Interesting take on the trial by a FL defense attorney. Read it all here.
The result of a verdict today in a criminal trial is that everyone with a twitter or Facebook account gets to let the world know how ignorant they are of the criminal justice system. I know, First Amendment. But your ignorance shows again when you mention that. The First Amendment protects you from the government, it doesn't protect you on twitter or Facebook from people calling you out for your ignorance.
@A1Black_: RT @_surlySprite: They need to APPEAL THIS VERDICT AND GO TO THE SUPREME COURT ❗❗❗ Don't Stop until Justice is Served for T…
@34thwarrior: Trayvon parents should appeal this to the next level
@_CharNae: Trayvon Martin parents better appeal this case! I would NOT let nobody off for killing my child! HELL TF NO!
@_shVn: Trayvon's parents can appeal this verdict and try to get justice again! Lets pray they do and it turns out right this time! Rip
I must say, though, that beating someone's face in and pounding the back of his head into the concrete does not exactly sound like inviting someone to a birthday party. Maybe Martin was not trying to kill Zimmerman, but making him a vegetable is certainly not a good alternative. I have not heard of anything illegal that Zimmerman did -- Martin is another story.
ReplyDeleteZimmerman did not have to get out of his car? Oh, did he realize Martin was there? He did not have to have a gun? OK, so this guys answer is that honest citizens should remain locked in their homes afraid to go out because to go out, get attacked, then defend themselves, borders on the criminal? Must be nice for this defence attorney to live in his guarded, gated community.
However, many of his points were well taken. I remember seeing Gloria Alred on the CBC after the OJ verdict. She was asked if the prosecution would appeal the verdict. Her answers was, "Not in this country, they won't." To be fair in that case, though, the prosecution can appeal in Canada. Can't say I agree with that, but it is done here.
I didn't agree with everything either, Matt, but I thought his article was worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteParticularly with the race card being played once again with the Martin lawyers - pretty hypocritical after their presser following the "creepy a$$ cracker" testimony to assert over and over again that this trial is NOT about race.
Same bullshit as cited onn a previosu thread...
ReplyDeleteAs for the case, I think it's terrible that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. That's a tragedy. I don't think he had to shoot him, and had one or two things been different (he didn't get out of his car, didn't have a gun, on and on), we wouldn't be here. I keep hearing Trayvon Martin would have killed George Zimmerman, I don't think so, but I wasn't there.
Yeah, he wasn't there and he asserts priority because we weren't either. Well I've been in fist fights and gunfights and this little piss ant lawyer hasn't unless I miss my guess. He prefers conjecture. Does anyone realize what this acquitted, but not innocent concept portends?
I am disgusted with some of the "political" [social engineering] legal minds in my country. We are truly fucked if they rule. And, they do. We elected one. No me or you, but we none the less.
Ari, thanks for watching the trial so I didn't have to.
DeleteDid the prosecution actually offer a case at all? I.e., Zimmerman is lying; this is what happened and it demonstrates ill will and it's not reasonable to doubt it or was it completely a Chewbacca prosecution?
flo, I did think there were some good points - but the passage that bothers Ari bothers me as well...
ReplyDeletekeep hearing Trayvon Martin would have killed George Zimmerman, I don't think so, but I wasn't there.
Complete misdirection. The issue isn't whether Martin would have killed Zimmerman (which is completely hypothetical). Even less at issue is whatever the lawyer thinks.
The only thing which is the issue is whether Zimm reasonably believed that Martin was going to kill him.
The hypothesis that Zimm didn't believe this - that he coldly and calmly waited for his head and face to accumulate sufficient bruises under Trayvon's blows to convince the police and the jury, and then blew him the fuck away out of racial animus - is so ludicrous on its face that the prosecutor should be recognized for what she is: an out of control wannabe tyrant.
For the law blogger to play such misdirection games in a post about legal ignorance and what mattered at the trial demonstrates malice.
The new mantra seems to be "OK reasonable doubt but Z is still morally responsible". Nobody acknowledges Martin's culpability in the outcome.
A commenter on Popehat [one Wayne Borean vis a vis Nancy Grace's statist virtue rants] said:
Delete… Zimmerman may not have been guilty of murder. Ethically he was guilty.
My answer was ... "Pray tell, just what is "ethical guilt?" Will that be a real indictment category someday? Thought crime a reality?"
Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge(D – Ohio) said ...
... Zimmerman was found not guilty, he was not found innocent.
Presumption of innocence is now discarded once the righteous state files a charge? If acquitted of said charge, your innocence is no longer presumed?
This should scare every single one of us. I've had some experience with a "bring the guilty bastard in" justice systems. We are heading for that right here in River City.
It scares me. So does the DoJ's new website asking for "tips" on Zimm so they can pursue a civil rights charge against him.
DeleteThe CBC was making some outrageous statements this am along with the usual race-baiters. The 2 things that bother me the most about this is 1)the media-fed distraction from the issues that most concern me and 2) all this racial BS is making me downright hostile.
