Trayvon Martin Case

[B-Man]

"Reasonable people can differ on whether George Zimmerman committed a crime under the law.

 

Reasonable people cannot differ on whether there is evidence of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why prosecutorial discretion is so important, and that’s why this case is a travesty.

 

The original prosecutors were not so invested in the case. Only the false racial narrative put this case in the hands of those who want to win at all costs."

 

- Prof. William Jacobson

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

You spread fertilizer for a living...

 

The difference is, he gets paid to do it.

[boyst]

Dog, I am going to have to put you down. Come on out here, yell'r. Its time. You are done. Except no one is going to cry at this ending.

 

 

[Rolls credits]

jboyst

Dog

DC tom

3rd

Lybob

LA Bills

RLB

BMan

Chef Jim

 

 

Some animals were harmed during the making of this production]

[meazza]

Dog, I am going to have to put you down. Come on out here, yell'r. Its time. You are done. Except no one is going to cry at this ending.

 

 

[Rolls credits]

jboyst

Dog

DC tom

3rd

Lybob

LA Bills

RLB

BMan

Chef Jim

 

 

Some animals were harmed during the making of this production]

 

I don't even get an honorable mention?????!!!!

[boyst]

 

 

sent u a PM

no. Doesn't work that way. Outside of PPP when talking football you're still a Bills fan. I'll treat you the same as anyone else on TSW

 

There is no truce. This is PPP. I am hardly the most educated or knowledgeable on here and if I mispeak, as I have many times, I expect my arse handed to me. I realize I am responsible for my words and on PPP more so. That's why I seldom post. I don't know the top from bottom on most current events. They interest me but I do not know enough of the entire picture to converse on much of it.

 

However, when I do take the time to become knowledgeable and take the time to engage in conversation on a topic I do so using my own time. I try to be respectful of others opinions when opening conversation and approaching sensitive subjects.

 

You on the other hand, have shown disregard for the truth, an irrational thought process and the trumpeting ofa horn that yyou're tired of name calling and the gernal attitude toward you in this thread. Those actions are out of line and ridiculous.

 

If you want to call a truce. Which is hilarious because I am not concerned either way... then apologize to everyone here for the time you continue to waste on a subject which you know very little about. At that point I will consider you a man able to handle and swallow his own words. A truce is not a solution to this issue. Either one if us can walk away. I am doing so after this post. If you can't walk away or express yourself in a respectful manner then that is on you.

 

See you on TSW...

[Jauronimo]

20 pages later and I see you guys are still trying to talk some sense into dog. Why?

[boyst]

 

 

I don't even get an honorable mention?????!!!!

I am on my phone hard to get to all of it. I was going to try ti do it as

 

Reality - jboyst

Nancy Grace - dog

CNN commentator 1 - Lybob

HS reporter - RLB

Etc etc. Ran out of time and thumb energy

[Jauronimo]

Dog, what up?

 

I just made perhaps my last post to the PPP George Zimmerman case thread. The level of bigotry and hatred and BS name calling and insulting is ridiculous.

 

Would be nice to have a civil discussion on this case with people stating their opinions one way or the other.

 

Seems you and I have a pretty similar opinion on the case.

 

Will be great when TC starts in a few weeks and we can start talking football again!

 

Your friend,

 

 

I left the name off, but this is a PM I got from a friend earlier

 

 

 

This is my PM to jboy

 

I'll lay off all the snide remarks If you will. My late grandfather and much of my family on my mothers side farm here in Pa. Its a hard way to make a living.

 

I hope the weather improves for you.

 

dog,

 

I tried to get a truce for the sake of the board, so whos the real trouble maker here?

What should I take away from that PM aside from Ryan L Billz is just as ignorant and misguided as you?

 

You're still the trouble maker. If you don't like the heat, either inform yourself or stop posting here.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Jauronimo

[TakeYouToTasker]

You don't treat with stupid. You burn the !@#$ out of it with fire until it's gone.

[Maury Ballstein]

 

What should I take away from that PM aside from Ryan L Billz is just as ignorant and misguided as you?

 

You're still the trouble maker. If you don't like the heat, either inform yourself or stop posting here.

 

Haaaaaa....when's this sentence coming ?

 

We will see some real ignorance then.

[meazza]

Haaaaaa....when's this sentence coming ?

