June 20, 2013

Zimmerman jury: All women, no blacks (?)

Jack Cashil reports in WND:
In a case filled with anomalies, chalk up one more: Unless one of the six chosen jurors is booted from the case, George Zimmerman will have an all female jury. 
And if the Hispanic Zimmerman is considered white – he would not be on trial if he were not – his jury is all white as well. In any case, there are no blacks among the six jurors or four alternates.

Murder trials can go on a long time and lots of original jurors can drop out in favor of the alternates, as happened with the O.J. Simpson case, so that can change jury demographics over time.

But, it sounds like the two sides in the Trayvon Martin case might have had different opinions in picking the jury on the primacy of sex v. race in loyalty, rather like a photographic negative of the O.J case. As I wrote in Is Love Colorblind?
... probably the most disastrous mistake Marcia Clark made in prosecuting O. J. Simpson was to complacently allow Johnny Cochran to pack the jury with black women. As a feminist, Mrs. Clark smugly assumed that all female jurors would identify with Nicole Simpson. She ignored pretrial research indicating that black women tended to see poor Nicole as The Enemy, one of those beautiful blondes who steal successful black men from their black first wives, and deserve whatever they get.

Perhaps Zimmerman's lawyer feels that this is basically a racial trial, while the prosecutor feels the way to win is to reproduce the successful media tactic of eliciting maternal feelings for the 12-year-old dead child? That could lead to them effectively agreeing upon a jury of nonblack women. (Or is one mixed race?)

125 comments:

Anonymous said...

IIRC, it's actually 5 white women and 1 hispanic woman.

Corn said...

Although there are no blacks on the jury, when I first heard the jury was all woman my first thought was "Zimmerman's screwed".
Women to be more in favor of gun control than men. They may not care if it was self defense or not if he defended himself with one of those tools of Satan.

sunbeam said...

Wheels within wheels. With the way the media frenzied there is no telling what the prosecution actually wants to do.

Ie, if this case weren't a media firestorm it might never have gone to trial.

Anonymous said...

"Although there are no blacks on the jury, when I first heard the jury was all woman my first thought was "Zimmerman's screwed".
Women to be more in favor of gun control than men. They may not care if it was self defense or not if he defended himself with one of those tools of Satan."

Zimmerman's problem is that he's not all that attractive.

Jim Goad had some advice for him...

https://twitter.com/jimgoad/status/347833942151405568

"All-female jury for George Zimmerman. Here's my advice, George: Situps. Lots of situps."

Anonymous said...

How many jurors does it take for a conviction? A hung jury? Acquittal?

Harry Baldwin said...

Sounds like they split it right down the middle. Worst thing for Zimmerman? Blacks on the jury. Best thing for Zimmerman? Non-black men on the jury.* So they met halfway.

*Streetwise black men would suspect Trayvon had it coming, but no way they'd dare vote that way on a jury.

elvisd said...

Whiskey analysis forthcoming?

Zoink said...

This is the best article, with some biographic details on the jurors:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/who-are-jurors-deciding-george-zimmerman-fate-here-look-at-panel-6-women/

Seems very favorable to Zimmerman. One is married to an attorney, another has an attorney child and has a concealed carry permit. They'll be more aware of concepts like presumption of innocence.

Another is active in church, and several have been non-violent crime victims. I think they'll identify with Shellie Zimmerman more than either the vic or perp.

Anonymous said...

He's screwed.

Dave Pinsen said...

Looks like a win for Z, if you read the biographical details on the jurors (via Orlando Sentinel.

Anonymous said...

It's Florida at least one these women has a sig other who has shot at a moving vehicle. Use your Dave Barry knowledge.

say not the struggle nought availeth said...

This is one of those 50-50 posts where I would actually feel real interest in what the performance artists who often comment here have to say - the semi-PUA-admiring anti-media guy, the guy who makes fun of every conspiracy theory, the ponytailed West Coast sexual revolution veteran guy, the IQ 150 (at least)guy from Silicon valley, the guy who writes like a drunk Jonah Goldberg, the movie set 200-pound guy ...

Anonymous said...

I've had some very discreet conversations over the years about how white women were cheering when the OJ verdict was announced. One person was in O'Hare and saw dozens of them cheering.

I'm beginning to view the early 90's as some kind of mini Schelling point in the decline of the US. With the OJ trial, the LA riots, and the recession that was really worse than was acknowledged by economists.

Anonymous said...

Rallying cry, nearly 20yrs after crime of century.

GIVE US ZIMMY! YOU GOT OJ OFF, NOW ITS OUR TURN!

ORENTHAL WALKED, GEORGE SHOULD RUN (right out to freedom)

THIS TIME IT'S OUR TURN, FOR OUR COMMUNITY

Portlander said...

My take, cross-posted at Lion's:

Whether Providence or incredible good luck, Zimmerman appears to have overcome the odds and drawn about as good a jury as possible. While it is made up of 6 women, one of which is a mixed-race black from Chicago with 7 kids, they are mostly professionals or married to professionals. A couple of them own guns and one used to have a carry permit.

Details of each of the jurors at: Conservative Treehouse

Congratulations George! This is about the first decent break his way since this thing started 16 months ago.


Also, this wasn't remotely the Prosecution's desire. He rejected 4 white women in a row, to which the Defense started objecting on racial grounds. Basically, the black community's marches and agitation got the best of them. Once it became time to seat a jury the back jury pool had almost completely dis-qualified themselves. (Facebook postings bit a couple of them in the butt. Church associations bit a couple more.) This is doubly incredible when you realize the summons had twice the number of blacks than the Seminole county population, and they were front-end loaded in the voir dire hearings. As for the men, that was a bridge to far for the defense. When almost the whole deck is stacked against you, there's only so much that can be done. The court pulled every shady trick they thought they could get away with and still ended up with about the worse jury possible for a guilty finding. Like I said... Providence.

Anonymous said...

I'd take a white woman as a juror over any minority. Voting patterns show that minorities have fully moved into "Fuck Whitey" mode, and Zimmerman is an effigy of "Whitey", black Hispanic ancestry be damned.

Anonymous said...

The prosecution was attempting to keep white women off the jury--at one point they had challenged 4 straight.

Anonymous said...

Blacks in the jury pool were probably forthright in declaring Zimmerman's guilt so none could be empaneled. Hispanics are questionable because they would recognize Zimmerman as blood. White males are too prone to using Occam's razor -- the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports Zimmerman. That leaves the prosecutors with dopey white female Katey Couric fans to secure a conviction.

Portlander said...

Perhaps Zimmerman's lawyer feels that this is basically a racial trial, while the prosecutor feels the way to win is to reproduce the successful media tactic of eliciting maternal feelings for the 12-year-old dead child? That could lead to them effectively agreeing upon a jury of nonblack women.

Again, because I've been following this far too closely, and with no offense intended, :) I can say this conclusion exactly wrong. Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'mara, is a classic liberal progressive. In a Rubiotic display of unilateral disarmament, he's tried as much as possible to not make it a racial trial. As for the Prosecutor, he very much wanted black women on the jury, but the internet left too much of a record of their bias for him to overcome. Plus, Zimmerman finally had luck turn his way a little bit there at the end.

ben tillman said...

Zimmerman's case is so strong it doesn't really matter who's on the jury (as long as there are at least two non-Blacks to support each other).

In Florida, self-defense is not an affirmative defense as that term is usually understood. That means Zimmerman does not have to prove he acted in self-defense; the state has to prove he didn't beyond a reasonable doubt:

"Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. [Citation omitted.] The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant."

