24 Days and Some Thoughts

24 business days left until George’s trial begins, well, perhaps. I assume O’Mara can still ask for a continuance, I think maybe he will and perhaps Nelson will grant it as it would more than likely be only a month rather than the six months O’Mara asked for before that was denied. That monthly continuance stuff could go on month after month as long as the judge decides as far as I understand it. Who knows, it may be another year before trial. Maybe O’Mara can figure out the bus driver incident by then ay? We won’t know it though because us racists would use it to attack Trayvon’s legacy and O’Mara doesn’t want to look racist so that won’t be known except behind The O’Mara curtain of white guilt.

I don’t really care much for commenting on how the trial may go, the lawyers can deal with that and it will be what it will be and I’ll deal with it at the time. But I have always thought George will be found guilty. Not for the actual case evidence or Bernie’s great prosecutorial skills. No, it will be for every other reason besides that. Take your pick really; fear of looking racist, fear of riots, wanting to calm things down, Floridians wanting to make up for the Casey Anthony verdict, blah blah blah, doesn’t matter.

The Trayvonites will be elated and attempt to shove it in the faces of us Zimmerbots. Of course what they fail to recognize is the injustice I am concerned with occurred long before any conviction might. I consider the day Wolfinger supposedly decided to remove himself to be the true day justice failed. Everyone else since then merely followed Wolfinger’s cowardice example. They also wrongly assume, at least for me, that this is about one man. I have always maintained it is not. The problem with making this thing about one man and this one trial is it will not change the larger problems regardless if he’s found not guilty. A victory for George is not a victory for me. Will I be glad for George if he’s found not guilty, of course, and no unknown citizen should be put through what Crump et al. started and what everyone continued with has put him through. But justice was denied to George by the actions of Crump et al and all the cowards that followed and George being found not guilty can not change that nor will it effect future George Zimmerman’s.

But I also think George will get off on appeal and won’t spend but perhaps a couple of months in jail. So for those of you primarily or solely interested in the case itself and George’s exoneration you can take comfort in that I suppose.

Crump and the likes of him have already won. They were never interested in justice because justice is an ongoing process that begins when the first cop arrives. Justice for Crump, in this case, is mainly, I believe, charges brought by a prosecutor, and secondarily a denial of a “SYG” hearing which means ultimately a payout, at least from George himself because as we have seen he’s already getting paid regardless, a conviction is merely a cherry on top.

To reduce Crump to merely seeking financial reward dismisses what he believes he is doing which is seeking justice for “his” people, his black people. Good for him I say. But the problem here is that has been simply, though extremely and brazenly, misapplied. This case like no other has shone a light so brightly on that aspect it even has O’Mara, at least in this case, questioning his beliefs. O’Mara writes:

“…by projecting race onto the George Zimmerman case, Mr. Crump is pinning a supposed civil rights victory on a Zimmerman conviction. The problem is that by associating a Zimmerman conviction with a civil rights victory, Mr. Crump has framed a scenario where a Zimmerman victory in a Self-Defense Immunity Hearing or a Zimmerman acquittal will represent a civil rights defeat. That is inappropriate and dangerous to us as a nation.”

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/51-race-and-the-george-zimmerman-case

What O’Mara fails to recognize, at least in that article, but I can only assume must be what he is now faced with regarding his personal beliefs, is that is always the case with Crump and the likes of him. That is in effect what “they” always do because it is the default position that blacks are the victims. O’Mara believes this himself, quoting the article further and a couple of Tweets from the AP dinner:

“The truth is that there is credible evidence that black men are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and that is evidence of an underlying problem. Mark O’Mara and Don West have each spent a career in criminal defense fighting against racial bias in the justice system that affected many of their clients.”

What Crump et al. have done did not suddenly just happen to one person, in this case, George Zimmerman. This case can not be looked at in a vacuum in such a way. Crump and the likes of him have and will continue to do this in some form or another regardless of a conviction here. The only question is what are you going to do about it?

