Lawyers for the [Trayvon] Martin family now say the case is not about racial profiling or race.... Then why did Benjamin Crump say race was "the elephant in the room." Racial injustice was the core of their argument. It was always about race to them. Race was what they used to transform this local shooting into a case of national importance.Meanwhile, at Instapundit:
IT’S REALLY BEGINNING TO LOOK AS IF CHARGES NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT HERE: Neighbor, cop back George Zimmerman’s account of fight with Trayvon Martin.Watching much of the trial these last 3 days, I've come to believe that the prosecution is conducting a theatrical performance in racial reconciliation. It wasn't politically easy to decline to prosecute Zimmerman, even though the evidence showed he could not be convicted, so this prosecution was mounted to demonstrate to the public that Zimmerman should not be convicted. I'm not condoning this use of the power to prosecute. I'm simply observing what is happening. I think the trial is theater, and if it's done right — with people like Crump contributing what they can — the people who got stirred up in Act I can experience catharsis.
Remember Act I? It had that wonderful cameo performance from President Obama:
He told us this was "a tragedy." Catharsis "is a metaphor originally used by Aristotle in the Poetics to describe the effects of tragedy on the spectator":
In his works prior to Poetics, Aristotle had used the term catharsis purely in its medical sense (usually referring to the evacuation of the katamenia — the menstrual fluid or other reproductive material). Here, however, he employs it as a medical metaphor. F. L. Lucas maintains, therefore, that purification and cleansing are not proper translations for catharsis; that it should rather be rendered as purgation. "It is the human soul that is purged of its excessive passions."...In the end, one must hope, we will come into balance.
"In real life," [one scholar] explained, "men are sometimes too much addicted to pity or fear, sometimes too little; tragedy brings them back to a virtuous and happy mean." Tragedy is then a corrective; through watching tragedy, the audience learns how to feel these emotions at proper levels."
Posts
269 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 269 of 269"I see that people who never cop their mistakes and apologize have a lot of empathy for each other."
Bags, Bags, Bags. Watch out for the pimp hand.
@ aldabe killing someone that he suspected [of being a burglar] is not the proper reaction.
Errr... have you been following this?
Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he suspected that he was a burglar ... he shot him because Martin was on top of him bashing his head into the concrete, "pounding" him and smshing his face in.
He shot him to protect himself from being likely killed.
I've listened to some left wing radio lately, and they want this cold blooded killer put down. Maybe the prosecution knows they fucked up, but the fever swamps are overrunning their banks with pestilent revenge fantasy. There will be no acceptance of an acquittal, no catharsis, no healing, just another scab picked.
Or, something that was never theatre still isn't theatre but is perceived as theatre by those who don't have an accurate perspective.
the prosecutor's behavior is evidence of his awareness that he went wrong, and he's trying to get to the end of this wrong path and on to the rest of his work without having to own up overtly and with some reasonable dignity.
Kind of like Justice Kennedy! He knows Roe is a bad opinion. And his court is under fire. And he doesn't want to admit to any mistakes or overrule while under fire.
It would hurt his authority, his dignity, his status.
This is typical human behavior.
You may say he should do something more dramatically righteous
It's inexcusable for the people in power to avoid doing the right thing because it might cost them personally. I understand it. I agree it's human. But it's also deeply corrupt.
Maybe if I was in authority, I would be as deeply corrupt as this prosecutor or that Supreme Court Justice. But I'm not in authority. I don't have any power to lose. And so I am free to speak the truth as I see it. So why should I, or anybody, give a damn for the status of the powerful? Especially as they prosecute innocent people and decapitate innocent babies.
I realize many people would like to shine a harsh light on the prosecution and demand that he confess to wrongdoing.
If we can't trust our judicial system, if they are prosecuting innocent people or killing innocent people, and they are intentionally covering this up, of course we demand that he confess to wrongdoing. Why wouldn't we demand it? They demand that we abide by their laws!
And of course this is not a criticism of somebody who genuinely thinks Roe is right, or Zimmerman is a murderer. But if you're in authority, and you are intentionally doing the wrong thing, how is that not a criminal act?
"This is typical human behavior."
If so, then why don't we get people to handle these critical responsibilities that have some special training in ethics, the law, and the constitution, - people a little better than the typical unprincipled lowlifes among us.