That's a good point, lewy, thank you.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's one reason why I respect the opinions here, you all give me some very good viewpoints to consider. So many public blog comments elsewhere tend to be nasty/snarky/obsequious/whatever so I don't learn much.
ReplyDeleteflorrie, you might want to take a look at a post that Glenn Reynolds linked today - William Saletan at Slate - link.
DeleteComes close to actually holding Martin somewhat culpable.
And offers what I think is a reasonable and non-hysterical opinion of what Zimmerman might have done wrong: that he failed to think about how his own actions (following on car and on foot) appeared to Martin.
In Saletan's reading, Zimmerman should have considered that he might be wrong about Martin - what if this kid's just kooky and high and isn't out to rob? Maybe I'm creeping him out?!
I actually haven't been keeping close enough tabs on the trial to have an answer to that one, but it strikes me as a plausible critique. Personally I go through the what if I'm wrong calculation about everything many times a day. It's a mantra of sorts. The more sure I am of something - the more circumstances appear to match a "pattern" that triggers some reaction - the more insistently I ask that question of myself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteApply Ockham's Razor to the Zimmerman v Martin issue.
DeleteAction ....
imgw:"http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/box_300x250/2012/12/03/PS_0.jpg"
And reaction...
imgw:"http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tn56hwlcf83jpg/k-bigpic.jpg"
KISS in action.
Martin had nearly four minutes to walk approximately 100 yards to his place of dwelling. He didn't. He came back to the place where Zimmerman was. No one was breaking any laws until Martin hit Zimmerman. Martin intentionally assaulted Zimmerman. End of story....for Martin the result was unintended consequences. It is pure tinfoil hat theory to suggest Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin. He was doing nothing I haven't done multiple times where I live.
DeleteDid you catch that last comment before I deleted it, lewy? Ouch.
ReplyDeleteGood night to all.
The thing that scares me about this case is that after living for years in a heavily Black neighborhood I know from first hand experience how quickly things escalate there. When something happens, you need to respond immediately. If you telegraph any hesitation or do the normal White guy routine (which is to put both hands up and say something like "hey, hey, hey, it's cool, man, it's cool", believe me seen it a thousand times), you're dead meat. Maybe the group will just beat and kick you. Or maybe, like the *many* cases I saw in Oakland, they'll kill you. It won't be international news, not even front page news locally, but you'll still be dead, dead, dead.
ReplyDeleteOne needs to respond with fierce determination and a signal that one is ready, willing and able to defend oneself. If that is done, and it's largely one-on-one, the situation will end with the Black guy doing the "its cool, its cool" routine. If he's with 5 of his friends, you're going to have to fight anyway.
If six "unarmed teenagers" are rushing at me, I am in reasonable fear of seriously bodily harm or death and have every right to respond with deadly force.
Which is why I simply absented myself from the situation. I will never, ever live in such a place ever again. And it's a big country and a big world.
I don't have the time or the inclination to worry overmuch about a failed sub-group or deal with them. This is where Zimmerman, the community man, screwed up. Where they are, there is no community, it's over. Move.
Or else one way or another you'll end up paying.
I know that this sounds awful, but it is also the truth, as the millions of Americans (and Brits, and French, and...) who have moved away from the issue prove, it's also the awful truth.
Move... or gentrify!
DeleteSee, e.g., Alberta St.
This whole subject turns my head around. I grew up in a VERY "diverse" tiny railroad town in the Arizona mountains. We didn't think we were "diverse". We were just friends; our mom's were friends, our dad's worked with each other. We were a community. Black, MexAm, white, Navajo, Hopi. We were all expected to get good grades, take care of the younger kids, do chores before and after school, and we all worked from the age of 13 or so. If we screwed up, SOMEBODY'S parents had us by the scruff of the neck.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm unable to approach this from a racial view. All I can see is bad guys/good guys. I don't have much experience with people like TM and his ilk. I've always located myself and my family around like-minded people, regardless of color.
I don't like TM, I don't like his girlfriend, and I don't like his "parents". Still, I wouldn't have exited my vehicle to follow him down the street, even with his hoodie, his tattoos, and his pants hanging off his ass. Had he entered my property, all bets would be off.
I'm not overly fond of GZ, but he's been handed a virtual death sentence by the MSM, the race-baiters, and Holder's "blacks only" justice department. That's wrong, it's scary, and it makes me mad as hell.
The rest of it I'll leave for keener (and more experienced) minds than mine. I very much appreciate all the comments and points of view.
"Race" had nothing to do with the case itself. Race has everything to do with the "politics."
DeleteIf you're prone to high blood pressure, DO NOT read this link.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s next for Rachel Jeantel?
Didn't raise my blood pressure at all. Her, and the cult of personality building up around her, surprise me not on whit.
DeleteLet her have her 15 minutes in the spotlight, it's probably the only thing she'll ever achieve for the rest of her life. Unless, and this is huge, she can pull herself out of and away from the plantation the libs have her living on.