 

We will see some real ignorance then.

 

If the jury chooses to convict, then so be it.

[Jauronimo]

Haaaaaa....when's this sentence coming ?

 

We will see some real ignorance then.

They could sentence Zimmerman to life without parole and it won't change the fact that you've demonstrated no understanding of the facts of this case, law or common sense.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Jauronimo

[B-Man]

They could sentence Zimmerman to life without parole and it won't change the fact that you've demonstrated no understanding of the facts of this case, law or common sense.

 

As shown by his question,

 

He should have asked "when is the verdict coming?"

 

but, no one expects any real comprehension, just the same blustering............................

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Hey, have any of you idiots that keep swearing GZ should be convicted clicked on the thumbnail on the first post on this page (#2921). After looking at that, do you still hold the same opinion?

[boyst]

But all Trayvon had was iced tea and skittles. GZ had a semi automatic gun loaded over capacity! And, he got out of the car!

 

 

I read LI briefly at lunch. Looks like this Vietnam Vet really got in to some Schmitt over there as a medic. His testimony was clearly powerful. One of the legal experts on Twitter claimed he settled the case - no way this won't weigh heavy enough to get innocent on all counts.

[unbillievable]

Hey, have any of you idiots that keep swearing GZ should be convicted clicked on the thumbnail on the first post on this page (#2921). After looking at that, do you still hold the same opinion?

that map clearly shows that GZ got out of his car; which is a crime punishable by death!

[Just Jack]

that map clearly shows that GZ got out of his car; which is a crime punishable by death!

 

Crap, I get out of my car at least twice a day, glad they haven't caught me yet.

[3rdnlng]

that map clearly shows that GZ got out of his car; which is a crime punishable by death!

 

Shouldn't it be just as much a crime for dog to get out of his element?

[meazza]

Crap, I get out of my car at least twice a day, glad they haven't caught me yet.

 

Don't worry, we'll find you.

[unbillievable]

Despite all the facts, I believe this jury of six women will convict Zimmerman based solely on the fact that they will identify more with Trayvon's mom and will use emotion instead of logic.

[DC Tom]

Hey, have any of you idiots that keep swearing GZ should be convicted clicked on the thumbnail on the first post on this page (#2921). After looking at that, do you still hold the same opinion?

 

Completely useless without some sort of real timing attached to it.

[boyst]

Despite all the facts, I believe this jury of six women will convict Zimmerman based solely on the fact that they will identify more with Trayvon's mom and will use emotion instead of logic.

I believe I am the tooth fairy .

 

I disagree. She did not seem to display much emotion for someone who had their son gun downed by a depraved mind. Women are not always the most up to speed on news and rational thought but they usually are pretty keen on emotion and reading other women. I think they are as likely to see a little bit or more of the performance aspect she gave then anything. Her adding her son was in heaven and the part about him being killed is very sweet but I don't think it will resonate like it could have if she would have been allowed to say he was a good kid. And no one can say he had a bright future. He needed to change his life around. Maybe that is what he was going to get with his dad, we will never know.

 

But, even with my dress and heels on, I can't see how a woman couldn't dig in to her testimony and put rational weight in to it. And I feel for her I really do...

 

...in fact we have been talking a lot about it at work. I will share that later because this demographic here is amazing. Sybrina Fulton is just another victim of this case.

 

Edit. Just read that Tracy Martin said he had no doubts, that the voice was not his son. Per investigating officer who first played tapes for him.

Edited July 8, 2013 by jboyst62

[....lybob]

GZ said it was his voice screaming for help

 

GZ said TM had his hands over his mouth and nose trying to smoother GZ

 

no muffled or truncated cries for help on neighbor's 911 tape

 

if it was GZ crying for help then TM's cursing and now famous " You're going to die tonight mother!@#$er" was never loud enough to be recorded

 

BTW if any of you trial mavens know, what was the time lapse between the end of GZ's call to police dispatch and the beginning of the neighbor's 911 call

[boyst]

GZ said it was his voice screaming for help

 

GZ said TM had his hands over his mouth and nose trying to smoother GZ

 

no muffled or truncated cries for help on neighbor's 911 tape

 

if it was GZ crying for help then TM's cursing and now famous " You're going to die tonight mother!@#$er" was never loud enough to be recorded

 

BTW if any of you trial mavens know, what was the time lapse between the end of GZ's call to police dispatch and the beginning of the neighbor's 911 call

The suffocation was at the end when GZ finally drew his semi automatic pistol

 

And I believe it was just under 2 minutes. Or that may have been 2 between DeeDee and Trayvon to 911.