I know and work with people all the time who say: "I'm sorry", "I made a mistake", "I used bad information", "I was careless", even "I was weak", and "how can I fix it?". These are typical humans too. I admit they aren't lawyers, but I can only relate the behavior of my own personal low-quality friends and colleagues.
Catharsis. You bet. When Zimmerman is acquitted, no doubt the catharsis displayed by the players who got stirred up in Act I will be a sight to behold.
Let's say you'd embarked on a life of crime and you wanted out. You probably wouldn't run down to the police station and turn yourself in. You'd try to extricate yourself from that life and cover your tracks.
You realize this analogy compares a prosecutor to a criminal?
Put on your prosecutor hat and tell me what he would say to a criminal who desperately tried to cover up his wrong-doing!
When the President himself (an attorney) Taints the jury pool in an official communication how can you blame any of the underlings for any wrongdoing?
When the President himself (an attorney) Taints the jury pool in an official communication how can you blame any of the underlings for any wrongdoing?
"Let's say you'd embarked on a life of crime and you wanted out. You probably wouldn't run down to the police station and turn yourself in. You'd try to extricate yourself from that life and cover your tracks."
No. My first concern would be to avoid causing more damage or hurting any more innocents, then I'd work on covering my own ass, but that's why I'd make a lousy criminal or prosecutor.
One man is suspicious of a young man. He is worried that the young man is going to get away before the police arrive. I don't doubt he was trying to do a good thing. Keep his community safe.
However the other man doesn't know any of that. He just knows someone is following him, watching him. When this man finally confronts him, maybe because the older man flashed a gun and he is scared, or maybe because he is full of testosterone - he fights back.
The fight goes bad, the young man dies.
Now the state pretty quickly decides that they aren't going to prosecute the man. Maybe that is the right decision.
But because the young man belongs to a group that has a long history of difficult relationships with the police, a group that feels that cops single them out, a group that feels that the large society feels that their lives are cheap -- a backlash occurs.
So it may be theater, but it is absolutely essential theater. The facts need to be laid out carefully and clearly so that people see that this matter was taken seriously and that the cops just weren't brushing the death of young man off as something inconsequential. If all this is a show trial to prove that Zimmerman is innocent, then it is money well spent.
And for all of this concern about Zimmerman and the treatment he has received, lets not forget Martin is dead.
You may say that none of this would have happened if Martin had just stopped and let Zimmerman ask his questions, however that same can be said that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman would have stayed in his car.
Some people say hurrah Zimmerman shouldn't back down, but what about Martin, why should have to back down? Why if a man is following you, watching you and finally confronting you, does he have to back down?
So if nothing else Zimmerman is on trial for making some bad decisions that left a young man dead. He may have been justified in killing Martin, but Martin wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman had just originally listened to the police. I am comfortable with this penance particularly if he is found innocent.
When people take those tweeters up on their ideas to go ahead and murder random white people, will they be charged with hate crimes?
but Martin wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman had just originally listened to the police
And Martin wouldn't be dead if he didn't sucker punch Zimmerman.
We can play this game all night, if you prefer...
Tom,
You're comfortable with Zimmerman's life being ruined, because had he done things differently he wouldn't have been unjustly accused?
@AA "There was no way he could go forward as a free man unburdened by what happened"
How do you know that?
And why is it the State's job to burden him more and then provide "catharsis" for something he did not do (murder)?
Never having shot anyone, I still understand it is a big deal, even in self-defense. And I am sure there are intense personal issues in one's psyche as being responsible for the ending of another person's life which are extremely challenging to come to grips with. It was not however an "accidental" shooting. It was a defensive shooting by all accounts so far.
How presumptuous of you to assume that he "could not go forward as a free man unburdened by that?" What -- without going to trial and being "vindicated?" Or -- found guilty and then shanked in jail? Wow. That eases his "burden."
How he deals with his burden, unless he unlawfully takes it out on others, is, frankly dear, none of your, or my, or the State's business.
George Zimmerman made a choice in which he chose to live either by wounding or possibly killing the man beating the crap out of him on the sidewalk.
It ended with the death of the guy who was "pounding" him into the sidewalk.
It is not the court of law's role to provided catharsis for the vicitm shooter or the one who was shot. (I resist using the world "victim" here for the pounder.)
I am sure Zimmerman will have a more difficult time sorting this out than he would have if the race baiters (including the POTUS and the MSM) had not become involved.
Thanks for nothing.
