It has been a long, long road for me -from deeply held
pro-civil rights beliefs
to deeply held civil rights beliefs with deep contempt for
black political leadership
in the United States.
Trayvon Martin, whatever else one may say, despite the fact
that the trial judge
disallowed tons of evidence indicating that the young man
was a teenage thug
who valorized violence and criminality, was no martyr for a
cause. He was,
the evidence suggests, a punk with an attitude, of whom I
have met up with
more than one or two in life, in each case wishing they did
not exist.
Was Zimmerman a hero? Not hardly, and he seems to have
pressed things
further than he needed to, to make his neighborhood
watchman's point.
But it does seem that he acted in self-defense and that
the violent teen
who was in the process of beating him up was asking for
trouble,
more trouble than he could have anticipated, but rough
justice
nonetheless. I would have preferred a Chuck Norris ending;
we got a Charles Bronson ending. But this was not my
decision
to make and what happened, happened.
How any of this makes Trayvon Martin a hero, however,
escapes me entirely.
This is not how most black political leaders see it, and
not how the white Left
sees it, either. What little respect I still had for the
political "hard Left"
has now disappeared. Those people are fanatics, reverse
racists,
and irrational ideologues.
In all of this it also is notable how black interests were
seen by the Left
as the only conceivable legitimate interests. We can now
see what
the Left thinks of Hispanics: They
don't count, not when a choice
must be made between black and tan. This is the age of
political worship
of blackness, no matter how unfitting for any such thing a
black "hero"
may be, in Trayvon's case a complete farce as a 'hero'
figure.
There decidedly are black people who deserve recognition
for achievement.
But to extol a teen punk hardly qualifies for anything but
some sort of
stupidity prize. Yet the black culture of perpetual
victimization has
prevailed again. And the white Left has, also yet again,
made sure
that their black political allies play the victimization
role to the maximum.
There simply is no objectivity whatsoever on the farther
Left.
Meanwhile, on the Right, there is the usual total lack of
comprehension
of much of anything. There is no moral issue because this
is not about
abortion, there is no political issue because there is no
economic
advantage to be gained anywhere, and, when all is said -a
stereotype
but all too true- the Right is all about the economic
interests
of the well-to-do; end of story.
What does the Right think of how badly an Hispanic man was
treated
by the Obama-inspired criminal justice system? Uhhh, is the
Right,
like, supposed to care?
Disgusted in Oregon
Billy
============================
Criminal Defense Blog
The
Embarrassment Of The George
Zimmerman Verdict
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.
@:
RT @:
They need to APPEAL THIS VERDICT
AND GO TO THE SUPREME COURT
â—â—â— Don't Stop until Justice
is Served for T…
@:
Trayvon parents should appeal this
to the next level
@:
Trayvon Martin parents better
appeal this case! I would NOT let
nobody off for killing my child!
HELL TF NO!
@:
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
Some background before you
start beating on your keyboard:
1. I'm a criminal defense lawyer in
Florida since 1995.
2. I watched the trial. Had it on at
home, in my office, in the car. I
didn't watch it through updates from
the morons on HLN or CNN, most of
whom should be fired (more on that
later).
3. I know the
lawyers, on both sides, including
the civil lawyers for the Martin
family.
4. I did some commentary, and
declined commentary on media outlets
that were only trying to enrage the
public.
As 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.
You weren't there either. You don't
know what happened, exactly. As much
as you want to believe you were
there and know what happened,
exactly, you weren't, and you don't.
Not knowing exactly what happened
requires a not guilty verdict, no
matter how angry or outraged you
are. The jury didn't free Zimmerman
because they thought he was a good
guy or because they weren't sad that
a young boy was killed (jurors were
rumored to be crying during the
state's rebuttal), they found him
not guilty because the facts and the
law required them to do so.
The state had a crappy case, they
knew they had a crappy case. This is
why they assigned 3 career
prosecutors with a combined stat of
probably over 500 trials. Their
first problem was no witnesses to
the event. You would agree, wouldn't
you, that witnesses help prove
cases? Their second problem was a
tape that no one could agree on. You
know whose voice was on that tape? I
don't. The state never laid out,
point by point, what happened. If
I'm being asked to convict someone
of a crime, and I know the state has
the burden of proof, the state is
required to tell me what happened,
not just ask questions and tell me
"you decide" over and over again.
Juries don't make decisions because
they are mad, sad, angry, or feel
bad for someone's parents.
George Zimmerman is not guilty
because the law says he's not
guilty. You don't think it's right
that he killed Trayvon Martin, but
that's not what the law says in
Florida where we like guns more than
we like people. You have a problem
with that, do something to change
the law other than complain on
social media. I know, you're busy,
you won't. That's for others to do.
Five things I want to say in
closing:
1. Your cries for an appeal are
hurting my eyes. There is no appeal.
Stop letting the world know how
ignorant you are. If you don't know
criminal law or procedure, shut up.
Ask someone before you display your
stupidity to the world.
2. If you didn't see the trial, stop
criticizing the verdict, it just
makes you look stupid.
3. HLN, get rid of Nancy Grace and
Jane Velez-Mitchell. They are not
legal commentators helping the
public understand our important,
essential, and treasured criminal
justice system. Neither are many of
their guests who should never be
asked back. There are 95,000 lawyers
in Florida, there is no reason a
lawyer from another state who
doesn't know Florida law needs to be
on daily telling everyone "I don't
practice in Florida, I don't know
Florida law" just because they can
yell. Their daily display of drama
may be what you believe to be the
"First Amendment," but it is also
pathetic, and making people dumber
and angrier.
4. CNN needs to
send Sonny Hostin and Gloria Allred
packing. First of all Piers Morgan,
this is a criminal trial in Florida.
Why is the only guest you continue
to have on is someone from
California that doesn't practice
criminal law and is known for
representing, at press conferences,
women victims? What could she
possibly have to offer about this
case?
And CNN, especially Anderson Cooper,
get rid of Sonny Hostin. This woman
was a prosecution shill from the
beginning of this trial, struggling
to say anything positive about the
defense. Last night, after the
verdict, she said "justice took
the day off." She wasn't there to
provide commentary, she was shilling
for the state. She should have
disclosed from the begining that she
desperately wanted a conviction,
that way it would have been easier
to listen to her biased commentary.
She's terrible and should never be
asked to appear in the media again
when there is an important trial.
5. The media, especially TV, needs
to start vetting their guests. I
know these are lawyers with agents,
but they've never been in a criminal
courtroom, or at least not since
they spent a year as a prosecutor in
1978. Can you not find lawyers that
actually know what they are talking
about? Piers Morgan is asking Gloria
Allred what she would do in opening
in the Zimmerman case? I have a
better question, Gloria, when is the
last time you gave an opening
statement, in any case?
That's all I want to say, for now.
-- 