This is the column that I really do not want to write, but sometimes in this business, you have to do things you don’t want to do. You see, 11 years ago today, I made the best decision of my life – I married the love of my life, Cecilia. Little did I realize what the bonds of marriage would bring in the next 11 years.
Last night, I took my family to our favorite restaurant in Mendocino, Ravens’, out of cellular range. When we got back into cellular range, I got a bevy of alerts on the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I spent an hour or so reading my Facebook and Twitter feeds – anger and outrage. Some people were resigned, some were ready to take up action.
I figure today is a day I get a not-so-rare opportunity to anger every single reader’s sensibilities. The problem is that, while I am not a lawyer, after monitoring cases for three and a half years, I have started to think like a lawyer.
While I understand the outrage of my friends in this case, I do not share it with them about the verdict. Nevertheless, those of you who believe this is the right verdict need to understand something – there is no joy here in this case.
A young man named Trayvon Martin, who was just starting out in life, is dead. He didn’t need to die. That is both tragic and sad. George Zimmerman’s life will never be the same. He has been tried and convicted by huge swaths of the public. That is both tragic and sad.
Nothing in this verdict takes away from that tragedy and a guilty verdict would not bring Trayvon back, and despite what everyone would think, it would not bring closure to the Martin family other than for a brief moment.
The defense attorneys, whose opinions I have read and trust, never believed that Mr. Zimmerman would be found guilty of second degree murder. I agreed. I didn’t see this as a murder case. For all of the mistakes that Mr. Zimmerman made – and he made a ton that night – I never saw the true intent to kill with malice that would be required for a murder conviction.
I believed there was a good possibility that it would end up a compromise with a manslaughter conviction.
“The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley writes. “Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim? No. It does create added doubt on the question of the use of lethal force.”
Do juries make mistakes? All of the time, but in this case, I think the jury probably knows this case better than the pundits. Frankly, as I wrote yesterday, some should be ashamed of the things they said on the air, where others could hear them.
In a way, yesterday was a great day in America. Let me explain before you throw me down the stairs. The media and much of the public had tried, convicted and executed Mr. Zimmerman without trial and before the facts were known.
But the system of justice prevailed and a jury was able to look at the facts and determine that there was insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Zimmerman of a crime. And that’s what I think this verdict is – it is not an exoneration of him, but the facts could not support conviction and in this nation you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
That said, this will anger the other side of the aisle. There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. Had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman under the exact same conditions, he would have been convicted. No doubt in my mind.
I absolutely believe that race matters. That doesn’t mean I think that Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted because he was white. I think he was acquitted because the jury could not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him. However, with the reversal of race, the burden shifts slightly and evidence that the jury viewed in one light would have swayed them just enough to convict.
It is unprovable, of course, but the impact of race in this nation is no longer 100-0. Now it’s more like about 20%, just enough to change the outcome of a close case. It is a perverted sort of progress, but progress nonetheless.
Of course, no case is complete in this country without the inevitable fumble by prosecutors. So we get the story that the employee at the Florida State Attorney’s Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense – a Brady violation – has been fired.
So the prosecutor’s office commits an alleged Brady violation and then fires the whistleblower. How nice.
CNN reports, “In a six-page dismissal letter, the State Attorney’s Office, Fourth Judicial Circuit, blasted Kruidbos’ assertions and motivations. Managing Director Cheryl R. Peek accused Kruidbos of having erased data from a laptop in violation of the Public Records Law and derided his concern about being held liable as ‘feigned and spurious’ and ‘nothing more than shameful manipulation in a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law.’ “
She concluded, “Because of your deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office. Your have left us with no choice but to terminate your employment.”
I have seen a number of my conservative friends post on this outrage – all I can say is welcome to the club and understand that this is unfortunately all too standard a practice.
Legal reaction from Florida seems to believe that the verdict was the correct one. It is difficult to judge from across the country, in part because Florida law is vastly different with regard to self-defense.
So I found these opinions helpful, as printed in the Miami Herald.
“Justifiable use of force is one of the most difficult areas of the law,” Florida State Attorney Angela Corey acknowledged Saturday after Zimmerman’s acquittal. “Make no mistake, Trayvon Martin had every right to be on the premises as did George Zimmerman … that’s what makes this case unique.”
Jude M. Faccidomo, the former president of Miami’s Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the jury clearly believed in the right to self-defense: “Especially when cases are so gray, like this one was, self-defense really resonates because people can associate with being afraid.”
“After seeing the quality of the evidence presented by the state, the diversity of the jury really didn’t matter in the end,” said Larry Handfield, a prominent African-American Miami criminal defense lawyer. “But it would have helped the community in giving more credibility to the decision to acquit Zimmerman.”
Another interesting point comes from a Miami defense attorney who said that the closing arguments offered a role reversal for prosecutors and the defense.
“The initial summation by the prosecution was what you see many times from defense lawyers – passionate and trying to poke holes or raise doubts in Zimmerman’s version of events,” he said. “On the other hand, the defense accepted the burden of proof and methodically and dispassionately went through the evidence and the elements, much like a prosecutor would normally proceed.”
The acquittal vindicated O’Mara’s strategy. He not only maintained that the state hadn’t proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but riskily admitted he wanted to take on the “burden” of proving his client’s “absolute innocence.” He even wished, half-playfully, that the verdict form has a check box for “completely innocent.”
The report notes, “Under the law, the defense has no burden to prove anything. Only prosecutors must prove a case, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“I really like the strategy,” Markus said. “Many times, cases come down to whether you can show the jury that you really believe in your client. What better way to do that than to tell the jury that you aren’t relying on burdens of proof but instead that you believe he is innocent?”
Whether you are angry at the verdict or you believe this is justice, remember one thing at the end of the day – a young man is dead and he didn’t have to be. George Zimmerman may have walked out of court a free man but his life will never be the same.
There is no justice in this case. Cases like these make me wonder if there isn’t a better approach. It would be interesting to see how a victim-offender mediation would work out. Not now when emotions are raw, but some day. Maybe both sides can get a little bit back from what they have lost.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]That doesn’t mean I think that Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted because he was white. [/quote]
He was half Hispanic.
[quote]There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. [/quote]
You don’t know that.
“You don’t know that. “
Of course I do. Just like I knew exactly which parts of this column you would respond to.
[quote]There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. [/quote]
That should read ….in your opinion if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different.
[quote]Just like I knew exactly which parts of this column you would respond to. [/quote]
LOL, just as I knew you would try and turn the case into a racial thing and overlook the fact that Zimmerman was half Hispanic.
Technically it should read: “There is no doubt in my opinion…” but this is a commentary, that’s already implied.
” I knew you would try and turn the case into a racial thing and overlook the fact that Zimmerman was half Hispanic. “
I didn’t turn it into a racial thing, I made a very specific comment that had the roles been reversed, the outcome would have been different, noting it was a close call and that it would shift the calculus slightly. That’s hardly making it a racial thing.
