By Rupert
Rupert, son of Diddley and Cree Squat, is a young rodent intellectual who is best known for his claim that he hasn't just an opinion on everything, he has opinions. Plural. Many of them.
"When I want to measure public reaction to something of importance," said Rupert famously, "I just poll myself."
So don't be surprised if I have a whole bunch of them on this tremendously important story.

The Neighbor From Hell

I do not want George Zimmerman as a neighbor. I don't want him trying to protect me. I don't want him carrying a gun. I don't want him shooting me. I don't want him to shoot anyone I love. I don't want him to shoot anybody, period.

And perhaps most relevant to this commentary, I don't want him making millions on a book deal, getting his own show on the Fox News Channel or joining a police department anywhere on earth!!!

The Burden of Proof

Our Great Furless One (as hamsters refer to our human domestic servants) was among the first to sign the Moveon.org petition. She was horrified that the police could shrug off the deadly shooting of a young and blameless black man. The investigation of the vigilante shooter was, basically, a friendly handshake.

She was disgusted about it. But not surprised.

As for the verdict. That was discouraging. But it was no surprise, either.

We watched the trial. The prosecution did not prove it's case. The jurors had no choice but to acquit.The defendant always - always! - deserves the benefit of every doubt. And always means in every single case.

The burden of proof is a high bar to meet. And let us be very careful about calling to lower it for one particularly horrible event. If that standard is breached to convict a white man, how much more will it get trampled in the prosecution of minorities?

I know. I know. It already happens. Just ask Marissa Alexander and hundreds of thousands over the years who have found themselves in precisely that situation. It's one more thing that needs to change.

What Else Went Wrong (Besides Everything)?

There has been no shortage of commentators who fault the prosecution's presentation. They failed to skillfully argue the case. Or, to put it another way, they were "out-lawyered" by the defense. The evidence wasn't properly presented. It was insufficient.

All true. But the prosecution can't argue a case when they don't have evidence. And they won't have evidence if the police don't take a crime seriously enough to collect evidence. And the police in this case ignored the death of Trayvon Martin because, to be honest, they were in the habit of doing things like that. And that's a problem that's very old.

I won't go into detail here because there's enough to crash the internet. But most people know it's been bad for a very long time.

Justice for Trayvon?

I have to take issue with those who say that no one has been held accountable in this case. The public outrage over the handling of this case has been a real jolt to the establishment. The incident has cost the city of Sanford millions - lost tourism, city and county government changes, publicity campaigns, and a trial that was anything but cheap. Zimmerman, though he won't be serving time, will be in a different kind of prison. He was charged and stood trial, which is what the petition signers demanded. He will never live down what he did on that rainy Sunday night.

The memory of Trayvon Martin can be the inspiration for so much good. Two million people cared enough to sign the petition that forced police action. He is known and loved.

Don't say Trayvon died "in vain" unless you're prepared to let it be so. As for me, I am not.

Nobody is Bulletproof!

While the city of Sanford has been "taught" the proverbial lesson by all the attention this case has drawn, there will continue to be shootings as long as we let the George Zimmermans of the world walk around with loaded guns.

It's not only guns. It's laws, as well. The so-called "stand your ground" statutes ("shoot first, ask questions later") encourage this type of violence. Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to find a masked intruder standing over you with an axe. There's an obvious threat. And clearly there would be no duty to retreat under those circumstances. Stand your ground is different.

Excessive Force

"Stand your ground" laws allow you to treat the stranger on the street, who has every right to be there , as you would the armed home invader. The person doesn't have to threaten anybody. You just have to believe he (or she) does. They don't have to be armed. "Might be" will suffice. And it's okay to shoot to kill, often when clearly unnecessary.

Needless to say, the outcome of these "stand your ground" cases has been arbitrary and often shameful. A useful database of cases under the Florida statute can be found here .

Prosecutors, as many of us know, have to prove all the elements of a crime, with one exception. That exception is motive. But when you have a "stand your ground" defense, motive is all that can be proven. It's the perfect circle, the classic catch-22. Enough already! Repeal those laws!

Whose Ground is It, Anyway?

Florida's fatal "stand your ground" cases are mostly gun related, although everything from scissors to a chair, an icepick and a rock have been employed to cause death. But regardless of the method, the chances of getting away with it are excellent. In fact, statistically, the odds are far better than even - seven to three, to be precise. Yes, even in cases of gang killings. Even if you're a convicted felon.Of course, it helps a lot if you are white, or you kill a person who is black or Hispanic.

Here's the story of one woman who did not benefit from the rule.

She killed nobody and, in fact, was careful not to. She was at home. Her life was undeniably in danger. And today she's serving 20 years in prison. Her "crime"? While being assaulted by an estranged husband who habitually beat her, even putting her in the hospital when she was pregnant, she fired a warning shot into the ceiling to get him to back off.

Twenty years mandatory. For shooting a ceiling. You read that rig ht.

Marissa Alexander

The woman in that case is Marissa Alexander, pictured above. The prosecutor who put her behind bars? Yup, the same Angela Corey, District Attorney for Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit, who gave the sorry press conference after the Zimmerman verdict. The rationale? There were children in the house, though in no danger whatever, when that piece of drywall was so savagely shot.

Corey insisted that she was defending "her little victims" when she sent a mother to prison and, ironically, left three children in the custody of their admittedly brutal father.This is a nightmare!

