Wednesday, July 10, 2013

George Zimmerman's Trial

Instapundit did a great job here:
RACIAL HATEMONGERING ON THE TAXPAYER’S DIME: Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice’s Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests. “Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.”

So not only did we have a public statement by the President that might have tainted the jury pool, but now we find the Department of Justice was involved in, basically, organizing a lynch mob?

Related: Disorder: Judge Recesses Zimmerman Trial, Excludes Damning Evidence. “Trayvon Martin’s phone had hundreds of messages discussing criminal behavior, including trafficking black-market firearms.” So maybe the folks at DOJ felt they had something in common with him . . . .

UPDATE: “The Zimmerman trial says a lot about race in America — just not what the mainstream media want the story to be.”

Look at the residents of this ‘gated community’ who lived just in that one spot. It is more diverse than a Democrat photo-op. This neighborhood had young and old, Asians and blacks and whites and Hispanics all living next to each other in peace, but needing gates and a neighborhood watch to protect themselves from outsiders.
Without the race-baiters — now almost exclusively to be found in the Democratic Party and its media wing — Americans get along pretty well. And it’s certainly a more diverse crowd than at Obama Campaign HQ.
Posted at 12:57 pm by Glenn Reynolds
CNN is still referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic", apparently the only example of such in the entire history of the news service:
Florida authorities have a message as the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial looms: raise your voice, not your hands.

Anticipating that the outcome of the very public, and racially-tinged, case is likely to disappoint one swath of the population or another, law enforcement agencies have set up a response plan.

Part of it is a public service announcement that the Broward County Sheriff's Office released this week.

In it, a black teenage boy and a Hispanic girl urge viewers to "stand together as one. No cuffs, no guns."

 Zimmerman is a white Hispanic who is on trial for last year's shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a black teen, in Sanford city. Sanford is in Seminole County.
The effective lynching of that man, what he's had to suffer, it staggers the mind.

Update, 7/14/13:  The trial's over and there's plenty of good stuff on the internet, like this:
“So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it’s still white men’s fault.”

30 comments:

MikeAT said...

Is this the same CNN that last week published Zimmermann's personal data (SSN, address, etc).

When this is over, I hope he has a junk yard dog of a civil attorney who can put CNN and NBC into bankruptcy. And if this fans out, DoJ will have to justify their actions civilly.

mmazenko said...

OK, lynching is absolutely the wrong and inappropriate word. And, this trial is not about race. It's about a stupid and irresponsible decision that left an innocent person dead. Not murder 2, not even close. But most definitely manslaughter.

Hard to feel sorry for a man who is completely at fault for his situation.

Darren said...

It *is* a lynching, and it's *only* about race. Wishing it weren't so doesn't make it true.

Steve USMA '85 said...

For the record, Zimmerman is by current Government definition, "white Hispanic." Of course if they are pointing out race and ethnicity, one wonders why Martin is not referred to as, "black non-Hispanic."

And though I agree Zimmerman is getting lynched publicly, I don't think he is totally innocent of all wrong-doing. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to prove him unequivocally innocent or unequivocally guilty. I would not want to be on this jury.

allen (in Michigan) said...

I suppose convicting the man in the court of MSNBC while claiming it's not a lynching is an irony that, necessarily, escapes lefties.

But then if lefties didn't place their desire to pretend they're courageous opponents of racism as a greater good then the killing of someone who means nothing to them, they wouldn't be lefties. So Zimmerman's just got to be guilty, of something, anything, so lefties can enjoy the delicious pretense that they're exhibiting the sort of courage they're certain they'd exhibit were they faced with genuine racism.

The real tragedy, other then an innocent man being tried for defending himself against a violent, and unprovoked, assault is that there'll be essentially zero cognizance of the true nature of the lefties promoting this lynching - that they're spoiled, self-indulgent snots who reject any sense of responsibility for their actions.

MikeAT said...

