zimmerman should remember it are not the same thing. It was never actually established in the lecturer’s testimony that the phrase was ever even used in the class at all.

  • landru

    “What we do know is that a young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead.”
    Had the police arrived thirty or so seconds before they did and found Martin on top of Zimmerman and pummeling him and stopped it, he would have been charged and convicted of a felony. The fact that he was not using a separate weapon, but only his hands and fists, does not render him harmless. Your comment is ridiculous.
    There seems to be a bizarre belief amongst some people that a person cannot inflict “grave bodliy harm” with his hands and fists, and that if a person is subjected to an assault using them, deference and care for the attackers safety must be shown, that the person under attack is supposed to consciouly take steps to avoid seriously hurting the person who is attacking them. Again ridiculous.

  • Eric Hutchison

    I never have believed Zimmerman is entirely innocent. In fact he’s probably guilty of at least “manslaughter” here because a death occurred that didn’t have to. I’m just not convinced that Zimmerman committed a “murder” that he wanted to happen and that he should go to prison for the rest of his life.

    What’s still most disturbing about this whole affair is the role that the far-left media and race-baiters like Al Sharpton have played in this case becoming what it is.

    • Wrabble

      “he’s probably guilty of at least “manslaughter” here because a death occurred that didn’t have to. ”

      So you disagree completely with any notion of self-defense under any condition?

  • WW4

    Lord, save us from dimwits who after ONE article in which they disagree with the author’s opinion declare him a “RINO” and closet liberal.

  • JDS

    The problem with this case is that the media skewered the facts from the start, causing many to now swing the other way in favour of Zimmerman. While I think that Zimmerman is a bit of a Barney Fife, I do believe he shot Martin after Martin attacked him. Martin is the one who uttered a racial epithet (if the prosecution’s witness is to be believed) while Zimmerman is the one who called the police. I don’t believe Zimmerman would have called the police if he were planning to kill someone, nor did he break his own nose or cut the back of his own head. The marks on Martin’s hands suggest he was the attacker. I personally believe both men were culpable for what happened that day, and would give more credibility to Martin feeling threatened if he had used his phone to call 911 instead of talking to that illiterate person who purportedly was his last phone call.

  • Federale

    The facts are that Zimmerman’s story of self-defense has held up, but more importantly, the State has not presented any evidence, much less evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt.
    Zimmerman is innocent. The star witness was a racist black who was shown to be a liar. Other “witnesses” suddenly recalled facts that they never told the police, most of which were lies anyway.
    The one clear witness said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman while punching him. Case closed. You can’t get around that.
    Even the stary lying witness of the prosecution admitted Trayvon used racist epitaths to describe Zimmerman. It is clear that Trayvon thought he was a tough guy and was going to do what many blacks enjoy doing, attacking white people.

  • bobrien2

    David Horowitz has always represented the worst of the conservative movement. Essentially David pays lip service to small government but is really a new fascist pro-state or neo-con. He’s now latched onto this case as a means of promoting a reduction of free (self-defense) and conceal carry. This advances the power of the state which is Horowitz’s true goal.

    The problem is, it’s clear he neither understands self-defense or conceal carry laws and barely has a grasp on the facts of the case.

    What a truly awful article, it’s clear the Horowitz is part of the dying breed on the right, rejected by the GOP, moderate conservatives, libertarians and the left.

  • James

    I don’t know… you’re being beaten and you’re supposed to aim away from his chest? While in the midst of a beating, does one have clear thoughts, or is your focus on survival?

    I don’t think that police aim to wound when they try to stop a beating, do they? I think police are taught to shoot for the chest…

    • Wrabble

      Aiming to wound only works in the movies.

      A firearm should never be fired at a person unless the shooter is willing to have the target die.

      Shooting in the arm or leg can lead to death. For example, if the femoral artery is hit, bleed-out can occur in 90 seconds or less.

      Center of mass, unless you’re an expert marksman like a military sharpshooter who can go for a head shot.

  • Dave Turson

    As with all of us, God will judge in the end. George Zimmerman says that Trayvon Martin saw his gun and went for it. Without other eye witnesses we must take his word.