The State really has no theory as to how it could have been anything other than self-defense. Remember, Z called the cops before he killed Martin. The State has to come up with some theory to explain why Z called the cops if he had already decided to kill Martin or a theory as to how the Z-man forgot that he had called the cops if he later decided to kill Martin.

All the State has is a theory that Z killed Martin because Martin was Black. Well, that opens the door really, really wide.

You know the old saw about how people accused of racism say. "Some of my best friends are Black." Well, the Z-man can honestly say that his favorite grandmother was Black. He can trot out the photos of them living in the same house together. He can also point that he went to bat for a homeless Black man who was allegedly beaten by the son of police lieutenant. That's something that we and the jury need to keep in mind when considering the facts that (1) Z spent hours talking to the cops on the night of the killing -- without a lawyer -- and (2) the cops decided there wasn't evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Z was on the cops' shit list, and they let him walk.

The prosecution's case is a joke.

Anonymous said...

If the defense can get some modern photos of Trayvon in there, 1/12 white women would have to give at least one "not guilty" verdict.

I'm not sure how it will go down, but at the very least, if the jury stays the same it will be a good test of Whiskey's theories. Just how much do white women HATE HATE HATE? Is Zimmerman alpha or beta?

Anonymous said...

If the juries I've sat on are representative, the smartest, most conscientious, fairest jurors are men over 50. Old black jurors are hesitant to convict, young blacks are flippant about doing so, in hopes that a quick guilty will get them out of there faster than anything else. At least one or two out of twelve won't be mentally capable of the level of abstraction necessary to understand the law and the jury instructions, and white women are absurdly pliable. They get swayed by whatever man controls the discussion.

Not "wins the argument," "controls the discussion." I got my way by switching from persuasive tactics to insistive tactics.

Let's! said...

"12-year-old dead child"

Haha Steve, I see what you did there.

Anonymous said...

It seems like both sides did what they had to do on jury selection. If Zim's lawyer had gotten 1 or 2 white guys on the jury, he'd be as good as free.

If the prosecutors managed to get 1 or 2 black women on the jury, Zim would never see the sun again.

Whatever happens, this lynch mob has probably done its job in intimidating whitey from using firearms in self-defense. Even hispanics with whitish names are apparently fair game.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

"I'm beginning to view the early 90's as some kind of mini Schelling point in the decline of the US."

Don't forget Tailhook.

DYork said...

elvisd said...

Whiskey analysis forthcoming?


His analysis of EVERYTHING is ALWAYS the same:

Excuse the Jews/Blame the White Women.

Excuse the Jews/Blame the White Women.

Excuse the Jews/Blame the White Women.

This is a clown who thinks WASPS run Harvard and Hollywood and that White women all want to have sex with Charlie Sheen, Kevin Federline and anonymous black guys.

Never varies.

Rob said...

If Zimmerman is acquitted, could he be imprisoned for violation of civil rights, like the Rodney King policemen?

Anonymous said...

say not the struggle nought availeth said...

I'm drunk, at least, but I got nothin'.

Whiskey said...

My guess is Zimmerman is screwed. All the Eat-Pray-Love women, all the Oprah loving women, all the liberal women (which is fully 85% of all White women) will react with cold fury at pictures of either "adorable" nine year old Trayvon, or thugging it up Alpha Trayvon.

The one thing women don't forgive is being beta. Even worse is when a beta male kills an Alpha, and STAYS BETA. Zimmerman is likely convicted on all counts. Note by contrast a nearly all female jury acquitted John Edwards. Edwards was scum and dirty, but being Alpha he was excused. There are double standards among women as well as men. If men have the madonna-whore complex and double standards for infidelity and sexual activity, women have them for alphas and betas.

As Steve has noted, Black guys have an advantage in that they have darker skin, height, more testosterone on average, etc. Guess who is the bad guy, the Alpha boy who beat on people, had burglary tools, punched a bus driver, postured with gang tweets and the like, or the fat, pudgy semi-Hispanic milquetoast. Women forgive anything in a sexy man and nothing in a non-sexy man.

The only thing that could save Zimmerman is announcing to the jury he's gay, gay, GAY NOW!

Gay now is the only acceptable identity for women that non-Alpha men can posses.

And yes, most White women I knew in LA cheered the OJ verdict and thought Reginald Denny had it coming. White women would gladly participate in annihilation of all non-Alpha White guys, most White women have nothing but disgust for most White men, because the men are not Alpha.

Thought experiment: if 90% of White guys were as Alpha as Johnny Depp or Robert Downey Jr. before fame, would we see the same racial attitudes tolerated by White women?

Glaivester said...

You know, when talking about race and sex I keep thinking of Laurence O'Donnell on MSNBC promoting Cheerios because of their black man married to a white women ad...

He offered some Cheerios to a middle-aged-to-elderly black female guest, and I can't help but wonder if she really liked the message of that ad.

Anonymous said...

"Whiskey analysis forthcoming? " - Zimmerman screwed up by getting fat.

Portlander said...

To the commenters thinking the worst of white women, don't forget Steve's notorious marriage gap in Presidential politics.

Of the 5 white females, 4 are strong stereotypical fits for a Romney voter, and the fifth is still about 50-50.

Anonymous said...

"The State really has no theory as to how it could have been anything other than self-defense. Remember, Z called the cops before he killed Martin. The State has to come up with some theory to explain why Z called the cops if he had already decided to kill Martin or a theory as to how the Z-man forgot that he had called the cops if he later decided to kill Martin." - The story is that Zimmerman was the one throwing the MMA style punches at a prone Martin, who was calling for help for 40 seconds before Zimmerman finally got his gun out and shot him...

...And then proceeded to ask why no one came to help him, and was covered in his own blood, and Martin didn't have any injuries beyond the gunshot wound,etc.

"the Alpha boy who beat on people," - See above, they are painting Martin as a gigantic pussy in order to get the 2nd degree murder conviction.

Anonymous said...

The only thing that could save Zimmerman is announcing to the jury he's gay, gay, GAY NOW!

Whiskey comment of the year. So true.

Anonymous said...

How would you guys vote if you were on the jury? Oh, remember: your identity is out there and people will be able to figure out how you voted. I don't have a crystal ball, so call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet a few people will be angry if Zimmerman gets off - probably violently so. Considering the corrupt nature of "justice" in this country, it's a tossup as to whether any theoretical retribution against a juror by a Trayvonite would be properly prosecuted. Do you think this won't factor into how the jurors vote? Let's not forget that they are all women, after all, and therefore more conflict-averse than men. The jurors are also likely to know the blacks could riot in the event of a not-guilty verdict, especially if the media inflames them. That too may very well influence their votes. They may judge it better to offer Zimmerman as a sacrificial lamb, and they get to show their PC-bonafides and avoid conflict at the same time.

eah said...

The Z prosecution is fundamentally political. And in political trials, evidence and juries don't matter as much.

I have no idea what will happen.

But in charging Z with 2nd degree murder, the state is clearly overreaching. Absurdly so. But I guess in the immediate aftermath it was felt and decided they could pull it off. The more than vicious NBC tape editing episode tells you a lot about the political climate and what these people feel they can get away with.

That said, the key issue for the prosecution is racial profiling. They will try to show that Z initiated the confrontation by racially profiling TM: if not for the fact of his race, there was no reason for Z to be suspicious of, and to follow, TM. In that sense, they would've been better advised to charge him with a lesser crime, say manslaughter.