 

That night it was raining and all of the calls came from within a residence.

 

I don't think your argument is strong enough to hold more weight then those that are against it.

[3rdnlng]

Completely useless without some sort of real timing attached to it.

No, it shows that TM got all the back to his father's townhouse and safety before returning to the scene of the altercation, 400' away. This according to the prosecution's star witness. It also points out the limited distance that GZ traveled trying to keep TM in sight. Some of this information was gleaned from NEN call and tape and some of it from GZ's walk through. The most important part of this is that TM came back to the "T" and while doing so spoke very quietly over his cell phone. Why come back? Why hide your presence?

[Rob's House]

The defense motion for summary judgment should have been granted and if not for the political nature of this supposed trial it would have. Regardless of what verdict a handful of dupes too stupid to get out of jury duty return, it doesn't change the fact that the state didn't meet its burden. And everyone who knows the first thing about criminal law knows it. There is no way a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence, and therefore it should not go to a jury, but it will b/c the judge doesn't want the notoriety. It won't surprise me if the jury, either out of fear of backlash or on account of being comprised of people like dog or the well respected moron who PMd him who either don't understand the law (or just don't care) and are perfectly content to convict on a hunch.

[IDBillzFan]

GZ said it was his voice screaming for help

 

GZ said TM had his hands over his mouth and nose trying to smoother GZ

 

no muffled or truncated cries for help on neighbor's 911 tape

 

I ran into this kind of thinking at a civil trial recently. A woman interfered with an officer who was arresting her male friend for punching a couple of other girls in a fight. The girl approached the arresting officer, the officer told her to stop, she didn't and kept moving toward the officer while he was putting cuffs on her friend. Just as she grabbed the arresting officer's shoulder, his partner moved to push her off him while still providing his partner cover. The girl, with a few drinks in her and wearing stiletto heals, stumbles back, tries to catch her fall, cracks a small bone in her wrist and hits her head on the pavement, losing consciousness for 30 seconds.

 

Woman claimed excessive force. The problem is, she doesn't remember anything from the moment she grabbed the officer's shoulder. She had no eyewitnesses except, possibly, her friend who was getting arrested, and he never appeared in court to testify.

 

And yet of the 11 jurors, three of them were finding for the plaintiff because, as one of them put it, "I can see how an officer might use excessive force." What the hell does that have to do with the case?

 

Likewise, the state is trying to prove GZ murdered TM. And the thing people like you point to as proof for their case is the ridiculous contradiction that GZ said at one point he was screaming for help and at another point his mouth and nose were covered? Really?

 

I swear, some of you just sound so desperate to be right about this case that you have lost all common sense.

[Nanker]

I find it interesting that Travon's other father (not the one on the campaign trail) told two officers that the screaming voice was not that of the President's son.

 

 

 

I don't even get an honorable mention?????!!!!

 

You probably could but like me you're a bit reticent to engage the troll in direct conversation. I swear that's the way to handle trolls. Keep that in mind when the post conviction/acquittal riot of conflated self-important/irreverent indegnation spills over here with a tidal wave of new and seldom posters who will show up to put their graffiti on the PPP wall. It happened right after B.O. Got reelected.

[meazza]

You probably could but like me you're a bit reticent to engage the troll in direct conversation. I swear that's the way to handle trolls. Keep that in mind when the post conviction/acquittal riot of conflated self-important/irreverent indegnation spills over here with a tidal wave of new and seldom posters who will show up to put their graffiti on the PPP wall. It happened right after B.O. Got reelected.

 

I have engaged the trolls earlier in this thread but yes, now it's gotten to a point where the morons are trying to team up by PM so they can make an ultra idiotic comment as opposed to simply an idiotic comment.

 

But please let's keep the insults to a minimum because everyone deserves a trophy.

[B-Man]

The Zimmerman trial needs to be more about race! Quick, call the sociologist!

