wass zimmerman trial a sham?

[remo]

It was fixed. From the beginning
I said as much in a earlier thread the prosecutors
Had to have known under the current laws 2nd degree
Murder was impossible to prove
Might be a mute point after listening to this juror
They could have walked on water and this jury
Would have let him walk

[blugiant]

The whole thing was a sham. The murder scene was not protected and inspected closely. Few immediate neighbors were interrogated. Zimmerman's word was accepted without question, even though someone had died, and he had disregarded a direct order from the police to stop following the youth and to stay in his truck . It wasn't until the uproar went national, that Zimmerman was arrested 45 days after the fact. No blood samples from the living Zimmerman were taken, although they managed to test the blood of the deceased child. The prosecutor did not object to the negative objectification of Rachel Jeantel, even though it was proven that she was the last person to talk to Trayvon. Everything about the investigation and trial were FUBAR.

fram da start mii heard sum blakk lawyers seyinn dat dem settinn upp da case to give blakk peeps dem day inn court but dem awlso was ensurinn zimmerman gitt acquitted.

da lead investigator in da case wanted to charge zimmerman widd secand degree murder but was overruled by da police chief? da same police chief woo pon tv sed deer was no probable cause to arrest zimmerman. guess imm seyinn dat de lead detective widd over 20 ears xxperience did not kno probable cause. dat alone raised qwestian bout da sanford police department motive. y didd dem demote some of da police officer invalved inn da case? pon da witness tand da police testimonies were vereee helpful to george zimmerman and wan aff da commentator even cammented pon da friction between da police department ann da prosecutors and oww qwestians were being skewed? didd yuh ear trayvon faddar sed da police lied wen they sed he told no dat was natt trayvon voice? did yuh ear trayvon sed imm neva saw da ooman detective before wen shi sed shi wass inn da room ann overheard inn sed no? didd peeps so quicklee willfullee figgit dat charges aff racism were level at standford police dept. yuh rite wen yuh ask y dem didd natt tekk zimmerman figgit tested fe judge.

zimmerman wurds were natt accepted ann dat y da lead detective wanted to charge zimmerman fe secand degree murder. y da prosecutors neva ask de lead detective bout dat cah itt wood cum out dat imm wass overruled bye da police chief. dat de reason y dat police chief was later fired to limit da city aff standford possible legal liability cah itt raise constitutional issue aff equal protection undar da law. imagine dat a police chief woo wass lett go fe overrulinn da lead detective woo wanted to charge george zimmerman de same nite he killed trayvon widd secand degree murder, da lead detective woo was demoted (less salary ? ann prestige?), and other police woo were awlso demoted add ax to grind widd da special prosecutors were da witness cawled to testify on trayvon beehalf.

ask yuself woo allowed zimmerman fe leave police custody widdout being remmand to police custody? imagine after killinn trayvon zimmerman wass allowed to leave police custody widdout bail even dough deer was an ongoinn investigation. now add dat inna da mixxed widd history aff dem natt charginn oyinbo inn da past woo killed blakks



"The initial (and lackluster) investigation of Trayvon Martin’s death is hardly the first occasion when local police officials seemed to drop the ball. In 2006, two off duty security guards, one the son of a Sanford cop, “killed a black teen with a gunshot in his back. Even though they admitted to never identifying themselves, the guards were released without charges,” Weinstein wrote. In 2010, the son of a Sanford PD lieutenant was videotaped sucker-punching a homeless black man. Officers on the scene released him without charges."

[blugiant]

It was fixed. From the beginning
I said as much in a earlier thread the prosecutors
Had to have known under the current laws 2nd degree
Murder was impossible to prove
Might be a mute point after listening to this juror
They could have walked on water and this jury
Would have let him walk

remo argument like dat dat iss beinn continuallee repeated bye oyinbo media fe brainwashed peeps iss wan aff da reason fe da tread.

under da current law 2nd degree, murder was nat impossible to prove. to prove ill will and spite, awl dem add to do was play da tapinn were george zimmerman sed f-inn coons. mii luv oww dem was arguinn dat zimmerman sed f-kinn punk cah da defense sed dat wat zimmerman sed under imm breath wass f-inn punk. dat raised sereeuss qwestian aff ill will ann spite? did natt sumwan testify dat george zimmerman sed imm wife was scared cah sum houses were burglarized by yung blakk african merikkan yuths. dat point to premeditation ann itt raised qwestian iff george zimmerman shood ave been charge widd premeditated murder ann dat wood ave been furst degree murder.