And Tom must think Martin was the Teen Angel© portrayed in the MSM.
The one that said GZ was a creepy assed cracker (or per AA, a creepy ass-cracker -- take your pick).
For the hundredth time, nobody did anything wrong until Martin tried to knock out someone who was not attacking him. That was the one and only illegal, or stupid thing done by anyone. You might want to include Martin's turning back to confront Zimmerman when he was already clear to go in his house from the rain, but he chose to confront instead. Zimmerman was heading back to his car. Again, there was only one mistake, and Martin made it, and it's called assault and battery, and that's dangerous sport.
Just because Martin is dead and we can't give him hell for doing something wrong doesn't mean we need to punish someone else just to get closure. Grow up.
@Saint Croix
What about this theory? He was pressured from above (who knows how high) and agreed to be a sacrificial lamb in the style of Susan Rice, with a nice kushy appointment to come as an assistant U.S. Attorney?
That at least makes more sense than what Ann is suggesting.
@Tom, you were right up to the second paragraph of your second paragraph. The evidence, including the evidence from Rachel Jeantel, is that Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon Martin and was returning to his car. Martin initiated the fatal contact by jumping Zimmerman from behind.
Martin could have gone to his father and bitched about being followed by a "creepy-assed cracker," but instead he decided he had been "dissed" and he tried to beat Zimmerman to death in order to steal his gun.
I think Zimmerman will be convicted of something. The minute I learned that his "jury of peers" was 6 women, I figured he's a goner. Women know nothing about what happens in fights between men. It ain't just hairpulling.
So I really haven't been following the case, because things like "law" and "evidence" don't really matter here. The fix was in when the jury was chosen.
But now I've learned that he has put on 120 lbs. What in the world was his defense team thinking? He's going to appear in court as being twice the size of Martin. That jury is simply not going to believe Martin could have been winning the fight. His "self-defense" argument will be rejected as ridiculous on its face. "Are you going to believe the testimony, or your lying eyes?" The eyes will have it.
"Michael K said...
...
"On August 4, 1992 a Federal Grand Jury after hearing evidence from federal prosecutors, indicted the four officers on charges of violating King's civil rights. "
Clinton was president, not Bush. Clinton, you know the guy who cleaned up Waco and Ruby Ridge and sent Elian Gonzales back to his daddy."
Would that be the same Clinton who was not elected until 3 months later (November 1992-August 1992) and not actually sworn in as President until January of 1993?
Althouse sometimes backs herself into weird corners, such as in 2008 when she ignored all the warning signs and voted for the National Socialist ticket. But this is a quantum leap beyond that, an exercise in clutching at straws whilst whistling past the graveyard. Just hyper-weird.
One might think that if catharsis was the goal, Journolist might get, say, CNN on board - but no, CNN is just lying about the court testimony, telling us that J. Good testified that he saw the "white" guy pummeling the black guy, when his testimony was that the guy on top seemed to be doing the pummeling, and the guy on top was black. Blatant lies and catharsis don't mix.
Althouse sometimes backs herself into weird corners, such as in 2008 when she ignored all the warning signs and voted for the National Socialist ticket. But this is a quantum leap beyond that, an exercise in clutching at straws whilst whistling past the graveyard. Just hyper-weird.
One might think that if catharsis was the goal, Journolist might get, say, CNN on board - but no, CNN is just lying about the court testimony, telling us that J. Good testified that he saw the "white" guy pummeling the black guy, when his testimony was that the guy on top seemed to be doing the pummeling, and the guy on top was black. Blatant lies and catharsis don't mix.
Tom - "So if nothing else Zimmerman is on trial for making some bad decisions that left a young man dead. He may have been justified in killing Martin, but Martin wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman had just originally listened to the police."
=================
This is a favorite talking point of the liberals and progressive jews orchestrating the media talking points that Serve the Narrative
Zimmerman disobeyed Police Orders!! If Zimmerman had ONLY listened to the Police on the phone Sweet Skittled Child would still be alive!!! Ergo, it's all Zimmermans fault. Convict him of murder for cop orders flouting!!
But we find out that the 9/11 calltaker and dispatcher has no legal authority, not a scintilla, to order or advise anyone.
The calltaker is a good, well trained civilian hired in to 911 services after working in a pizza parlor.
He has no police or medical training, but is good at his present job. He trains others to be 911 operators.