 

By Prof. Ann Althouse

 

The NYT frontpages this execrable article by Lizette Alvarez, titled "Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court." She begins with the assumption that the case is supposed to be about race. After all, that's the way it looked in the press when it was first reported.

 

But in the courtroom where George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder, race lingers awkwardly on the sidelines, scarcely mentioned but impossible to ignore

.

 

What does that look like — race lingering awkwardly and impossible to ignore?

 

It's a trial! There are rules of evidence, and there's the whole concept of criminal justice, which involves an accusation, based on specific law, about a specific incident and exactly what this particular defendant did.

 

It's not about larger narratives and how this might fit into a template that we think explains some larger social scheme. To suggest that it should and that something's wrong with the trial if it does not is to get it exactly backwards.

 

For African-Americans here and across the country, the killing of Mr. Martin, 17, black and unarmed, was resonant with a back story steeped in layers of American history and the abiding conviction that justice serves only some of the people

.

 

Seeing one event steeping in layers of history and within the context of abiding convictions is the very mechanism of prejudice. But the NYT is, apparently, sorry the trial isn't a festival of prejudicial thinking! How to write that up into an article? Call in the sociologist:

 

“

For members of the African-American community, it’s a here-we-go-again moment,” said JeffriAnne Wilder, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Florida. “We want to get away from these things, but this did not happen in a vacuum. It happened against the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before

.”

 

It's not awkward to shunt the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before to the sidelines during a trial. Rather, it's precisely what the judge and lawyers and jurors are required to do.

 

 

Yet inside a Seminole County courtroom, with the prosecution’s case against Mr. Zimmerman now over, race only occasionally punctuated the proceedings.

 

Yet?! No! Race should not be put where it isn't relevant under the rules of evidence. Punctuation like that would violate the norms of a criminal trial. The backdrop of all the other things that have happened before is reason for Americans — especially black Americans — to care about these norms.

 

{snip}

 

 

 

In the cocoon of the courthouse, even Mr. Martin’s bullet-scarred hooded sweatshirt, positioned for jurors in a clear plastic frame, appeared less a poignant symbol for the thousands who marched in his name than a lamentable but necessary piece of evidence.

 

 

For the NYT, the courtroom is a "cocoon," and somehow reality resides in the minds of the throngs who feel the poignancy.

 

Still, black pastors, sociologists and community leaders said in interviews that they feared that Mr. Martin’s death would be a story of justice denied, an all-too common insult that to them places Trayvon Martin’s name next to those of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and other black men who were abused, beaten or killed by police officers

.

 

This suggests that Zimmerman should be convicted because of the poignant feelings about all these other people.

 

 

“[Rachel Jeantel] was mammyfied,” said Ms. Wilder, the sociology professor, expressing disappointment over the reaction. “She has this riveting testimony, then she became, overnight, the teenage mammy: for not being smart and using these racial slurs and not being the best witness. A lot of people in the African-American community came out against her.”

 

 

I guess I need to look up the race-studies technical term "mammyfied." I don't remember Mammy — in "Gone With The Wind," for example — being dumb.* Interesting that it's the sociology professor promoting the use of stereotypes.

 

 

We should be rising above the stereotypes and treating people as individuals, and trials are designed to do that. This resistance to the workings of the criminal trial are truly deplorable, and it almost seems intended to exacerbate the terribly sad feelings of grievance that come from the larger historical context. Fair trials should be understood as a remedy for all the other things that have happened before. To present the fair trial as additional wounding is truly execrable.

 

 

 

.

Edited July 8, 2013 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

The Zimmerman trial needs to be more about race! Quick, call the sociologist!

 

By Prof. Ann Althouse

 

The NYT frontpages this execrable article by Lizette Alvarez, titled "Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court." She begins with the assumption that the case is supposed to be about race. After all, that's the way it looked in the press when it was first reported.

 

 

But in the courtroom where George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder, race lingers awkwardly on the sidelines, scarcely mentioned but impossible to ignore

.

 

What does that look like — race lingering awkwardly and impossible to ignore?

 

It's a trial! There are rules of evidence, and there's the whole concept of criminal justice, which involves an accusation, based on specific law, about a specific incident and exactly what this particular defendant did.

 

It's not about larger narratives and how this might fit into a template that we think explains some larger social scheme. To suggest that it should and that something's wrong with the trial if it does not is to get it exactly backwards.