One good thing regarding the media and us silly bloggers is that so much of this has been so well documented as it pertains to this one case itself. The process, methods and all that happens that makes it happen are there to be examined and studied. As good as that is it’s simply useless without action. Purely academic. And if you haven’t noticed there has been absolutely no real push back in the other direction. NONE. Oh sure there’s been a hell of a lot of calling them out by the public but not one coward has been taken to task or even questioned by anyone in a position of power in over a year now.

Take your pick; Bondi, Scott, Triplett, Bonaparte, Corey, etc. Nope. They’ll even be running for reelection and will probably win. Crump, Jackson etc., pfft, beloved by the Florida Bar. Sybrina, not the new mother of the civil rights movement, no way. Serino, Lee, Wolfinger etc. Nothing. Any other SPD i.e. members of NOBEL, the three officers Detective Serino named that pressured him to file charges; Arthur Barns, Trekell Perkins and Rebecca Villalona, or any investigation that may lead to misconduct resulting in an unfair trial? HA! It went the other way on that one and still is regarding the Justice Department investigation of the Sanford PD and George Zimmerman. They’re looking for civil rights violations for the black person, not the “white” person, that’s the whole point of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. The Sanford Commissioners to oust Lee, probably all reelected. All the other idiots involved calling for the head of George and all the actual death threats made towards him and anyone related? Any real effort there? Nope. The M-DSPD stuff? Sure Hurley’s gone for other reasons but no doubt the legacy continued and even went further in the dark.

That’s just a start.

What of the larger social aspects, the environment, the groundwork that allows all of this to continue and flourish? The white guilt. The fear of appearing racist. That is ultimately why we are here. There is no George Zimmerman case without that. Remove that from the social psyche and you remove the power that got George Zimmerman to where he is today. You want justice for George? Start there. An exoneration alone doesn’t do it.

About these ads

59 thoughts on “24 Days and Some Thoughts

  1. “The truth is that there is credible evidence that black men are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and that is evidence of an underlying problem. Mark O’Mara and Don West have each spent a career in criminal defense fighting against racial bias in the justice system that affected many of their clients.”

    Isn’t it possible that there’s an underlying problem with some AA subcultures AND that there’s racial bias related to the presumption of innocence as a result of that? MOM may be speaking to more complex and deeper issues than what just looking at the surface might suggest. Guilt or innocence is determined on a case by case basis. Or at least it should be. But it may very well be that MOM and West have seen a ‘lessening’ of the presumption of innocence when representing black males.

    Remember, they are defense attorneys. They will always tend to think of ways someone is innocent. Prosecutors do just the opposite.

    • Anytime I hear the argument that blacks are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, I respond with this: blacks are incarcerated at a higher ratio than whites (roughly 10% of the general population versus roughly 50% of the prison population), but women, who comprise 50% of the general population, are only 5% of the prison population. Are the lack of women in prison indicative of an underlying problem? Of course not. We accept that men commit more crimes. Should we have an affirmative action plan to incarcerate more women? Insane. Just as insane as the hand-wringing over the black prison population.

  2. Very well written and articulated. Thank you for that.

    I agree with Coreshift, in that each case has to be looked at on a case by case basis. There are blacks being abused by the very power that is abusing George Zimmerman in this case.

    I’m certain the unethical behavior we are witnessing isn’t on display here for the first time. Crump, Jackson, Parks, Julison, Corey, BDLR have used their power like this before.

    So many people are putting their own agendas into the case of George Zimmerman. Be it race, gun laws, SYG laws…pick a card, any card.

    The people in power, who the voters put there, are attempting to satisfy an angry mob, stirred up by unethical lawyers using every race injustice they could think of to lie to the mob and pressure those in power of laying charges in doing so. I agree, where justice first started failing was Wolfinger not standing up and by rather stepping aside.

    What also happened in this case is a segment of the population saw what was going on, due largely to the internet and not due to media reporting, and said “Oh no you don’t, these charges should not have been laid. There is clear and convincing evidence GZ shot once in defense of his own life. That constitutes a justified shooting.”