In any case, a capable defense ought to be able to win an acquittal. The later revelation and fotos of Z's injuries play solidly in Z's favor.

the 12-year-old dead child

?

TM was 17 when he was shot.

Jack said...

The people I knew who were most upset about OJ were white women. After all, a white woman was decapitated. Who do you guys know?

This is probably good for Zimmerman, seems like many of the white women are conservative. But women are unpredictable. So the pushups probably aren't a terrible idea.

Truth said...

There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now.

Titus Didius Tacitus said...

ben tillman: "In Florida, self-defense is not an affirmative defense as that term is usually understood."

A great light goes on. Thanks.

Maxwell Power said...

I thought the CW was this trial doesn't mean squat; if he walks Eric Holder Jr. & his sidekick Perez will file new "civil rights" charges against him, 1991 style, or whatever is needed until the proper result is achieved, in the name of public safety & nat'l security etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now.

Whatever Zimmerman is, he isn't white. But it doesn't matter. The reasons I want Zimmerman to win is because:

a) It's blatantly dishonest of the media to only show 12 year old and younger pictures of Trayvon, when in the current photos he looks like a gangbanger.

b) I'm in favor of living in a pleasant, crime-free neighborhood. Convicting Zimmerman of murder in this case gives carte blanche to every other young gangbanger who wants to rob a neighborhood and assault neighborhood watch members.

Anonymous said...

It's out of the norm for a successful black man or pro athlete to marry a white woman or have a white gf because black men prefer black women. The black men with self esteem don't have to resort to finding a white woman to be a pawn in racial power games with white men.

Maxwell Power said...

I didn't realize they were limited to 6 postal workers in Fla. trials. Is this also one of those Spanish-law states where the jury's verdict is only "advisory" & the judge does whatever he wants on sentencing?

Anonymous said...

Well, if Zimmerman looked like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he'd be a shoo-in for an acquittal right now.

Simon in London said...

Truth said...
"There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now."

What a filthy, sick comment. Racial hatred really twists people's minds. Zimmerman is still not white, nor is he guilty.

Anonymous said...

I think some of you forget where this trial is taking place. The jurors maybe of the fairer sex but they're probably under no illusions where Blacks are concerned like most Whites on the coast. I'm surprised the prosecution is ok with this jury I guess they feel it is still preferable to a jury with White men.

This jury pretty much guarantees the case is either declared a mistrial or not guilty.

Anonymous said...

"There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now."

Twoof psychologically projecting his own sick fantasies on to others, again.

Cail Corishev said...

If his name were George Ramirez, there would be no trial and we never would have heard of him.

The police, who bend over backwards for political correctness these days, investigated and let him go because it was an obvious case of self-defense. That would have been the end of it except that someone saw it come across the wire services and saw "Zimmerman," "Trayvon," and "17 years old," and immediately pictured a German skinhead type blasting away Bill Cosby's younger brother Russell.

Art Deco said...

Perhaps Zimmerman's lawyer feels that this is basically a racial trial, while the prosecutor feels the way to win is to reproduce the successful media tactic of eliciting maternal feelings for the 12-year-old dead child?

Jeralyn Merritt has offered that the defense counsel was much more deft and sophisticated in examining prospective jurors than was the prosecutor.

The complaint from observers sympathetic to Zimmerman was that the jury pool was rigged. None of the complainers is a statistician or actuary or has identified who the knave in the commissioner of jurors office is or from who they take orders.

Chicago said...

Watched a rolling demonstration last week held right in the middle of the shopping and tourist area of the city. They had bullhorns and were noisily proclaiming 'We are all Trayvon'. The rhetoric was deliberately provocative and aggressive. A group of about thirty, it was roughly half black and half white. The whites were all from a Maoist group who seem to pop up at every demonstration. This is a great chance for them to jump in and fan the flames; they are probably secretly hoping for an acquittal so they can use the issue for their own purposes. One woman who works in an office with a lot of blacks mentioned to me how they constantly talk about how Zimmerman should be tortured and killed. Blacks don't care about their ridiculously high homicide rate but will get exercised over Zimmerman. Even the empty-suit president stuck his nose into what was a local story.
This case will be drawn out and overanalyzed, a media event like the OJ case. No matter what happens there'll be hard feelings. Some think blacks will do what they traditionally do and riot should he get off. In that case avoid being the next Reginald Denny.

NotMyRealName said...

(1) Isn't this another case of an American killed by an immigrant? How come it's OK when the American is Black?
(2)"probably the most disastrous mistake Marcia Clark made in prosecuting O. J. Simpson was to complacently allow Johnny Cochran to pack the jury with black women."
Or maybe it was going to trial with faked evidence and perjured testimony against a defendent who could afford a proper lawyer? Something I'm surprised you never picked up, Steve: Did Marcia Clark get the prosecuting gig because she was a woman like the victim, rather than because she was competent? If OJ really did it, it would be a bitter irony if poor Nicole Brown, the victim of a sexist murder, was denied posthumous justice because of a "feminist" choice of prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

This practice of allowing lawyers to exclude jurors on the grounds of their race or sex is an abomination, and I'm amazed it still goes on in an age where this sort of thing is seen as evil in other walks of life.

Once again, there is one rule for lawyers and another rule for the masses.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey is the laughing-stock of the blogosphere. And Steve's weird insistence on publishing W's droppings does not reflect well on him either.

This could be the sort of blog I'd refer other people to - if that cretin Whiskey were not being offered a platform for his idiocy.

Anonymous said...

"considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now."

Duh.

This case is about the media trying to deny White people self-defence. The fact they're using a Hispanic man to do it is a side issue. The jury should vote non-quilty on principle in case it's one of their relatives next time.

(nb I'm not saying it is necessarily self-defence, I think it probably is but I don't know for sure as I wasn't there. However I am 100% sure of the motives of the anti-white media and that's what the jurors should judge on imo.)

JSM said...

"I'm not sure how it will go down, but at the very least, if the jury stays the same it will be a good test of Whiskey's theories. Just how much do white women HATE HATE HATE? Is Zimmerman alpha or beta?"

That's easy. If the White women find Zimmerman not-guilty, that means he's alpha. If they find him guilty, he's beta. But Whiskey won't be able to tell us ahead of time.

Cuz, you see, beta or alpha is never decided beforehand. We can only know after, and it's always whichever way best fits with Whiskey's theory that women hatehatehate betas.

Note: Whiskey will never concede that maybe White women don't hate betas -- and that's because it would then beg the question, so who IS it who's making life so rough for White American men? And that answer is something Whiskwy is NOTNOTNOT going to be allowed to be considered.

Aaron Gross said...

What's the sequel to Twelve Angry Men? Six Pre-Menstrual Women? I think it's got possibilities.

SF said...

I dunno. My wife's comments on this case are a lot more anti-Zimmerman than my own. We're white

Anonymous said...

You know I don't really care whether Zimmerman is convicted or not. The Communists when they showed up to provide a defense for someone they considered a victim of white racism were not looking for an acquittal. They wanted a conviction and a new martyr for their political cause. Liberals not only want a nonwhite majority, they want whites to feel that they are helpless to defend themselves against it. But that is them. A majority of white Americans--women included--are not afflicted by this mental disorder known as liberalism. The sooner they figure out what they are up against, the better.

Anonymous said...

An oddity of this affair is that Martin seems to be treated as if he were the defendant. For example, TM's drug use, school suspensions, etc were ruled off limits.