He testified that Zimmerman in fact was quite amenable to to the phone operator. That "we don't need you to do that" followed discussion where he said it was important that police know where the suspicious person was located when they arrive, Zimmerman interpreted that as needing to maintain line of sight on the moving Trayvon, then the operator said "we don't need you to do that" (meaning follow the thug). Whereupon Zimmerman said OK, and stopped following.
The Left, the progressive Jews in the media - and of course the racist blacks they agitated - don't EVEN have a leg to stand on in the "he disobeyed the Police"..if the phone operator HAD BEEN police.
Bullshit Talking Point to Serve the Narrative - any way you look at it.
Michael K: We might as well be in the Middle Ages with a heretic on trial. Or Massachusetts in 1640 with a witch."
Boy you got that right. I have often wondered what was wrong with people back in Massachusetts 350 years ago that they could believe old women could fly. But you see what people are willing to believe today and, as you say, nothing has changed.
But we find out that the 9/11 calltaker and dispatcher has no legal authority, not a scintilla, to order or advise anyone.
If I had a dollar for every time I have read that Zimmerman disobeyed the dispatcher's "order" not to follow Martin I could have retired 10 years ago. All the dispatcher said was "We don't need you to do that." It was more of an observation than an order. And even if it was an order, I don't know why anyone who was trying to keep his neighborhood from being robbed again would want to follow that anyway. No one ever said being a neighborhood watch volunteer was risk free.
I'm paying a lot of attention to the prosecutor's behavior, and I believe that he is doing a performance for the sake of catharsis.
You can't reason with some people, like Rosie O'Donnell who thinks George Bush blew up the twin towers.
This trial isn't going to help with those people. Those people already made up their mind, and the facts and truth do not matter.
This is merely kicking the can down the road, and I think it is vile that Zimmerman is being used to fix a problem of leftist making.
MSNBC, NBC, the race hustlers. These people should be ostracized, so there can be true healing.
I Just want to Say That Rabel Has Been On Fire lately. Like: Hot Fire.
Didn't see above a mention of a reenactment video at GretaWire. It answers a lot of questions about what happened that night. Yes, it was done by Zimmerman, so may be self serving, but it was done apparently the next day before he lawyered up. It is also consistent with the evidence we have seen at trial so far. I would suggest that anyone truly interested in the case watch it.
Thank you, Bruce.
Watch Bruce's link above. The most important info you have heard so far. You get a good feel for what kind of man Zimmerman is, exactly where it happened, and how according to the only real eye witness (Zimmerman). It's essentially him taking the stand. Despite being armed, he's lucky to be alive, and if the jury sees this, the self-defense is a done deal.
"When this man finally confronts him, maybe because the older man flashed a gun and he is scared,"
Pure fantasy. NO testimony has been given which supports or even implies this scenario. No witness reports that Zimmerman confronted Martin, no witness has offered anything to suggest that Zimmerman was likely to confront Martin, and "flashing the gun" is your fabrication.
Why, thank you, Master Beta.
@ Bruce --
Thanks for the video link.
Wow.
What the hell are they prosecuting this guy for again?
I am still comfortable with trial.
I still believe it is necessary to prove that either Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.
It is necessary because many blacks are suspicious of the police and they didn't believe the police pursued the matter because Martin was black.
Think Congressman Issa and his endless pursuit of Obama on any number of issues. He doesn't believe what Obama is saying. He continues to investigate. And even after substantial proof that he is on a wild goose chase, he continues. As long as he can keep investigating, I say let him investigate.
But you wouldn't tell him to stop, you wouldn't tell him to stop tarnishing the reputation of an innocent man.
No you wouldn't.
Zimmerman made several mistakes. He assumed a young black kid didn't belong in the neighborhood -- when in fact he did -- his father lived there. He began to follow this young man and was so wretchedly bad at it, that the young man was aware of it and concerned enough to call and tell someone about it.
And since Martin didn't know who this guy was and why he was doing it. Maybe Martin got fed up and attacked as some of you are saying. Then fine, let these facts come out in the trial.
The problem is that it appeared that Zimmerman had been left off the hook the day after the murder after hearing only from Zimmerman. Once there was this appearance to judgement, then a trial was necessary.
A trial will show, at the very least, the death was investigated, all facts were presented, it was turned over to a jury and a verdict was given.