    We donated over $350K so far to take some of the power away from the State and give it to the man being railroaded. The State with the help of the court is fighting back. A full third was “stolen” imo, from GZ in the guise of bail money. Time needed to shine a light on the abuse of those in power is being denied to protect themselves.

    There is plenty we can do to fight back and people are doing it. The conviction of GZ isn’t important to anyone except GZ and his family. Crump and Co. don’t need a conviction to reach their goal. They have already won in getting a settlement from the HOA but for the people fighting back, they will get more. The best we can hope for is to give GZ what he needs to defend against this.

    First, he has to present his case to a jury and the public. He won’t convince everyone but a lot of minds will change when they see the evidence wholly laid out. The defense team does have the evidence to get him acquitted. The time and donations now are about exposing the rot in the case, imo. I want to see the fight for more time and more money continue.

    Success has also been achieved by the side exposing the scheme and agendas. I never ever thought of a black person as being racist. I thought only white people could be racist. This case changed my mind. It has revealed to me that some people of color use and abuse their color to get their goal.

    When Mr. O’Mara talks of getting messages from racists, I now don’t picture them as all white. I suspect, a great number aren’t.

    • One other point, when the $100K was “stolen” from GZ by the court, the Judge was taking all his donation money that had come in at the time of the first bond hearing. That still boils my blood.

      • I still believe the bond should have been appealed, but OTH , IF AND ONLY IF, MOM felt at least partially culpable, that would explain why he did nothing about it.

        You well know I am not a MOM basher but I do still hold him accountable for Shellie’s position and the passport issue, which directly resulted in the increase in bond.

      • What puzzled me was Lester’s referring to it as “other people’s money”, as though he was unfamiliar with how donation means transfer of ownership.

  3. As uiia;. DMan, this is well written, factual and informative. Thank you. I hope to try to comment later.

  4. I will continue to go against the crowd and say that the trial will be delayed. If MOM says he is not ready, he is not ready and to ignore that denies George the right to a fair trial. I also think it’s possible that Nelson will delay it on her own. She knows she has made quite a few mistakes, and many are grounds for appeal, and as I write this the DCA is sitting on yet another big one.

    If she makes too many mistakes, especially major ones, then she could possibly be “disciplined.”

    IMO, anyone who would even mention civil rights in relationship to this trial, shows their true racial motive. Whatever progress had previously been made between the races, has vanished. Suddenly, we have been virtually “forced” to take a position, and in so doing, having become “racists,” whether we intended to or not.

    Anyone notice how trials have historically kept racial division alive? Rhetorical but it’s the truth. Take one step forward and then reverse a step.. maybe two.

    Guilty and not guilty verdicts both will have negative consequences. For Crump, guilty allows him to continue with his devious plans. Not guilty means once again that a white man got away with murder.

    Wonder what would actually happen if we have a hung jury? George could not possibly pay for another defense. I have also read that the state could appeal a non guilty verdict.

    Both of those scenarios would be devastating to George.

    Anyone have any insightful thoughts about this?

    • I thought I heard him say that that would start picking jurors on the 10th of June. Either that’s what they meant by the trial starting or that the trial won’t start then. He also alluded to the picking lasting 2-3 weeks or maybe even twice as long in his presser. Then that would mean that the earliest it would start would be in July. It’s possible that this could be a summer long event. Or did I hear incorrectly?

      • Don’t know but you could go back and listen I would think, lolz, perhaps even cite a time and quote and all, you know, just to be clear and everything, maybe even a link, lol.

        What? smiley

        • Funny thing I was listening to this Thurs. I really enjoyed watching West interact with BLDR. If BLDR questions witnesses like he did West, he’ll come across as a bully. I also noticed how after asking a question he would turn and act SOOO proud; chest out head up. What a PUTZ! Also, if he continues to interrupt like he did West, it’ll turn off any juror. How did he win any case without them being a slam-dunk?

          I believe he mentioned it in this video at the end:

          [Edit Dman: @17:31

          How long is the trial going to last.

