You’d think that the unanimous acquittal of George Zimmerman would give those leading the media lynch mob a pause for reflection, or, if not reflection, perhaps to spend a little time reviewing the evidence which led to that acquittal. Not a bit of it. They are sticking with the propaganda myth, even though this cannot be sustained in the face of the evidence.
One such example is the Independent’s article “How NRA lobbied for ‘Stand Your Ground’ law that let Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman free“. Here the narrative can be seen to switch away from the specifics and towards the broader enemies in the Kulturkampf against gun ownership. However, the premise of the article is wholly false. The acquittal had nothing to do with ‘Stand Your Ground’. This latter played no part in the case, which was based on the long-established principles of self-defence.
The article states:
Stand Your Ground offers immunity not only to homeowners, but to people who open fire in public places, and those pleading self-defence need not retreat from anyone they perceive as a threat before shooting.
This is false. No one is offered immunity by the law. In any case, with Zimmerman under assault at the time he fired, according to his testimony and to that of other witnesses, the issue of retreating had already been precluded. It continues:
As in the Trayvon Martin case, the burden is on police and prosecutors to prove that a self-defence claim is false.
What on earth does the writer mean here? It is always the case, in the US and England, that the burden to prove guilt is on the prosecution. This is what is meant by ‘innocent until proven guilty‘. It seems that for the Independent, in line with most of their confrères in the establishment, Zimmerman had already been convicted – by them. Hence their outrage that a courtroom jury saw it differently.
Zimmerman did not get off on a technicality. He got off because the evidence did not suppport the prosecution’s case, but rather reinforced Zimmerman’s account of the tragic incident. This was clear from the very beginning, and explains the reluctance of the authorities to bring charges, until political pressure was brought to bear.
The anti-gun lobby will no doubt continue to use this case to further their agenda of disarming the American public. In order to do this, they will have to stick with the mythical version of events, rather than the version which emerges from the trial, covered very well by Stefan Molyneux here (with his responses to feedback here).