iff da prosecutors raised da racial component dat zimmerman went after trayvon because he was blakk instead aff onlee arguinn dat zimmerman went after trayvon because he mistakenlee profiled trayvon as a criminal den deer was more dan enuff under da law to prove ill will. itt cah da prosecutors ran away fram de underlieinn racial issues dat de media can chatt nunsense bout natt enuff eveedence fe prove 2nd degree murder.

colorblind argument ann da denial aff race and racism give oyinbo legal cover for act aff racism

[Tropicana]

There are some excellent points here...Black parents need to heed some of his opening comments.

[Suesumba]

Colin Ferguson

"Black rage

i only experience that when my black linen dress wrinkles like hell

[blugiant]

y didd da prosecutors ignore george zimmerman histary aff racism? da state denial dat racism played a role widd zimmerman stalkinn trayvon create da argument dat deer was natt enuff eveedence to substatiate de secand degree murdar charge

did natt a blakk young oomen claimed shi heard zimmerman and imm family made racist remarks?

did da prosecutor qwestian zimmerman faddar bout da allegation dat imm made racist remark fe discredit imm? didd da prosecutors ask zimmerman maddar iff itt wass troo dat shi sed she wass a racist wen chattinn bout da mixxed race man? did da prosecutors ask anyone in da family iff itt troo dem sed a latt aff negative tings bout blakk peeps? oww soon sum peeps figgit dat?

did da same blakk ooman awlso sed zimmerman molested ar?

oonnoo doan see sintinn wrang widd da prosecutors arguinn dat diss case wass natt bout race butt wan overzealous wannabee cop woo tunned vigilante?

[blugiant]

Justice or Just Us
I May Be White, But I’m Not Stupid
by CARL FINAMORE

The vigilante murder of young Trayvon Martin and his legal lynching in the courtroom is producing a valuable conversation about racism that is probing deep into the very heart of our country.

Hopefully, it all will lead to an honest and frank examination among the white population.

So far, the intense discussions unfolding on virtually every media outlet expose the baseless racist argument as pathetically shallow and empty, none more so than the charge that somehow Trayvon Martin was responsible for his own death.

This preposterous allegation belongs in the dustbin of history along with defense of America’s ugly legacy of slavery and segregation.

Certainly all the main racist arguments of our sordid history have been repeatedly repudiated but they continually get regurgitated as in re-circulated and re-packaged.

Right-wing commentators, for example, deny race was a factor in George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin. What? Trayvon was absolutely targeted because of his color. That is what originally aroused the biased fears of Zimmerman. Can any reasonably thoughtful person deny this?

I may be white, but I’m not stupid!

Another one of the favorite tactics of these throwback commentators is to rapidly shift attention away from an examination of Zimmerman’s actual stalking and profiling of Martin. They change the subject and attempt to shift blame onto the Black community by citing crime statistics in large cities like Chicago.

Of course, crime in Chicago has nothing to do with the facts of Trayvon’s murder. Plus, a genuine discussion of crime cannot possibly be separated from a discussion of how the enduring legacy of racism and poverty tears apart the social fabric of a community.

But that’s not their purpose. The whole premise of conservatives is to suggest that Blacks, as in their fabricated example of Chicago, are responsible for their own self-induced plight, thus tying into the twisted notion repeatedly mentioned that Trayvon himself was responsible for his own death. This is abhorrent nonsense.

I may be white, but I’m not stupid.

To further buttress their retrograde prejudices, these bloviating loudmouths cite the judge prohibiting mention of race in the trial, Sanford police and FBI reports rejecting race as a factor and the prosecution team still insisting post-trial that race was not a factor.

But these denials by almost all the powerful government institutions and their representatives that race did not play a role in Trayvon’s murder does actually reveal an important point, but it’s the opposite one intended by the reactionary race-deniers.

Prosecution: Not So Much Incompetent as Unfair

Racism in America not only exists, it is excruciatingly deep, seeping not just into personal consciousness but into the most powerful institutions of our society.

For example, a criminal justice system that prosecutes on a federal and local level more Blacks, imprisons more Blacks and sentences more Blacks to longer prison terms than whites with similar charges cannot be relied upon to change its colors and vigorously and thoroughly prosecute a racist crime like Zimmerman’s.