In the second Christian-Newsom torture-murder trial, the victims were slandered by defense attorneys as druggies who brought on their own murder. Attacking the dead person was the entire Jodi Arias defense.

In the Zimmerman trial, TM is like a defendant whose past record cannot be brought up.

Furthermore, the prosecution was trying for what is usually a "pro-defense" jury, while the defense looked for jurors who would usually be good for the prosecution.

The defense has the clearest evidence-the photos of Zimmerman after a sucker punch and having his head pounded into the ground by Martin. Usually, photographic evidence of this type is introduced by the prosecution.

You would almost think Martin was on trial after succeeding in beating Zimmerman to death.

By the way, a largely female jury is usually considered good for the defendant. Now, some are claiming these females will feel sorry for Martin.

If Martin was the defendant after killing Zimmerman (which he tried to do), these same people would expect female jurors to favor Martin.

Why wouldn't they feel sorry for Zimmerman. He's the defendant after all.

unimpresssive commenter said...

the performance artists who often comment here

Somehow I don't see Albertosaurus as having a ponytail, but who knows.

Anonymous said...

"I dunno. My wife's comments on this case are a lot more anti-Zimmerman than my own. We're white" - Still not as anti-Zimmerman as the alternative.

smead jolley said...

The people I knew who were most upset about OJ were white women. Who do you guys know?

I'll tell you who I knew. During the OJ case, I was dating a former model who'd been beat up by black men she'd dated in the '70's. She was so wound up against OJ that she'd call into Bay Area radio shows and chew out the lawyer commentators who were supporting him. Anyway, she belonged to some women's group that met weekly on the Peninsula, and she told me that the other women in the meetings overwhelmingly supported OJ.

my real name said...

Did Marcia Clark get the prosecuting gig because...?

Sir, you are a moron. Clark had a solid reputation for results before the Simpson case. Not the best, not the worst. What is your analysis of how, say, Vincent Bugliosi would have overcome the accumulated racial animus of the black women jurors?

Svigor said...

Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'mara, is a classic liberal progressive. In a Rubiotic display of unilateral disarmament, he's tried as much as possible to not make it a racial trial.

That was my impression as well. But I stopped paying attention quite some time ago. I just saw a recent piece where O'Mara was doing as you say, trying to keep race out of it, and came to your conclusion. Only a milksop would leave the race card on the table when it's dying to be played; the mau-maus and the press made this no-arrest case into a political show trial.

Not "wins the argument," "controls the discussion." I got my way by switching from persuasive tactics to insistive tactics.

Which is why I figured Zim was screwed as soon as I heard the jury was all female; I figured the black female with the biggest mouth would cow all the rest into a guilty verdict. But there are no black females on the jury.

All Zim needs now is one white woman with a spine.

As Steve has noted, Black guys have an advantage in that they have darker skin, height, more testosterone on average, etc.

And disadvantages in that they have lower IQs, less money, fewer assets, etc. P.S., blacks aren't taller.

There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now.

He's not white. And you're too thick-skulled for me to bother trying to explain it to you for the umpteenth time.

I think some of you forget where this trial is taking place.

True. Whiskey thinks all white women are like SoCal women, but they aren't. SoCal women are, well, Steve doesn't like it when I call 'em what they are so I'll leave it at that. Where I'm from, it's not that unusual to have young white women tell you "I hate *******" within an hour of meeting them, never mind the men. Actually, come to think of it, I've had quite a few Yankee transplants tell me that.

Blacks don't care about their ridiculously high homicide rate but will get exercised over Zimmerman.

Right. "Please fry the 'white' boy so we can get back to blowing each other away in peace."

This practice of allowing lawyers to exclude jurors on the grounds of their race or sex is an abomination, and I'm amazed it still goes on in an age where this sort of thing is seen as evil in other walks of life.

Once again, there is one rule for lawyers and another rule for the masses.


From what I gather, the practice you refer to is not allowed.

That's easy. If the White women find Zimmerman not-guilty, that means he's alpha. If they find him guilty, he's beta. But Whiskey won't be able to tell us ahead of time.

JSM wins the prize.

You know I don't really care whether Zimmerman is convicted or not.

I confess an aspect of win-win here. If he goes to jail, well, he's not one of mine. If he doesn't, well, lil' Tray-Tray ain't one of mine, either. But there's more win in the latter scenario.

I'd Punch Truth in the Nose said...

Is this also one of those Spanish-law states where the jury's verdict is only "advisory" & the judge does whatever he wants on sentencing?

In any state, a judge has power to reject a guilty verdict and rule that there was reasonable doubt as a matter of law. I suggest a basic civics course, Maxwell.

Art Deco said...

What's the sequel to Twelve Angry Men? Six Pre-Menstrual Women? I think it's got possibilities.

Nope. The majority of the seated jurors are in the latter half of middle age.

Professor Woland said...

We will have a pretty good idea of how this will go down well before the verdict arrives. My eyes are on how the media covers all this. If witness # 6 comes in and flushes the Martin family’s punchbowl by describing in detail the MMA smack down, then watch the media quickly lose interest in the story. The official narrative absolutely cannot be about a large violent black man attacking an innocent person. Even just several days of that and their heads would explode.

pat said...

Whiskey needs to find another theory. This Alpha-Beta thingee is getting old.

Do we have an operational definition for Alpha or Beta status?

In personality theory we have the Big Five. In biology we have the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Everywhere disputants seem to be reaching for consensus. If Whiskey's obsession can be termed a theory, what is it's anti-thesis?

I'll accept a non-denotative definition. Just give me a list of who is Alpha and who is Beta. For example, Ronald Reagan faced down the Soviet Empire and most of the US press but had real trouble firing bad subordinates. Beta? Nixon was notoriously soft hearted and sentimental. Beta? Who's left to be an Alpha - Curtis Lemay? Joseph Mengele? And if so were they really good with the babes?

I live in Oakland. I'm familiar with there not being any there there. So it seems to be with this Alpha-Beta dimension.

Albertosaurus

pat said...

What do you suppose will happen to Zimmerman after the trial?

Assuming that he's acquitted, normally such a person could go on a speaking tour. But can Zimmerman actually give a speech?

There are plenty of gated communities in America who would love to have a guy like him guarding their homes. But he will be a lightning rod attracting all the wrong sort of attention. I don't think he can work in anything like law enforcement again.

My guess is that he will appear on Hannity periodically much the way Mark Fuhrman has parleyed his OJ fame into a media career.

Zimmerman isn't very photogenic but he will be a hero to a lot of Fox News watchers for a long time.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

I think some of you forget where this trial is taking place. The jurors maybe of the fairer sex but they're probably under no illusions where Blacks are concerned like most Whites on the coast. I'm surprised the prosecution is ok with this jury I guess they feel it is still preferable to a jury with White men.

This jury pretty much guarantees the case is either declared a mistrial or not guilty.


Precisely. Florida is a state where 40% of the population is black or Hispanic. This means that for Republicans to win narrowly, whites must vote pretty much as a block for the GOP. Unless Zimmerman's shyster managed to pick out all the criminal-loving white liberals (who are a tiny subset of merely Democrat-voting white liberals) in Seminole County, he should walk. The real problem for him is the laundry list of Federal charges about to land on his head once he's acquitted. The ultimate question is how many congressional seats Obama is prepared to lose in order to pursue his racial vendetta against Zimmerman.

Anonymous said...