BTW, of the 1400 words in this essay, only 225, four paragraphs were about the racial “thing”
I do not see this as a racial issue at all. My biggest concern would be that it may be interpreted by many as a vindication of a law that essentially places “justice” in the hands of the survivor of a homicide. Unless there were witnesses having seen the entire event from start to finish, how can one judge who was the initial agressor ?
What if what really occurred was that having been intimidated by Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was merely
“standing his ground” as apparently he has the right to do under the law. Would it not be reasonable to think that this would result in a few minor injuries to Mr. Zimmerman ? Unfortunately, we will never hear Mr. Martin’s version of events. I think that “justice” would be most served by re examining this law which essentially, by default, gives “victory” to the survivor regardless of intent or initial provocation.
DG writes: [quote][b][u]The problem is that, while I am not a lawyer, after monitoring cases for three and a half years, I have started to think like a lawyer.[/u][/b][/quote]
Yes, your thinking such a thing is a BIG PROBLEM!
[quote]”‘After seeing the quality of the evidence presented by the state, the diversity of the jury really didn’t matter in the end’, said Larry Handfield, a prominent African American Miami criminal defense lawyer.”[/quote]I didn’t watch too much, but I think the prosecution got “out-lawyered.”
I didn’t have much hope for a conviction after watching the original lead investigator sabatoge everything during questioning by both the prosecution and defense.
Then, it took overnight for the state to decide to (successfully) object to his “conclusion” that Zimmerman’s story was the truth. Poor witness prep or passive aggressive undermining by the local investigator?[quote]”There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different….only 225 (words), four paragraphs, were about the racial ‘thing'”[/quote]When the strongest contention of the writeup ties the verdict 100 per cent to race, it’s hard to argue that the number of other words mean very much (including a general “close case” followup about all cases).
I think this was really complicated and that the defense attorneys made the most of that. A conservative enclave in a conservative state, one which has a “stand your ground” defense to killing someone else–what a great start for a guy who is supported by the lone witness who claims to have gotten a good look at the action.
Combine this with “outside” investigators and prosecutors invading the community to reverse the locals who already had determined this was a righteous shooting, a prosecution team that didn’t seem to have a good handle on significant elements of the case or on a comprehensible prosecution strategy and the unknown effect on the jury of having the whole country watching.
Who really knows what tipped the “reasonable doubt” scale? And, who really can say that there’s “no doubt – none – zero – zilch” that there would have been a guilty finding if an African American would have shot a Hispanic under the same circumstances?
It didn’t take long to convince me that Zimmerman was a liar, a convincing one, but still. That would have carried over to his supposed account of last seconds of the shooting–except for the “who was on top” and “who beat who” questions and the only witness (who supported so much of the defense account).
I, too, was expecting a manslaughter conviction. After all, we convict parents who leave out loaded guns for their kids shoot each other. Or, drivers who recklessly kill others on the highway.
How can an armed adult (told to back off while following a minor) get away with killing him instead?
It’s that darned ol’ “reasonable doubt” at work, and it probably would have worked in this case even even if Martin had been the shooter and Zimmerman had ended up as a dead kid.
PS–Congratulations on your anniversary.
A lawyer-like statement? DG penned:
[quote]I believed there was a good possibility that it would end up a compromise with a manslaughter conviction.[/quote]
Compromise???? You can’t be serious, really?
At any rate, you were incorrect about another legal matter!
[b]Justice prevails, again![/b]
DG wrote:
[quote]However, with the reversal of race, [u][b]the burden shifts[/b][/u] slightly and evidence that the jury viewed in one light would have swayed them just enough to convict.[/quote]
WHAT!?
Prove up, please!
[quote]What if what really occurred was that having been intimidated by Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was merely
“standing his ground” as apparently he has the right to do under the law. [/quote]
You are confused about the concept of “reasonable doubt”. It is the prosecution, not the defense, that has to prove its case.
mw, this case was not about “Stand your ground,” it is pure self defense!
[i]”BTW, of the 1400 words in this essay, only 225, four paragraphs were about the racial “thing”[/i]
225 words of wrong can can cause people to ignore the 1400 words of validity. In fact, just four word would cause some people to lose their minds and go off.
A back story to this case is the media’s contribution to continued racial conflict. A larger and stronger teenage kid attacks an older guy that is patrolling his neighborhood to help prevent rampant property crimes, and the older guy shoots the teenager in self defense. There are so many things about that story that should be written about and discussed, but the media makes it a racial circus. George Zimmer is Hispanic, but white. Trayvon Martin is of course a young black man. So what? Why is race even injected into this story? If fact it had become the BIGGEST part of the story.
The Vanguard, because it is part of the media, shares responsibility for establishing and perpetuating our social and cultural dialog on the myriad of topics it choses to write about. It has a leadership position in this respect. When race is the topic, or even a piece of the topic, then race is injected into the minds of readers as being something worthy of consideration.
When will we ever move to a point in our civil rights march where race is not worthy of consideration and we become a society that truly does judge a man by the color of his character and the shades of his skin? Blame those in the media for slowing, and maybe preventing, that from every occurring.
[quote]”My biggest concern would be that it may be interpreted by many as a vindication of a law that essentially places ‘justice’ in the hands of the survivor of a homicide.”[/quote]Excellent point, medwoman. Even when there’s no “stand your ground” law, there’s the basic self-defense defense.
What would discourage anyone from lying when facing a murder or manslaughter shooting investigation or trial? A potential perjury charge?
The survivor gets to come up with any cover story that might get him off. And, there’s no one to speak for the dead guy, except to speculate. Fortunately, sometimes there’s forensics that can tell the story in some cases.
Angela Corey, Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury for allegedly falsifying an arrest warrant and the complaint that led to Zimmerman being charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.
[url]http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/07/florida-prosecutor-indicted-for-falsifying-arrest-warrant-against-george-zimmerman-2-2532594.html[/url]
Remmer: You think jurors don’t compromise in the jury room?
This whole case is why I don’t think men should be allowed to carry guns. Women? Sure. Loaded, concealed, I don’t care. Anywhere they want. But men? No. They can’t be trusted with them.
Having been on two jury trials, I can assure you that juries compromise. When they asked for further instructions about manslaughter, that’s where I thought they were going. I think they wanted to convict him of [i]something[/i], but not what he was charged with.
I don’t second-guess jury results, because they have different information than the public, and there is an internal dynamic that develops in the jury room. Juries do have a lot of latitude, and they aren’t lawyers. Once they begin deliberations, there are many subjective factors that come in to play.
JR
[quote]You are confused about the concept of “reasonable doubt”. It is the prosecution, not the defense, that has to prove its case.[/quote]
No confusion at all. I said absolutely nothing about the outcome of this particular trial and whether or not there was reasonable doubt. My comment was about what I perceive as the lack of justice embodied by the “stand your ground” law which, minus unbiased eyewitnesses, will have the survivor innocent by their own word.
