I have been thinking for days about this post, starting it
several times only to erase it and begin again.
I want to say this correctly but without leaving anything out. There’s a good chance
I’m going to irritate someone or hurt someone’s feelings but that happens
sometimes when you’re honest.
I was told yesterday I should leave this alone because I don’t
know what it’s like to be a black man in America. And that is absolutely true, I don’t. But I do know what it feels like to be hated
for my skin color. I’ve felt it first-hand. And after working in prisons most of my adult
life I know what it’s like to be watched anytime I enter a room. It’s not a good feeling and I wouldn’t like
it much if it happened in a neighborhood store.
However, the reason I can’t leave it alone is because there
is blatant race baiting going on in this country today and it goes all the way
to the White House. After George
Zimmerman was found not guilty by the jury, the professional race baiters went
into high gear. I’m talking, of course,
about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party and many in the
mainstream media. Sharpton in particular,
the most productive for-profit race baiter in the country, began his incendiary
rhetoric and began organizing massive protests nationwide because “justice”
didn’t quite go his way.
I’m OK with people not agreeing with the verdict. I don’t agree with the verdict in all cases
either. But I respect that verdict and
try to understand it rather than decide that justice is mine to extract. The New Black Panther Party put a bounty on
George Zimmerman’s head, just as they did immediately following the shooting. So where is the Attorney General when that
happens? Is it not a violation of
Zimmerman’s civil rights to have a radical, hate filled organization put a
bounty on your head? Mr. Attorney
General – we’re waiting…!
Jesse Jackson has called for the United Nations to
investigate the case for human rights violations. Really?
What possible authority does Jesse Jackson have to ask the United
Nations to do anything?
Chris Matthews took it upon himself to apologize for the
entire white race for the incident. OK –
Chris Matthews is an idiot so who cares?
Attorney General Eric Holder opened up a tip line web site
so people can submit any kind of dirt they might have on George Zimmerman so
the feds can try to build a civil rights violation case against him. The FBI has already said there is no evidence
of racial bias in the case but that’s not good enough for Holder. He’s going to find something even if he has
to make it up. Mark my words on that.
Yesterday the President re-emphasized the supposed racial
aspect of it by saying that if Martin had been a white teen the outcome might
have been different. Well, Mr. President
– that may very well be true. But it may
very well be false. There are many who
believe that George Zimmerman would have done the same thing he did no matter
who the other person was. And as wise as
people think you are – that’s a theory that you cannot substantiate. It’s pure speculation on your part based on
racial bias. And it is blatantly wrong
for a sitting President to insert himself into a state case via racial
means.
A few months ago in Brunswick, Georgia, 13 month old Antonio
West, a white child, was shot and killed by two black teenagers who were
robbing his mother. They are facing
murder charges now but there has been no federal investigation for civil rights
violations nor has the President mentioned the shooting. Similarly, in another city in this country, a
neighborhood watch man, an adult carrying a concealed weapon, shot and killed
an unarmed teenage boy and was found not-guilty by a jury after two days of
deliberations. The 16 year old boy was
white. The neighborhood watch guy was
black. Where is the media coverage? Where are the Attorney General and the
President? Why are they not commenting
and opening up a federal investigation?
My points are these…
the mainstream media puts racial tones on anything it deems worthy of
exploitation for ratings. Black on white
racism is accepted as being OK because black people were mistreated in this
country for so long. Stories of a black
man killing a white man don’t bring in advertising dollars nor increase
ratings. However, white on black crime
(or “white Hispanic” on black crime) gets attention, particularly if the media
can stir up racial tension nationwide by reporting the facts as they make them
up.
My second point is if the President and the Attorney General
are going to involve themselves in cases like the Martin/Zimmerman incident,
shouldn’t they be involving themselves in cases that are the other way
around? If not, it screams of racial
bias on their parts and creates even more racial tension in the country. Do you think those people who are protesting
the Zimmerman verdict don’t notice when the President of the United States gets
on national television and indicates that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was
racially motivated – even though there is no evidence of that being the case?
The Trayvon Martin case was a tragedy because a kid is
dead. Maybe he was a troubled kid but
who knows who he may have grown into? We’ll
never know now. And his parents loved
him and now he’s gone. And that is a
tragedy.
But the Martin shooting is no worse than, and honestly doesn't even compare to the hundreds of
black kids in Chicago who end up dead every year from black on black
violence. So why is the focus of
everyone from the media to Sharpton to the President on George Zimmerman
instead of Chicago? The sad truth is because
racist hate is more sensational and creates more anger than genocide.
As for the President – making his racial inference the day
before the Sharpton rallies, in my humble opinion, was very carefully and strategically
planned. Barack Obama is not a stupid
man. Nor are his handlers. He knew what he was doing and timed it to
obtain maximum participation in the rallies today.
I haven’t watched the news today to see how they went. I’ll do that later tonight and just see the
highlights. No doubt if there was
violence at any of them (that wasn’t sparked by white counter protests) it won’t
be reported by the mainstream media.
Reporting things like that would be counterproductive to their agenda. FOX will show it if it happened. But they’ll be the only ones.
I hope the protests went off peacefully and that everyone
who participated feels better. Those who
are unsatisfied with the verdict need not worry. Eric Holder is going to charge George
Zimmerman with civil rights violations before long – even if he has to
manufacture evidence. And yes – I do believe
he’s crooked enough to manufacture evidence.
Eric Holder may be the most dishonest and agenda driven Attorney General
in my lifetime.
I wish everyone would accept the verdict and let it
die. The Zimmerman case won’t be over
until he is either convicted by a federal jury of civil rights violations or
someone takes him out. Zimmerman’s life
is over for all practical purposes. He
cannot go out for fear of his life. The
feds are keeping his gun so he can’t protect himself. I think that is intentional as well – not because
they need it as evidence but because Holder just doesn’t want him to have it
back.
Those are my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to disagree if you wish and please
feel free to explain why you disagree. I
welcome honest and open dialogue on any topic.
But it will help if you come with facts.
Saying something like “Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black”
is not fact – it’s opinion. If you’ve
got evidence – bring it.
Many lay claim that in this case even though he was found NOT GUILTY does not mean he is innocent. Can this be true in a legal definition?
ReplyDeleteNo.
There are only two verdicts that can be reached in a criminal case "Guilty," or "Not Guilty." But what does this have to do with innocence?
It is called Presumption of Innocence:
"A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.
In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.
The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.
Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society."
Thus in conclusion with the absence of contrary evidence the government (city, county, state, federal) that cannot prove that the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Must draw a "Not Guilty" verdict. So if the defendant is carries the presumption of innocence entering into a trial, and is found not guilty then he still carries the presumption of innocence departing the trial because he never lost it.
George Zimmerman is not only "Not Guilty," he is also innocent.