I realize many people would like to shine a harsh light on the prosecution and demand that he confess to wrongdoing. He knows that, I think, and he feels that light. But he's not going to give up. He continues, trying to get through his predicament with dignity and for things to work out in the end.
Can't he make a motion for dismissal? I understand it would be the end of his career and might lead to the riots everyone here seems to assume anything other than "hang him high" will trigger. But it would be the honorable thing to do, I think.
Can't he make a motion for dismissal?
Of course he can.
In fact, if Althouse is correct that he thinks (or has come to believe) that his evidence does not justify conviction, he is ethically obligated to do just that, without delay. "Your honor, the state moves to dismiss."
But, of course, Althouse doesn't think he's going to do that. Instead, she suggests, he will string it out to the bitter end. So that the sort of people who - like Tom - think that investigating suspected misdeeds of the executive branch of the US government is just like putting someone on trial for murder when you don't have good reason to think he's guilty - so that such people might have that ever-elusive "catharsis".
George Zimmerman's life is in danger because of this circus. Even if he is acquitted, he will always be in some danger. His life has been utterly and completely derailed. He has been vilified and worse by just about every fool on the Internet. But it is expedient that....
Ann, how naive are you? Let me explain to you the one overwhelming proof of Trayvon's martyrdom: 'He black.'
traditionalguy wrote:
The Courtroom is a community forum for a Greek drama where tragic events can be replayed for the public who then can go home chastened that life is complex and full of fatal character flaws found wherever hubristic men are found... blah, blah..
I trust TradGuy and everyone else who gains a healing purge from this farce writes Zimmerman a nice check for the entertainment. It's only fair considering how much Eastwood has made from The Outlaw Josey Wales.
The chances of racial reconciliation with Obama and the Democrat Party involved is close to zero. Both Obama and the Democrats need racial hostility to get their 90%-100% vote percentage from the Democrat vote plantations.
Think Obama doesn't play the race card early and often? Ask the Clintons.
Coming soon to a city near you, the Trayvon Martin riots.
“Enough is enough,” Henry Watson, one of a group of people to assault truck driver Reginald Denny in the opening moments of the (L.A.) riots, told KNBC in Los Angeles. “And you know, history has a tendency to repeat itself, you understand? So it’s boiling. It’s hot right now with the [Trayvon Martin] issue in Florida…. You can’t keep killing black folks. We’re not going to allow it.”
Indeed, the extent to which parts of America are still a racial tinder box may be tested by the outcome of the Trayvon Martin trial, Ben Crump, the Martin family’s lawyer, tells USA Today.
On Thursday, Mr. Crump, Sharpton, and Trayvon’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, attended a rally in Los Angeles.
"You want to believe change has happened" since the riots, Crump said. "We will get a more definitive answer when the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case is rendered."
Some people say hurrah Zimmerman shouldn't back down, but what about Martin, why should have to back down?
Why do defenders of this case keep bringing up the concept of "stand your ground," which has never been implicated in the facts or the case itself?
He was walking back to his car. Martin jumped him and he was on the ground. How would he back down? Climb under the cement?
Where I come from its unethical for a prosecutor to pursue a case that the prosecutor knows is not supported by the evidence. From what I have seen so far I don't see even probable cause for the murder two charge.
If the state needed political cover it could have presented the case to a Grand Jury.
What is notable in this case is the corruption of law that is being done for racial reasons. And we have seen this from our authorities for a long time, starting with the Supreme Court, who ignored and violated the equal protection clause, which forbids state racism.
And now we have a case of a man who is darker than Homer Plessy who has been locked up for a year because of his race, and is facing a murder two prosecution because of his race. And we have a mob of racists who are calling for his head. And this is ignored by our authorities, because our legal authorities--the Supreme Court--has told us all that this racism is okay!
Black racism is not okay. And this case is self-evident proof of that. This prosecutor is not the only one who should be embarrassed. This whole fiasco is a sham by the powerful who decided, years ago, that we have to single out black people for special treatment. And now these chickens are coming home to roost.
Racism has always been a particularly idiotic ideology because race is an arbitrary concept. Zimmerman is interracial--indeed, blacker than Plessy--and so the demonizing of him as white is seen as the absurdity it is. We see no "racial truth" here, just a sham put up by the state who is interested, first and foremost, in its own power. So the evil white man becomes a white Hispanic and then the subject is dropped altogether. While the prosecution is not!
