Search the Lounge

« Is St. Louis University President Biondi Clipping Opponents' Paychecks? | Main | The Nat Turner Trials »

July 25, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

R Walsh

The lack of basic research on the Zimmerman matter is staggering.

Last week, I heard Anderson Cooper on CNN repeatedly, over several days of coverage on his show, referring to a study that he claimed shows that the presence of at least one African-American on a jury makes a significant difference in conviction rates. He kept hammering that the all-white jury was a key problem for the prosecution, and referenced the study over and over.

But a 30 second Google check on the study shows that he is wrong. The study discusses Jury POOLS that have at least one African-American -- and the Zimmerman jury POOL did have African-Americans included. He literally did not know what he was taking about, and the study he kept mentioning was in fact entirely irrelevant to the Zimmerman case given that the pool had non-whites.

I did email them, but no one at CNN ever stopped him from mis-characterizing the information because the study gives them evidence that supports their preconceived conclusions so is 'too good to check'.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/study-all-white-juries-more-likely-convict-black-defendants

Eric Rasmusen

I've been looking to see if I can find even one law professor who will say that Zimmerman should have been convicted. (Law professors have reputations to maintain, so they are more responsible than pundits.) I am pleased to see that even Prof. Ford in the New Republic agrees that Zimmerman should have been acquitted, under the normal law of self defense:

"The acquittal of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, has led many to indict the jury that delivered the verdict as racists. But because of Florida’s lax laws on self-defense and problems with the prosecution’s case, the verdict was probably justified. The real injustice is that what Zimmerman did was lawful, and the real racial issue here is that thousands of black people are in prison for far less serious offenses.

Larry Brasfield

Instead of feeling chafed, or looking at this as outrageous (which it would be among honorable people), I suggest it is more appropriate to classify the article's author, and probably its publisher, as a deliberate deceiver. People who pretend to inform by citing facts, but who do so misleadingly, are unwilling to let readers know the truth, preferring to stuff their own story into the minds of their dupes.

Those who are willing to be dupes are not put off by such behavior, so it follows that they read such deceitful authors or publications merely to reinforce the pattern of thinking they prefer rather than to learn anything actually about the world. I believe this to be a form of "mental masturbation".

The people who provide mental masturbation aids know what they are doing. It is a mistake to heed them except to learn what stories are being peddled.

anon

Eric Rasmusen: Isn't the author of this opinion piece at MSNBC a law professor?
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/15/race-justice-and-trayvon-martin/

4thYearLawProf

I confess that, even though Richard Thompson Ford is a professor at a truly elite law school who writes in areas of popular interest, I have never heard of him. Maybe the deliberate misstatements regarding the Zimmerman trial are being used as a tool to bring himself into the spotlight? I can't think of any other reason that he would so deliberately lie.

Boballab.wordpress.com

So your concerned that a media outlet that is leftwing, that has an author that writes a story that fits the major media narrative, doesn't like changing the story away from the narrative to fits the facts?

If that is the case in the immortal words of John McClain:
"Welcome to the party Pal!" since this phenomena goes back to the 1970's at least. Or to put it another way this is just another case of Dog bites Man, nothing new here.

TallDave

Thanks for pointing out an egregiously false attack on Zimmernan, an ordinary guy just trying to help.

There's a couple very common misconceptions floating around. One, Trayvon was a known burglar (he'd been caught with burglary tools and stolen goods, which were later linked to a burglary near his school, which we only know because of FOIA requests), and Zimmerman glommed onto him because he was acting like one -- not for any other reason. Two, Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon as soon as he he received the implied request. He only got out to check an address -- at that point the police were coming to his truck and he just needed to tell them where he was when they called back.

So, what happened was that Zimmerman reported a known burglar acting suspiciously, was assaulted by said burglar while trying to find an address, and then killed the burglar in self-defense while legitimately in fear for his life. They should have built Z a statue, not charged him with a crime.

The real tragedy isn't what happened to Trayvon that night -- he was well on the path to jail or death before Zimmerman entered his life. The real tragedy is that in the seventeen years prior no one stepped up and put him on a better path. And that's a tragedy happening every day in black neighborhoods across the country.

wfjag

Lessons learned from the Zimmerman trial:
1. The object of the press' scorn will be changed into a white, conservative, whatever he was before;
2. A Brown man killing a Black man in self defense is absolute proof that all White men are racists;
3. Don't sucker punch and ground and pound some guy in a CCW state;
4. People who are protected by armed security guards think everyone else have a duty to retreat.

Jerome

"Eric Rasmusen: Isn't the author of this opinion piece at MSNBC a law professor?"

"Darren Lenard Hutchinson teaches Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, and Critical Race Theory at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He received a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and a J.D. from Yale Law School."

He has this to say;
'The Constitution requires that prosecutors establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” '

I doubt that Professor Hutchinson has ever read that document. He is obviously about as fit to teach Constitutional Law as Barack Obama was, when his cronies allowed him to claim a paycheck for parading his ignorance.

Sammy12

Never let facts get in the way of a race story. How about the media continuing to say that it was an all white jury (and still to this day). Sorry but b29 or whatever number she was didn't look white to me.

Hutchinson on Zimmerman

Eric Rasmusen,

Law professor Hutchinson says "There was enough circumstantial and direct evidence presented in the trial for a reasonable juror to find that Zimmerman initiated physically aggressive contact with Martin. This finding would virtually negate Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense." He also says, "A juror could rationally conclude that after getting out of his car and following Martin, Zimmerman either attacked or frightened the teen. This finding would have legitimated Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman."

There you have a law professor saying that a jury could have convicted Zimmerman. The article reads like he wanted the jury to convict Zimmerman.

MrCreosote

"A juror could rationally conclude that after getting out of his car and following Martin, Zimmerman either attacked or frightened the teen. This finding would have legitimated Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman."

Martin's injuries-Skinned knuckles,single bullet hole in the thoracic area

Zimmerman's injuries, facial and cranial lacerations, broken nose, two black eyes.

Open and shut. The second coming of Jesus Christ acting for the prosecution could not have legitimated Martin's use of force in the eyes of any sane jury.

It's clear enough for any idiot to understand that Martin struck first,and was presenting a very real danger of death to Zimmerman with his pre-emptive violence. The only violence from Zimmerman was his defensive gunshot. Even when he had the opportunity to bash Martin's skull in as Martin was doing to him, he refrained for as long as he could from responding to Martin's aggression with ANY type of force. In other words, he gave Martin every opportunity to stop,but Martin wanted to kill him. Now, I'm not one to take anyone's statements at face value in a situation like this, but Zimmerman reported that Martin said to him,"You're going to die tonight". On its own, that doesn't mean much. Taken in conjunction with Martin and Zimmerman's actions,it is damning. As a veteran of these types of street fights, the basic veracity of Zimmerman's story shines through all the media hype about "evil white racists stalking black pre-teens armed only with skittles". How he described it is almost certainly exactly how it went down,judging by the forensics and my own not insubstantial experience in these matters.

Auntbea 49

There is a post at American Thinker which makes sense of the skittles and the carbonated fruit drink (not iced tea) that Martin purchased. It is substantiated by a screen-captured segment of Trayvon's conversation with a friend from Trayvon's Facebook page (now gone). Google " American Thinker Trayvon Martin's final hour". This was written before the trial.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bloggers Emereti

Blog powered by Typepad