I leave each reader to decide how many survivors would admit that they had been the initial aggressor.
This reminds me of nothing so much as the concept of trial by champion as in “Game of Thrones” where one on one combat to the death is used to condemn or exonerate a third party. The theory is that the “gods” will favor the champion of the innocent and will throw down the champion of the guilty. Sounds just…..right ?
AdRemmer
[quote]mw, this case was not about “Stand your ground,” it is pure self defense![/quote]
Unless, of course, you were Trevon Martin, and no longer alive to tell your version of the story in which you were exercising your right to self defense after being stalked and threatened while doing nothing more than walking through a public space.
“This whole case is why I don’t think men should be allowed to carry guns. Women? Sure. Loaded, concealed, I don’t care. Anywhere they want.”
Of all the arguments for and against carrying concealed weapons, this is the first time I’ve seen it broken down by gender. What an intriguing concept. It could open up a whole new line of ice-breaker discussion in singles bars. Instead of “What’s your sign?” it becomes, “What are you carrying?” If she were to say, “.44 Magnum,” I might just move on to another prospect.
[quote]When will we ever move to a point in our civil rights march where race is not worthy of consideration and we become a society that truly does judge a man by the color of his character and the shades of his skin? [/quote]
When we actually start judging people by their character and not the color of their skin or the way they speak…
[quote]this case was not about “Stand your ground,” it is pure self defense! [/quote]Am hoping your tongue was fully in cheek… a guy goes out, at night, with a fully loaded sidearm to “patrol” his neighborhood, as an ostensible member of a ‘neighborhood watch’ group… he encounters a “suspicious” person, in his truck, and is advised not to engage — police will respond. He gets out of his truck, with no indication a crime is “in progress”, confronts the ‘miscreant’, says who knows what, and the ‘miscreant’ responds in a ‘negative way’ (he was going back to his Dad’s, with skittles and a non-alcoholic beverage…)… things ‘progress’… our “hero realizes he has bit of more than he can chew, and kills the ‘miscreant with a shot through the heart… did he warn the ‘miscreant’ “back off, I’m armed”? No evidence to that effect. I’m thinking “no”. Was Mr Z justified/righteous in what he did? No. Was Travon ‘stupid’ for engaging the jerk and not just running/walking away? Yes. Did he deserve to die for his stupidity? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To GI and others who may feel this was a “justifiable homocide” (which, technically, it was NOT judged to be)…
A bully goes out to assert his manhood… he runs across someone he verbally threatens, and the recipient of the bullying gets pissed off (I know, @ 17-18, I would have been)… the recipient tries to ‘take’ the bully to teach him a lesson. The bully, without warning that he was armed, kills the subject of his bullying. For those of you living in Davis, if you think this is OK behaviour, wonder whether this could be possible in Davis… oh, yeah… we did have such a case, maybe not all the same precise elements, and a student was killed at DHS. Facts not much different, but the bully went to CYA, and the rest of the community piously have dedicated an annual award to his honor.
Trayvon is dead. George Z is free to live his life and profit from his “story” [new ‘poster child’ for the NRA?].
I don’t think the specific charges, were demonstrated beyond “reasonable doubt”, but to in effect say that Mr Z was perfectly “justified” in his actions (in which case you should argue that he was unreasonably prosecuted), please let me know, so I understand that you have no moral center at all… or at least a moral center I agree with.
AdRemmer, I checked your link. There wasn’t a real grand jury here, just a gang of folks Larry Klayman put together to advance his preconceived political notions[quote]:”Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the “citizens’ prosecutor” who presided over the Ocala grand jury….”[/quote]A “citizens’ grand jury”? Please….
[quote]annual award to his honor. [/quote]Should have read “to the honor of the victim”… my VERY bad
“Had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman under the exact same conditions, he would have been convicted.”
Under the [i]exact same [/i]circumstances? No, he would have been found not guilty as well.
Let’s get down to a couple of basic facts, but reverse the races.
George Zimmerman (Hispanic) was walking through a gated community (otherwise minding his own business) late at night, one that had been beset by a rash of burglaries. As he was standing on a random person’s lawn texting, he is spotted by the neighborhood watch volunteer Trayvon Martin (Black), who then starts following him. Black guy is a wanna-be cop who ignores dispatch’s advice to stay away, leave’s his truck when he loses sight of Hispanic guy. Hispanic guy calls a friend, and tells her that some “Creepy-ass N***er is following me.” Moments later, a fight between them ensues. Larger Hispanic guy beats smaller Black guy, breaking his nose and repeatedly slamming his head on the pavement in a “ground and pound” MMA fashion. Smaller Black guy shoots and kills larger Hispanic guy. On this set of facts, the jury would find not guilty.
Add into this drug use by the Hispanic guy, along with other facts that the jury wasn’t allowed to hear: Youtube posts by the Hispanic Guy demonstrating his violent tendencies and fighting prowess; texts by the Hispanic guy regarding drug sales, texts by the Hispanic guy discussing the illegal purchase of a gun.
In the end, under the exact same circumstances but with race reversed, the verdict would have been the same. The difference is, you would never have heard of this case in the media.
[quote]Trayvon Martin is of course a young black man. So what? Why is race even injected into this story? If fact it had become the BIGGEST part of the story. [/quote]
Because when it comes to our judicial system black men are treated differently. The media is not making up the racial aspects of this story, they are reporting on them.
[quote] You think jurors don’t compromise in the jury room? [/quote]For nthat to be a ‘fair’ question, have you served on a jury, and did you witness a ‘compromise’?
[quote]”‘This whole case is why I don’t think men should be allowed to carry guns. Women? Sure. Loaded, concealed, I don’t care. Anywhere they want’.
Of all the arguments for and against carrying concealed weapons, this is the first time I’ve seen it broken down by gender. What an intriguing concept.”[/quote]I suspect this modest proposal would have all kinds of statistical evidence to support it.
Time to replace the Second Amendment with the 28th: [quote]”Prohibiting Any Right to Bear Arms except Unlimited Packing for Women.”[/quote]
There’s a reason that Zimmerman went free immediately, and no charges were pressed. The evidence backed his story. It was obvious to all those investigating and the DA, etc, that it was a case of self defense. It wasn’t because of a bunch of racist law enforcement officers or prosecutors that tried to sweep it under the rug or somehow distort the facts that Zimmerman wasn’t charged.
The media and politicians decided to make it into something else. Pictures of a smiling 12 year old Martin were shown continuously by the media. Obama said it “could have been my son” that was killed. Special prosecutors were brought in to try and make something happen. When these prosecutors rested their case, then tried to get anything to stick (homicide, even “child abuse”) the underlying desperation and total lack of a case was made even more apparent.
It ticks me off that Martin was exploited by news organizations and politicians to make some sort of cause to rally behind or push agendas.
