I’ve had a lot to think about the last several days – most of it serious and unpleasant. The phrase “coming to terms” means “to accept something that cannot be changed.”
In the last few days I have had to accept a few things:
My mom will die some day and whenever that day comes, it will be sooner than I want. My sibling is a narcissist. My beloved cat’s sudden-onset blindness is permanent. The Prize Patrol will probably never knock on my door so those thousands of dollars per week for life I was hoping to receive will have to come from somewhere else. Judy Clarke said “It was him” and an already-biased jury believed her without any supporting evidence, convicting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of an act of terrorism and giving him the death penalty as if they were God.
And now for the good news: The last item on the above list can be changed.
God is bigger than any problem. He is more powerful than the combined might of any nation, including the US of A. He is still calling the shots in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing and His purpose is unchangeable. In His perfect timing, He will raise up a person to play David against Dzhokhar’s Goliath and I now believe He has shown me who that person is.
I was still of the opinion that it had to be an attorney, even though the Bible story of David and Goliath makes clear the fact that when David went out to meet Goliath on the battlefield, he was not a soldier. Those who were soldiers looked on as a youth with a slingshot killed the fearsome giant. I eagerly await the day we see that happen in a court of law.
“But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.” 1 Cor. 1:27
It now makes perfect sense.
“I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images.” Isaiah 42:8
When God orchestrates the revelation of all that is hidden about this case, when He moves to exonerate Dzhokhar and sets him free, He alone will get the glory, not some brilliant lawyer.
While I am on the subject of “terms” tonight I want to talk about two I have been mulling over: coercion and jury nullification. I want to start with the definitions:
Coercion: The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another’s freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim’s reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.
Coercion is recognized as a defense in prosecutions for crimes other than murder.
Jury Nullification: is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don’t believe he or she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.
I want to make abundantly clear where I stand on all acts of terrorism. In my letter to Dzhokhar, which became blog post numero uno on this site, I said two things:
“I do not support or defend, on any level, the bombing of the Boston Marathon, or the violence that followed. I refuse to ever become like those whose actions I claim to hate by imitating their actions.”
“… I cannot and do not support or defend acts of violence upon others, whether they are standing in a crowd watching a race, or lying alone and unarmed, bleeding in a boat. I believe the violence surrounding your capture was as shameful and indefensible as that which was inflicted on the spectators at the marathon.”
For jury nullification to be needed, the accused first has to be guilty. So much for that idea… I believe Dzhokhar is innocent.
I am thinking something quite different now: a way to combine these two terms and put the government in the hot seat:
Coercion fits the picture of what the FBI does to people like Tamerlan, Dzhokhar and Ibragim, just to name a few.
I want to see this David rise up and accuse the United States government of coercion against Dzhokhar and Tamerlan, leading to the bombing of the Boston Marathon, the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, permanent injury to Dzhokhar, false imprisonment, the death of Sean Collier, Ibragim Todashev etc, etc.
If that doesn’t work, my next-most-hoped-for scenario would be for a new trial wherein a truly impartial jury evaluates the appalling lack of evidence and acquits.
And if that isn’t in the cards, maybe this is: That same impartial jury decides three things during deliberation:
1) That the mitigating factor “If not for Tamerlan, Dzhokhar would never have committed these crimes on his own” is true and
2) The truth of that mitigating factor renders the two possible sentences too severe and
3) Coercion should apply even to the crime of murder.
Once a jury reached those conclusions, jury nullification could occur. A jury like that could go home and sleep well, knowing they made a moral decision against an immoral law and an immoral sentence. I believe coercion should be applicable. If it were, the FBI would certainly have to change their recruiting practices.
Think all this sounds crazy?
How crazy is it that an unarmed boy who had never set foot on a battlefield (or in a courtroom) killed an opponent many times his size, strength and skill on a field of battle with nothing more than a slingshot…
David is waking up. The lion is beginning to roar:
You wake within me, wake within me. You’re in my heart forever…
And stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4