When the special prosecutor in the Trayvon case declined to put evidence before a grand jury, I knew that Zimmerman would be charged. It was clear to me that the prosecutor did not want to take the chance of a grand jury choosing not to charge, the fallout would be too great politically. So I knew she was determined to charge Zimmerman.
However, when the news broke that she would charge him with Murder 2nd degree, I was shocked. While I freely admit that I don’t know all that transpired that night, there was absolutely nothing in any of the accounts available that seemed close to establishing Murder2. I mean the first prosecutor that looked at this didn’t even think that he could prove manslaughter, but this prosecutor skipped right over manslaughter and murder in the 3rd. I couldn’t understand it. So naturally I assumed, they know something I don’t know, something new.
Then the affidavit used to establish the charge of murder in the 2nd became public and I was shocked again. There is nothing new. Not only nothing new, but the probable cause affidavit left out key parts of the narrative the would mitigate against a murder2 charge. I know I am a layman, but all I could think was “What the heck?”
Then yesterday I saw a video of Alan Dershowitz saying the same thing. That the affidavit doesn’t even come close to probable cause for murder 2 and that any decent judge would have to throw out the charge.
And then it all became clear. The prosecutor WANTS the judge to throw out the charge.
It seems to me that the prosecutor knows that even manslaughter will be hard to prove but the charge is perhaps justified. But she also knew that anything less than the maximum charge would unleash the full fury of the race-baiters and hucksters currently roaming Florida neighborhoods. So she brings the charge of murder2 even though she knows it will likely be tossed. Then she can come back with a manslaughter charge and she is off the hook. You don’t like it? Blame the judge.
Bait & Switch.
Cold. Political. Calculation.
Life is a Tom Wolfe novel. We just live here.
April 14, 2012 at 6:35 pm
It was basically a response to several posts above about George Zimmerman's race and the apparent assumption that he must be innocent.
This is what's known as a strawmen. I don't think people are assuming he is innocent, but many of us have a problem with what appears to be a politically based charge on seemingly scanty evidence. We don't really know what happened, and perhaps Zimmerman acted maliciously.
That's what i hear, coming through loudly and clearly through most conservative blogs.
Again, that's your interpretation.
Gun control is abhorrent, therefore, it must be OK for a man to wield a gun and thereby be declared innocent because the one who got away has a mark on the back of his head.
Yet another strawman.
As for your need to be insulting, that is not wisdom.
Neither is your sanctimonious, substance-free observation ridden with logical fallacies.
April 15, 2012 at 4:28 am
A man is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. God's perfect Justice is finer than gold.
April 16, 2012 at 5:22 am
Michael Nifong jumped on the case because he was up for reelection and wanted to appeal to his voter based in the area.
From what I hear, Angela Casey, the prosecutor, is also up for election. Thus, such a "conspiracy" makes total sense, from a reelection perspective.
April 16, 2012 at 3:04 pm
If there's not enough evidence to charge (which was the claim in the beginning), it doesn't make a difference if you charge him with criminally negligent homicide or murder 2. Actually, murder 2 is going to be phenomenally difficult to prove unless there is some evidence thathe was angry at Trayvon and wanted to kill him.
April 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm
@Sue
It was basically a response to several posts above about George Zimmerman's race and the apparent assumption that he must be innocent.
Actually, no. It was highlighting the ordinary minsters of the media's desire to craft a racial/racist narrative where none exists. I don't know whether he is guilty or not, but mobs of angry black people, whipped into a frenzy by the likes of the "reverend" Al Sharpton, want to string him up. That's not how we do things here in the U.S. (well, not any more).
That's what i hear, coming through loudly and clearly through most conservative blogs.
Then you are not listening carefully enough. Take off the MSM glasses and take a look at the facts of the case.
Gun control is abhorrent, therefore, it must be OK for a man to wield a gun and thereby be declared innocent because the one who got away has a mark on the back of his head.
Gun control is abhorrent, and natural law dictates that we are allowed to defend our life or the threat of grave personal injury with deadly force.
If a young man were sitting on my chest pounding on my face and I couldn't get away (which is what the "marks" on his head, his broken nose and the grass stains on his back indicate), I would reach into my strong side pocket, pull my handgun and shoot him in the chest. If he didn't stop pounding me, I'd shoot him again. Lather, rinse, repeat until he stopped pounding me.
I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
As for your need to be insulting, that is not wisdom.
I don't need to be insulting, but it's a character flaw of mine.