Best Defense, Good Offense

It's not clear how much Zimmerman's defense fund raised and spent. The latest information on the Zimmerman Defense Fund website lists the following:

Zimmerman household expenses:$61,747.54; personal security:$56,100.00; bail bond: $95,000.00; fund management:$7,924.22; miscellaneous expenses (postage, phone, etc.):$3,201.04; legal fees:$35,588.07; and law firm support:$40,647.64. The latter includes special assistants hired for the case, office expansion and equipment upgrades, etc. In late May, the law firm stated on its website that the fund had less than $5,000 left, down from almost $315,000 in January.

Confronting the Evidence:

Citizen's Right, Lawyer's Job

The cost to getMarissa Alexanderthe representation she deserved would have been far less than Zimmerman spent. Indeed, if accused at all under a just system, the charges almost certainly would have been dismissed before trial for the simple reason that she had, in counsel, a chance to fight back.

But what about everybody else?

It ticks me off that people are still complaining that O.J. Simpson got a fair trial because he could afford a legal "dream team." Look at it from the perspective of the tens of thousands of other defendants who don't get fair trials because they can't afford representation. That representation happens to be, by the way, a Constitutional right.

Let's Be Fair

If the state is going to prosecute, let them pay for a competent defense. Prosecutors will bring charges against fewer people if they have to weed out the cases they wouldn't win in an impartial courtroom. And that's a good thing. Sure, it will cost more money when they do go to trial, but why should all the government's money be spent on one side of the case? Is that a balanced judicial system?

If it costs $10,000 to defend a felony drug charge, then let the state fork over the money to make it fair or not make the accusation at all. Fewer cases will be charged this way, but most don't merit prosecution anyway. When criminal charges are based on something more than imagination or grandstanding, the state will be able to win at trial. If, on the other hand, there's an acquittal, the money isn't wasted. It saves the state the exorbitant cost of incarceration.

Very Expensive Crime Schools

It costs taxpayers between $40,000 and $60,000 per prisoner per year (most states) to incarcerate a single prisoner! That's almost half a million for each ten year sentence. All told, the nation spends about $65 billion - billion! - every year on prisons.

And for all this money, is anyone reformed? On the contrary, even people imprisoned for minor offenses are getting a taxpayer-financed education at a very sophisticated university of crime. They have to become thuggish or they're abused by the hard core inmates. They are released with prison records, no job, and a well-earned bad attitude. Recidivism? Tell me about it!

And what about relatives who go broke trying to paying for a criminal defense? Even when successful, the money is gone forever. Homes are lost. Families are shattered. And we all suffer as a result.

Getting it Right First Time

If we put the brakes on all these runaway prosecutions, the justice system can concentrate on cases like the Trayvon Martin shooting that really ought to go to trial.

Had police followed the lead of the "good cop" in this story, Detective Chris Serino who wanted Zimmerman charged with homicide from the start, proper police procedures would have followed and there would have been evidence to support a successful prosecution.

Over-Charged, As Usual

Prosecutors love to over-charge, especially when the accused can't fight back and have to anticipate a pro-forma conviction. Over-charges lead to "plea bargains" which have become an all-too-routine sweep of both the innocent and the guilty into our prisons and jails.

Even without the additional evidence that would have been collected had the shooting of the unarmed teen been deemed a crime when it happened, there almost certainly was enough to convict on a manslaughter charge, as opposed to the murder over-charge. And the penalty, with the gun enhancement, would have been almost the same.

An Act of Aggression

Read the Zimmerman jury instructions online. Even with what we know now, a manslaughter conviction would have been possible had the prosecution pursued it instead of the murder case.

Most importantly, they have to counter the self-defense claim. There's no doubt Zimmerman got smacked around a little bit. But whether he fired his gun simply because he over-reacted out of anger, because he thought his injuries were worse than they actually were, or because he got fed up and decided not to take it any more, the use of deadly force fits the court's definition of manslaughter.

Proving the Case

Taking a case seriously requires witness preparation, something that obviously wasn't done in the Zimmerman case. It might have been wise not to use an erratic witness like Rachel Jeantel, the friend who was on the phone with Martin just before he was shot. Her testimony was confusing and not credible. But even she was right about one thing. The police should have called her within "the first 48." And they didn't.

Things really went downhill when the testimony of an educated professional was just as worthless. And that would be Dr. Shiping Bao (above), the state's own medical examiner for gosh sakes! He actually testified that he remembered "nothing" having to do with the autopsy. "Nothing. Zero." If there's anybody whose testimony the prosecution should have fine-tuned, it was his.

Theirs to Lose

The state's case against Zimmerman faltered from the start. But when it came to closing, acquittal seemed inevitable. First went prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda with a summation that failed to explain to jurors what really happened. The next day, Mark O'Mara fired back with a presentation that was legally and stylistically perfect. The defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that he's isn't. Don't let them tell you to use "common sense" because that leads to assumptions and we assume when we don't know. You're not allowed to do that. Don't let them tell you to connect the dots. That's their job. If they can't, you must acquit. This is a serious case that must be judged on the facts, not emotion. Don't let them tell you otherwise!

Disaster

The prosecution gets one last chance. Prosecutor John Guy, who had delivered an excellent opening statement, gave an impassioned closing. But it fell right into the trap set by the defense. I could only cringe as he told jurors exactly what they'd been prepared for: Use your hearts when making your decision. Read between the lines. Rely on your common sense.

And if that's not bad enough, the judge read the jury instructions next. They reinforced everything O'Mara had said. And that was the last word.

I still haven't a clue what wet grass sounds like. But when that case went to the jury, I had a feeling I knew exactly how it sounded when the Titanic hit the iceberg.