The proponents of affirmative action have never explained why we wouldn't apply their racial doctrine to criminal sentencing. And now we are! Of course this is where it leads. And as we have racial mobs shouting for the head of an innocent man, I hope this circus makes our judicial authorities squirm.
I've been following the case by reading what Jeralyn Merritt of Talkleft has to say. What has really surprised me, is that when reading the comments they are all in unison that Zimmerman is getting railroaded. A lot of Althouse commenters have been a big disappointment.
Tom said...
Zimmerman made several mistakes. He assumed a young black kid didn't belong in the neighborhood -- when in fact he did -- his father lived there.
No.
Zimmerman assumed, correctly by the way, that Martin was acting "suspicious"
He never said anything about not belonging anywhere.
Do you have any interest in the facts of the event?
A trial will show, at the very least, the death was investigated,
The fact that the death was investigated was widely known last year.
Can't he make a motion for dismissal?
Not yet really. Trial has begun, and the prosecution is in the midst of presenting their case. Who knows, maybe they will present something devastating right before resting their case (unlikely because of disclosure requirements, since they had an ethical and legal duty to disclose anything useful or harmful to the defense to the them well before trial). When the prosecution is done presenting witnesses, it will rest its case, and then it will be the defense's turn. At that point, and subsequently in some jurisdictions, the defense can move for a verdict based on just the prosecution's evidence presented. One term for this is "directed verdict". Another is Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). I think that in major criminal jury trials like this, such a motion is routine. Also routine is the judge taking such unlder advisement. Now, if I remember correctly, one reason for this is that such a timely motion for a directed verdict is required in many jurisdictions for making a JNOV (Judgment non obstante veredicto or Judgment notwithstanding verdict) to set aside a guilty jury verdict. This is apparently necessary because of the 7th Amdt - the judge isn't actually setting aside the jury verdict but reconsidering a previous JMOL motion.
Never tried a criminal jury trial, but did do a week long civil one, and it was one of the most fun things I ever did as an attorney. After the plaintiff rested his case, I moved for a directed verdict. Seems they had forgotten to introduce evidence to support several of the elements in the jury instructions. Judge took it under advisement, I started to present my case, and after a bit the jury was dismissed for lunch. At that point, judge granted most of my motion, and told the other party that they would not be the prevailing party for legal fees, and maybe we could settle over lunch. We did.
The problem here is that by all rights, the judge should dismiss the 2nd degree murder charge after such a motion for directed verdict (or similar motion) because of a failure to provide any real evidence supporting the depraved mind element. (I think that there is some sort of final conference before charging the juy in FL to decide which charges the jury will actually get instructions for). And maybe even enough to overcome the defense's claim of a justifiable use of deadly force (I.e. self-defense). At least the latter will go to the jury, along with, at least, probably, the manslaughter charge, for political reasons. (Absent self-defense, Zimmerman is likely guilty of manslaughter, since he shot Martin and Martin is dead). Judges prefer that juries acquit, and esp. in a high profile case like this.
Sorry, with my last post, I assumed that the question was whether the defense could move to dismiss. The prosecution can typically move to dismiss their own case at any time. Agreement by the defense is a formality then,and if done after the jury is seated, double jeopardy has attached, so no later retrial by that sovereign. I think that you will typically only see such if there is some sort of major revelation during the trial that makes it clear to everyone that someone else is guilty - the sort of thing that Perry Mason invariably accomplished.
It is rare though, because for the most part, prosecutors rarely prosecute people they don't think that they will convict, because they have limited budgets and large case loads. But, then, this trial is political, and is thus one of the rare ones brought with weak evidence. And those same political reasons are why it is unlikely that the prosecution would do anything more than drop 2nd degree murder, leaving manslaughter. Much better, for them, to let the jury do their dirty work.
... the prosecution is conducting a theatrical performance in racial reconciliation.
For this to be accurate, you would have to insert the word unwittingly. The prosecution is the front for a rabidly racist lynch mob out to get "a creepy ass cracker." It is a typical Democrat move to pander to racism for corrupt political gain.
I am wondering if the gyno-jury might be beneficial if they are disobedient about not watching the news. If they see the nanny-cam video of Chastin doing a home invasion and assaulting a woman in front of her young child, they might have their fear and vulnerability aroused--and if they know that the police have no duty to protect us, they might see citizen volunteers like Zimmerman as a thin layer of protection that might be their only hope in a pinch.