          I don't know 2 to 3 weeks to pick a jury, 2 to 3 weeks or more for a trial but I could be off by a factor of 2]

        • Did BDLR really ask the defense lawyer if the exculpatory evidence (that Witness 8 lied) would “prove the innocence” of the defendant? Three times (beginning at 2:27:20), he used that same question about “proving his innocence.”

          Did he ever go to law school? Does a defendant need to “prove” his innocence, or does the prosecution need to prove otherwise? I believe that the defendant is still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          The defense attorney, West, answered perfectly, beginning with the long pause, and puzzled expression on his face, as he patiently explained the law to the prosecutor.

    • I really, really agree with your point about this case, along with the Obama Presidency, setting back race relations in this country by at least a century. I am renown for citing the FBI-SHR statistics regarding the grossly disproportionate share of homicides committed by Blacks. Blacks are only 1//8 of the population but they commit over 1/2 of the homicides and nearly 2/3 of gun homicides. While these incontrovertible facts should be a profound embarrassment to the African American community, it would be illogical or racists to suggest that all or most or even a large percentage of Blacks are murderers. The national homicide rate may be about 5 per 100,000 and the rate of homicides committed by Black s is over 50 per 100,000 and the rate of homicides committed by Black Males is close to an astounding 100 per 100,000. However; these statistics indicate that in any given year, 999 out of 1,000 Black Males DO NOT commit homicide and 940 out of 1,000 Black males will NOT commit homicide in their life time. Blacks and Black Males should not be victimized by a racially biased criminal justice system that presumes that they are thugs simply because they are Black. However; the Black community also needs to have the integrity to repudiate the criminality of a minority of Blacks who commit the majority of violent crimes.

      The problem with the Trayvon Martin shooting case is that Crump’s effort to demonize George Zimmerman has been successful only because the vast majority of Blacks prefer to embrace the thug culture that produced TM rather than repudiate it. This has destroyed the respect that many whites such as myself once had for the AA community.

        • This is an interesting list of race riots. However; it is important to note that the number of fatalities that resulted from all of these riots combined pale in comparison to the ongoing, under the radar race war that has been waged by Blacks against Whites in recent years. The folks over at the CTH have periodically featured threads that draw attention to individual incidents of racially motivated violence by groups of Blacks targeting Whites. The NationalBlackFootsoldiersNetwork celebrates such incidents. There is a nascent awareness by the White community that they have become the target of not only Black on White violence but systematic wealth redistribution as racial retribution. The affirmative action lending laws that created the mortgage crisis and nationalized healthcare are just two examples.

          To be blunt, Whites have become so frustrated and angry that any riot by Blacks will provoke an extremely violent response.

      • Now that would be one hell of a twist. I wonder what reasons they might give if they did so. “Your honor, our star witness and everyone in Trayvon’s family, including their attorneys, lied. We need time to manufacture, err I mean find, other witnesses and evidence.”

        • The reason they would give is that the defense has introduced new witnesses, and the state needs more time to analyze the resulting evidence. Without defense request for an immunity hearing, the state “goes first” at trial, and it has a right to be prepared for rebuttal from defense.

      • If that happens I will believe it would be for only one reason. Because it was determined the public is not ready for this thing to go to trial.

  5. D-Man:
    “I don’t really care much for commenting on how the trial may go, the lawyers can deal with that and it will be what it will be and I’ll deal with it at the time. But I have always thought George will be found guilty. “

    Pointed out to me by a friend:
    Jury Instruction 3.6(f) states:
    If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

    Trying to think on the other side of the line here, I’d certainly be interested in any strategy and points of evidence that could be used to get past this instruction.

    • “if all the elements of the charge have been proved.’

      So, next question is – what are the elements that have to be proved? All have to be proved.

    • The big one, and it is left in the hands of the jury, is whether or not a person in Zimmerman’s predicament would reasonably be in fear of death or serious injury.

      Another one is whether or not Zimmerman was the agressor, or provoked the attack. Team Corey will try to create a new legal principle here, because provocation cosnsits of throwing the first punch, or acting in such a way that a reasonable person would apprehend that you were about to use force. The prosecution will try to turn “getting out of the truck and following” into an act of provocation.

