"There are uncanny echoes of the politics of Stephen Lawrence case in the acquittal on Saturday in Florida of George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, having assumed him to be a criminal."That comparison of the George Zimmerman - Treyvon Martin case to the Stephen Lawrence case is disgusting; the two cases are totally different. Stephen Lawrence and his friend were on a public street waiting to catch a bus; Treyvon Martin was wandering around inside a gated community on his own - just as several previous burglars had. Stephen Lawrence was attacked by a prowling gang of several youths armed with knives; Treyvon Martin died after an altercation with a single neighbourhood watch volunteer whom he allegedly attacked first. The lead officer in charge of the Lawrence case said he didn't even know he could arrest suspects on suspicion of murder, and this was one of the reasons for the charge of "institutional racism" levelled at the Metropolitan police; in contrast, the police officers in charge of the Zimmerman - Martin investigation seemed to have had full knowledge of the law and followed it dilligently.
And then there's that disgraceful episode in which an NBC editor misrepresented Zimmerman's recorded call with the police.
And then there's this, also from the same Guardian editorial (emphases added):
"The jury decided that the evidence did not exist to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Martin was an innocent victim, but that does little to discharge the police and prosecutor of their responsibility for finding and presenting that evidence."So the police and the prosecutors have a responsibility to find evidence to prove the truth of the Guardian's preconceptions? The Sanford police took Zimmerman's gun and clothes as evidence as well as statements from several witnesses and they held Zimmerman for five hours of questioning. Here's a paragraph from former district attorney, Elliot Felig reviewing the trial (emphases added):
"There were numerous other facts that emerged at trial to corroborate Zimmerman’s version of events, or undercut the prosecution’s attempt to portray Zimmerman as a racist vigilante. Murderers, for example, generally don’t summon the police to the scene minutes before their crime; they don’t commit a murder when they know the cops are on the way; they don’t make numerous voluntary statements without ever asking for a lawyer; they don’t have visible injuries that corroborate their version of events; and they don’t say, “Thank God,” when being (falsely) told by a detective that the whole thing was caught on video. But the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution also weakened its case."It really is outrageous that this case even went to trial at all - even the prosecution's own evidence contradicted their case against Zimmerman, it was ridiculous.
"It really is outrageous that this case even went to trial at all - even the prosecution's own evidence contradicted their case against Zimmerman, it was ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteRight. Because when you're walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and a pop drink and then someone older is following you in the dark you have nothing to worry about? Would you not defend yourself if you thought you were about to be assaulted? Perhaps you can explain why Zimmerman took it upon himself to physically apprehend Martin when the police told him not to in the first place? And let's face it, if Martin had been white and Zimmerman black he would much more likely to have been found guilty. The shame is yours Mike. The only thing you said that was accurate was in castigating the Guardian for comparing the two cases.
Oh spare me the sodding angelic little cherub with his skittles spiel. Martin was 6'2 and didn't look anything like that famous cute picture of him the media have pushed around. But the point - the only point - is simply this: there was no evidence with which to substantiate any charges against Zimmerman, therefore the case ought never have made it to trial in the first place.
ReplyDelete"Would you not defend yourself if you thought you were about to be assaulted?"
I would prepare myself; what I wouldn't do is sneak up on the supposed would-be assailant from behind and sucker-punch him, which is what Zimmerman claims Martin did, and to which claim there is no contradicting evidence at all.
"Perhaps you can explain why Zimmerman took it upon himself to physically apprehend Martin when the police told him not to in the first place?"
Ben, you've just made that up: Zimmerman attempted to follow Martin, the police officer on the phone told him "we don't need you to do that" (which is hinted advice not a legal command), and Zimmerman said "OK". After that, all we know for sure was that there was some sort of fight which ended with Zimmerman battered and bloodied and Martin dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. Who physically took hold of who first, we don't know - we only have Zimmerman's testimony, and Zimmerman says Martin sneaked up on him and sucker-punched him.
"And let's face it, if Martin had been white and Zimmerman black he would much more likely to have been found guilty."
Bullshit. The cops followed the letter of the law, held Zimmerman for 5 hours of questioning (without any evidence he had committed a crime, mind you) during which they tried to catch him out by feeding him false lines. So no - try this one instead: had Zimmerman's name had been Gonzales, then we wouldn't have heard of him because there'd have been no screaming and wailing from the race industry and the identity-politics gimps on the far Left.
"The shame is yours Mike."
No Ben, it's yours - you're the one making stuff up and refusing to face facts: there was no evidence with which to substantiate the charges against Zimmerman. The relevant legal principle here is "innocent until proven guilty" - and not only could the prosecution not prove Zimmerman guilty of racially motivated murder, they couldn't even prove that it was murder or that he had been racially motivated. There just wasn't any evidence. Not that that will stop the morons and their incessant screaming for blood camouflaged as "justice".