 

 

For African-Americans here and across the country, the killing of Mr. Martin, 17, black and unarmed, was resonant with a back story steeped in layers of American history and the abiding conviction that justice serves only some of the people

.

 

Seeing one event steeping in layers of history and within the context of abiding convictions is the very mechanism of prejudice. But the NYT is, apparently, sorry the trial isn't a festival of prejudicial thinking! How to write that up into an article? Call in the sociologist:

 

 

“

For members of the African-American community, it’s a here-we-go-again moment,” said JeffriAnne Wilder, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Florida. “We want to get away from these things, but this did not happen in a vacuum. It happened against the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before

.”

 

It's not awkward to shunt the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before to the sidelines during a trial. Rather, it's precisely what the judge and lawyers and jurors are required to do.

 

 

 

Yet inside a Seminole County courtroom, with the prosecution’s case against Mr. Zimmerman now over, race only occasionally punctuated the proceedings.

 

Yet?! No! Race should not be put where it isn't relevant under the rules of evidence. Punctuation like that would violate the norms of a criminal trial. The backdrop of all the other things that have happened before is reason for Americans — especially black Americans — to care about these norms.

 

{snip}

 

 

 

 

In the cocoon of the courthouse, even Mr. Martin’s bullet-scarred hooded sweatshirt, positioned for jurors in a clear plastic frame, appeared less a poignant symbol for the thousands who marched in his name than a lamentable but necessary piece of evidence.

 

 

For the NYT, the courtroom is a "cocoon," and somehow reality resides in the minds of the throngs who feel the poignancy.

 

 

Still, black pastors, sociologists and community leaders said in interviews that they feared that Mr. Martin’s death would be a story of justice denied, an all-too common insult that to them places Trayvon Martin’s name next to those of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and other black men who were abused, beaten or killed by police officers

.

 

This suggests that Zimmerman should be convicted because of the poignant feelings about all these other people.

 

 

 

“[Rachel Jeantel] was mammyfied,” said Ms. Wilder, the sociology professor, expressing disappointment over the reaction. “She has this riveting testimony, then she became, overnight, the teenage mammy: for not being smart and using these racial slurs and not being the best witness. A lot of people in the African-American community came out against her.”

 

 

I guess I need to look up the race-studies technical term "mammyfied." I don't remember Mammy — in "Gone With The Wind," for example — being dumb.* Interesting that it's the sociology professor promoting the use of stereotypes.

 

 

We should be rising above the stereotypes and treating people as individuals, and trials are designed to do that. This resistance to the workings of the criminal trial are truly deplorable, and it almost seems intended to exacerbate the terribly sad feelings of grievance that come from the larger historical context. Fair trials should be understood as a remedy for all the other things that have happened before. To present the fair trial as additional wounding is truly execrable.

 

 

 

.

 

The prosecution today verbally combined "f'n punks always get away with it, he's black". He also played sections of the 911 tape and started one section with "he's black", not bothering to preface it with the dispatchers question regarding what color he was. He then proceeded to continually play the sections of the tape where GZ had mentioned "!@#$s" and again "!@#$ing punks". A couple of times he screamed it out afterwards. That's as sleazy a bunch of lawyers on the prosecution's side as you'll find anywhere. Guess where they and the defense lawyers stand politically? Not what you'd think.

[boyst]

The prosecution today verbally combined "f'n punks always get away with it, he's black". He also played sections of the 911 tape and started one section with "he's black", not bothering to preface it with the dispatchers question regarding what color he was. He then proceeded to continually play the sections of the tape where GZ had mentioned "!@#$s" and again "!@#$ing punks". A couple of times he screamed it out afterwards. That's as sleazy a bunch of lawyers on the prosecution's side as you'll find anywhere. Guess where they and the defense lawyers stand politically? Not what you'd think.

The best is how he, BDLR, comes off so foolish so easily and openly. A great example is taken from LI

 

BDLR’s typically sarcastic and petulant tone invariably emerged soon into his questioning of each witness. In the case of Sondra Osterman it was when he asked her, “Are you saying that George Zimmerman referring to “these !@#$s” means he wants to invite them out to dinner?” Sondra stood her ground, saying she didn’t believe Zimmerman sounded angry. That brought in this rather humiliating exchange for BDLR:

BDLR: “You don’t think he was angrey? But you weren’t there that night, right? You’re just speculating.”