"smugly assumed that all female jurors would identify with Nicole Simpson"


poor thing didn't have good educational videos during her childhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCtq1XZw-4&t=2m22s

Anonymous said...

If OJ really did it...

Do you have any doubt?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the people who say Zimmerman needs to start doing situps STAT. The prosecution is going to try to portray him as an overzealous and chunky Paul Blart mall cop, a character type that's a cliche joke in our culture. The defense needs to present him as a protective defender of his neighborhood who confronted a violent thug who was a potential threat to the safety of the community. Women are easily manipulated and the defense needs to be acutely aware that the prosecutors are gonna try to make him look like a ridiculous dork. Women don't like ridiculous dorks; they like tough guys.

Anonymous said...

Also, the women on the jury will also be influenced by which lawyer they like better. So in a sense Zimmerman's lawyer is on trial as well. By the way, when Zimmerman walks and the blacks start up, we should all refer to the riots as the NY Times/MSNBC Riots.

Steve Sailer said...

You can learn Bugliosi's opinion of how he would have handled the OJ prosecution in Bugliosi's book on OJ. It's Monday morning quarterbacking, but there is a lot to be said for a DA's office bringing back a superstar ex-prosecutor like Bugliosi for a Trial of the Century.

Anonymous said...

Marcia Clark is opining on the case on Al Sharpton's msnbc show right now.

Polish Sausage said...

"... probably the most disastrous mistake Marcia Clark made in prosecuting O. J. Simpson was to complacently allow Johnny Cochran to pack the jury with black women. "


You're in good company- Bugliosi, the famous prosecutor, once wrote something similar (he had said they made their biggest mistake about where to hold the case- in an area with alot of blacks to draw from, and that makes a big difference); but later I saw something from him that race wasn't part of it. So it seems like he recanted; but at least had it right in the first place.

Kommen said...

What's up with my homies these days? A room full of white bitches and not one brutha there shopping?

Steve Sailer said...

The mayor of LA's dad, Gil Garcetti, moved the trial from Santa Monica to downtown, ostensibly for reasons of administrative convenience, which radically changed the demographics of a jury of OJ's peers. Bugliosi charged that was disastrous right there.

Semi-employed White Guy said...

Whiskey said...

"And yes, most White women I knew in LA cheered the OJ verdict and thought Reginald Denny had it coming."


Whiskey needs to get out (of LA) more often.

Anonymous said...

"As Steve has noted, Black guys have an advantage in that they have darker skin, height, more testosterone on average, etc."

I don't think that's true. They hit puberty sooner so they'll have more on average during teens and early 20s and then it will tail off. It's a shame TPTB hold to the blank slate as this simple difference could explain a great deal.

(It makes sense in r/K, life-history terms as well.)

Gene said...

I don't understand why so many media people (and newspapers) when commenting on this case claim that Zimmerman is being prosecuted for "racially profiling" Trayvon Martin. It is not a crime for neighborhood watch volunteers to racially profile anyone. In fact, the average person, assuming he gets out of his house at least once in 24 hours, racially profiles multiple people many times a day.

Cail Corishev said...

What happened to Bugliosi, anyway? He was a badass prosecutor who never lost, and his books on OJ and Manson were very good. Then he wrote a book defending Bill Clinton, of all people, and it seems like everything I've heard from him since then (which hasn't been much) has followed the standard liberal party line. Disappointing.

Maxwell Power said...

6/21/13, 11:25 AM-- Wasn't talking about setting aside the verdict, bub. In the event they convicted but recommended the minimum (15 years?) the judge potentially could grab good pub by sentencing him to life instead. Which would be knocked down on appeal anyway but it's the southeastern U.S. where nothing really works

Gene said...

I saw a black site which asked the question "Did George Zimmerman racially profile Trayvon Martin." The vote of course overwhelmingly maintained that he did.

But so what if he did. It isn't illegal for a neighborhood watch volunteer to racially profile anyone. Anyone who walked the streets at night would be a fool not to. Jessie Jackson freely admits he does racial profiling when he hears footsteps behind him at night.

Cops can't racially profile people but Zimmerman was a civilian, not a cop. Yet I get the impression that many bloggers (and newspapers as well) think that racially profiling is illegal.

Inane Rambler said...

"Yet I get the impression that many bloggers (and newspapers as well) think that racially profiling is illegal."

As Vox Day likes to constantly point out, MPAI.

Anonymous said...

I recall a joint appearance by Vincent Bugliosi and Allan Dershowitz on Larry King's CNN show in 1996. Vince said there was some talk of hiring him as special prosecutor for a second O.J. trial if the first trial had ended in a hung jury.

Vince said "I would have been willing to do it." This would have been the REAL trial of the century.

Steve Sailer said...

I bet L.A. could have gotten Bugliosi to take the case for free in return for the book rights. It's not unknown for cities to contract with star ex-prosecutors to come back for one big case: I believe Indianapolis hired freelance the top defense attorney in town to prosecute Mike Tyson's rape case (which, after they got past the "Hey, he's Mike Tyson, of course he's guilty" part, wasn't all that strong). Like most defense attorneys, he started out as a government prosecutor.

I imagine it's bad for bureaucratic morale for career prosecutors like Marcia Clark to get shoved aside by celebrity prosecutors like Bugliosi. Still, Clark lost and Bugliosi almost certainly would have gotten O.J. convicted.

Cail Corishev said...

Bugliosi almost certainly would have gotten O.J. convicted.

There's no question that he would have, as long as the jury was halfway willing to listen. He makes the case overwhelmingly in his book, and points out all the mistakes made by the prosecution, including the way they let Ito damage their case.

Anonymous said...

Question for Mr. Sailer: In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell devotes a chapter regarding the dangers of listening to one's own inner judging of people, most specifically when it comes to profiling others of a different race. He uses examples (e.g. walking down a dark street at night, etc) and attempts to make the case that on various tests regarding race (which he took as well) white people tend to view blacks negatively in various ways.

Do you suppose that Gladwell's views regarding the "dangers" so to speak of profiling are at work here in the case and that the prosecution in particular will attempt to use this as a subset or minor theme in order to win their case?

Irony: Malcolm Gladwell or a state approved psychologist is called as an "expert" witness for the prosecution regarding the inner workings or a psychological profile on George Zimmerman.

P.S. Or else the prosecution could hire Bugliosi if it is not too late to do so.

PPS: He was right re: location on OJ trial. Soon as it moved, that was it.

Anonymous said...

As Vox Day likes to constantly point out, MPAI.

I'd like to declare a moratorium on obscure internet acronyms. They're damn irritating. TMOB*

*That's my opinion, bro.

JSM said...

"And yes, most White women I knew in LA cheered the OJ verdict and thought Reginald Denny had it coming."

Ya ya ya. *I* was in San Diego and most White women *I* knew decried the OJ verdict and did NOT think Reginald Denny had it coming.

ironrailsironweights said...

Black guys have an advantage in that they have darker skin, height, more testosterone on average

Average testosterone levels do not vary by race. On an individual level there is some variation from man to man, but it does not break down along racial lines. What's more, a man's particular testosterone level is largely irrelevant unless it's abnormally low, which is an easily treated condition.

Peter

Dr Van Nostrand said...


The silly prosecutors of the OJ Simpson trial couldve just taken a peak at Denzel Washingtons demands at the time(he was one of the rising stars in the early 90s).He insisted that there be no scenes of him in any degree of physical intimacy with white female leads as that would aggravate his formidable black female fan base who were responsible for helping him put Beluga caviar and foie de gras on the table.