And I'll add something else (now that I'm back from walking the dogs): does it not seem odd to you that President Obama himself would comment on this case? And that he would comment on it, in the lead up to the 2012 election? Shoring up support among disaffected black voters, perhaps? And how about shoring up the white vote by playing the white guilt strings?
ReplyDeleteJust a conjecture - but other people have made the same guesses before me. And fuck it, I'll say it again: the case should never have gone to trial because there was no evidence to substantiate the charges, which is the very reason why the lead detective for the Sanford Police did not arrest Zimmerman, and he was only later arrested after the DOJ presumably "arranged" for his firing.
There really seems to be a state of mob mentality surrounding this case. No one can have differing opinions, on Facebook or Blogger, or wherever else, without being denounced. It's really scary lacking critical thinking there is now, and how differing opinions are used to paint the one who holds them as some sort of miscreant to be tarred and feathered later on.
ReplyDeleteMike, I do enjoy watching you selectively use the few facts we do know about this case to jump through hoops whilst avoiding the elephant in the room.
ReplyDeleteFact: Zimmerman had no 'duty' or 'responsibility' to apprehend or follow anyone. There's a big difference between Neighbourhood Watch and Minutemen.
Fact: Zimmerman was armed, Martin was not.
Fact: We only have Zimmerman's word for who started the physical altercation - That Martin can't defend himself is not a reason to just assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth.
Fact: Zimmerman had form and a police record in another state - for assault and battery.
Fact: Martin was walking home and talking on the phone with his girlfriend - where is the probable just cause for him to assault Zimmerman? - unless that is he felt threatened which is quite likely given that he was being followed at night.
Fact: In cases of Stand Your Ground, it is a proven statistical pattern that Black or hispanic defendants do not have the law interpreted in their favour to the extent of white defendants. There is a racial bias in the US judicial system.
Fact: Just because a not-guilty verdict has been passed, it doesn't mean that there were no problems with the way the prosecution made its case. In other words, you assume the not-guilty verdict came after the prosecution put forward its best case but from what I have read, that was not the case.
Fact: Martin is dead and was shot by Zimmerman - that is sufficient reason alone to bring a case, even if that case is then found to fall within reasonable use of force as per Florida's Stand Your Ground laws.
Fact: If the police tell you that they don't need you to do something to help them, it is pretty much an order regardless of your words games to differentiate 'legal order' and 'hint'. That something then went wrong is Zimmerman's responsibility because he disobeyed instructions from police. Zimmerman took the law into his own hands with no justification except his own internal logic that Martin was a threat based on his colour and size, location and time of day. If you're telling me Martin's colour in no way influenced Zimmerman's actions you're engaging is egregious self delusion.
Not 6'2, 5'11.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp
@Thoth
ReplyDelete"There really seems to be a state of mob mentality surrounding this case..."
See post above wherein I quote "RRS". What his comment touches on is the historically entrenched irrationality of the identity-gimps; whether by design of by accident, that is what they have become under the tutelage and meta-context conditioning of those in both media and academia: people possessed by the unreasoned impulses of socialized expectations and reactions.
@Ben
ReplyDelete"Fact: Zimmerman had no 'duty' or 'responsibility' to apprehend or follow anyone."
That's not a "fact" Ben, that's your opinion, and the reason you call it a "fact" is because you cannot distinguish between "duties" taken under coercion and voluntarily adopted responsibilities. Zimmerman was not legally required to follow Martin, but he felt like doing it because he was worried and angry about Martin being a potential burgler ('cos he looked like one - the age, the hoodie, and the behavioural appearance, not just the fact that Martin was black).
"We only have Zimmerman's word for who started the physical altercation - That Martin can't defend himself is not a reason to just assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth."
Zimmerman also had injuries to his face and the back of his head consistent with his account of events; specifically, that Martin had held him down to punch his face and beat his head on the pavement. Although the witness accounts are vague and somewhat conflicting, I am inclined to believe Zimmerman's account because it is consistent with the known evidence.
"Fact: Zimmerman had form and a police record in another state - for assault and battery."
That's not relevant. What about the jewellry - of "unknown origin" - found in Martin's bag on a previous occassion? Does that not sound like Martin had previous form as the thief that Zimmerman seems to have mistaken him for? Leave it out.
....
@Ben
ReplyDelete"Fact: Martin was walking home and talking on the phone with his girlfriend - where is the probable just cause for him to assault Zimmerman? - unless that is he felt threatened which is quite likely given that he was being followed at night.