Not about race? Tell me one other time the NY Times, the official propaganda rag of the radical left in this country, has ever referred to another human being as "White Hispanic"? Why did NBC et all immediately show only the picture of baby Treyon from 5 years ago when he was a kid in little league football, not the tatted high school pot smoking punk. And they only show a picture of Zimmermann from 6 years ago when he was booked. Or putting out a doctored audio recoding. No, not trying to set up a race issue here.

Also, manslaughter is a stretch:

“The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”

That punk Treyon “Obama” was kicking Zimmermann’s ass. The question for Zimmermann’s defense to raise is was Zimmermann in fear for his life or serious bodily injury. One that is there, deadly force is justified.

mmazenko said...

"Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people."

To adapt this word for general misperceptions, mis-portrayals, and miscarriages of justice is simply wrong. Lynching reflects the absolute nadir of race relations in this country, and to make a colloquialism of it is to dishonor the literal execution of many. It's as wrong as the mis-use of "Nazi" and holocaust.

As an English teacher and history buff, I'd simply but respectfully request the choice of another word.

Darren said...

I know what a lynching is. And this is a figurative version of one. Heck, *you* have already convicted the guy.

Darren said...

If guilt doesn't fit you must acquit :-)

mmazenko said...

MikeAT, I don't dispute that Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass. In fact, I suspect he was. And I don't dispute Zimmerman's right to self-defense. If you step up to someone and they respond with fists, you should defend yourself and fight back. But not with a gun. Not with instantl deadly force. Not in this case.

Zimmerman is a stupid, irresponsible, coward. If he decided to get out of his car and follow the kid, and the kid reacted, then the man should take his ass-kicking and wait for the police (whom he knew were on their way). Responding with a gun shot when a kid is punching you is gutless, stupid, and wrong. I can't imagine we want to live in a world where we endorse and even encourage basic fisticuffs turning to a gun fight.

Zimmerman had a gun and shot an unarmed man that he pursued. There's your "punk," my friend.

And, of course, I'm not "convicting" him in public opinion any more than others are acquitting him. Of course, we all form a judgement. It seems like manslaughter to me. But I respect the system and I will support whatever verdict is as a just and fair trial of his peers.

As far as the other comments - Should we not have opinions and leanings? Should we not be allowed to express them? If that opinion disagrees with yours, is it wrong to simply state it? Whatever. That's what these blogs and social media are all about.

Darren said...

I disagree that anyone should be required to get his ass kicked.

mmazenko said...

If you go looking for trouble, and you find it, and someone starts to punch you, you get to shoot and kill him and claim "self-defense"?

That's whacked.

MikeAT said...

mmazenko

This was not instant deadly force. Per the witness who saw him, Martin was going at Zimmermann MMA style. Zimmermann didn’t just take a punch, back off and fire a round in Martin. He was on the ground, getting his head knocked into the concrete and then there is a question of will Martin knock Zimmermann out.

A war story from my night field trainer. John’s was responding to a fight in progress call at a night club and he entered the door with his baton drawn. Immediately he was hit three times in the head and he was staggering. The guy who had greeted him was about to hit John again and he knew that would knock him out. At that moment John had reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury. He took the baton and cold cocked that POS across the head, knocking him out. A few seconds later other officers arrived and the situation was handled.

Why do I bring this up? What I have just read to you is a case in the legitimate use of deadly force. The standard is (and this is nationwide, not Texas or Florida) at the time of the incident (not with hindsight) did the person have reason fear of suffering loss of life or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person. This is judged as if you are in the position of the shooter. In John’s case above, the punk was ready to knock a cop out where he would be completely defenseless and he would also have access to John’s pistol, knife, etc. The grand jury saw that and they no-billed him.

Fast forward to February 2012. Did Zimmermann have reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury. Something to factor into this is Martin’s body only had injuries to the fist consistent with punching and hitting the ground (plus obviously the gunshot wound). Zimmermann has cuts all over the face and head, needing stitches in the scalp. Seeing Zimmermann was getting bashed against the ground could he have had fear he was going to pass out? That is for the jury to decide.

Now to the state. Let’s be honest, this is not a murder case. It’s a weak manslaughter case. Knowing that, why the hell is the DA making his job light years harder for no apparent reason. The initial investigation didn’t show enough evidence to arrest or charge Zimmermann. It wouldn’t have anything to do wit pressure to convict the man, or at the least (assuming he’s acquitted next week) say “Sorry, we did the best we could, but ...”