Recognizing racism as Zimmerman’s motivation would challenge the documented long-standing biased assumptions of Sanford authorities. Their history explains why Zimmerman was at first promptly released without charges.

The local prosecution was, therefore, not so much incompetent as it was unfair. It’s the only way to understand how the extremely experienced legal team, among other numerous failings, refused to challenge their own police investigator testifying he “believed” Zimmerman.

Blacks are treated differently by cops and courts all across this country. It’s obvious and it’s on the record.

I may be white, but I’m not stupid.

Why Racism Persists

The dominant culture always controls the message and spreads its biases everywhere.

For example, none of the monumental civil rights reforms won in this country started at the top. All were jump started by massive movements from below, outside of and often against institutions of power.

But besides persisting inside government, police and courts, racism goes even deeper into the very fabric of our society. For instance, among employers, there is money, lots of money in discrimination.

The undercurrent of racism, never openly stated these days, crudely portrays Blacks as lazy and violent without any aspirations to succeed. Similarly, sexism portrays women’s role primarily as caretakers for children, another prejudice seldom expressed openly.

In both cases, these false stereotypes create social stigmas that in the workplace appear to justify lower wages, benefits and opportunities for advancement. The more Blacks and women, for example, are socially compartmentalized into these false categories, the more it appears as an acceptable rationale for their lower status in the workplace.

Untold billions of dollars accrue to businesses each year paying less to Blacks and women, particularly Black women according to statistics, for comparable types of work performed by whites with less education and skill.

This is fact, this is the record. As long as businesses profit from discrimination, there exists a huge incentive for it to endure.

I may be white, but I’m not stupid!

How to Fix It

I am particularly inspired by the words of leading abolitionist Frederick Douglass. He continually agitated for building mass protest movements. “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are people who want crops without plowing the ground….,” he famously said.

And he urged people to become active in liberating themselves. “I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs,” the escaped slave wrote so vividly.

I always understood his powerful words to mean that the harsh realities of prejudice had to be clearly recognized and directly confronted before racism would ever take a backseat to reason and humanity.

In other words, people will repudiate racial attitudes after they embrace a social consciousness that understands the vast racial problems in our society are not personal excuses and not self-induced but, instead, actual harsh conditions imposed on people of color by powerful entrenched interests who benefit and profit.

It is this progressive social awareness, once embraced, that promotes more humanity and more activism, a powerful combination that has in the past and can once again literally change our world.

Of course, most of us prefer to be loved and, in particular, respected, but we can’t really control how we feel about each other. But society can control how we all are treated and in that regard, we must act to make sure everyone is treated fairly. Taking a cue from whistleblower Edward Snowden, “that’s the society I want to live in.”

I may be white, but I’m not stupid!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/19/i-may-be-white-but-im-not-stupid/

[blugiant]

Trayvon Martin Family Attorney: ‘The Biggest Mistake Was To Ignore Race’


In a press conference immediately after George Zimmerman was acquitted, State Attorney Angela Corey declared “this case has never been about race.”

The legal team for the Trayvon Martin family disagrees. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Natalie Jackson — one of three lawyers representing Trayvon Martin’s parents — said the prosecution’s “biggest mistake was to ignore race.”

Jackson emphasized that she thought Corey and her deputies were skilled, passionate about the case and pursued the strategy they thought would work best. But Jackson also believes that the state’s decision to ignore the role race played in the case was a major strategic error and may have allowed Zimmerman to escape a guilty verdict.

By deliberately avoiding any discussion of race, Jackson said, the state made “everyone feel comfortable and when everyone feels comfortable bad things happen.”

Throughout the trial, the defense subtly leveraged racial issues to their advantage, according to Jackson. She said a picture of Martin that defense attorneys frequently showed the jury, where he is shirtless, was designed to play into “stereotypical fears people think white women have of black men.” Jackson would have objected to its use.

Jackson would have also objected to the testimony of Olivia Bertalan, who testified that Zimmerman helped her after two black men in their late teens broke into her home in August 2011. She later related her experience to Zimmerman. Jackson believed the purpose of Bertalan’s testimony was to “group black boys” and “would have done everything possible to strike her.”