[quote]In the end, under the exact same circumstances but with race reversed, the verdict would have been the same. The difference is, you would never have heard of this case in the media.[/quote]
I disagree, if a black man on neighborhood patrol killed an innocent kid, I’m pretty sure he would go to jail.
hp feel free to cite official records to demonstrate the SYG law was put into record by the defense.
In order to understand why this is not a SYG case, you need to understand the state of Self Defense law in Florida prior to the passage of the SYG Act and the State of Florida Self Defense law now.
Will await your proof!
HPierce you said it just as i see it. I couldn’t say it better. What will be interesting will be to see if Florida changes Stand Your Ground or as Bob Dylan said “How many deaths will it take until he knows that too many people have died, the answer my friend is blowin in the wind, the answer is blowin in the wind.”
DG asked: [quote]”Remmer: You think jurors don’t compromise in the jury room?”[/quote]
DG are YOU suggesting this jury compromised?
If so just say it…
This was a case of two people in a physical conflict. The actions of both can be questioned. Only one of them survived and could be put on trial to receive justice. Is it really possible to establish justice for the other since they cannot be put on trial?
So I disagree that there was no justice in this case. It is just that there was only justice for one of the parties involved.
Justice does not mean the resolution of all conflicts. As this case demonstrates, there are circumstances in which it can be incomplete and unsatisfactory.
[i]”When we actually start judging people by their character and not the color of their skin or the way they speak…”[/i]
Sorry B. Nice, but that is a failed deflection.
That white Ukrainian family immigrating to this country and speaking in their native language and failing to put in the effort to be conversant in English… that is a behavior issue, not a racial issue. It speaks to character when a person does not put significant effort into attempting to assimilate into the customs and norms of the country they immigrate to. I’m fine with a bit of scorn for those that come here and expect us to cater to their language and their cultural customs. That is not racism… I don’t care where they come from, what color their skin it, what ethnicity, etc.. When you come to Rome, you should do like the Romans do. Lefties are apologists and full of white guilt and dislike America and they demand a promotion of multiculturalism. It is destructive to the country as it loses its basis of Americanism from sheer numbers. Culture matters. Immigrants flee theirs. Why the hell would we want them to import it here. Language is a major part of this. If you don’t speak the language, you cannot even understand the new culture. You cannot effectively participate in our public structures of democratic governance. Your employment options are limited; thereby ensuing you and your family will need public assistance.
Please name another major industrialized country that you admire that does as much to dismiss, ignore, discard and replace their traditional culture with such a flood of imported culture from other countries. Liberals on this blog admire all those Northern European countries that are 80%-plus homogenous. We are a successful melting pot country that has been admired by the rest of the world, but only because everyone melted into a core of Americanism and American culture. Liberals and idiot politicians are dismantling the very core.
There is only one bias that makes sense, and that is the bias of Americanism. Come here as a temporary worker then keep your culture. Come here as a permanent resident and figure out how to be American and do it.
” It speaks to character when a person does not put significant effort into attempting to assimilate into the customs and norms of the country they immigrate to. I’m fine with a bit of scorn for those that come here and expect us to cater to their language and their cultural customs. That is not racism…”
No its xenophobia.
[quote]Sorry B. Nice, but that is a failed deflection.[/quote]
I got the impression that you were making assumptions and judging people by the way they speak English (not that they didn’t speak English). Was I wrong?
[quote] It is destructive to the country as it loses its basis of Americanism from sheer numbers.[/quote]
What in your mind is “Americanism”? (besides speaking English)
[quote]Come here as a permanent resident and figure out how to be American and do it[/quote].
How do you be “American”?
Sorry, but I missed something here- who the heck is Trayvon and where exactly in Davis did he live?
Mr. Toad, there you go. Everyone that wants to discuss any negative aspect of open borders and multiculturalism is a racist and xenophobe. That is what you people do when you have nothing worthwhile to say… just call your opposition a nasty name, high-five your liberal buddies, and then sit back with a smug sense of intellectual superiority. At least you are consistent.
So, what country do you think is the model for US immigration policy? You liberals always demand facts and statistics to qualify each and every argument against those policies in conflict with your worldview. So, where are the examples we should model?
[quote] There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different.[/quote]
I’m not convinced that this is the case. Certainly you have not put forward any evidence.
However there is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed, there would be a completely different reaction from those who are claiming that Zimmerman should have been convicted.
[quote]Lefties are apologists and full of white guilt and dislike America and they demand a promotion of multiculturalism….
Please name another major industrialized country that you admire that does as much to dismiss, ignore, discard and replace their traditional culture…[/quote]
To me, America is multicultural. I don’t dislike America. I like many cultures, and consider them part of what it means to be an American. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by their (our) “traditional culture.” I probably define it rather differently than you do. But I’m every bit as American as you are.
[quote]So, what country do you think is the model for US immigration policy?[/quote]
The US. Our own history of an inclusive immigration policy.
And as far as I know, both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were American citizens.
I wonder how much of the hatred being expressed against George Zimmerman is anti-Hispanic racism. SOme ugly things are being said.
[quote]I wonder how much of the hatred being expressed against George Zimmerman is anti-Hispanic racism. SOme ugly things are being said.[/quote]
Do you think it would worse if Zimmerman was black?
[quote] SOme ugly things are being said.[/quote]
Yeah. You ought to see some of the things being said about Trayvon Martin, too. There is a lot of ugliness surrounding this case.
I have no idea whether he ‘should’ have been convicted of the specific charges, or if there is any charge that would have sold a jury. I do know that what he did was wrong and very stupid and tragic.
mw, NO!
1. The initial decision not to arrest GZ, [former Sanford, FL Police Chief Bill Lee said] (paraphrased by CNN), “had nothing to do with Florida’s controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ law,” because “from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense.”
2. The NYT explained, “Florida’s Stand Your Ground law…has not been invoked in this case.”
“…Also unusual are the attributes that the prosecution and defense are likely to be seeking in jurors. Conservative-leaning jurors who favor law enforcement are generally what prosecutors seek, while the defense often looks for those who skew liberal. But not in this case, which is testing Mr. Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense and spotlighting Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. That law has not been invoked in this case, but was cited by the Sanford police as the reason officers did not initially arrest Mr. Zimmerman….”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/us/jury-selection-reaches-final-stages-in-trayvon-martin-murder-case.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&pagewanted=all
3. The only mention of “SYG” was part of the PROSECUTION’S attempt to undermine GZ’s credibility (arguing he lied when he told Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting).
4. Most noteworthy — During his rebuttal PROSECUTOR, John Guy declared, “This case is not about standing your ground.”
BTW, hp — care to continue your challenge of the facts?
BTW, ever wonder what kind of “Iced tea” TM possessed?
He bought “Arizona Watermelon fruit juice cocktail.”
That is 100% clear from the Crime Scene Photographs released to the press and published by the Orlando Sentinel.