And if this is not about race, whey did B Hussein Obama stick his ugly nose into it, why is Eric Holder sending people to stir up riots, why are the Black Panthers shipping people to that city to protest? Please, to quote Fletcher from The Outlaw Josey Wales, “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining!”

You are entitled to your own opinions Mike, not your own facts.

allen (in Michigan) said...

You figure you place yourself on the side of the angels more firmly by spewing fierce invective at George Zimmerman? Hardly. Insulting Mr. Zimmerman is neither evidence of Mr. Zimmerman's guilt nor you courage.

Trayvon Martin bears the full responsibility for his own death and no amount of name-calling of Zimmerman changes that fact.

All Martin would've had to do was continue on to the house in neighborhood in which he was living, unlock the door, enter and close the door behind him and he'd be alive today. He chose instead to lay in wait for George Zimmerman and violently assault Zimmerman.

Zimmerman was entirely within his rights to respond with deadly force to Martin's unprovoked assault and had things gone a little differently it would've been Trayvon Martin on trial for the murder of George Zimmerman.

Darren said...

mmazenko, go put on your hoodie and get ready to protest, to show your purity of soul and righteousness of cause.

mmazenko said...

You guys are nuts - and you are stating Zimmerman's "story" as if it's fact. "Lying in wait"? Whatever. Choosing to confront someone who is stalking you and who never identified himself as neighborhood watch is not and should not be a death sentence by gun when all you have are your fists. Where's Martin's right to self defense? All Zimmerman had to do was stay in his car and a man wouldn't have died. This vigilante justice is shocking - and surprising for a cop to condone it. Yes, Martin was getting beat up. I've been in the same situation - and I never would think the appropriate response is to shoot and kill someone from point-blank. Would Martin have knocked him out? Maybe. Would he have killed him? That's crazy. You're condoning a more - not less - dangerous world. One where laws and civil law enforcement are increasingly meaningless.

mmazenko said...

And, D. That's a petty shot.

I said I believe in the system and I believe Zimmerman has received a fair jury trial. And I will support either decision as just.

I will not be protesting or outraged by either verdict. I just think it's a damn shame that a kid is dead who didn't have to be. And if Zimmerman wasn't so zealous in his vigilante pursuit, and if such an irresponsible person did not carry a gun to make himself feel tough, then this would not have happened.

It shouldn't have happened. And it's a tragedy for all involved. It's a tragedy for Martin and his family. It's a tragedy Zimmerman made the decision he did. It will be a tragedy if he goes to jail. What a waste of two lives.

Tragic. And not justifiable. Nothing we should feel good about or condone.

Just tragic.

neko said...

"had things gone a little differently it would've been Trayvon Martin on trial for the murder of George Zimmerman."

But then we wouldn't be talking about it, because it wouldn't have made the national news -- because that story doesn't fit the narrative the media wants to sell.

Darren said...

Carring a firearm to make himself feel tough? Project much?

Maybe he carried it because the job he was doing might cause him to encounter unsavory people who might choose to do him harm. Maybe he's alive because he carried that firearm.

allen (in Michigan) said...

You guys are nuts - and you are stating Zimmerman's "story" as if it's fact. "Lying in wait"? Whatever.

No, we're not nuts. Although mental illness is one of the big three reasons that lefties like to cling to when faced with conservatives the prospect of dealing with disagreement being so painful that the only allowable explanations are mental illness, stupidity or evil.

So no, I'm not nuts. But I have to be nuts or my view point may have merit which you'd be obliged to consider. It's quite the little conundrum, isn't it?

Well, obviously it's not a conundrum for you. You'd much rather ascribe qualities to me which are nowhere in evidence then deal with the facts and reasonable possibilities of the case. If I'm not nuts then I may have valid points to make and where's that leave your assumptions about your own courageousness and splendid fairmindedness?

Not anywhere near as unquestionable as those qualities simply must be if you're to continue to think of yourself as a cartoon superhero who fights for all that's good.

