Remember this Feeling

[Arkady]

This is probably my only first-tier post on the Zimmerman/Martin killing and trial since the story first broke. I'm generally not entertained by news coverage of crimes, so I didn't follow it actively enough to have any strong feelings about it. This post is more of a meta post.

Regardless of what you think really went down and how you feel about the the trial outcome, it's probably worth remembering this feeling, since it most likely puts you in the opposite camp as you're generally in when it comes to the outcomes of criminal trials. More often than not, when someone is fuming about a "clearly guilty" defendant getting off because the rules of our criminal law system are tilted heavily towards the defense, the person fuming is a conservative. I've heard a whole lot of rants, over the years, from right-wingers who despise lawyers who get their clients off on technicalities, or juries that let guilty men walk for cultural reasons (e.g., the OJ Simpson jury). And usually it's liberals, and especially black liberals, who are concerned about the system railroading innocent men to conviction in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, those accustomed positions are reversed for cultural reasons. Most conservatives have felt emotionally attracted to George Zimmerman, who acts as a cultural stand-in for them. And for the same reason, most liberals, and especially blacks, have felt emotionally attracted to Trayvon Martin, in whom they see a proxy for themselves or their children. And so each side finds itself in an usual position, and that could have some value, if we could make ourselves think openly about it. The value I see is not so much for this case, where people are so emotionally entrenched in their positions that reason has shut down, but rather for the next case, where people find themselves back in their more accustomed stance. Maybe the next time some black man stands accused of a crime based on strong circumstantial evidence, "law and order" conservatives will be just a bit more willing to allow the "reasonable doubt" standard to have the very wide breadth it's intended to have. And maybe the next time liberals will be more sensitive to how it feels to others when it seems our system is letting someone get away with murder.

Overall, this incident has been too ugly for much positive to come out of it. But, maybe there will at least be that.

 

[Colorforms]

The defense lawyer was right, this case should have never made it to trial. The only reason that it ever did were because of the media and the race baiters who saw this as a statement, first about SYG, and then about race.

Justice finally won out, but only after going through some serious hurtles. And still, the race peddlers and activists are looking to the DOJ to find something that will justify their continued persecution of Zimmerman.

 

[Arkady]

The defense lawyer was right, this case should have never made it to trial. The only reason that it ever did were because of the media and the race baiters who saw this as a statement, first about SYG, and then about race.

Justice finally won out, but only after going through some serious hurtles. And still, the race peddlers and activists are looking to the DOJ to find something that will justify their continued persecution of Zimmerman.

Of course the case should have made it to trial. An armed man stalked and then killed an unarmed child. The question of what happened, in the key minutes between when he decided to stalk the kid, and when he killed him, were matters that might have been resolved, beyond a reasonable doubt, by examining all the evidence and asking the witnesses questions under oath. Ultimately, the six jurors decided it didn't meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but that doesn't mean they should never have been allowed to hear the case.

 

[Colorforms]

Of course the case should have made it to trial. An armed man stalked and then killed an unarmed child. The question of what happened, in the key minutes between when he decided to stalk the kid, and when he killed him, were matters that might have been resolved, beyond a reasonable doubt, by examining all the evidence and asking the witnesses questions under oath. Ultimately, the six jurors decided it didn't meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but that doesn't mean they should never have been allowed to hear the case.

I don't know what happened that night, and I am not worried about the details. What I have to go by is the actions of the police, who didn't charge Zimmerman initially. It was only after the press used its power to rile up certain sub-cultures did the police decide they were going to pursue Zimmerman further.
This incident was a tragedy, not just for Martin and for Zimmerman, who will have to live, not only with what happened, but with the fear that the left will take vengeance, but also for the rule of law and the justice system, which had to bow to the will of race baiters and hucksters.

 

[Drumcollie]

Overall, this incident has been too ugly for much positive to come out of it. But, maybe there will at least be that.

not true...there have been a lot of positives

1. You cant wait a month or two then have a video or audio faked (nbc/abc) to get a conviction...the truth has come out.

2. No one bought ito the Democrats race riot ideal

3. Even the Presidents words were positive.

4. The evidence did get to speak for itself

5. There was a shadow or more of doubt(like an eyewitness) and the correct decision was made in the face of lefty the Democrats demanding he be guilty

Though I give arkady this...you are right about what what you say:

Overall, this incident has been too ugly for much positive to come out of it. But, maybe there will at least be that.

if you look at it from the lefty point of view.

 

[PhilFish]

Of course the case should have made it to trial. An armed man stalked and then killed an unarmed child. The question of what happened, in the key minutes between when he decided to stalk the kid, and when he killed him, were matters that might have been resolved, beyond a reasonable doubt, by examining all the evidence and asking the witnesses questions under oath. Ultimately, the six jurors decided it didn't meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but that doesn't mean they should never have been allowed to hear the case.