See link to Evidence photos released by the Fourth Circuit Court State Attorney’s Office and the lawyers for George Zimmerman.
***** GRAPHIC PHOTOS ******
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-pictures-evidence-photos-released-in-the-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin-20120517,0,6090406.photogallery
(cont.)
re: the type of tea…
“The answer, straight from the urban dictionary, and cannabis.com, is that those are two ingredients used to make a concoction called “lean,, which appears to be a popular high for Black kids.”
First, what, specifically, is “lean”? According these exerpts from urbandictionary.com:
Purple Drank is a intoxicating beverage also known by the names lean, sizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in.
And…@ the cannibis.com site noted above…one will find that watermelon flavored soft drinks have become a popular alternative to Sprite when making “lean.”
[quote]Do you think it would worse if Zimmerman was black?[/quote]
Good point. In fact Zimmerman is 1/4 black. He has an African American grandmother. See
[url]http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1272261[/url]
Perhaps this further explains the hatred he is getting from certain quarters.
AdRemmer
“mw, NO! “
Ok, despite my previous attempt at explanation, I am obviously not making myself clear. At no point did I state that the STG law was the grounds for this particular case. My comment was not about the fairness or justice of this particular case. My query was about whether the outcome of this case would embolden others to use this law to their advantage in the future. Since I was not attempting in my initial post to address the specifics of the Martin/Zimmerman case, my comment could be characterized as “off topic” but not, I think a misunderstanding of “reasonable doubt”
Or “self defense”.
[quote]Perhaps this further explains the hatred he is getting from certain quarters.[/quote]
Great. Now you can perhaps explain the hatred Trayvon Martin is getting from certain quarters.
AdRemmer: why do you care what kind of drink he was buying? He’s dead. I don’t think his purchases pertained to his killing. Do you?
Frankly
“It speaks to character when a person does not put significant effort into attempting to assimilate into the customs and norms of the country they immigrate to. I’m fine with a bit of scorn for those that come here and expect us to cater to their language and their cultural customs. That is not racism… I don’t care where they come from, what color their skin it, what ethnicity, etc.. When you come to Rome, “you should do like the Romans do. “
Then you must certainly find the character of our ancestors to be abhorrent since they did not adopt the language and ways of any of the native American groups that they encountered when they first came to these shores. And yet I cannot recall ever having heard you excoriate them for their “lack of character” when they chose genocide over assimilation.
Frankly, do you speak a second language? Do you know how hard it is to learn one as an adult? I took up spanish at 30. After many years my spanish still is poor and I have a really terrible accent. It turns out that if you learn a new language after age 12 your accent will suck. Its one of those developmental things. The way it works is people come here and speak terrible english or no english but their kids speak good english and in a few generations US intelligence agencies are recruiting these now Americanized native sons of the USA.
There is nothing new or enlightened about your demands for assimilation. Similar arguments can be found relating to native americans going back to the 1800’s. The problem is that people bring with them the religion, culture, food and customs that they had before moving here. It is how they know to live. If you were more patient and accepting you would see that they enrich our lives. Where would we be without bagels, tacos, spaghetti, falafel, curry or corned beef and cabbage. Where would we be without green beer on St. Patrick’s Day or Tequila on Cinco de Mayo.
These people come here for freedom and opportunity. They leave poverty and oppression. What could be more American than that? How is that different than your family and its immigration story? Why don’t you cut them some slack?
[quote]Come here as a permanent resident and figure out how to be American and do it.[/quote]
My other question about this statement is, why do you care how other people choose to live their lives, how does it effect you and your ability to live your life the way you choose?
“So, what country do you think is the model for US immigration policy?”
You have it reversed, we are the model for the rest of the world, we are as Ronald Reagan said “A shining city on the hill.”
We honor the words inscribed on Lady Liberty “Give us your tired, poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free.” That is the America that was so kind to my family and gave me so much opportunity. That is why I wave the flag on the fourth of July. You talk about Norther Europe but when the Nazi’s were making Norther Europe homogeneous we fought genocide. Among those who fought were Jewish kids from Chicago and japanese American kids from California. Give it a few years and this pot will melt too.
I worked with a woman who got citizenship after Reagan’s 86 immigration bill. She complained about her brother who was supporting Meg Whitman. This was before Whitman went negative on immigration because Whitman was worried about Poizner’s demagoguery of the issue in the primary. I never heard how her brother finally voted but i will give you a hint, as long as you stick with this illegal dogmatism the Republicans will remain a super minority party with no political power at all in California and limited hope of winning the Whitehouse. So keep up the good work.
In direct response to your question, Canada has taken in people from all parts of the British Commonwealth. Go to Vancouver, it looks just like San Francisco.
Gunrock wrote:
> Sorry, but I missed something here- who the heck is
> Trayvon and where exactly in Davis did he live?
Then N. Nice wrote:
> Do you think it would worse if Zimmerman was black?
There is not a lot of White on Black (or Jewish/Hispanic on Black) violence in Davis or anywhere else in America (the #1 cause of death for young Black males is getting killed by another Black male) so to make sure that people keep blaming white people for all the problems of people of color David (and most of the other media in America) ignores the 99% of young Black males shot, stabbed and beat to death by other Black males.
P.S. Just wondering if David has ever covered even a single Black on Black crime…
Mr.Toad wrote:
> You talk about Norther Europe but when the Nazi’s were
> making Norther Europe homogeneous we fought genocide.
> Among those who fought were Jewish kids from Chicago
> and japanese American kids from California. Give it a
> few years and this pot will melt too.
I don’t think that race had anything to do with the outcome of the Martin/Zimmerman trial (Everything to do with the media attention, but nothing to do with the outcome). I’m no WWII expert, but I don’t think many “japanese American kids from California” were fighting side by side with Jewish Americans in WWII. Jewish American Rich recently mentioned one of Davis’ darkest days on this site when local Japanese Americans were locked up and a childhood friend’s Mom used to come to our school to tell us how when she was a little girl her family (that came to America from Japan before my Grandparents came here from Europe) and all the other “japanese American kids from California” she knew were hauled off to live in the Tanforan horse stables (and other “camps” around the state)…
South of Davis: Just to be clear I was responding, with a hypothetical question, to this comment. (Not sure how it relates to Gunrock’s comment.)
[quote]I wonder how much of the hatred being expressed against George Zimmerman is anti-Hispanic racism. SOme ugly things are being said.[/quote]
Mr. T: [i]After many years my spanish still is poor and I have a really terrible accent. It turns out that if you learn a new language after age 12 your accent will suck. Its one of those developmental things. The way it works is people come here and speak terrible english or no english but their kids speak good english and in a few generations US intelligence agencies are recruiting these now Americanized native sons of the USA.[/i]
This is correct. Basically it’s when you hit adolescence that language learning becomes diminished. It mostly determines the possibility of speaking a language without an accent, and how quickly. Our family is bilingual/bicultural, and this is what we’ve seen. And yes, subsequent generations assimilate exponentially over the prior one.