Sondra Osterman: [laughs] “I guess we both are.”

 

Here it is. NSFW @ about 8:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Psl3_8Z3s&feature=player_detailpage#t=512s

Edited July 8, 2013 by jboyst62

[boyst]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/implosion-police-testify-trayvons-father-originally-denied-son-was-screaming/

 

Day whatever wrap up... for the working folks who started back this week.

 

- I cannot get over how perfectly Serino fits the cop image you imagine when you think of tough, gritty cop. His voice and dark features make him look like all the stereotypes you commonly see. The guy is not - well - someone I would feel comfortable with in a room alone.

 

- It is hard to imagine that a man is facing 30 years+ in prison and one of the biggest pieces of the evidence against him is a tape that may or may not sound like him.

 

 

Notes from work:

 

I talked to maybe a half dozen people in somewhat detail about the case.

 

The consensus, though, was that the older white women knew very little about the case. They did not know Zimmerman other then the guy on the news who killed that guy. Older white men knew about it - but not many details.

 

The black folks, though. Very interesting. Many have the opinion that they were not there but it sure seems like a lot of something going on. To paraphrase one woman, "well, I do not know if he did it or not but to have this much attention and to have killed someone he probably needs to do some time."

 

One of the more educated women - college educated - (white) was stunned when I stated that I did not feel Zimmerman would be found guilty on any counts the way the trial is unfolding. Another 20 something year old college educated guy said he does not believe the jury will consider the evidence strong enough to see the facts and only see what they want.

 

The most interesting thing I learned is that the black people knew the case a lot better then white folks. I asked 3 or 4 where they learned about it - I was confused. They learned about it at Church. I didn't go any further because getting in to religion is very dirty.

[reddogblitz]

Should be an interesting day in court tomorrow now that the toxicology test is in. Now the DA has to find an expert witness that says 2.5 nano-grams or whatever-it-s is not stoned. They usually probably would say the opposite if the perp was 2.5. And now the defense can bring in a witness saying 2.5 is stoned. Then they'll probably go on and on about paranoia etc. They'll say George was right, Trayvon was "on drugs" I wonder if they'll try to enter "Reefer Madness" as evidence?

 

Just for a point of reference, in Washington States new marijuana law they set 5.0 as impaired and you can be charged with a DUI.

Edited July 9, 2013 by reddogblitz

[bbb]

Has anybody heard Trayvon Martin's voice as a 17 year old? Since I haven't, I'm assuming he sounded like Barry White and they wouldn't want that to get out while claiming that it was him on the 911 call.

 

Seemed to me that O'Mara proved that either Tracy Martin lied today or that lawyer Crumb or whatever lied when he said what Martin had said - "the police lied about it" "a clearer version of the call" - which there never actually was.

[....lybob]

Long but interesting

 

[OCinBuffalo]

The Zimmerman trial needs to be more about race! Quick, call the sociologist!

 

By Prof. Ann Althouse

 

The NYT frontpages this execrable article by Lizette Alvarez, titled "Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court." She begins with the assumption that the case is supposed to be about race. After all, that's the way it looked in the press when it was first reported.

 

But in the courtroom where George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder, race lingers awkwardly on the sidelines, scarcely mentioned but impossible to ignore

.

 

What does that look like — race lingering awkwardly and impossible to ignore?

 

It's a trial! There are rules of evidence, and there's the whole concept of criminal justice, which involves an accusation, based on specific law, about a specific incident and exactly what this particular defendant did.

 

It's not about larger narratives and how this might fit into a template that we think explains some larger social scheme. To suggest that it should and that something's wrong with the trial if it does not is to get it exactly backwards.

 

For African-Americans here and across the country, the killing of Mr. Martin, 17, black and unarmed, was resonant with a back story steeped in layers of American history and the abiding conviction that justice serves only some of the people

.

 

Seeing one event steeping in layers of history and within the context of abiding convictions is the very mechanism of prejudice. But the NYT is, apparently, sorry the trial isn't a festival of prejudicial thinking! How to write that up into an article? Call in the sociologist:

 

 

 

 

 

 

“

For members of the African-American community, it’s a here-we-go-again moment,” said JeffriAnne Wilder, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Florida. “We want to get away from these things, but this did not happen in a vacuum. It happened against the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before

.”