      • GZ followed TM
        GZ reached into pocket for ____
        TM attacked in fear of his life

        Of course that does not eliminate GZ’s fear and inability to retreat, nor explain why TM came back to confront him.

        Just trying to think like Bernie, tossing up my arms!

        • On “GZ followed TM,” the take depends on what is meant by “followed.” I prefer to ask wheter or not there is any evidence that GZ made an effort to close distance within arm’s reach. There is no evidence that he made such an effort.

          GZ said that he reached into his pocket for his phone, but the ramifications of that depend on who closed distance to within arms reach.

          There is no evidence at all that TM was in fear for his life, or even that he was in fear of being punched. Getting to that point requires conjecture, something the state is very keen to use.

      • >“getting out of the truck and following” into an act of provocation.

        there lies the beast of racial relativistic logic, that a black youth pissed at being monitored has a right to confront or beat the person who “disrespected” him.

        “what’s ya looking at” in street parlance
        If the jury embraces this concept, I will be disgusted beyond words.

        • >“getting out of the truck and following” into an act of provocation.

          there lies the beast of racial relativistic logic, that a black youth pissed at being monitored has a right to confront or beat the person who “disrespected” him.

          “what’s ya looking at” in street parlance
          If the jury embraces this concept, I will be disgusted beyond words.

          The evidence in this case should have no color. Just as it was legal for GZ to get out of the truck and follow, so to was it for TM to ask him why.

          The next step looks to be whether or not it was justified for TM to strike GZ and then continue striking him. If some guy left me thinking he had a gun that shoots bullets faster than I could run, I would not stop hitting him were I protecting myself.

          If Bernie can convince a jury TM had reason to fear GZ was reaching for a weapon, O’Mara has to convince them the circumstances changed and it was GZ that was in fear for his life, in the Devil’s opinion!

        • If someone unknown to you follows you most of the width of a neighborhood in a vehicle, and you go where the vehicle cannot go, and they get out on foot and head toward where you just were, you might interpret that as something less benign than mere “monitoring”.

          I’m not saying that that in and of itself jusifies attacking the other person, but absent any attempt by that other person to explain their actions, it certainly gives you cause to wonder about their motives and whether they are a threat to your safety.

          • Your conjecture makes perfect sense if you aren’t acting in any suspicious fashion, like not casing homes, or circling the car of the person following you, or tossing visual taunts, or bolting away between homes where these is no sidewalk, etc. Then you would have less leeway wondering about motive of the person keeping an eye on you – they might just wonder if you are up to no good. And as for interpreting whether the intention was more than monitoring of your whereabouts, it’s very easy to judge whether or not a person is interested in closing distace to a point where they can make physical contact. None of the evidence indicates Zimmerman made an effort to close distance to that extent, or that he did.

            As far as threat to safety goes, there is the immediate concern – which is customarily addressed by keeping distance – and a longer term concern (e.g., stalker) which is addressed by notifying authorities and taking measures to avoid contact and/or being prepared should the “stalker” pose a theat of violence.

            • Up until the first punch was thrown, neither of them violated a law by following or confronting the other. Could that first punch be justified by TM suspecting GZ was reaching for a weapon?

              If possible, when did GZ have justification for protecting himself?

              I think we all know what happened, but Bernie has the opportunity fill in the blanks however damning he can so long as there is no conflicting evidence …well, other than GZ’s statements given, which the jury will decide whether or not they see them as fact.

          • TM approached GZ in an intimidating manner prior to GZ leaving his car. TM already checked out GZ and GZ was too unnerve to even engage him. TM already felt that he was in control.

      • Devil’s Advocate:
        GZ says he reached into his pocket to get ____ when TM struck him. TM fills in the blank, by way of Bernie.

        • That may account for the hit by TM on GZ; not for then beat down afterwards. He could have hit him and ran.

          BTW, the real problem for BLDR is why TM was at the T four minutes after he started running. I see no way past that for him for a conviction.

          • However Nancy B @ Huff ‘n Puff has the answer.