Then blame Chastin for Zimmerman's acquittal.
Apart from watching the news, can a sequestered jury watch other TV? The nightly news often shows blips of upcoming stories during the commercial time in prime time. They might have seen the Chastin video that way.
Apart from that...what's playing on HBO and the hotel movie channels? Any themes that might arouse gyno-fear?
I think of this because I am a woman who lives alone, arthritic enough not to be able to run away, a new lifetime member of the NRA, with the full intention on getting help with purchasing a firearm and ammo and taking training to know how to use it. I also have great neighbors, but they are old too. They won't likely confront a situation, but call police, who are 20 minutes away. A lot can happen in 20 minutes.
A Zimmerman event in my neighborhood could have protected my person and property.
Tom: "However the other man doesn't know any of that. He just knows someone is following him, watching him. When this man finally confronts him, maybe because the older man flashed a gun and he is scared, or maybe because he is full of testosterone - he fights back. "
-- All evidence points to Martin starting the confrontation and that Zimmerman did not pull the gun till the last possible moment. Refigure your analysis of the night.
Wow.
You've breathed so many unicorn farts you've invented a new standard for hyperbole. Not jumping the shark but jumping the Little Green Football.
Anne, Anne, Anne ...
Just read your theory of racial catharsis.
Please.
I like your site and I understand that being a blogger means that sometimes you have to write something provocative to get attention, but that post was just embarrassing.
Original . . . "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Treyvon."
Possible update . . . "You know, if I had a son raining down MMA-style punches on some creepy-ass cracker, he'd look like Treyvon."
Michael K,
Clinton was president, not Bush. Clinton, you know the guy who cleaned up Waco and Ruby Ridge and sent Elian Gonzales back to his daddy.
No doubt someone else has pointed this out already, but in August 1992 GHWB was President. The election Clinton won hadn't even happened yet, and naturally he didn't take office until January 1993.
A comment from Legal Insurrection. Here's yer racial reconciliation.
caambers | June 30, 2013 at 8:58 am
On a local level, it was about getting Angela Corey re-elected. She had taken a bit of heat for how she had handled a high profile case involving a minority and she needed this case to re-bolster her standing in the community. It did just that and she was re-elected, unopposed by a Democrat opponent. Reminds me so much of the Mike Nifong/Duke Lacrosse case. He too was in an election race and that whole case was his chance to pander to the minority community. And we know how that worked out…for him….
***
(me again:) Sounds like a former female law student who understands the concept of winning and losing.
I just followed a link from somewhere to an article in the CS Monitor about the star witness turning into a "train wreck." Didn't bother to read it, actually, but my curiosity was picqued by a "How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case?" teaser for a "quiz."
Go take it, y'all.
What I found intriguing was it wasn't about the criminal case as much as it was about the extra curricular activities of the race baiting and / or "Justice for Trayvon" crowd, including LeBron.
Did I know LeBron had his team wear "hoodies" to support "change for Trayvon?" No.
Do I care? No.
Did I know how much money had been donated for Zimmerman's defense that his wife Shelley (?) "allegedly lied" about? No.
Do I care? No.
Do I know where the first "Millions Hoodie March" was held? No. (I guessed correctly since I figured Al Sharpton had something to do with it.)
Do I care? No.
Many of the questions were cultural buzz (black & lefty community, mostly) and did not have anything at all to do with whether George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in a depraved state of mind (for his Skittles®?) or shot him as a last resort while yelling for help while he was getting his head smashed into a sidewalk.
That? I care about.
And the misinformation is still appalling.
One question:
7. What did a police dispatcher warn Zimmerman not to do when he called to report a suspicious person
Follow Trayvon
Identify Trayvon by race
Get into a fight
Go back home
Any guess what the CS Monitor quiz writer thought you should answer here? Mmmm???
You know, I know I am at a disadvantage because I never went to journalism school, and wasn't even an English major, but how is it that the CS Monitor quiz writer who I guess, claims to be knowledgeable enough to write a quiz about the Trayvon Martin case (with a little help from Google®,) not see there is a difference between "WARN NOT TO DO" and "You don't have to do that?"
Obviously has not watched the video or even listened to or read the testimony of the "dispatcher" (-- who was not actually a police dispatcher?)
How about some "Justice for George and the American People?"