  • Wrabble

    I know exactly what happened that night because I have been paying attention to the liberal media!

    9-year old Trayvon Martin was on his way home from choir practice and delivering hot meals to the elderly.

    He stopped to hold umbrellas for a Girl Scout Troop which was raising money for quadriplegic AIDS victims in Africa. After he helped the Girl Scouts, he then delivered 10 Golden Retriever puppies which were breach birth.

    That’s when George Zimmerman pulled up in his Hummer, on his way home from a White Hispanic KKK meeting. High on meth and shouting racist slogans, GZ saw TM and opened up with his twin roof-mounted 50 caliber machine guns.

    TM saved all the Girl Scouts and then went back to save the Golden Retriever puppies.

    GZ ran out of ammunition so he unholstered two Desert Eagle .44 magnum pistols and started firing at the puppies and TM.

    That’s when TM was hit in the back by 32 rounds of hollow-point, teflon-coated & explosive ammunition.

    With his last breaths, TM prayed for GZ and forgave him.

    Then GZ called his cop buddies who were at the KKK rally. They cleaned up the site and made the Girl Scouts and Golden Retrievers “disappear” in the Everglades so there would be no witnesses. They washed the blood from GZ’s jowls after he gnawed on TM’s still beating heart.

    It must be true! Justice for Trayvon (and his mother’s merchandising rights)!

    Oh yes, GZ is the current world champion for ALL schools of martial art and had just escaped from a mental institution for the criminally insane. A few years earlier, he was indicted for murder eight times but got off only because his father was a Supreme Court Justice.

  • James Riley

    Is David Horowitz seriously arguing that the _Zimmerman_ case should be used to further restrict the 2nd amendment? Arguing that “neighborhood watch” volunteers should not be allowed carry to carry firearms speaks to a mind seriously befuddled on the issues at hand. In many states, individuals are allowed, and even encouraged to carry firearms. Would it stand to reason that community volunteers, already trained to defend their community, would forfeit that right because they happen to be also helping law enforcement, and potentially risking their lives in the process?

    Horowitz should re-name his “freedom center” something else. He obviously hasn’t shed his ultra-leftist self. Fascist center?

    Truly disappointed and disgusted..

  • Darlene Cantey

    Button Line, Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. I have a questions about the UNEDITED 911 recording of Zimmmerman. When the Officer asked Ziimmerman if he was following Trevon, Zimmerman said yes (you can hear him running after Trevon). Anyway as Zimmerman slows down from runniing if TRUELY SOUNDS LIKE A GUN BEING COCKED Back. I heard that sound Twice. I’m just saying.. My question: What do you think the sounds are? Would someone please listen and let me know it I am alone. Thanks.


      I truly believe Zimmerman was following trayvon , because of prior events In the community, and wanted to make sure he not up to no good, why didnt trayvon call the police and. Report that someone is following me for no reason I live in thi community and I’m just on my way home from yet he store, or if he was such a nice kid and was not a punk at all like everyone claims , why wouldn’t he say excuse me sir stop,following me please I’m just trying to get home , I live in the community , and than call 911 say im being followed and im afraid im in danger and ask them to please stay on the phone till he gets home, or the cops arrive, but trayvon did not do that he got pissed that Zimmerman would not stop following him and attacked him bounced zimmermann head off the side walk and went to grab his gun, so I don’t believe. Zimmerman had a choice, and Zimmerman had called the police , I truly believe the only reason he follows trayvon is because in a prior incident , with a black youth staring into people’s windows in zimmermanns community got away when police arrived and later on came back and robbed the community, so even though Zimmerman should have stayed in his car , he didnt follow trayvon with the intent to hurt him, he did it with the intent to protect


      His community until the police arrived.

