Where's the Uproar, City-Data Pittsburgh forum

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Unfortunately, I expect you've said and will say the same next time a verdict doesn't go your way.

As will many of us, including whites the next time some black thugs goes free... Curtis already showed us upthread how his kind reacts when it's Black on white crime... Goodnite, Erieguy, tell Curtis I said hi at the next "Meeting"

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

Dare I mention the George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin matter and how the press so completely misrepresented and in many cases fabricated facts?

You go ahead and believe what you read in the press or on the Internet. If you trust the press to be competent, fair, and or honest and the Internet to be reliable.

But, if you'd really like to know what "facts" were agreed upon and relied upon by the authorities and attorneys in coming to the agreements and sentencing, read the trial transcript (if there is one).

Well, now you've gone and tipped your hand. You had plausible deniability of your anti-black racism, but that's gone now. A Zimmerman defense is is right up there with "it's heritage, not hate".

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

That's your opinion ... All we have is the media and the consistency of it .... Some of us, I'm guessing you don't believe the media or facts, unless it fits a narrative to which you subscribe.

I can't debate with people who refuse to believe fact as they are presented, because of some supposed vast left-wing media conspiracy theory.

What makes you believe that facts as they are presented by the media are correct? If the media was correct in its portrayal of the facts in the GZ case, why then did Obama's DOJ not pursue a civil rights case against GZ? Can you think about that?

No, we are not at all limited by the media as our only source of information regarding criminal trials. In the case of the Zimmerman trial, the proceedings were open and transparent and televised from the very beginning. All of the evidence was presented in open court, for all to see/hear.

Why in the world would I trust an incompetent and often duplicitous media to present the "facts"?

I closely followed the Zimmerman trial from start to finish. It is indicative of a failing education system and irresponsible media that even today, there remain so many people who are completely ignorant of not only the applicable law in that case, but, also of the facts that were supported by evidence.

Even many very reputable liberal legal commentators understood and criticised the media and the DOJ and Obama for pushing for a political trial.

You don't know me at all, but, you believe, based on a few posts I've made in this thread that I am some sort of redneck conservative racist. But, you are wrong. You don't trust my opinion (knowledgeable as it is). Perhaps you will trust the opinion of one of the preeminent liberal attorneys in the US. Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left, the Online Magazine with Liberal Coverage of Crime-related Political and Injustice News, is an outspoken critic of the American criminal justice system, particularly with respect to aspects that unfairly disadvantage black defendants. She is one of my favorite legal commentators. You likely have no idea who she is. She is an American criminal defense attorney admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and is a member of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, and she received the first annual Marshall Stern Legislative Achievement Award from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), for which she has served as a member of the Board of Directors (1995–2001), secretary (2002–2003) and treasurer (2003–2004), and as the vice-chair of NACDL's Innocence Project from 1998 to 2002 and on various other committees.

Jeralyn is also famous among attorneys and social justice folks for her excellent site, Talk Left, The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news.

Originally Posted by Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left

After 16 months of watching this case take on a life of its own, perpetuated by misstatements of the media and the interests of private lawyers pursuing a personal and divisive agenda on behalf of their clients, my tone, like that of other lawyers who objected to this prosecution, rose... A prosecutor's job is to bring charges when the facts show a conviction can be obtained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not to kow-tow to public pressure or satisfy the demands of a private party or even the public for bringing criminal charges. Politics has no place in the criminal justice system... This case has been miscast as a civil rights issue since the day the Martin family's lawyers came on the scene. If the public wants to be believe them, that's their right. If they want to bring civil lawsuits against George Zimmerman or law enforcement or public entities, that's their choice. But when it comes to those lawyers and their public relations team using their bully pulpit to inflame passions and exert undue influence on the actions of law enforcement and public officials, including elected prosecutors, who have a duty not to bring charges without a good faith belief they can prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, all the while having a financial stake in the outcome of related civil litigation, I object.

Here is Jeralyn at Talk Left lambasting the media in the US with respect to its coverage of the Zimmerman Trial:

Originally Posted by Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left

It’s as if the country has time-traveled back to the days of the Salem Witch trials and still not satisfied, goes back further to the days of ancient Rome and gladiators. A guilty verdict in America today brings throngs of cheering spectators to the courthouse steps. The prospect of a not guilty verdict has public officials planning for riots and protests. All this in nation where the most fundamental and bedrock principle of the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence.

It is beyond shameful that on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, our national and cable news channels, instead of paying respect to the rights and individual freedoms we all enjoy today, choose to fill the airwaves with guilt-mongers, who out of ignorance or to promote their personal partisan agenda, unite to declare a man guilty before his defense has even begun to present its case.

Not persuasive? Here's the very liberal Juan Williams describing the sham trial of Zimmerman:

Originally Posted by Juan Williams

In June, before the trial started, a CNN poll asked Americans if they believed the murder charges against Zimmerman were true or false. Without any courtroom testimony or evidence, but based on the racially charged media coverage, 62 percent of Americans said the charges were “probably true” or “definitely true.” My bet is that poll would have different results today. The trial has failed to prove Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” – as required for a second-degree murder conviction – or even with a racist mind. He certainly killed Martin. And the jury may decide he is guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But what we heard in the courtroom fits with an FBI report that found race was not a factor in Martin’s shooting death. The strong public judgment of Zimmerman’s guilt in the poll reflected a racially weighted media telling of the story. Photos of a bloodied Zimmerman after the incident, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense and the police decision not to charge Zimmerman all got a dismissive glance from the press and contributed to public assumptions about Zimmerman before the trial.

I could cite many more, but, I doubt you or anyone who is still unconvinced would bother to read the opinions of respected legal scholars and professionals.

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

You sit here and admit you haven't read any of the details, but solely base you opinion on the opinion of others on this board.

I have not done that. I have instead commented on the law and how we need to apply the law to the facts of the case, and how facts can be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and how the media is unreliable as a source of legal commentary. Moreover, I even suggested how it might be possible that the other 4 guys in the case the topic of this thread might be guilty of aiding and abetting in the commission of the battery. I did, however, note how difficult it would be to prove the facts necessary to convict on that charge.

Originally Posted by gladhands

Well, now you've gone and tipped your hand. You had plausible deniability of your anti-black racism, but that's gone now. A Zimmerman defense is is right up there with "it's heritage, not hate".

Now you've gone and tipped your hand as one of the many who remain even today ignorant of the facts and the law in the GZ case. You don't know me, at all. The folks at the KKK call me a race traitor because I married outside of my race, yet you accuse me of being a racist. I've been around and associated with people of all races all of my life, from the time my father became a business partner and close friend of a black man.

Come on, folks. Yinz can do better than this nonsense.

[Salmonburgher]

So, we're done here?

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

So, we're done here?

Winner

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

So, we're done here?

Until the next case.

[Yac]

This thread .. it's going nowhere constructive. There is too much anger, too many strawmen, too much substituting opinions for facts.
Closed.
Yac.