But you're not a superhero and you're not fighting against evil. You're an ordinary guy who rants at the TV set and is unsatisfied with being ordinary. I'd suggest you look for explanations for the motives of those with whom you disagree other then crazy, stupid or evil but if you were capable of that exercise you wouldn't be a lefty.

mmazenko said...

He was patrolling a gated community b/c they had petty larceny/break-ins. He wasn't on the beat in SouthCentral or Chicago's South Side. That gun was completely unnecessary - and two people would be alive if he hadn't carried a firearm. George Zimmerman is the poster-boy for the avg person being too irresponsible to wield a firearm. And your WildWest image of sidearm projection is an illusion.

MikeAT said...

Taking Zimmermann's story at fact? May I quote myself:

Fast forward to February 2012. Did Zimmermann have reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury. Something to factor into this is Martin’s body only had injuries to the fist consistent with punching and hitting the ground (plus obviously the gunshot wound). Zimmermann has cuts all over the face and head, needing stitches in the scalp. Seeing Zimmermann was getting bashed against the ground could he have had fear he was going to pass out? That is for the jury to decide.

I’m not saying Zimmermann’s side of the story is completely true. I’m saying, as a matter of law, when you evaluate the use of force, you must look at it from the perspective of the defendant. Back to my friend John’s giving that POS a concussion with his baton. From the time he walked into the bar until the time he cold cocked him was about two seconds. Generally that’s what it is, a matter of a few seconds. A grand jury (or in this case a jury) must put themselves in that position.

Would Martin have knocked him out? Maybe. Would he have killed him? That's crazy.
Again Mike, the legal standard is not will the man suffer loss of life or serious bodily injury (SBI). It is does he have reasonable fear of loss of life or SBI. Zimmermann is on the ground, he’s getting his head smashed against the ground, he may loose consciousness. Once he is out, he is completely defenseless and Martin has already shown intent to cause harm. Now, trying to be objective, make a judgement call on that. I ask you because that is the position the members of the jury are in.

The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmermann did not have fear for his life or SBI. That is a fact of law. You may believe he didn’t, that’s your right, you are not on the jury. I don’t know for sure if Zimmermann was justified or not. However, I do know he was convicted by the race baiting industry because he was a “White” Hispanic (BTY Mike, you haven’t answered my question of whenever there was a reference to a “White Hispanic” in the NY Times or any main steam media organization for that matter, just saying) killed an innocent black boy. Remember, the pictures were only of a 12 year old kid from elementary school, not the tatted up juvenille delinquent with a record. For some reason the “objective media” chose not to show the pics of Martin from his Facebook page obviously large, shooting the bird, using the word “nigg#$” smoking pot. And they also showed a picture of Zimmermann from six years ago when he was booked. No, that was not an attempt to frame Zimmermann was it?

A little off the subject, but this may give you a bit more perspective. In Harris County (and several others I suspect) when a grand jury looks at use of force involving a police officer, the DA’s office shows video of how face a cop has to make a decision to use a pistol against someone with a knife. Not exactly the same, but it shows how fast decisions like this must be made. Again, these are police officers trained in use of force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

Luke said...

Martin would still be alive if he hadn't started beating a man who hadn't done anything but try to talk to him.

mmazenko said...

Thanks, Mike. I see your points, I just disagree, and maintain that it is a tragedy which shouldn't have happened, and Zimmerman deserves some accountability. I do believe he is receiving a fair trial and we'll simply leave it to the jury, as you've noted.

Allen, just a note if case you haven't inferred it over time (which is obvious from your comments) - I stopped paying any real attention to you long ago.

Ellen K said...

In a way it would be interesting if Zimmerman did get a guilty verdict because the appeal process would reveal some very interesting aspects to the case such as:
DOJ using funds to promote activism and community groups to go after Zimmerman
The president's own intervention in the case.
The refusal to allow a change of venue.
The various statements that were disallowed by the judge.
The actions of the judge in regards to trying to badger Zimmerman into testifying.
The failure to allow key evidence such as text messages and prior activities of Trayvon as a theif.
No real investigation to see if there was any correlation between Martin's visits to dear old Dad and burglaries, eight of which occurred just in that small area and five of which the perps were listed as young black males.