To my knowledge he only copulated on screen with two white women both Spike Lee films-Malcolm X and He Got Game. But was excused as the characters he played were fallen and his yearning for white women was seen as a flaw!



"All-female jury for George Zimmerman. Here's my advice, George: Situps. Lots of situps."

Situps alone dont do squat if you have that much fat. He should do uh ..squats and high intensity cardio

And lay off the cheese and nachos


candid_observer said...

"Bugliosi almost certainly would have gotten O.J. convicted."

Convicted? I really wonder about that. I can see how the trial might have ended in a hung jury with Bugliosi as prosecutor.

But the problem was the jury itself, which was dominated by African-Americans.

How many African-Americans do you know who, at the time of the trial, agreed that OJ was guilty? Where I worked, there was a young African American guy who was a MIT graduate. When he found out that OJ was acquitted, he made no bones about his enthusiastic support of the decision, even in the face of his entirely white colleagues, who hardly agreed (though most kept their mouth shut about it in front of him).

I mean, a graduate of MIT no less is able to resist the overwhelming power of the evidence and root for his race instead? That's not a good sign as to the potential for objectivity in the average AA juror. And again, who are the counterexamples among AAs?

Given the arguments Cochran was offering up about racism in the LAPD, I just don't see how he would not have been able to convince some if not most if not all of the AA jurors that OJ had been framed. If you really think that further actual evidence might have been able to convince them otherwise, I don't think you've fully appreciated the problem.

Anonymous said...

Re: Zimmy and sit ups.

We had a Scots-Irish lawyer in our fantasy baseball league 20 years ago who went on the lam after embezzling a few million dollars from clients. This guy looked like a 350-lb. Harvey Weinstein. He actually called in trade requests while running from the law, and when he called from South Carolina and talked to the guy who got him into the league, he said he spent the previous 3 weeks eating himself into a coma every day to make himself as unattractive as possible just in case he was going in!

Anonymous said...


There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now.


This is the comment of a person who just doesn't get the concept that an innocent man should not be convicted of a crime he did not commit. Childishly, he rants like a 7th grader. Dude, a person isn't "sucking dick" because he doesn't want an innocent man railroaded. If Zimmerman had an hispanic last name, this story would have been totally ignored. Real murders of black young men by hispanics in LA get no interest whatever from even the local press.

Cail Corishev said...

But the problem was the jury itself, which was dominated by African-Americans.

But that jury was the fault of the prosecution. The D.A. never gave a decent reason for moving the case downtown, other than to save the prosecutors some drive time, and that took it from O.J.'s 7% black neighborhood to a 31% black one. Also, polls at the time reported that 2/3 of whites thought he was guilty, and 1/3 of blacks thought so. So there were some blacks who weren't supporting him out of racial solidarity, and they would have been easier to find in his upscale neighborhood.

Here's what Bugliosi says in the introduction of his book on the case:

This book sets forth five reasons why the case was lost. But even these five can be distilled down to two: the jury could hardly have been any worse, and neither could the prosecution. In fact, as bad as this jury was, if the prosecution had given an A rather than a D- performance (discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this book), the verdict most likely would have been different. (Let's not forget that even with a dreadfully poor prosecution, on the first ballot, which the jury took within an hour after it commenced its deliberations, two of the jurors, a black and a white, voted guilty.) Even before I saw any of the jurors or heard or read what they had to say, I felt this way. And in listening to the Simpson jurors in posttrial interviews, and reading a book jointly written by three of them, my feelings in this respect have been strengthened. I got no sense at all from them that they didn't care if Simpson was guilt or not, no sense that their state of mind back in the jury room had been "Even though O.J. is obviously guilty, we like O.J., so let's give him two free murders, or "Even though we know O.J. is guilty, blacks have been discriminated against by whites for centuries, so let's pay back whitey and give O.J. a couple of freebies." I didn't sense that, nor do I believe it for one moment.

What I saw was jurors who (1) clearly did not have too much intellectual firepower and (2) were biased in Simpson's favor, most likely from the start. But a powerfully presented case and summation, in which you put bibs on the jury and spoon-feed them, can virtually always be counted on to overcome both of these problems. And this jury wasn't quite as dense as some have felt. In posttrial interviewing, nearly all have proved to be fairly articulate, two having college degrees. The only kind of juror you can't turn around would be one who was determined to let Simpson get away with these murders even if he or she had no doubt at all Simpson was guilty. But it would be an extremely rare occurrence for even one juror to have his attitude, much less all twelve. If the case had been properly prosecuted, not only would a conviction have been likely, but any hung jury would almost assuredly have been no worse than 10-2 or 9-3 for conviction.

All of the above, of course, presupposes Simpson's guilt for these two murders. But about that there can be no doubt.


And if you read the book, he leaves no doubt. He would have minimized the nonsense that the prosecution let Ito and the defense get away with, and he would have pounded the jury with the evidence so methodically that they would have had no silly theories about frame jobs by racist cops or DNA confusion to hide behind if they did want to let him go. Had he prosecuted the case, any juror voting not-guilty would have clearly been stating, "I will not convict a black murderer."

ATBOTL said...


Let's see if the media calls this an "all white jury," like they did with the Rodney King jury that had a Mexican and an Asian or the cops who beat King for that matter, one of whom was Mexican, but who were referred to by the media simply "white."

ATBOTL said...

"I'm beginning to view the early 90's as some kind of mini Schelling point in the decline of the US. With the OJ trial, the LA riots, and the recession that was really worse than was acknowledged by economists."

During the early 90's, there was a lot of discontent among grassroots conservatives and white people in general with the way things were going, mostly over the same issues as today: immigration, PC, globalism and the police state.

The establishment was able to outmaneuver the people using tactics like hyper-partisanship over trivial issues while presenting no choices to voters on things like immigration and "free trade."

Conservatives were easily distracted and didn't show much passion or urgency. Then 9/11 happened and it made it much easier for the establishment to get its way for a few years. Now, we are right back to 1992.

One of the memes we should be pushing is "Buchanan was right." Had Republican leaders and establishment conservative leaders listened to Pat instead of burning him at the stake, American would be immensely better off today. Imagine an alternate history, one where mass third world immigration was cut off in the 90's, illegals and their anchor babies deported, no political correctness, no more "affirmative action," no Iraq war, no surveillance state, no crap about how "Islam is a religion of peace" and no NAFTA.

How could anyone who calls himself a conservative oppose that?

Truth said...

"This is the comment of a person who just doesn't get the concept that an innocent man should not be convicted of a crime he did not commit."

I totally disagree.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/trevor-dooley-sentenced-to-8-years-for-manslaughter/1270967

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/nyregion/30white.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Silver said...

Dude, a person isn't "sucking dick" because he doesn't want an innocent man railroaded.

Of course, but in any case it's not as if the facts about Zim's race have changed, the way Truth would have it. According to him the initial clamor vehemently denied that Zim was white, but now the facts are in and, doggone it, turns out he really is a white man after all, lol.

Truth, white posters here support Zim because the ONLY REASON he's in court at all is because he was accused of defending himself against a black attacker while being white. That means the same thing could happen to any white poster here, and in their case they really would be white, which means the "charge" (in the eyes of the lunatics who run the media and those under their spell) would stick. Call me insensitive but that seems like a greater moral outrage to me than having a section set aside for your race on a bus.

