The Daily Caller
Prosecutors may refer to George Zimmerman as a ‘”wannabe cop” and a “vigilante” in their opening statements, a judge presiding over Zimmerman’s case ruled Friday.
The prosecution is also allowed to describe his actions as “profiling,” but may not use the words “racial profiling” after Seminole district Judge Debra S. Nelson ruled that prosecutors may employ any language they feel appropriately describes their evidence, although the defense requested that they avoid “inflammatory language,” according to The Miami Herald.
So Zimmerman will be treated as guilty until proven innocent, but Martin can be portrayed as an angel? Wait for the evidence.
ReplyDeleteZimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. Not the same as truly blameless innocence. Just awaiting a verdict.
ReplyDeleteNo one can judge Trayvon Martin. He is no longer with us. An angel? Perhaps not. Maybe his family likes to tell his younger cousins and nieces and nephews that he is a star in the sky.
It's going to be a difficult case to prove as the principal witness is dead. But in the end, the prosecution only has to prove that Zimmerman profiled and confronted an unarmed teenager and then killed him. The defense may have a more difficult time of proving self-defense. All of the relevant evidence has been out there since day one. Zimmerman's little girl upspeak call to 911 about a "suspicious character," the dispatcher telling him to back off and wait for the authorities to arrive, Trayvon's frantic conversation with his girlfriend on his phone when he saw Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle to come after him.
Anything else is just so much lawyer double-speak playing to the emotions of the jury.
At least the "voice expert" con men won't be allowed to poison the process.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, I don't know if Zimmerman acted in necessary self-defense, or if he is a murderer, and I certainly don't know what the verdict will be.
I do know that if he's acquitted, large cities could become pretty tense for a while. And I know I'll be packing a couple more "high capacity" magazines when in St. Louis.
To all of those who feel ideologically compelled to seek some form of "Justice"
ReplyDeleteThe law takes no account for victims. The duty of the prosecutor is to bring suit on behalf of society and the collective state. The criminal justice system is not intended to punish or right the wrongfullness of an act or omission aginst an individual or collective non-state entity, but rather to serve as a crude and nihilistic means of extracting the payment of "debts" to the state, which are created by the commission of certain acts which either cause public harm, or which the rulers (Congress or legislature) find to be objectionable.
If you wish to seek "Justice" at an individual level (other than filing a civil suit), than you are no different than the purported "vigilantly" who is the subject of the trial.
Regardless of the outcome of the trial, Zimmerman (and his family) will bear the ignominy of his "crime" until the day that he dies (or society forgets Travon Martin).
E.N.
DeleteYes, I know that there are some people who believe this collectivist tripe you keep spouting all over here. If you really are one of them, please insert your head into the nearest wood chipper/snow cutter/other large piece of machinery.
Otherwise, Please just give the trolling a rest, because frankly you're about to cause me to vomit all over my computer.
I was illuminating the heaps of collectivist offal inherent in the legal system, not advocating it. I apologize if I appear cynical, but the reality of a broken and ethically repugnant system, that is advocated by legal scholars of the collectivist variety cannot be ignored.
DeletePythia,
DeleteThat was the goal I expected you and all of the E.N. puppets had in mind. That being said, it's not exactly helpful to our attempts at discussion here to have such ideas advanced for illustrative purposes--it takes the heat off of all of the other collectivist drivel spouted here.
As for our legal system, yes, it's broken, and the infection of the type of idea you're talking about is one of the problems, but that doesn't describe the full purpose of our system. I'm usually considered a cynic (though with better manners and morals than Diogenes) but in my experience, broken as the system is, the ideas that you are lampooning have not taken over the system yet. Infected? Yes. But for the most part, when the mask comes off and the true nature is revealed, people (not academics--real people) react to that idea with revulsion.
I'm an academic who reacts with revulsion.
DeleteGreg, Apologies. Looking at your response and my harshness toward academics, I see I got carried away insulting all academics when I had a small number in mind--the authors of certain textbooks and one or two law school professors who would give real credence to these ideas. These, of course, were the professors who thought themselves miles ahead of the rest of the faculty, leading my disdain for their elitist self preening of their enlightened status to cause the overbroad generalization.
DeleteAs for my law school experience, I found that most of the professors, thankfully, didn't fully swallow this kind of horseshit. It was interesting, because we had Glen Reynolds on the staff, but everyone else (with the possible exceptions of two contracts teachers and a property law guy who didn't show their political leanings) seemed to be spread along the political continuum between Center Left and pink verging on red.
A last tidbit that may make Laci shit a brick if he reads it: regardless of where the professors fell along the spectrum, they seemed to think that the Court got Heller right. They had different opinions as far as what restrictions were allowed (with how far left they were not seeming to have much of an effect on the extent they thought was ok), but even the progressives acknowledged that People, surprise surprise, meant people.
And since I got off topic, and in case this is tl;dr:
Sorry for being snarky and insulting all academics.
It's all good, Tennessean. There are many academics who lose sight of the real world. Graduate school is a heady experience and then getting a teaching position where students have to listen to every word we say can be quite the ego boost. I try to stay grounded, by inviting my students to ask questions, challenge me, express their doubts, and so forth, but I'm sure I've gone off into La-la Land at times.
Delete