There are two conversations going on here one about Zimmerman and another carried over from when Frankly wrote some silly nonsense about immigrants. Most of my remarks are in response to Frankly and are unrelated to Zimmerman.
“For nthat to be a ‘fair’ question, have you served on a jury, and did you witness a ‘compromise’?”
I have talked to dozens of jurors who have told me about how things worked in their jury room.
“
DG are YOU suggesting this jury compromised?”
I was expecting that they might in this case (going with manslaughter rather than murder-two), but that doesn’t appear to have happened.
From Senator Daniel Inouye’s wikipedia page “the all-Nisei 442nd Regimental Combat Team.[10] This army unit was mostly made up of second-generation Japanese Americans from Hawaii and the mainland.”
My father, a Jewish kid from Chicago, received two Bronze Stars for his service in the Philippines.
They may not have fought together but they were on the same side. Our Army today is full of immigrants who fought bravely in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the things the Senate Bill would do is give these veterans a path to citizenship.
Replies by David, posted on the wrong thread:
[quote]
David M. Greenwald
07/14/13 – 03:30 PM
…
“However there is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed, there would be a completely different reaction from those who are claiming that Zimmerman should have been convicted.”
As well as those who think he should have been acquitted, except for the defense attorneys and maybe some prosecutors.
——————-
David M. Greenwald
07/14/13 – 03:38 PM
…
SOD: I’m not recalling any black on black crimes I have covered in Yolo, but since I’ve covered a lot, it’s possible I did but it doesn’t stand out. I haven’t covered a lot of crimes by African Americans anyway.
[/quote]
Toad likes Canda. Wow, that is setting bar high. Did toad actually check the demographics of Canada first? In any case, that is all he could up with instead of some weak argument about a time when the US was in need of more people. And his point about settlers not speaking some imagionary single native American language that never existed is a hoot… especially given it was before our formation on a Union and constitutional democracy. So name a time when one imported race changed the entire political landscape in this country. Can’t can you. No.
The US has been flooded with poor and uneducated people that have imported their culture and dominate many areas of the country. They are staying poor and uneducated in great numbers. But Toad and other libs stay safe in their elistist white enclaves and heap scorn on those that dare bring these facts to the surface of the immigration debate. They imported trainable reliable New Democrat voters to care for and that us all that matters.
Need other reasons to put our military on the southern border and threaten to take over Mexico if they too don’t put their military there to do the same? Now we hear that our liberal State legislature has put forth a bill to allow illegals to serve on juries. How does that set with your social justice sensibilities Toad and others left of common sense?
National Sheriff’s Association releases a statement:
[url]http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/national-sheriff-s-association-0[/url]
[quote]“The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”[/quote]
“And his point about settlers not speaking some imagionary single native American language that never existed is a hoot… especially given it was before our formation on a Union and constitutional democracy.”
In the 1800’s we were already a democratic republic. Still i think you misunderstood my point. The hurry up and assimilate arguments have been around for hundreds of years.
You don’t like Canada? Okay its too cold in winter and they have more bitumen than Saudi Arabia has oil. Anything else?
Immigrants on Juries, yawn.
“Need other reasons to put our military on the southern border and threaten to take over Mexico if they too don’t put their military there to do the same?”
We already did that in the 1840’s. In fact the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago recognized land claims written in Spanish and offered citizenship to any Mexicans who chose to stay. If we re-occupied Mexico wouldn’t we have 100 million new citizens? When California was drafting its 1879 State Constitution Spanish language was an issue and the word assimilation is used. The difference now is that Latinos in California vote in such large numbers that Frankly you are like a rock in the Merced River when the snow melts and you can’t hold back the tide. It is pure folly and you will not advance the rest of your agenda as long as you cling to your weird notions of what it means to be American.
Frankly said, [quote] Now we hear that our liberal State legislature has put forth a bill to allow illegals to serve on juries.[/quote]
Fox News headline: [quote] California bill would let illegal immigrants serve on juries[/quote]
Actual text, first paragraph, of that story (bold added):
[quote]The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens [b] who are in the country legally [/b]to serve on jury duty.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/california-bill-would-let-illegal-immigrants-serve-on-juries/#ixzz2Z46U20Wa[/url][/quote]
Hm. I wonder how ‘non-citizens who are in the country legally’ became ‘illegals’.
[quote]“The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”[/quote]
This is why part of me has a hard time with Zimmerman getting off, he alone created the dangerous situation that ended in Martin’s death. For that, I think he should have gotten at least involuntary manslaughter.
Franjly:
[quote]225 words of wrong can can cause people to ignore the 1400 words of validity. In fact, just four word would cause some people to lose their minds and go off.
[/quote]
I was in Sacramento most of the day and just read the comments. Thanks for responding to that Frankly. So somehow David thinks that he didn’t try and add the racial element because as he said only 225 words of the 1400 were about race? That’s like saying to someone that you’re only partially pregnant. Give David a break though, when he gets an opening to add race he can’t help himself.
[quote]Give David a break though, when he gets an opening to add race he can’t help himself.[/quote]
Is anyone who is talking about this story not talking about race? It seems to me that race is part of the story. In my view it would have been strange not to have included it.
[quote]Is anyone who is talking about this story not talking about race? It seems to me that race is part of the story. In my view it would have been strange not to have included it. [/quote]
Please explain….
Explain what? That the race of Martin has been a huge component of the media attention that this story has gotten?
[quote]That the race of Martin has been a huge component of the media attention that this story has gotten? [/quote]
That’s only because tv news and the cable stations chose to sensationalize it, David even pointed that out. So are you saying that anytime a black person is killed it would be strange not to bring race into it? I want you to tell me where race played a role in this killing.
GI: Your complaint is a bit odd because it’s not like race has been a minor theme in the pervasive news coverage of the incident – if anything it’s been the dominant theme.
[quote]So are you saying that anytime a black person is killed it would be strange not to bring race into it?[/quote]
No, I’m saying, right or wrong, that race has been brought into THIS story, so much so that it would have seemed odd for David not to have addresses it.
I’m still waiting for why you think race played a role in the killing. It doesn’t matter what the cable news race baiters were saying, they bring race into everything.
[quote]I’m still waiting for why you think race played a role in the killing.[/quote]
I am not saying it did.
[quote]I am not saying it did. [/quote]
Thank you B. Nice, that’s probably the most truthful thing said on here all day.
There are two points where race enters this equation.
1. Would Zimmerman have focused on a white kid the way he did Martin?
2. Would the jury have convicted a black person who did as Zimmerman did?
That’s part of the national storyline as well. The idea that some believe is that Martin was racially profiled not by a cop but by a citizen on neighborhood watch patrol.