  • wentworthcheswell

    I know David Horowitz is smarter than this oped. What happens if you are getting robbed by gunpoint, should you just fall on the ground, hand over everything and let the person shoot you? or stand your ground and fight back and try to survive?…..maybe with this article, the “real” David Horowitz is now coming out and back to his roots as a Communist, progressive, after a stint as a “conservative” becoming rich from from “patriots” buying his books, now back to his roots of Communism and progressives and liberals attitudes that you shouldn’t defend yourself, just like in school, you get suspended if you defend yourself (let the principle defend you after your nose and neck are broken)…..let the govt take care of you, if they arrive in time that is before you die.

  • whowon

    I had no idea until I watched the trial. I did not jump to any conclusion before, none had any of my Conservative friends had either. Don’t paint is with the same brush as the fools who decided he was guilty without any facts.

  • paul_23

    When I first heard about this case, I was all set to throw the book at Zimmerman. My initial instinct as a Floridian who carries is that the order of the day is AVOID CONFRONTATION (and in that regard, Zimmerman did behave foolishly in following someone at night in a poorly lit area). Additionally, under Florida law you cannot initiate a confrontation and then use deadly force and claim self defense when things go poorly for you.

    In other words, my initial reaction was that Trayvon Martin was the one who had the right to stand his ground. My views changed as the evidence came out, and we got the full picture of just who George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are / were. While I still maintain that it was foolish to get out and follow Trayvon in the first place- following is not inherently provocative under the law.

    Additionally, Zimmerman could not have foreseen that following Martin would lead to his death. Further, people with depraved minds don’t call the police, and don’t fire just one shot. I find Zimmerman’s account credible. It jives with most if not all of the physical and medical evidence, and it jives with Mr. Good’s testimony- the prosecution’s own witness.

    I’m still no fan of George Zimmerman. I don’t find what he did sensible or wise, but unreasonable, reckless, or without regard for human life? No. Sorry. That does not fit the bill.

    I believe, though I cannot prove, that Martin’s REAL phone call with Jeantel went more along the lines of going back and teaching that creepy a** cr***er a lesson- and emboldened, he did just that. Martin had slightly more than two minutes to travel the 100 yards to his town home- which means if he maintained the blistering pace of 1.7 mph (the average person walks 3 to 4 mph) which means if Martin wanted to, he could have been safely home. Ironically, if he was walking closer to the average pace- and with his 6’2″ frame, there’s no reason to believe he wasn’t at least average- he could have walked to Brandy Green’s townhouse and back to where the confrontation took place.

    Again, can’t prove it- but I find reasonable doubt to believe the prosecution’s claims. I think it’s possible, and if possible- I’d have to acquit. Simple as that.

  • LindaF

    I do have some concerns about your calling him a liar about that money – it is possible that the money was earmarked for his defense – in that case, he could not use it for bail. Without having more knowledge, it would be difficult to say more.

    Further, just in the obviously broken nose and multiple cuts, dripping blood on his head, I don’t believe that you can call the injuries “superficial”. Slamming someone’s head into concrete has a high risk of causing TBI – traumatic brain injury. Often, football players get up after having been hit into the ground, and go on to play the rest of the game. The damage doesn’t show up, often until years later.

    Could he have not shot Trayvon? Frankly, his judgement may well have been impaired from the beat-down he received. This could have led to him discharging his gun, causing death.

    But, what caused that possibly impaired judgement? Trayvon’s actions.

    So, no, I don’t think, BASED on the EVIDENCE shown during the trial, that he should be judged guilty of a crime. There just isn’t clear-cut evidence to support it.


    It’s interesting how because a black kid was killed ,everyone is up in arms it was not self defense, well if you look up the John white case in NY who is a Blackman that defended his son and killed a white kid, outside his home, he was found guilty on only minor charges and it was basically determined he acted in self defense, yet he left the safety of his own home and confronted the aggressor, when he could have locked the doors and called the police, but the kids outside the home were punks with intent to harm and he feared for his son and decided to take matters into his own hands ,i can understand his fear , but he could have stayed in the safety his home. but Zimmerman gets PHYSICALLY ATTACKED and his head pounded on the sidewalk and he is suppose to know the aggressor has no intent to kill him, bull ,if someone is attacking you they are intending to harm you and many people under those circumstances would think they were in a life threating position, and you should have a right to defend yourself.