            “You present no evidence to support your allegation that Trayvon Martin committed aggravated assault on Mr Zimmerman. If you listened to the NEN conversation, you would know that GZ admitted that he left his truck to follow Trayvon If you saw the original interviews with Officers Serino and Singleton you would know that he admitted continuing to follow the boy after being asked not to. In his reenactment GZ actually shows how he “beat the bushes” searching for the boy who ran from him. GZ’s original statement about the intial contact between himand Trayvon involved “you gotta problem homie”, a sucker punch and “you gonna die tonight MFer” After learning that he was witnessed by both DD and W11, George dropped the homie bit and moved the sucker punch and the death threat until “later”. Given that he shot Trayvon less than 60 seconds from the end of the phone conversation, there wasn’t any later.According to both the forensic evidence and W18, at no time was GZ in any danger of anything. She places him sitting on top of a screaming Trayvon, no bashing no hitting, firing a single shot into his chest, silencing him immediately. Her testimony is supported by the location of both the body and the shell casing, some 40 feet from where GZ claimed the shooting took place. There was no concrete anywhere near the actual kill scene, proving, again, that GZ lied about being forced to shoot TM to prevent his head being bashed into.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Ejarra/george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground_n_3185761_250438153.html

              • Her main point, as well as many other’s there, is that they believe that TM never laid a hand on GZ period and that GZ made up the fact that he was attacked by TM to justify his shooting of him. No broken nose, no blood, two small scratches equals no reason to kill.

                Even BLDR won’t go down that road. Which is why I believe that even if all six jurors find him innocent and that he also get awarded immunity, it won’t matter to the lot of them. He’ll always be a baby killer in their minds.

                • Sadly you are probably correct but many felt the same about OJ and still do. So it was also with Robert Blake and CA.

            • Nancy Benefiel has been there forever. Her job is to dispute, disrespect, and then run off folks like you and me. I have debated with her in the past. She stands her ground.

              When you win, she usually reports your post as offensive so that the mods will delete it.

            • well Miss Nancy, GZ was not told not to follow TM, and he was not asked to follow TM, he was informed that he didn’t have to follow TM.

              • Nancy’s narrative has many disconnects with the evidence. But she’s not worth reading or thinking about or rebutting, because the only narrative that merits rebutting is the state’s narrative, and the state has been careful to not lay one out.

              • He was also NOT told to get back in the truck after Sean realized he was no longer in it and that it was near. Many seem to forget that part.

            • Exactly, BOTH were legally allowed to be there. Does that mean that TM then became the pursuer? One can make the argument that since he didn’t go home as expected, that he by blending in the shadows, followed GZ. So with that in mind EVERYTHING that transpired before hand is just fodder. Now it goes to if one believes that George was accosted by TM and if TM hit him first. I have yet to see any testimony written or oral that directly contradicts what George stated.

              I don’t believe that he ever saw the gun when he attacked GZ. If he had, it would make more sense to try and get it while GZ was still disoriented than waiting for about a minute before reaching for it.

              • I don’t believe that he ever saw the gun when he attacked GZ.

                I doubt if he saw it also. Bernie could claim TM feared it was a weapon GZ was reaching for when going for the phone.

  6. Need edit tool!

    By “other side of the line” I meant what “strategy and points of evidence” the state would use to seek a guilty verdict.

  7. …GZ said that he reached into his pocket for his phone, but the ramifications of that depend on who closed distance to within arms reach.

    There is no evidence at all that TM was in fear for his life, or even that he was in fear of being punched.

    TM confronted to see why he was being followed. GZ reached into pocket. TM thought it was a gun and attacked out of fear. Later saw gun, so GZ says, and went for it to keep GZ from using it on him.

    Devil’s Advocate

      • …from the evidence you [jurors] are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force

        That “evidence” is important. We have what GZ told us in statements (follow, reach for ___…). Will O’Mara also work to convince the jury that even if TM was in fear after confronting GZ to ask why he was following him, he still had a right to protect himself?

      • We have 2 sources that tell us of the confrontation: GZ and DD. Neither made it sound like a breath mint moment! :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s