The decision to ignore race cost the prosecution before the trial even began, according to Jackson. She noted that the state attempted to strike two jurors, B-6 and B-76, from the pool. It was the defense, at that point, who brought up race, arguing that the state was only striking these jurors because they were white women. The judge sided with the defense, and Jackson believes that the state should have pressed their case more forcefully, noting that — at that point — all African-American jurors considered had been struck. B-76 questioned the appropriateness of Trayvon Martin being out at night to buy candy.

Jackson noted that the delay in Zimmerman’s arrest tilted the jury pool in favor of the defense. Anyone who participated in a “Justice For Trayvon” rally or liked a Facebook page expressing solidarity for Trayvon was struck from the pool. Had Zimmerman been arrested promptly, the rallies and other efforts would not have taken place. As it happened, anyone in the area inclined to feel sympathy toward someone like Trayvon was automatically excluded from the jury pool.

Another error cited by Jackson was the failure to recognize that the police, who usually work hand-in-glove with the state, was adverse to the prosecution. Major police witnesses frequently undermined the state case, most notably lead detective Chris Serino who stated he believed everything Zimmerman told him was truthful. (That testimony was struck by order of the judge the next day, but the damage was done.) Jackson believes the police had an interest in undermining the state’s case. If Zimmerman was convicted, Jackson surmised, it would make the decision not to arrest him look much worse.

Even though Zimmerman had a history of reporting young African-American men in his neighborhood to the police, the judge banned the term “racial profiling” from being used at any point in the trial. One juror told CNN that race was not discussed at all during deliberations. On Thursday morning, Trayvon Martin’s father had an entirely different perspective: “I think that if Trayvon had been white, this never would have happened.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/18/2319681/trayvon-martin-family-attorney-the-biggest-mistake-was-to-ignore-race/?mobile=nc

[Tropicana]

I agree the prosecution botched this case from the get go. They should have made race an integral part of the case and shown Zimmerman's history of racism and violence.

[blugiant]

I agree the prosecution botched this case from the get go. They should have made race an integral part of the case and shown Zimmerman's history of racism and violence.

tropi fram da beginninn da oyinbo prosecutors sed race was natt a issue but da prosecutors kicked wan blakk man awf da jury cah imm watch too much fox network.

tropi imagine prosecutors fram da beginninn sed race natt an issue ann dat led to wan moasle oyinbo jury widd wan hispanic?

iff race was natt an issue butt da prosecutors ann defense selected wan moaslee oyinbo jury, itt raised qwestian oww da jury was selected? secret jury selection process ting raises issues aff transparances

dat iss y sum peeps ar qwestianinn iff zimmerman trial was a sham

tropi yuh realized dat summ aff de issue mii raisinn iss similar to da qwestian trayvon attorney raised and iff imm read diss tredd

[Tropicana]

tropi imagine prosecutors fram da beginninn sed race natt an issue

Very few white people will EVER admit race is an issue.....same story in Canada except dem worse.

[blugiant]

Very few white people will EVER admit race is an issue.....

Race DID Matter In Zimmerman Trial


Being a trial lawyer in the South, I have witnessed firsthand how race matters during trials. Race is injected in all sections of litigation, including jury selection, treatment of defendants, jurors’ perceptions of defendants, believability of witnesses, sympathy for alleged victims, and most importantly, the verdicts and sentences. While some of it is intentional, a lot of it is subliminal.

While watching Juror B-37 give her interview on Anderson Cooper, I became nauseated, nauseated to the fact that she did not get it. She did not understand that her biases were impacted by race and that race was a factor in their decision. Her accounts of deliberations actually supported the blog I wrote about people needing to be more active in jury duty.

Many of the words she said, included “Those people,” “The way THEY live,” and “I didn’t understand her language (speaking of Rachel Jeantel)” really struck a nerve with me as I was yelling at the television, “YOU NEEDED SOME BLACK FOLKS TO EXPLAIN THOSE THINGS SO YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND!!!!”

I cannot and will not say B-37 is racist because there is no evidence of it, however, the huge cultural divide during that trial between the races became apparent during her attempted justification of her decision during interviews.

Jurors must understand all aspects of testimony in order to come to the right conclusion. It is very important for every juror to understand what is being said, described, and discussed during trial in order for him or her to reach a fair and just verdict. When we don’t understand something, we run away from it.

This concept is similar to a college student not understanding Physics and Calculus, which causes the student to run away from science and math classes. Jurors do the same thing by running away from what they don’t understand and running to what they know, understand, and do not fear. They run to something much more familiar and easy to understand and similar to them.