[quote]Thank you B. Nice, that’s probably the most truthful thing said on here all day[/quote]
Before you thank me, I should clarify, when I said “I’m not saying it did” I meant it in context of our specific discussion on David mentioning race. Regardless of what I think about it, the media has given it a lot of attention, which is why I think it’s natural for David to bring it up (i.e. it wasn’t an example of him inserting race into a story just to insert race into a story as you implied).
I personally do think race played an issue in Martin’s death, to answer David’s and your questions, I do not think Zimmerman would have focused on a white kid, and I do think a jury would have convicted a black person who did what Zimmerman did.
I also think that if Zimmerman had killed a white kid, charges would have been brought up immediately and that he would have been convicted.
You think this and David thinks that with no basis. You both need to stick to the facts and stop it with the what-ifs.
[quote]You think this and David thinks that with no basis. You both need to stick to the facts and stop it with the what-ifs.[/quote]
You asked, I answered.
“1. Would Zimmerman have focused on a white kid the way he did Martin?
2. Would the jury have convicted a black person who did as Zimmerman did?”
1. Probably not, since he had a history in his mind of dozens of African-Americans committing crimes in his neighborhood. He might have focused on a white kid if some odd behavior had been exhibited. However, what’s the problem either way? A neighborhood watcher usually is looking for some unknown person doing something suspicious and, likely, engages in profiling. No law against that.
2. Probably not (but no way to know, of course). Asked and answered in detail this morning.
“A neighborhood watcher usually is looking for some unknown person doing something suspicious and, likely, engages in profiling. No law against t”
Not until the decision is made to persue the suspect after being advised not to do so. It would appear that there is no law against this, but in my opinion, there should be.
“You think this and David thinks that with no basis.”
You act like there’s no historical context. I have plenty of basis.
[quote]You think this and David thinks that with no basis[/quote]
What David said.
David,
Good article that you wrote here, well-balanced. The only point where I (like others posted above)take strong issue with you is your statement: “That said, this will anger the other side of the aisle. There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. Had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman under the exact same conditions, he would have been convicted. No doubt in my mind.”
Your statement seemed strange to me in context of an otherwise well-balanced essay. I’d like to explore why you make this statement; why you see things this way.
Do you really perceive that not just some americans, but most americans are that racist or racially biased; that they would let their racial bias/hatred over-ride the evidence brought forward by prosecutors and the defense? Given the exact same background and events and available evidence, and the exact same presentation in court by each side; I would concede that there may have been 1 juror with a strong enough racial bias to have voted guilty; even 2 such jurors stretches credibility; but all 6 jurors? Forget about it. I do contend that most americans do not hold strong racial bias/hatred; on the contrary it is only a small percentage of each race that holds strong racial bias/hatred against other races.
Otherwise; I mainly like the article you wrote!
[quote]Do you really perceive that not just some americans, but most americans are that racist or racially biased; that they would let their racial bias/hatred over-ride the evidence brought forward by prosecutors and the defense? [/quote]
Not initially, but I think subtle racial biases do come into play in these circumstances.
I meant to say intentionally (not initially).
[quote]hp feel free to cite official records to demonstrate the SYG law was put into record by the defense. [/quote]Just looked back at my previous posts, and I didn’t cite SYG. I took someone else’s quote to disagree with the rest of their statement. Read twice, criticize once.
jmt:
If you continue the read, I write: “It is unprovable, of course, but the impact of race in this nation is no longer 100-0. Now it’s more like about 20%, just enough to change the outcome of a close case. It is a perverted sort of progress, but progress nonetheless.”
What I’m saying here is that racial issues are no longer completely black and white (somewhat intentional pun). So while in Medgar Evers day a white juror could simply disregard the evidence with a clear conscience if the prosecution ever put it all on. But now, if you have a somewhat close call, I think there is enough bias – some of it unconscious to sway opinion.
So I believe if Martin were white, Zimmerman never pursues him.
If Zimmerman were black, he would have gotten less benefit of the doubt and would have been convicted.
I’m not saying that people are consciously racist so much as I’m suggesting that there are perception biases that color the thinking.
[i]Hm. I wonder how ‘non-citizens who are in the country legally’ became ‘illegals’. Maybe another case of…
I didn’t read the article, but based on the headline…[/i]
Easy, first step we get the left politicians in Washington to turn illegal to legal, and then we make jurors out of them. Come on Don, you need to think a little deeper instead of just Google searching your answers and attempts at humor.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/obamaflood.jpg[/img]
By the way, a good article can be found here.
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/non-citizen-jurors-its-a-bad-idea/[/url]
I guess Tom Elias must work for Fox News.
[i]Not initially, but I think subtle racial biases do come into play in these circumstances.[/i]
Sorry B. Nice, but I fee sad for you and others that are so stuck on this kind of thinking. I think false claims of racism are a most disgusting and disturbing thing, just a minor step less disgusting and disturbing than that subtle racism your imagination just knows is there.
Tom Elias: [quote]jury service[b] for legal residents[/b] who are not citizens also would help ensure an adequate pool of jurors and help immigrants integrate into American society.[/quote]
You need to get your facts straight. You were wrong before, you’re wrong now.
You said “illegals.” It isn’t a proposal for illegals to serve on juries. It’s for legal non-citizens.
You used the wrong word. You won’t admit it. You were wrong.
I think the Martin-Zimmerman trial is going to open up a big can of whop-ass on Florida’s Governor and his special prosecutor. This thing should have never gone to trial. The politicization of the legal process was breathtaking and more than troubling.
Interesting too, watching the protests on TV, I get the sense that the crowd would cheer with glee if the proven innocent George Zimmerman was dragged out from his home and lynched. I wonder if the same would be true if he was a dark brown Hispanic man?
Gosh we have sure come along way in race relations in the country. Those with a voice in the media proclaiming their disappointment if the verdict show their true color.
Don, are you off your meds?
The Federal immigration bill will legalize millions of currently illegal immigrants. The illegal immigration population is centered in California. It was exactly my point that we will soon have illegal immigrants serving on CA juries. What, are you playing some policing game where all you do is look for some technicality to deflect from having to post any opinion? That is not very satisfying blogging. Why don’t you respond like Mr. Elias with an opinion on the matter? You do have an opinion on this don’t you?
It would be interesting in the case of the Martin-Zimmerman trial if currently illegal Hispanic immigrants were allowed to be a juror the day after the Federal immigration act became law.
By the way Don, I didn’t read any Fox Headline. I was out on the lake and had a couple days of the Davis Enterprise with me and read the Tom Elias op ed article and started thinking that this is a great move by the libs in our once great state legislature given the pending supply of people they can milk for lefty-leaning verdicts.
Frankly: [quote]Now we hear that our liberal State legislature has put forth a bill to allow illegals to serve on juries.[/quote]
[quote]It was exactly my point that we will soon have illegal immigrants serving on CA juries. [/quote]
They wouldn’t be illegal then. They’d be legal non-citizens. It isn’t a semantical game on my part. It’s a rhetorical game on yours.