Silver said...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/trevor-dooley-sentenced-to-8-years-for-manslaughter/1270967

Dooley pretty obviously provoked that by flashing his gun. James was stupid to grab for the gun at that point, but I can understand his fear at what he probably perceived as a crazy old black man with a gun near his daughter. Still, it would have been a better idea to flea and call the police on Dooley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/nyregion/30white.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Mr. White's testimony seems less credible to me than the white teenagers'. White isn't to blame for using a gun to defend his family, but he should have realized the threat had been neutralized and backed off. The white teenagers are to blame for pursuing the black kid, especially pursuing him all the way to his home. Cicciaro's father seemed to protest a little too much that his son was "so not-racist." I suspect that kid had been instructed by dad to "never take any crap from n----s." A better idea is to minimize contact with blacks, ie heed the Derbyshire protocols.

Truth said...

Both White and Dooley were convicted, and in both cases, the victim laid hands on them first.

Silver said...

Neither's life was in danger to the same degree Zimmerman's was. Dooley unambiguously provoked James by flashing the gun, whereas it is eminently contestable whether Zimmerman can be said to have provoked Trayvon. In White's case it depends on whether you believe his testimony. If you weren't such a thoroughgoing black race man you might even admit that it sounds far more likely that a scared and angry father did what the white teenagers accused him of having done, which was to shoot the white kid after the threat had been neutralized. Not even White claims the teenager "laid hands on him"; he claims the teenager lunged for the gun. In Zimmerman's case Trayvon had already beaten him bloody by the time he tried for Zim's gun; Zim had every reason to believe Trayvon's next move would be to shoot him.

The root cause of your denialism, Truth, is that you're incapable of admitting that the presence of large numbers of black people has a devastating impact on non-black communities. The primary victims are whites because blacks hate them most out of all races, but don't imagine other races don't also experience a negative impact. The reason you're incapable of admitting this is that to admit suggests it's right to address it, which in your view would work counter to your racial interests. Good for you, but the rest of have racial interests of our own to put first.

Truth said...

"Neither's life was in danger to the same degree Zimmerman's was."

How is his life in danger if he stays in his truck and waits for the police, instead of following a teenager down a dark alley?

" Not even White claims the teenager "laid hands on him"; he claims the teenager lunged for the gun."

Yes "lunged for the gun" Did he do this, somehow without touching him? And if he gets hold of the gun, what happens?

" In Zimmerman's case Trayvon had already beaten him bloody by the time he tried for Zim's gun;"

There is absolutely no evidence of what happened.

"The root cause of your denialism, Truth, is that you're incapable of admitting that the presence of large numbers of black people has a devastating impact on non-black communities."

A juror is not paid to be a sociologist, and neither am I. A juror is paid to make an objective decision on ONE case with ONE set of evidence.

"The primary victims are whites because blacks hate them most out of all races,"

No, the primary victims of African-American criminals are blacks, just as the primary victims of white criminals are whites, I've posted this link so many times, it is redundant.

" Good for you, but the rest of have racial interests of our own to put first."

So you're saying you think what the Simpson jurors did was right?

Here's another one, Buddy, in Steve's search for the great white defendant in which he claims the media goes out of it's way to persecute anyone white person who runs a stop sign. Are the defendants guilty or innocent? Would you have done your racial duty if you were on the jury?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/joliet-double-murder-poli_n_2475051.html

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Here's another one, Buddy, in Steve's search for the great white defendant in which he claims the media goes out of it's way to persecute anyone white person who runs a stop sign. Are the defendants guilty or innocent? Would you have done your racial duty if you were on the jury?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/joliet-double-murder-poli_n_2475051.html"

Well, "Truth", the black victims in this case probably went to that house to buy or sell drugs. So, by the standard you have often enunciated here (when the statistically much more likely crime of blacks murdering whites takes place), I guess they had it coming, didn't they?

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

"There must be a lot of men here who are involved in gay, interracial relationships here; because considering that you guys initially jumped up and down insisting that he wasn't white, you guys sure seem to love sucking Zimmerman's dick now."

Most everyone here - save apologists for black criminals, like you - insisted that he isn't white AND that he isn't guilty either. I have no desire to see an innocent man railroaded in a political prosecution, irrespective of whether that man is white, hispanic, oriental, or black.

As to dick-sucking: so many of you black-guys are on the down-low, I guess that's a metaphor you're comfortable with - but don't project your latent homo ways on the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

"juror is paid to make an objective decision" - not exactly. remove the objective part and you have what jurors are for. Lawyers and judges can make objective decisions just fine without bringing in 12(or 6 as the case may be) laymen.


Trial by jury isn't an institution that will stand up well under multiculturalism.

Truth said...

"Well, "Truth", the black victims in this case probably went to that house to buy or sell drugs.

Where does it say anywhere in that article anything about them going to buy or sell drugs? Again with the simple minded, moronic, "probably" here?

"Lawyers and judges can make objective decisions just fine without bringing in 12(or 6 as the case may be) laymen."

Lawyers are paid to represnt ONE SIDE or THE OTHER that makes them SUBJECTIVE thinkers not OBJECVICE thinkers; and re: judges, does that hold when the judge is black? There are one or two out there.

Truth said...

"Most everyone here - save apologists for black criminals, like you - insisted that he isn't white..."

Well, no, grasshopper, I personally don't give a shit if he's white or not. My interest is that he shot a kid on his way home, to death in an alley after following him around.

"...AND that he isn't guilty either..."

Well of course you don't, Marco Rubio, I know how much you love your 'Pandilla de Ocho" brothers.

I have no desire to see an innocent man railroaded in a political prosecution, irrespective of whether that man is white, hispanic, oriental, or black."

Well that's nice, then go ahead and read the stories I posted above on John H. White and Trevor Dooley, they were convicted; I'm sure they could use a letter of support.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Where does it say anywhere in that article anything about them going to buy or sell drugs? Again with the simple minded, moronic, "probably" here?"

Nor was it ever even hinted at in any written account of the crime, that Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were buying drugs. Yet, you managed to imply that was the case. Again, I'm just imposing your rule - making the argument that YOU make when blacks kill whites (which - of course - happens much much more frequently than the obverse). So, what were those two black fellahs doing there? Huh?

By the way, numnut, if you didn't so enthusiastically stick up for every black murderer and miscreant, maybe we'd have a little more sympathy for your outrage.

But, as it is, F**k you.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Well of course you don't, Marco Rubio, I know how much you love your 'Pandilla de Ocho" brothers."

Not sure what your getting at here, dung beetle. You seem to think I'm hispanic. Or perhaps you don't. It's difficult to discern what is meant when a stupid man, like you, tries to be clever.

Silver said...

How is his life in danger if he stays in his truck and waits for the police, instead of following a teenager down a dark alley?

Participating in a neighborhood watch program requires you to, you know, 'watch' what's going on. The practise as it exists could certainly do with some improvement, but we've all seen examples of tragedies that could have been avoided if there was a George Zimmerman around to keep an eye on things, so imperfect as it is it's better than doing nothing.

Yes "lunged for the gun" Did he do this, somehow without touching him? And if he gets hold of the gun, what happens?

That's what White claims happened. The teenagers say White just came right out and shot Cicciaro. You're more inclined to believe White's version of events because you're black; I'm not because I'm not. Mind you, my heart wants to let White off the hook here, even in the case that he came out shooting; I don't like the idea of men taking the law into their own hands and persecuting you all the way to your own home. But as the law stands he's guilty.

There is absolutely no evidence of what happened.