Your top post is an excellent assessment of the unusual positions the respective sides find themselves in. I would add to it, that in any objective assessment of the situation strong feelings should be kept out of it...because where the judicial process does not play out and comport with the feelings ascribed...the one so ascribing my wind up drinking bitter waters. I would suggest that the term 'stalked' is one such strong feeling, incorrectly applied based on the objective information delivered into evidence in this case.

 

[marvin martian]

Your top post is an excellent assessment of the unusual positions the respective sides find themselves in. I would add to it, that in any objective assessment of the situation strong feelings should be kept out of it...because where the judicial process does not play out and comport with the feelings ascribed...the one so ascribing my wind up drinking bitter waters. I would suggest that the term 'stalked' is one such strong feeling, incorrectly applied based on the objective information delivered into evidence in this case.

I agree, it seems "stalked" was the word of the day at Daily Kos/Soros, Inc.

This, of course, despite the evidence presented in the trial and decided upon by the jury...

 

[fairsheet]

The defense lawyer was right, this case should have never made it to trial. The only reason that it ever did were because of the media and the race baiters who saw this as a statement, first about SYG, and then about race.

Justice finally won out, but only after going through some serious hurtles. And still, the race peddlers and activists are looking to the DOJ to find something that will justify their continued persecution of Zimmerman.

I agree that per hindsight, this one probably shouldn't have made it to trial. But...that it did, is partly if not mostly the fault of the Sanford Police Department. Their "investigation" was far too cursory for "the public" to have any confidence in their due diligence. It's the police department's obligation to instill public confidence in their actions.

 

[Colorforms]

I agree that per hindsight, this one probably shouldn't have made it to trial. But...that it did, is partly if not mostly the fault of the Sanford Police Department. Their "investigation" was far too cursory for "the public" to have any confidence in their due diligence. It's the police department's obligation to instill public confidence in their actions.

And what would have caused the public to feel that the police investigation was too cursory if not the media? This is kind of my point.

 

[fairsheet]

And what would have caused the public to feel that the police investigation was too cursory if not the media? This is kind of my point.

You lost me there, since I didn't need the media to convince me that the investigation was cursory. They brought Zimmy in, took his statement, and released him. That's cursory by most anyone's measure.

 

[Colorforms]

You lost me there, since I didn't need the media to convince me that the investigation was cursory. They brought Zimmy in, took his statement, and released him. That's cursory by most anyone's measure.

The only way we find out about what is going on is through the media. We can't be there, so the media has to be our eyes and ears. If we are given a false impression, such as "all they did was sit Z down and ask him a few questions", that is the fault of the media. It was obvious from the trial, that they did forensic investigation including the angle of firing, blood splatter analysis, and other such investigation, otherwise they would have never had it for the trial. This is stuff you have to do right away.

It was the agenda of the media to gin up a controversy, not to report news. That was obvious from the beginning.

 

[fairsheet]

The only way we find out about what is going on is through the media. We can't be there, so the media has to be our eyes and ears. If we are given a false impression, such as "all they did was sit Z down and ask him a few questions", that is the fault of the media. It was obvious from the trial, that they did forensic investigation including the angle of firing, blood splatter analysis, and other such investigation, otherwise they would have never had it for the trial. This is stuff you have to do right away.

It was the agenda of the media to gin up a controversy, not to report news. That was obvious from the beginning.

You seem to be missing the essential gist. Since the media is our "eyes and ears", the fact of the media being involved is a constant and a useless diversion on your part. Exactly what the Sanford Police did or didn't do, isn't the point. The point is that what they did do, didn't satisfy "the people". It was their obligation to satisfy the people.

 

[Colorforms]

The point is that what they did do, didn't satisfy "the people". It was their obligation to satisfy the people.

I disagree. It's the obligation of the police to find the truth. They did, but that truth didn't satisfy the people. The people, prompted by the irresponsibility of the media, demanded some kind of retribution. Even now, after all of the evidence is out, the forensics have been examined, and the case has been tried and a decision rendered, those same people still aren't satisfied.

This was never about Martin and Zimmerman, this was about prosecuting a "white" Hispanic over the death of a black man.

 

[Arkady]

Your top post is an excellent assessment of the unusual positions the respective sides find themselves in. I would add to it, that in any objective assessment of the situation strong feelings should be kept out of it...because where the judicial process does not play out and comport with the feelings ascribed...the one so ascribing my wind up drinking bitter waters. I would suggest that the term 'stalked' is one such strong feeling, incorrectly applied based on the objective information delivered into evidence in this case.

OK. No stalking. He hunted the unarmed child? He hounded him? He shadowed him?

 

[RickWA]

OK. No stalking. He hunted the unarmed child? He hounded him? He shadowed him?