I believe B-37 ran to George Zimmerman’s version of events, adopted them, and stuck by them from the start because of her lack of understanding Trayvon Martin and Rachel Jeantel, as well as her biases toward someone who probably doesn’t look like her and therefore can’t relate to.

During the Zimmerman trial and deliberations, according to B-37, jurors were not clear on a lot of things said and described. That confusion is why I take time to explain things to jurors for them to grasp the concepts and testimony while listening and observing in trial. It makes things easier to understand and jurors learn about the cases they will hear.

For example, the prosecutors in the Zimmerman case had a duty to let the jury know any slang terms they may hear. They also had a responsibility to extract testimony from Rachel Jeantel to explain why she was angry with Don West and that he subjected her to several nasty cross-examinations during depositions.

They also had an obligation to let the jury know about Trayvon and who he was. Prosecutors needed to humanize him instead of making him only a gunshot victim. We all know that he was shot, but WHO was this kid? What were his dreams? Did he enjoy sports? Ask about him being the only person who didn’t tease Rachel Jeantel in school? THOSE are the things a jury can understand regardless of race. That should’ve been explained, and Trayvon’s story would’ve been told much better.

part1

[blugiant]

Rachel Jeantel did a magnificent job on Piers Morgan telling us who Trayvon was. Similar to how Piers interviewed her, the prosecutors should have done the same thing by asking her inquisitive questions about Trayvon, allowing her to describe, in detail, his character by eliciting the testimony needed to connect with the jurors.

The problem may be that some prosecutors are so accustomed to demonizing young Black boys and men that they have a hard time seeing us as people with souls, feelings, and positive futures.

When a jury is detached from feeling for a person in trial, you have already lost that case.

When I am in jury trial, I work hard to minimize the cultural divide and explain to jurors why a person has a nickname, what a nickname is, or define slang terms they may hear. That helps bridge the communication gap between the people I am representing and the jurors who will ultimately determine his or her fate.

Of course, I hope for a mixed-race and mixed socio-economic jury because a jury is told to bring in their life experiences and discuss them; racial and economic diversity can help greatly during deliberations. However, in the Zimmerman case, two Black potential jurors were struck from the jury pool despite the fact that prosecutors challenged the move.; they were overruled by the judge. A darn shame.

A trial lawyer must become a multi-cultural tutor inviting jurors into the world of the unknown so jurors will understand who the person is, why they should want to understand another culture or set of circumstances. Hopefully the jurors will feel the emotions for the Trayvons in the world and be able to understand the case. That racial and cultural divide was enormous and obvious according to B-37’s interview.

She obviously didn’t understand Trayvon or Rachel, which ultimately led to the verdict; Her mind seemed to be made up from the beginning.

She evidently understood “Georgie,” as she called Zimmerman in her interview, and felt she knew “what was in his heart.” That benefit is not the same for everyone in trial. That is evidence of the way we shift to the things we know and understand but reject the things we do not understand and, as stated before, we run to the things we know, understand, and are familiar with.

I pray this case changes things and causes the conversations to begin. We need to close that gap of understanding, especially when seeking justice in court because justice is not blind.

Eric L. Welch Guster is founder and managing attorney of Guster Law Firm in Birmingham, Ala.

http://newsone.com/2637023/george-zimmerman-verdict-jury-b37-racism/

[blugiant]

Very few white people will EVER admit race is an issue.....same story in Canada except dem worse.

yuh kno mii actuallee surprised dat mii ear a latt aff oyinbo chattinn ssey da jury ann da verdicts wass racist. a latt aff oyinbo feel dat zimmerman shood ave been canvicted

[blugiant]

tink pon diss inn moas self defense case da defendant affii tekk da tand fe assert dem self defense claim. zimmerman at da begginninn aff da trial waived imm right to stand yur ground defense so de trial was natt bout stand yur ground defense. it was bout zimmerman self defense claim. da reason y zimmerman did natt have to tekk da stand to assert imm self defense claim is cah da prosecutors introduced zimmerman self defense defense and dat de reason zimmerman didd natt affii tekk da tands.

y didd da prosecutors introduced zimmerman defense iff dem reallee wanted zimmerman fe testify? dat y sum peeps ar askinn iff dere was a conspiracee between da defense and prosecutor