Zim said his head was being bashed into the ground. His wounds were consistent with this claim. That counts as evidence.

No, the primary victims of African-American criminals are blacks, just as the primary victims of white criminals are whites, I've posted this link so many times, it is redundant.

Let me make my meaning clearer. Most victims of hispanic crime are other hispanics, but when hispanics flood into a non-hispanic neighborhood non-hispanics suffer, and the primary sufferers of hispanic flooding are blacks, because hispanics don't much like them and cannot be intimidated by charges of 'racism' the way whites can. Similarly, as a neighborhood changes from non-black to black, non-blacks suffer, and the primary sufferers are whites, because blacks hold a special grudge against them. Follow?

So you're saying you think what the Simpson jurors did was right?

I don't believe their actions advanced their racial cause, not at all.

Here's another one, Buddy,

Not trying to dodge you, but I'll have to read that one later.

Truth said...

"But, as it is, F**k you."

LOL, excellent debating technique there, grasshopper, Lincoln would be proud.

Anonymous said...

"Lawyers are paid to represnt ONE SIDE or THE OTHER that makes them SUBJECTIVE thinkers not OBJECVICE thinkers; and re: judges, does that hold when the judge is black? There are one or two out there." - Neither judges nor lawyers have the authority to just fling the law aside, juries can do that, and it is a feature, not a bug.

As to black judges, why not? the best lawyers and judges can do is play with jury selection to keep out those who understand the power vested in them, which all of them are going to do regardless of color.

Truth said...

"Not sure what your getting at here, dung beetle."

Balsa wood...
and eye-voh-REE...
Live to-geeh-ther...
in purrr-fect...
har-moh-kneee
side by side on Grasshopper's
Caaaaaat-tail
oh lord
WHY CAN'T WEEEEEEEE?

Truth said...

"Participating in a neighborhood watch program requires you to, you know, 'watch' what's going on."

"Neighborhood watch", WATCH being the operative word there. It's not called "neighborhood stalk, intercede and shoot".

"The teenagers say White just came right out and shot Cicciaro..."

Directly from the article:

"Mr. Cicciaro’s friends gave the police a different account. They said Mr. White pointed the gun in the face of each of them, shouting, “I’ll shoot you.” They said Mr. Cicciaro never grabbed the gun but waved it away when it was pointed in his face.

Mr. White said that when he tried to pull away from Mr. Cicciaro’s grasp, the gun went off accidentally. Mr. Cicciaro’s friends told the police that Mr. White simply pulled the trigger at point-blank..."

So, it's established in both accounts, that Mr Cicciaro made first contact. And what you're saying is that you take the word of a group of teenagers who came over to his house to beat up his son, over those of an upstanding 52-year old family man who has never been in trouble.

Who's the race man here?

"Zim said his head was being bashed into the ground. His wounds were consistent with this claim. That counts as evidence."

That's evidence that he was getting his ass kicked, nothing more.

"I don't believe their actions advanced their racial cause, not at all."

They were not paid by the state to advance any racial cause, they were paid to make a decision on a trial.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

"But, as it is, F**k you."

LOL, excellent debating technique there, grasshopper, Lincoln would be proud."

"LOL" - the universal internet signature of stupid people.

I see that you didn't bother to respond to my point - so much for your supposed dilligence, and my supposed lassitude, in respecting the rules of debate. Fact is, you're not worth a witty, well-reasoned argument. You are just a stupid internet troll with a J-school degree and a (all too common, for blacks) chip on your shoulder. "F**k you" is all you rate.

Anonymous said...

As well as insinuating, repeatedly, that Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were in the hood to buy drugs, and therefore had it coming to them, he used the word "tragedy" to describe what happened to them. A tragedy, of course, is some unavoidable or unforeseeable disaster caused either by nature or by unwitting human behaviour. The prolonged rape-torture-murder of Newsom and Christian was in no way a "tragedy" - it was a calculated, evil crime.

Whatever else may happen, Letalvis, Lemaricus and all the rest know that Truth's got their back. If he were on their jury he'd have voted to acquit them without a shadow of a doubt.

I wonder how he'll react if Zimmerman is acquitted? On the evidence of his rage in this thread, not too well.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

That's evidence that he was getting his ass kicked, nothing more."

And a person is just obligated to lay back and get his ass kicked? Being a journo, and therefore not very smart, you may be unaware of this fact: getting beaten up is not like in the movies - it does lasting damage. People are maimed, crippled, even ruined for life by ass-kickings.

I don't shed a tear for that little thugling, Trayvon. He wanted the thug-life? He got it - the condensed form. Good riddance to bad trash.

Svigor said...

Tray-tray sure doesn't look like a lil' 12 year old in this pic. Note grass and water stains on shins and knees. Forensic evidence here is consistent with eyewitness' account of lil' Tray-tray doing an MMA-style ground and pound on Zim. Which is of course consistent with everything we know about Mr. Skittles and Watermelon Iced Tea; Mr. "nobody gets to follow a black man without gettin kilt" (I have been pleased, if not surprised, by the black community's willingness to assert in the wake of the Zim Affair that following someone around one's own neighborhood is a causus belli as far as blacks are concerned).

During Raimondo’s testimony, prosecutors showed jurors a photo of a dead Martin face-down in the grass, another of Martin’s body face up with his eyes slightly open, and a third of the bullet wound. Martin’s father, Tracy Martin, walked out of the courtroom during the testimony.

Martin was probably overcome with guilt over the fact that his son would probably be alive today if he had done a better job as a father; if he hadn't left his thug-in-training son alone that night. Or maybe anger at his baby momma for pawning Trayvon off on him.

It's pretty funny to hear blacks talk about the po lil chile Tray-tray. Like 17 is really a child. 17 year old blacks are busily bumping each other off like flies, all across America.

Even if you are attacked (by a 158lbs teen….) than you fight. Kick his ass, teach him a lesson. Or get your own ass kicked and learn a lesson about yourself. But to use a gun? Because you were getting beat up? Where I come from you don’t pull a gun on someone that doesn’t have a weapon of their own.

Haha. I see this a lot from blacks in the wake of the Zim Affair. Suddenly, blacks are all about the Marquis of Queensbury rules. This from the race that fights in packs, with whatever's at hand, with pretty much no concern at all for any kind of restraint or code of conduct (Ice Cube was a hero for using a brick on Debo; papa Ice Cube lectured Ice Cube in vain on the merits of fighting fair). Blacks know whites still have some illusions about fighting fair, even against people with no understanding of the concept at all, and blacks seek to exploit this.

Funniest revelation so far: the Arizona Iced Tea was actually "watermelon juice cocktail." Gee, wonder why the media didn't get that lil' fact out to the public? :D

Svigor said...

Also, 911 dispatcher testified that giving orders to callers is not within 911 operator's purview, contra all the dumbasses who have been pretending 911 dispatchers' orders are the word of God, and not of glorified secretaries. 911 dispatcher also confirmed that they don't give orders, and aren't authorized to give orders, and that the 911 dispatcher didn't give Zim any orders, because of liability concerns. This fits with what I said when the Zim Affair erupted, that a 911 dispatcher's code of conduct has more to do with her employer's legal liability than with concerns over protecting the public.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/06/she-said-she-called-trayvon-back-and-he-answered-she-was-able-to-start-talking-to-him-on-the-phone-i.html

harooni22 said...

all women jury was a disaster as they do not think properly as a man would. They were confused by the laws and that lead to not guilty. some even saying he deserved jail but didnt know "how" to find him guilty.