    BTW on the John white case NY I need to clarify he was convicted of manslaughter and a weapons chargE, was sentenced , but than the governer , obsolved him after a short time served .most likely recognizing that although the guy made the wrong decision , he was actually in fear of his and his sons life.


    It’s interesting how because a black kid was killed ,everyone is up in arms it was not self defense, well if you look up the John white case in NY who is a Blackman that defended his son and killed a white kid, outside his home, he was found guilty on only minor charges and it was basically determined he acted in self defense, yet he left the safety of his own home and confronted the aggressor, when he could have locked the doors and called the police, but the kids outside the home were punks with intent to harm and he feared for his son and decided to take matters into his own hands ,i can understand his fear , but he could have stayed in the safety his home. but Zimmerman gets PHYSICALLY ATTACKED and his head pounded on the sidewalk and he is suppose to know the aggressor has no intent to kill him, bull ,if someone is attacking you they are intending to harm you and many people under those circumstances would think they were in a life threating position, and you should have a right to defend yourself.

  • talty

    You made some really good points… Then you said that neighborhood watch shouldn’t be allowed to conceal carry. Some places don’t even have police they have what are called Glock blocks because they don’t believe in living vicariously. They said these police suck and we’ll do it ourselves. Do you really think somebody trying to do a public service (not Zimmerman just the watch in general) should be limited in their ability to defend themselves? Nobody should have their 2nd amendment infringed.

  • chrismalllory

    So, Horowitz’s suggestion when you are having your head pounded against a sidewalk is to not shoot your attacker until you are about to be knocked unconscious and if you do shoot, don’t shoot the chest, stomach or head, try to wing ‘em.

    • Northpaw

      That troubled me too, David Horowitz a renowned debunker of political correctness and a patriot through and through sounding like a freaking leftist. He is wrong too about not allowing block watch captains to carry a gun, bad stuff David.

  • Jim Heller

    What an embarrassment! David, you were wrong.

  • T100C1970

    The “stand your ground” law was not applicable here. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin after making his phone call and 4 minutes later, Martin cold cocked him with a punch in the nose knocking him down and then jumped on him. You CAN”T retreat even if you want to when somebody is sitting astride you and beating the hell out of you. Until the moment he was punched out Zim had no reason to believe that Martin was a threat from which he would have been required to retreat even absent SYG. This all came out at trial, but media and race baiters fail to grasp the facts of the case… Ever heard of “the knockout game” or “polar bear hunting” ?? I suspect Martin had.

  • Matt in VA

    The Zimmerman case proves that Democrats hate Latinos and Obama hates Hispanics. Where is Dolores Huerta now?

  • Jack Burnett

    People should be offended that you suggest conservatives rushed to defend Zimmerman because liberals accused him. I think he is guilty of stupidity and innocent of murder, manslaughter OR child abuse…based on the information that the jury heard and some that they didn’t.

    Trayvon was, without a doubt, a hoodlum and a violent kid. We hear about the weed that he smoked and hear liberals making a big deal of weed not causing violent behavior. I agree. But have you heard of lean, sometimes referred to as purple drank, sizzurp or Texas tea? It is a mixture made with cough syrup and, down South, rather than Sprite and Jolly Ranchers they make it from AZ Iced Tea, Skittles and Robitussin. Every young black that I know is talking about it and Trayvon. Trayvon (NO_LIMITS_NIGGA on his now closed Twitter account) asks his friend on Twitter if he knows where to get any syrup and mentions that he wants to make more lean. Coming down off that high creates anxiety, anger and a general feeling of uneasiness. Look it up.

    We, but not the jury, also know that Trayvon attacked white teachers in school at least twice and was facing his 3rd suspension for violent behavior. We saw the piles of jewelry on his bed, the gun in his hand, his gold grills, the fight video and him flipping off the world on his cell phone photos. I would LOVE to see what information the police did NOT release on Trayvon. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s most likely a duck. I don’t need to counter the opinion of liberals to know that it looks like a hoodlum.

