A tale of two Murders.

So this week the internet is teeming with people who want to express their opinions on the George Zimmerman verdict.

Some believe the verdict is a gross miscarriage of justice because their is no way Zimmerman is innocent. Some believe the verdict vindicates Zimmerman, who probably never should have been on trial in a fair system.

Both sides actually missed the major issue in the Zimmerman case, and missed exactly how broken the justice system is in Florida.

To understand the underlying issues here we actually need to look at, and compare, the killing of Jordan Davis by Michael Dunn to the killing of Trayvon Martian to George Zimmerman.

For those unfamiliar with the Davis case, he was shot and killed in a car at a gas station parking lot when Dunn approached him and 3 friends also in the car and demanded they turn their music down. An argument broke out, and Dunn fired 8 shots into the car killing Davis. Dunn later claimed he saw a shotgun in the car, hence why he opened fire. Police investigation turned up no evidence of a shotgun, or any gun, in the car.

Now for the comparison portion

First the victims:
Both Martian and Davis were 17 years old at the time they were killed. Both were black. Both lived in Florida. Both had every reason to be where they were the night they were killed. Both were approached by their killers (by both their killers admission). Both were unarmed. Both were killed in 2012 (Feb for Martian, November for Davis)

Now the shooters:
Zimmerman and Dunn are both older, Zimmerman is 29, Dunn is 46. Neither is Black. Both live in Florida. Both had some reason to be where they were the night they killed.  Both were approached their victims (by their own admissions). Both were armed.

Now the differences, and as most of the differences in the victims were explained in the summery we will pass over that and head straight for the shooter:
One (Zimmerman) was assumed to be operating under "Stand Your Ground" law, and therefore not arrested because of the law. The other (Dunn) was arrested as soon as identified and charged with 2nd degree murder.

One (Zimmerman) never invoked "Stand Your Ground" law at trial, and in fact took steps specifically to have it excluded from his trial/not allowing the needed trial to be called. The other (Dunn) has been claiming a "Stand Your Ground" Defense since he was arrested, has yet to be allowed to introduce it into his trial. In fact his charges were upgraded to 1st degree Murder, and 3 additional counts of attempted murder.

One (Zimmerman) still had instructions on "Stand Your Ground" delivered to his jury by the judge, despite his specific decision not to invoke the law, and according to one of his jurors was acquitted because of those specific instructions. The other (Dunn), who admittedly is still only part way though the legal process has not yet been allowed to call for the hearing needed to invoke a "Stand Your Ground" defense.

And lastly, One (Zimmerman) was friendly and known to local law enforcement, the other (Dunn) was basically an unknown to local law enforcement.

Clearly, there is a major problem here. One shooter (Dunn) is being denied the right to even try for the defense he wants, the other (Zimmerman) was railroaded into taking a defense he didnt want.

Now I admit a slight bias in picking the Davis case for comparison as opposed to any of 100's of other cases I could have picked, but the reason for its selection is because of how similar the cases are, it eliminates any "racism angles", differences in state laws,  ageism, difference in commission of crime, ect in the way the case was handled and instead leaves only the difference in the way the justice system handled two close to identical cases

The 6th amendment of the United States Constitution gives you the right to a fair trial in federal courts, and the 14th amendment (and related court cases) apply MOST of that to state trials as well. Specifically the right to choose your own defense is applied at both levels, and that is the key problem in both of these cases.

Now what the Constitution does not have is a right to be protected against your own stupidity/own bad decisions, anywhere in the legal process.

It is possible, and likely, based on the comments by Juror B37, that had "Stand Your Ground" not been applied to Zimmerman he would have been found guilty by the court.  Now despite that, and not knowing that fact, during the trial Zimmerman, in consultation with his lawyers decided not to invoke it, as is his right. If that results in a guilty sentence, so be it. He would have picked the defense he believed best served him, and clearly in hindsight, he would have been wrong.

But that's his right. He has a right to be wrong and pick the wrong defense, he just has to deal with the consequences.

There are  thousands of court cases everyday where, perhaps, had a different approach been tried by the defense the outcome might have been different. None of those cases had both police or judges trying to insert what they believed was a better defense in lieu of the one the defendant wished to use.

Meanwhile, Dunn, who would really like to use a "Stand Your Ground" defense has yet to be allowed to call for the needed hearing to invoke it. Now to be fair, maybe he wont qualify and therefore wont be able to use it at trial, but he does have the legal right to make the attempt.

Which raises another point. How is it that, as both shooters will agree to, that you have to qualify to have "Stand Your Ground" applied to your case, but one of the two shooters was assumed to have qualified from day one and never actually attempted to qualify and the other was assumed to be disqualified from day one and is begging to be allowed to qualify?

Also how is it that, apparently you cant qualify to use the law until your trial, but if the law is found to apply to you you cant be arrested. Yet you wouldn't go to trial unless your arrested for something. So why does the law actually affect something that happens before your able to invoke the law?

Look no matter if you support Stand Your Ground or oppose it, and no matter what you think of the guilt or innocence of either shooter, this is clearly not a fair and equal application of the law.

And speaking of unequal and unfair applications of the same law, one other similarity, neither shooter has yet to sue the police department who arrested him for incorrectly following the law/false arrest. I can only take from that that both shooters, and their lawyers, believe that despite the vast differences in how they are being treated under the same law, nothing either department did actually breaks the law.

It seems in Florida, unlike the other 49 states, including the 30 others that have similar but not identical Stand Your Ground laws, its not the law that determines how you'll be treated and what, if any, legal protections or rights you have, it seems to be how well you know the police officers and local law enforcement.  If they like you, they will give you much better treatment and afford you much better rights and protections under the law then if they dont know you.....and apparently, it's all legal.