My opinion is I don’t particularly care if legal non-citizens are added to the jury pool. Whether they actually serve in any case will be at considerable discretion of the attorneys and the judge, as you know if you’ve ever been called for jury service. It would probably make no difference to the outcomes.
Frankly wrote: “just a minor step less disgusting and disturbing than that subtle racism your imagination just knows is there.”
One thing disturbing is the subtle racism that I catch myself exhibiting. Especially given that there are most likely times I don’t catch myself.
[i]One thing disturbing is the subtle racism that I catch myself exhibiting. Especially given that there are most likely times I don’t catch myself[/i]
Please explain to me what that looks like. Maybe I am missing something in myself. I doubt it though.
I certainly have been exposed to racist comments and characterizations in my extended family. It is common for some older people to be stuck on stupid. And, some people are just not very sophisticated socially and are full of insecurities and practice identifying difference in others they can point out as negative to make themselves feel better by comparison.
In high school my group of friends were Hispanic, black, Pilipino, Indian, Japanese, German (exchange student), Australian (exchange student). My best friend and the best man at my wedding was second generation Mexican. I have a Mexican brother. My family owned a vacation home in Buena Vista Baja Mexico for 30 years. Most of my professional career was in large company IT where the ethnicity of my coworkers was like the United Nations. I rarely give race or ethnicity any thought. However, I do give a lot of thought to individual and group behavior. And because of the other part of my career has been me being responsible for developing and maintaining a progress-enabling positive and productive work culture, it causes me to value the same in society in general. The ability to communicate effectively is a behavioral issue from my perspective.
When groups or individuals behave in a certain way that is detrimental to our overall general welfare as a city, state or county, my mind never thinks about it as race-related. For me it is all about human education and development.
There are two challenges I see. The first is to identify what our culture is and should be. The second is to assimilate new people into that culture so the whole can continue to be greater than its parts.
I have the same challenge in my company. Hiring people having come from one work culture and then developing them so that they become knowledgeable and proficient about our work culture.
Relationships are what make business and societies work. The lack of relationships, or having a large number of dysfunctional relationships, increases opportunity cost for failing to accomplish and progress. Communication is the key to all relationships. If we cannot talk and listen to each other, if we cannot understand each other, we cannot accomplish and progress enough. Our lack of connection and our lack of understanding will cause copious conflict.
Leadership can help by establishing the framework of shared vision that becomes a common pathway to understanding and behavior. But ultimately people just have to let go of old customs, norms and thinking that are in conflict with this shared vision.
What is happening in this country is just the opposite. What we are seeing is a divide and conquer strategy at play. For reasons I don’t quite understand, the political left in this country are blowing up many of the cultural aspects of this country… the previous shared vision that has been the basis of a common path of thinking and behavior that has led us to be the greatest nation on God’s green earth. Liberals as a group generally seem to be depressed and unfulfilled, and a bit angry about it. They seem to hate white people, or as whites, be full of their own guilt and disappointment for lacking the physical characteristics of a more needy existence. As emotional malcontents, they seem to be driven to self-destruct things around them just so that we do something different. I am fine with different as long as someone can make the compelling argument for it being connected to a shared vision for improvement. That argument has not bee made. In fact the only vision I see from the left is a vision for them taking and retaining power.
With respect to the millions and millions of immigrants that have flooded in from our southern border over the last 40 years, we have created a situation of cultural segregation. Elite liberals are ignoring this. They mostly reside in their significantly white gated communities, have a few Hispanic friends or relatives, and from a perch of self-righteousness heap scorn and labels of racism on people with much greater experience having mingled and interacted with the common people of other races and cultures. This casual claim of racism cannot and should not be tolerated. Anyone that calls another a racist should be at risk for being accused of a hate crime and should own the burden of proof for their claim.
[i]One thing disturbing is the subtle racism that I catch myself exhibiting. Especially given that there are most likely times I don’t catch myself.[/i]
There is a slippery slope of then being accommodating of bad or suspicious behavior over your concern that your assessment has some racial basis.
I see a young male wearing a hoody and baggy pants shuffling around in our neighborhood where there are very few young men wearing a hoody and baggy pants that shuffle around the neighborhood, it does not matter if he is white, black, Hispanic or Asian. It is his behavior and demeanor that causes my brain to fire suspicion, not his race. However, I will admit that I am gender-biased for this. For example, I am less likely to be suspicious of a female wearing a hoodie and baggy pants and shuffling around our neighborhood. Should I force myself to either treat all females the same, or otherwise ignore my suspicions about men just to make sure there is no bias in my consideration? That would seem irrational to me.
JS, Listen to liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say:
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutors ‘Should Be Disbarred’
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with “prosecutorial misconduct” for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
“That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth,” Dershowitz told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.
“These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion.”
Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with gunning down Martin, 17, as the two fought following a confrontation in the gated Sanford, Fla., community where Zimmerman lives — an act the defendant said was in self-defense.
In the prosecution’s final argument on Friday, lawyer John Guy said Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin and “shot him because he wanted to.”
Dershowitz called Guy’s statement “such speculation. How does he get into the mind of Zimmerman? He hasn’t cross-examined him, he hasn’t met him.
“To ask the jury to believe that is to ask the jury to convict based on complete and utter speculation and that’s not the way the law operates.”
A day earlier, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman — whom he labeled a “wannabe cop” — “followed” and “tracked” Martin after profiling him as a criminal.
Dershowitz said not only should Zimmerman have not been charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors should not have pushed to have manslaughter and child abuse added to the list of possible jury verdicts.
“[It’s] utterly irresponsible. … The idea that the prosecution can try the case on a murder theory and then, at the last minute, substitute manslaughter, even though it seems to be permitted generally under Florida law — it’s a big mistake to allow it in a case like this,” he said.
“And then the very idea of even suggesting child abuse in a case like this is so irresponsible.”
Dershowitz praised the closing argument of defense lawyer Mark O’Mara.
“He did the right thing by being methodical and factual because this is a case where the prosecution’s case is all emotion and the defense case is all factual,” the famed civil-rights lawyer said.
“Emotionally, obviously everybody can identify with a young, unarmed 17-year-old who ends up dead, and emotionally, as President [Barack] Obama said, he’s all of our children.”
Dershowitz — whose clients have included Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson, Patricia Hearst, and former televangelist Jim Bakker — said the case has “reasonable doubt” written all over it.
“Nobody knows who started the initial physical encounter, who threw the first blow — and if you don’t know that you have to have a reasonable doubt,” he said.
“Nobody knows for sure who screamed, ‘Help me, help me.’ You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. Nobody knows for sure who was on top and who was on bottom, though the overwhelming forensic evidence suggests that Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head banged by a younger, stronger man. You have to have reasonable doubt there.”
AND, http://townhall.com/video/huckabee-interviews-alan-dershowitz-a-violation-of-civil-rights-usually-involves-the-state-the-government-n1641105