  • Tom Kaye

    Treyvon Martin’s death was a tragedy and the liberal circus that has followed it is a travesty. We now know from Jeantel’s statements since the trial that she may have provoked Treyvon to go after Zimmerman because she she told him she thought Zimmerman might be a gay rapist!

    Although I can see perhaps the need to rewrite some of the Stand Your Ground legislation to clarify proper self-defense in a public or open venue, I disagree with you regarding concealed/carry by neighborhood watch patrols. Yes, they need training, but who has more of a right to carry a gun than someone defending their home? Perhaps the problem is the “concealed” part. Perhaps they should be required to wear their guns on their hips like police do so everyone, every potential criminal, can see they are armed. Perhaps if Treyvon had seen the gun on Zimmerman he would have thought twice about jumping him.

    I prefer that to the provocative front door sign “This home protected by Smith & Wesson three days a week. You guess which three.”

    And there is also the issue of why Treyvon was buying Arizona Watermelon Fruit Coctail and Skittles. Was it to make the cheap high called “Lean”? We know from his facebook page and the coroner’s report on the condition of his liver that he was an imbiber of the druggy drink made with cough syrup, which one of the side effects of long-term use is paranoia.

    We will never know the truth for certain in this case. All we are ever left with is imperfect, flawed, human judgment.

  • undisputablefacts1

    “Superficial Injuries”?? A broken nose and a cuts on the back of the head with significant swelling on the back of the head may be considered “superficial” to Horowitz since they happened to someone else, but I feel pretty confident that if those injuries were inflicted on him or a love one, he would see things considerably different!!

  • Hesperado

    David Horowitz’s behavior on this issue and on the Diana West issue remarkably reminds me of the way Charles Johnson showed his true color (Red), revealing that his true nature all along was one of Leftosfascism. How much longer before we see Horowitz doing essentally the same — allowing his penchant for believing in that unicorn, the Moderate Muslim, to morph out of control into a defense of Muslims and Islam in general (in, in fact, he isn’t there alread)?

  • Jaime Andres Pretell

    David Horowitz falls for his own biases as he seeks to project those onto other in his projection analysis “Is the Zimmerman case really open and shut?”

    In the interests of justice, all evidence should definitely be looked at in an objective manner. That includes a thorough analysis of both parties. Just stating that Martin was an unarmed 17-year-old, who was not a felon, who was on a neighborhood run to get Skittles, and that he inflicted very superficial injuries on his adversary during their scuffle does not represent Martin accurately.

    Martin was a 17 year old, who was taller than Zimmerman, had a history of fighting, a history of suspension and going into diversionary programs by the high school police to avoid criminal charges, and a history that included being found with jewelry that was later identified as stolen, along with an industrial screwdriver. And a phone history of wanting to purchase an illegal gun and drug use.

    Whether Martin was on a run to get skittles or not, is irrelevant. The time he took to go to the store and back was much longer than a direct purchase and return would have taken. Furthermore, many crimes are crimes of opportunity, and are not planned out. Finally, Martin could simply have been casing out houses to see if any opportunity existed. There is no evidence to say one way or the other. To claim that all he was up to was buying Skittles, or to claim he was about to rob a house are both legitimate possibilities, not facts.

    Horowitz, presents a straw man by claiming that George Zimmerman only had superficial wounds and thus his claim of self-defense should be taken with a grain of salt. Florida’s self-defense law states: A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The key word here is imminent. You do not have to receive great bodily injury to respond with deadly force. You have to fear imminent great bodily injury.

    Horowitz errs in claiming that Zimmerman only received superficial wounds, as Zimmerman had a deviated septum, or broken nose, but the broken nose, along with the lacerations on the back of the head do not go to prove great bodily injury, just that he was indeed punched in the nose and that his head impacted with the cement multiple times leading to lacerations. The fears were of imminent death or great bodily injury because his head was impacting the cement and he was in a struggle for a gun. Knockouts and concussions don’t always leave outside markings, but more importantly, knockouts lead people to be completely vulnerable. And in a struggle that went from an assault which could possibly lead to a brain concussion, or being unconscious with an unknown assailant now holding his gun, the fear of imminent great bodily harm or death was quite valid, and quite legal.