Ann,
When I first glanced through this post of yours, I dismissed the idea out of hand primarily because it would be so utterly unethical for the prosecution to have consciously engaged in such outrageous behavior, and, secondarily, because it would be virtually impossible for so many people at the State Attorney's Office to willingly participate in a conspiracy to pervert their sworn duty in this way, without at least one of them blurting, or at least leaking some evidence of it to the press.
The far more probable scenario for me was is that Angela Corey was the one who took this so far as a means by which to bolster her reelection efforts -- she needed to buy time, and was willing to push the envelop back in the spring. And, it worked for her. Her pandering demeanor at the press conference strongly suggested to me that she was rather openly trolling for minority political support.
Now, that does not make the two possibilities mutually exclusive -- i.e., there could possibly have been talk of subtly but clearly moderating their approach once it got around to the actual prosecution, which in turn "coincidentally" corresponded well with Corey's prior successful outreach to minority voters during her reelection campaign.
But it is no less infuriating.
So what does the prosecutor owe Angela Corey? (Or maybe he's on her "hit list"?)
I do think Trochilus and the other(s) who brought up the now absent Corey are correct. She is the worst of the worse. I think she is Republican or runs with Republican support ... but this doesn't buy her any cred in my book.
Some of her prosecutions have been disgusting. And wrong.
(And she definitely doesn't fit into the Scott-Walker-not-a-big-talker category.)
If GZ is convicted, how many people will die as a result? They will hesitate in the moment that they need to act to defend themselves. The Zimmerman Effect will mean that thugs assaulting innocent people are not to be resisted. Consider your sacrifice of your life a reparation payment for the entire history of racism. Thankyouverymuch.
TM did at least ten things that indicated his intent to assault and/or kill GZ.
1. circling GZ's car in an intimidating manner, with his hand in his waistband. (I seriously think any police officer would have shot him then and there.)
2. He removed the tea and skittles from the bag and placed them in his pockets to free up his hands for the fight, while approaching GZ's car.
3. He made it home (to the place where he was staying) then came back, hiding in the dark shadows, to surprise and confront GZ.
4. TM's initial question was to find out if GZ was a cop. When he immediately realized GZ wasn't a cop, he sucker punched him while GZ was reaching down for his cell phone to call 911.
5. Good's testimony shows that while TM was mounted on GZ, he scooched him up to the concrete sidewalk to get greater damage from the ground and pound (instead of being on spongy wet grass)
6. TM covered GZ's mouth and nose with his hands. That is corroborated by the pause in the calling out for help in the testimony of the earwitnesses and eyewitness (Good). If TM just wanted to shut him up, he would have only covered his mouth. He was trying to make him black out.
7. He reached for GZ's holstered gun in the inside waistband (IWB) holster once GZ's jacket slipped back, revealing the presence of the gun.
8. He announced his intention to kill GZ. Ironically this might have given GZ the split second he needed to reach for his gun.
9. He reached for the gun.
10. GZ still needed to restrain TM after the shot was fired and even asked Manolo to help him restrain TM when Manolo arrived.
Yeah Liz -- the circling the car thing TM did would have been unnerving in itself.
Of course, unless the trial includes that information -- and without the video or GZ testimony it won't ... (but I understand there might be some risk? Like GZ is going to be found to have added or altered something? Don't think so). We will see.
Maybe, if AA is right, the prosecution will enter the video this week to seal the acquittal? (Ha ha.)
WE will see.
The video is worth its weight in gold. There was no pretense, not attitude, nothing but a guy describing where he was and what he did.
JAL @ 6/30/13, 1:28 PM
Regarding the quiz. Yes, it certainly is a little misleading for asking, the question: "How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case?"
What does LeBron James having inducing fellow-players on the "Heat" to wear hoodies, have to do with the case?
Or, what does knowing how many people signed a petition demanding Zimmerman's arrest have to do with the case (Well, except, as a evidence of a possible impermissible inducement to Angela Corey to file the case without even going to a Grand Jury, when coupled with the fact that 6 months later she would be standing for reelection as the State Attorney!)
Or, who cares what House of Representatives rule of decorum Bobby Rush violated for wearing a Hoodie on the floor of the House? That was the stupidest question to me.
Or, what Hollywood movie changed its name in order to "avoid association" with the case? Wait . . . THAT was the stupidest question!
But, some people seemingly care about such irrelevant trivia.
Post a Comment