By the way, who, in their deepest grief, finds the time to trademark their dead son's name? This family has gotten a million dollars from the state and I'm sure they've gotten more from various news outlets. True, their son is dead and that is sad. But their son also was beating up a guy and evidently had a history of such activity. The media portrayal of Trayvon as some sort of saint is pure myth. As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

allen (in Michigan) said...

Allen, just a note if case you haven't inferred it over time (which is obvious from your comments) - I stopped paying any real attention to you long ago.

Now that is funny. You had to pay attention to me to ensure I know how little attention you pay to me.

The reason you "haven't been paying any attention to me" is because you have no response to make.

I hold up a mirror to you and since the mirror returns an image different from that you imagine it should you claim to see nothing. Of course you do see the image in the mirror but since it conflicts with your unrealistic evaluation of yourself you reject the mirror's image. You are courageous. You do stand for all that's right and fair. You are intelligent. Perhaps - almost certainly - brilliantly so. That's why you're always right in all the causes you espouse and why any contradictory information is simply wrong and can thus be ignored.

The preceding paragraph tells you why you shouldn't flatter yourself by assuming my posts are directed to you. That you're merely a foil and if my posts are directed towards anyone they're directed at other conservatives.

Fortunately for you and your like conservatives seem as uninterested in explanations of lefties as the reverse preferring identical explanations for your behavior as you do for ours and responding much the same way. Simple, self-aggrandizing explanations that appeal to the part of us that remains a child are inherently attractive.

But the past few decades have shown that's an attraction that's waning which is fortunate. Without exception lefty solutions aren't just failures they're inevitably damaging to those they're claimed to serve. It's impossible to even render a worthwhile guess as to how much better humanity would be had we not been afflicted with lefty solutions but the consensus that seems to forming is that we ought to find out.

maxutils said...

This whole case is nuts. First, there was little reason for Zimmerman to leave his car after having called the police. If he really believed Martin to be a potential burglar, he could have trailed him in the car, waiting for the police to come. And, race IS an issue, not on Zimmerman's part, but because I haver no illusion that had Trayvon been white and dressed exactly the same? There likely would not have been any sort of confrontation. Then ... the conflict ... from everything I have read/seen/heard, Zimmerman, at least under Florida law, had every right to shoot Martin after he was getting beaten-and I would hope the jury exonerates him. But: that doesn't change the fact that he killed a kid who apparently had no intention of committing a crime before being confronted. Zimmerman may be right under the law, but he's still an ignorant a-hole.

allen (in Michigan) said...

Oh, there's more that's nuts about this case then what you've enumerated starting with the clearly political motivation for the prosecution.

The cancellation of the grand jury makes it obvious that the prosecution wouldn't have cleared that hurdle were it allowed to be an impediment so, presto!, the grand jury is waived.

Then there's suppression of evidence in the form of Martin's previous run-ins with law enforcement and photos which would have made it a trifle more difficult to sell the "innocent child" tale which lefties in the media and elsewhere have been relentlessly pushing.

Then there's the firing of the information technology guy who wasn't quite on board with the suppression of that evidence by his boss, the state's special prosecutor.

Yeah, there's plenty nuts about this whole story with the responsibility for the excesses residing squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution.

maxutils said...

I heard of the news about the suppression of evidence and the firing after I posted ... it makes it more obvious that the prosecution was going for a politically palatble conclusion, and they, not the whistle blower should be punished. It still doesn't mean that the entire thing could not easily have been avoided.

momof4 said...

I have only seen one article that mentioned the possibility that Martin had and displayed "attitude" that night. Given the level of "attitude" displayed in the courtroom, by his girlfriend, it seems likely that he shared that trait and behaviors. His past record, Facebook page etc, make it even more likely. He could have simply said he was visiting his father and indicated his house. The other point which has received little mention is why he was there at all, when he normally would have been in school in Miami; school suspension. A 10-day suspension isn't usually given for no reason.