    The stand your ground clause of the Florida statute: A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be, holds no relevance in this case as witnesses have stated that Zimmerman was mounted by Martin and thus had no ability to retreat in the first place.

    As I have stated in a subsequent article by Ari Lieberman, who quotes this article:

    Lieberman next alleges indisputable facts that are, in fact, quite disputed. He claims that Zimmerman lied in his proceedings. This is patently false. While Zimmerman did seek to keep the state of his affairs secret from listeners in his prison conversations, Zimmerman was never asked about his finances, and, indeed, it was Shellie who lied on the stand. If anything, it would make Shellie’s credibility an issue. Which, along with Shellie’s father’s old fraud conviction would make both their credibility an issue in their claims against Zimmerman.

    Next Lieberman claims that Zimmerman indisputably knew about ‘Stand Your Ground’ because of his courses in criminal law. But this is again misinformation. Zimmerman was taught about the Castle Doctrine in Florida, but the professor stated that he never referenced it as Stand Your Ground. There is no evidence to indicate how much the teachings of that course would have stood in his mind, but there is definitely evidence, in the form of his former professor’s statement in court, that Zimmerman was never told specifically of anything referenced as ‘stand your ground.’

    Next Lieberman claims that Zimmerman claimed Martin jumped out the bushes. This is patently false. Zimmerman stated that Martin ‘emerged from the darkness.’ Another statement that Lieberman failed to verify with due diligence.

    I guess both Horowitz and Lieberman failed in their due diligence.

    My answer to Lieberman also responded to Horowitz’ next allegation:

    Lieberman shows his cluelessness about other religions, and, in fact, his own, when he misrepresents Zimmerman, by claiming callousness, when Zimmerman stated he would have done nothing differently and it is God’s plan. One of the tenets of Catholicism, and indeed, Judaism and Islam as well, is that everything happens by God’s will. Inshallah, Eem yirtzeh hashem or God’s Will are tenets of both Judaism and Islam, as is the popular phrase that ‘God works in mysterious ways’ which derives from Romans 11:33: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” This is a central tenet of all Christianity and Zimmerman, a devout Catholic would also believe this. Would he have done anything differently? No. There was no way he would have known that trying to report on suspicious behavior in his neighborhood would have led to him killing a man. Who is he to question God’s Will, God’s Plan, of why it happened? It happened and there was nothing that he could have knowingly done different to avoid the tragic outcome. Zimmerman knowingly only had two choices. To remain apathetic to the problems of his neighborhood, or he could do what he chose, which was to be involved.

    Horowitz thinks Zimmerman should have said that he should have had second thoughts once he found out Martin was a 17 year old. Why? There was no way he could have known Martin’s age, and in matters of assaults, 17 year olds can be tried as adults because they can and do hurt and kill people on many occasions. The tragedy is not in Zimmerman’s actions that day, but in the failure by his parents to steer him down the right path.

    Zimmerman did everything the dispatcher asked of him, and collaborated fully. He had no idea he would be assaulted. He was just lucky he was carrying a weapon to protect himself, or he could have been harmed seriously. Horowitz is seriously naïve if he thinks that in a mounted struggle, Zimmerman had the time and capacity to carefully aim for a non-fatal shot. Why should he not have carried his gun? If he hadn’t had it, he might have been seriously injured right now.

    Horowitz projects his own racial issues, and conflicts onto Zimmerman, ignoring the fact that Zimmerman clearly stated he saw Martin looking into windows. That is an action that can elicit valid suspicion.

    Martin was hardly guiltless. He was in possession of stolen property, tried purchasing an illegal gun, did illegal drugs, and bragged about illegal fights. Doesn’t prove he was the aggressor, but it definitely shows he was capable of that aggression. There is no reason for there to be a penalty for self-defense if it was valid, and no one has proven that it was not. Innocent till proven guilty

    And again, Stand your ground never played a role in this case.