Now you should change the term "child" to "youngster".

 

[Corruptbuddha]

This is probably my only first-tier post on the Zimmerman/Martin killing and trial since the story first broke. I'm generally not entertained by news coverage of crimes, so I didn't follow it actively enough to have any strong feelings about it. This post is more of a meta post.

Regardless of what you think really went down and how you feel about the the trial outcome, it's probably worth remembering this feeling, since it most likely puts you in the opposite camp as you're generally in when it comes to the outcomes of criminal trials. More often than not, when someone is fuming about a "clearly guilty" defendant getting off because the rules of our criminal law system are tilted heavily towards the defense, the person fuming is a conservative. I've heard a whole lot of rants, over the years, from right-wingers who despise lawyers who get their clients off on technicalities, or juries that let guilty men walk for cultural reasons (e.g., the OJ Simpson jury). And usually it's liberals, and especially black liberals, who are concerned about the system railroading innocent men to conviction in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, those accustomed positions are reversed for cultural reasons. Most conservatives have felt emotionally attracted to George Zimmerman, who acts as a cultural stand-in for them. And for the same reason, most liberals, and especially blacks, have felt emotionally attracted to Trayvon Martin, in whom they see a proxy for themselves or their children. And so each side finds itself in an usual position, and that could have some value, if we could make ourselves think openly about it. The value I see is not so much for this case, where people are so emotionally entrenched in their positions that reason has shut down, but rather for the next case, where people find themselves back in their more accustomed stance. Maybe the next time some black man stands accused of a crime based on strong circumstantial evidence, "law and order" conservatives will be just a bit more willing to allow the "reasonable doubt" standard to have the very wide breadth it's intended to have. And maybe the next time liberals will be more sensitive to how it feels to others when it seems our system is letting someone get away with murder.

Overall, this incident has been too ugly for much positive to come out of it. But, maybe there will at least be that.

It all racism. Nothing but. Pure and unfettered.

RACISM!!!

 

[ya-ta-hey]

This is probably my only first-tier post on the Zimmerman/Martin killing and trial since the story first broke. I'm generally not entertained by news coverage of crimes, so I didn't follow it actively enough to have any strong feelings about it. This post is more of a meta post.

Regardless of what you think really went down and how you feel about the the trial outcome, it's probably worth remembering this feeling, since it most likely puts you in the opposite camp as you're generally in when it comes to the outcomes of criminal trials. More often than not, when someone is fuming about a "clearly guilty" defendant getting off because the rules of our criminal law system are tilted heavily towards the defense, the person fuming is a conservative. I've heard a whole lot of rants, over the years, from right-wingers who despise lawyers who get their clients off on technicalities, or juries that let guilty men walk for cultural reasons (e.g., the OJ Simpson jury). And usually it's liberals, and especially black liberals, who are concerned about the system railroading innocent men to conviction in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, those accustomed positions are reversed for cultural reasons. Most conservatives have felt emotionally attracted to George Zimmerman, who acts as a cultural stand-in for them. And for the same reason, most liberals, and especially blacks, have felt emotionally attracted to Trayvon Martin, in whom they see a proxy for themselves or their children. And so each side finds itself in an usual position, and that could have some value, if we could make ourselves think openly about it. The value I see is not so much for this case, where people are so emotionally entrenched in their positions that reason has shut down, but rather for the next case, where people find themselves back in their more accustomed stance. Maybe the next time some black man stands accused of a crime based on strong circumstantial evidence, "law and order" conservatives will be just a bit more willing to allow the "reasonable doubt" standard to have the very wide breadth it's intended to have. And maybe the next time liberals will be more sensitive to how it feels to others when it seems our system is letting someone get away with murder.

Overall, this incident has been too ugly for much positive to come out of it. But, maybe there will at least be that.

Mr. Arky,

I think the difference is that liberals tend to root for minority criminals, not on the issue of the crime they committed, that being irrelevent, but more for they see it as the crime was not really their fault as society forced them into it.

This case, I think the more conservative here saw this case as not so much that Zimmerman was innocent, but rather, he was irrationally persecuted not on the merits of the case, but rather, due to pressure from a group wanting to make this case a cause celeb. Conservatives, as you know, take offense when they see injustice.

 

[GordonGecko]

. Maybe the next time some black man stands accused of a crime based on strong circumstantial evidence, "law and order" conservatives will be just a bit more willing to allow the "reasonable doubt" standard to have the very wide breadth it's intended to have.

I'm thinking "No".

 

[PhilFish]

OK. No stalking. He hunted the unarmed child? He hounded him? He shadowed him?

I will readily consent to such descriptors when you point me to the clearly delineated testimony reflecting same.

 

[Arkady]

Now you should change the term "child" to "youngster".

How about "infant". That's the legal term for someone who hasn't reached the age of majority.