 

It's not awkward to shunt the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before to the sidelines during a trial. Rather, it's precisely what the judge and lawyers and jurors are required to do.

 

 

Yet inside a Seminole County courtroom, with the prosecution’s case against Mr. Zimmerman now over, race only occasionally punctuated the proceedings.

 

Yet?! No! Race should not be put where it isn't relevant under the rules of evidence. Punctuation like that would violate the norms of a criminal trial. The backdrop of all the other things that have happened before is reason for Americans — especially black Americans — to care about these norms.

 

{snip}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the cocoon of the courthouse, even Mr. Martin’s bullet-scarred hooded sweatshirt, positioned for jurors in a clear plastic frame, appeared less a poignant symbol for the thousands who marched in his name than a lamentable but necessary piece of evidence.

 

 

For the NYT, the courtroom is a "cocoon," and somehow reality resides in the minds of the throngs who feel the poignancy.

 

Still, black pastors, sociologists and community leaders said in interviews that they feared that Mr. Martin’s death would be a story of justice denied, an all-too common insult that to them places Trayvon Martin’s name next to those of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and other black men who were abused, beaten or killed by police officers

.

 

This suggests that Zimmerman should be convicted because of the poignant feelings about all these other people.

 

 

“[Rachel Jeantel] was mammyfied,” said Ms. Wilder, the sociology professor, expressing disappointment over the reaction. “She has this riveting testimony, then she became, overnight, the teenage mammy: for not being smart and using these racial slurs and not being the best witness. A lot of people in the African-American community came out against her.”

 

 

I guess I need to look up the race-studies technical term "mammyfied." I don't remember Mammy — in "Gone With The Wind," for example — being dumb.* Interesting that it's the sociology professor promoting the use of stereotypes.

 

 

We should be rising above the stereotypes and treating people as individuals, and trials are designed to do that. This resistance to the workings of the criminal trial are truly deplorable, and it almost seems intended to exacerbate the terribly sad feelings of grievance that come from the larger historical context. Fair trials should be understood as a remedy for all the other things that have happened before. To present the fair trial as additional wounding is truly execrable.

 

 

 

.

This is why I asked the questions I did a few pages back.

 

It's already happening. They(the rational left who were looking to use this to fuel an agenda, the rational leftist media, the usual suspects) know they are going to lose, again. Unfortunately, they failed to learn from the Duke Lacrosse thing, and they think they have to do something, anything, desperately, again. (They will deploy the irrational left to do the something, as per normal)

 

This will blow up in their face, again, and I will at them, again.

 

Look at it this way: at least dog's idiocy appears to be about locking in to a faulty set of facts, and not wanting to face the ones we have now. That's merely unwise, and his focus appears to be on the trial itself.

 

No, the real scumbags(more blatant immorality from birdog's "party of the more moral") here are those that simply don't care about the facts, or the trial, are looking to manufacture the whatever is necessary to prove their delusion, and will stop at nothing to see that idiot delusion forced upon us, even if it takes a mob of irrational left cheering an innocent man being sent to prison, irrational left riots, or whatever else they can get their useful idiots to do.

Edited July 9, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Fezmid]

Now the DA has to find an expert witness that says 2.5 nano-grams or whatever-it-s is not stoned.

Is the DA allowed to call any more witnesses? I don't know court procedures, but I thought once the prosecution rests, the defense brings up witnesses, and when they're done, it's closing statements and off to jury.

[Fezmid]

Angry Trayvon game: http://www.neowin.net/news/angry-trayvon-android-game-sparks-outraged

[boyst]

 

Is the DA allowed to call any more witnesses? I don't know court procedures, but I thought once the prosecution rests, the defense brings up witnesses, and when they're done, it's closing statements and off to jury.

Correct. If possible the best the state can hope is to find a way to introduce a book or documentation stating that the amount is not a factor. However, since they rested they cannot introduce new evidence or witnesses. New evidence can be used in a certain way if the defense witness brings up the issue.

 

Say that said expert states "marijuana makes black men rape white women." And when asked by the state where that comes from - opinion or fact and the witness says he read that from a book publish by W Randolph Hearst in 1800something. The defense could introduce more lines from that book but not, necessarily, the book itself.