The probable (un)just cause is - dare I say it? - the self-destructive culture of black teenage youths in the U.S. Now consider this: if you were Martin - with your bag of skittles and your pop - walking back to your Dad's girlfriend's house and you were aware that some strange man in his car seemed to be following you, wouldn't you just keep walking until you got back to the house and then close the door? Yes you would Ben, because you're not a street thug and you couldn't be one if you tried. Why didn't Martin do what you would have done? Because he wasn't like you Ben. He took the general purpose thug-solution to all problems and decided to administer a severe beating. Now whilst it is possible that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, there is no evidence to support this conjecture, but Martin was certainly kicking the shit out of Zimmerman before he was shot. Do you think maybe Martin chose to smash Zimmerman's head in because he was.... a thug? And because thuggish behaviour is constantly celebrated in "black culture" in the U.S.? Chuck D was always complaining about this.
"Fact: In cases of Stand Your Ground,..."
This wasn't a "Stand Your Ground" case - that law is not relevant here.
"Fact: Just because a not-guilty verdict has been passed, it doesn't mean that there were no problems with the way the prosecution made its case."
Eh? Of course there were problems with the prosecution's case - they didn't have one because they had no evidence with which to substantiate charges against Zimmerman.
"Fact: Martin is dead and was shot by Zimmerman - that is sufficient reason alone to bring a case..."
No it isn't Ben - why? Because all of the available evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's account of what happened. And as I've already pointed out, you don't even know what the relevant laws are to this case.
"Fact: If the police tell you that they don't need you to do something to help them, it is pretty much an order regardless of your words games to differentiate 'legal order' and 'hint'."
That's not a fact either Ben, and is contradicted by the testimony of the officer who was on the phone who explained that this was - in his own words - a "recommendation". I can't find the quote now for you because I'm running out of time, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
"That something then went wrong is Zimmerman's responsibility because he disobeyed instructions from police."
Right - you know that's the same mentality that would stop you from beating up a child molester you caught raping a small boy. You would have to call the authorities and wait for instructions, like a nice little pussy. I would beat the shit out of him.
"Zimmerman took the law into his own hands..."
Again with the lies - you have no way of knowing that. You are doing nothing more than presumption.
"If you're telling me Martin's colour in no way influenced Zimmerman's actions you're engaging is egregious self delusion."
You're not even comprehending what is being said to you - I am not saying it did or it didn't - I am saying that there is no evidence either way. Get this through your head Ben - there was no evidence! How many times? You can't reach conclusions without evidence, and you certainly can't try someone in court without evidence, never mind get a conviction.
I made an error concerning the 9-11 dispatcher who told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" - it was actually the chief of police Bill Lee who explained that this was a recommendation, not a legal command. Here is the quote:
ReplyDelete"Lee said the 911 directions asking Zimmerman not to confront the teenager are not mandatory instructions.
"That is a call taker making a recommendation to him. He's not under a legal obligation to do that, so that is not something we can charge him with," he said. " But it would have been a good outcome ... if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman never came in contact with one another."
The link goes to a CNN article from March last year.
The people who hate Zimmerman are trying to portray him as reckless (and maybe even evil) but I think Zimmerman was just a blunderer whose obvious incompetence far outweighs any malicious intent he may or may not have had.
ReplyDeleteJust think about it. Zimmerman is
1. Bad at not being creepy.
2. Bad at remembering street names (by his own admission)
3. Bad at verbally diffusing a confrontation.
4. Really bad at fighting.
Agreed, except that I would strike items (1) and (3) from the list on the grounds that "competence" for these things is contingent upon the other party's valuation, which is not something he can be held responsible for; "being creepy" is somebody else's judgement and you can only "defuse" (note: not "diffuse") someone who is at least somewhat willing to be defused. It might have been better if Zimmerman hadn't called the police: had he been more confident and just strode up to Martin directly with a smile and some polite excuse to talk to him to check him out, then maybe he'd have been reassured that Martin was who he was: just a big kid with some sweets. But then that's just me imagining what I might have done.
ReplyDeleteAs for the people who hate Zimmerman... clearly they were responding to a media narrative, which may be surmised as "white man shoots and kills unarmed black man, therefore white man should go to jail / burn in hell" etc. That pushes so many of the Left's icky little buttons: that disgraceful race industry they keep propped up, their insolent anti-firearm agenda and their never-ending demand for obedience - as evinced by Ben's totally baseless claim that "If the police tell you that they don't need you to do something to help them, it is pretty much an order..." I mean he clearly didn't even think about that, it was just reflex for someone like him.
More interesting is the fact that this case - without any evidence - even made it to trial at all and what that says about the politicization about the U.S. legal system and how it is "evolving".
"... the politicization of the U.S. legal system..."
ReplyDeleteIt's late and I'm tired.