To the editor:
I am writing regarding the verdict in Florida’s Zimmerman case, and I must say I wholeheartedly agree with Mtchael Cook (Letters, the Times, Monday, July 22).
Here’s why: The verdict itself was valid: It was the only verdict the jury could reach based upon the evidence presented to them by the prosecution. It was what the jury did not hear that disturbs me, and is the reasoning for my feelings of injustice.
I paid full attention to the pre-trial hearings, interviews, and the trial itself. Allow me to present my case, and conclusion, and you be the judge. Here’s what the jury did not hear from the prosecution, along with a lesser charge, the prosecution did not proffer.
A 17-year-old boy is dead because of an overzealous authority driven adult who had a blatant disregard for the rules and regulations of those with authority over him.
Mr. Zimmerman agreed to obey the rules and regulations of the Neighborhood Watch Organization, when he accepted his volunteer position, as a captain in his own neighborhood. One of those rules, which he disregarded, is that Neighborhood Watch prohibits its volunteers from being armed while on voluntary patrol.
I can only conclude that Neighborhood Watch wanted to avoid this very kind of situation. Armed, and at the ready, Mr. Zimmerman, again, blatantly was in direct disregard of the basic rules of firearm safety. His semi-automatic, though holstered, had a live round in the chamber, indicating that the weapon was also cocked, and in firing mode; not even was the safety set (an act of negligence).
I was taught not to carry a sidearm if I did not intend to use it.
Mr. Zimmerman’s actions are those of a man preparing to use his weapon. Had he not disregarded common sense safety precautions with his weapon, injury to either himself or an innocent bystander would have been prevented.