RANGER AGAINST WAR: Survivor Florida <

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Survivor Florida

Black people yelling "racism!"
White people yelling "reverse racism!"
Chinese people yelling "sideways racism!"
And the Indians ain't yelling shit,
'cause they dead. So everybody bitching
about how bad their people got it:
nobody got it worse than the American Indian.
Everyone needs to calm the fuck down
--Chris Rock

For some more balance:

The Crawdad Hole
offers A Different Look at the Trayvon Martin Case, from that of someone familiar with the police system of questioning and reportage.

Blogger Patheos lays it out simply in his: I have an idea for dealing with the Trayvon Martin shooting:

After careful consideration of all sides in the national conflagration over the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the massive amount of commentary from people who weren’t, you know, there and who have no idea what actually happened, but who are urging us all to choose sides and either cheer for the death of a rogue or scream about cold-blooded murder, my thought is this:

Suppose we have an investigation, not in the media and lasting only a minute or two before a verdict is arrived at, but instead use modern police methods for gathering something called “evidence” and “eyewitness testimony”. Just for kicks, let’s appoint both a defense attorney and a prosecutor who can examine this evidence and testimony and make the best arguments possible for the innocence or guilt of the shooter.

As an added crazy idea, what if we have a legally qualified judge who knows the laws of Florida to arbitrate the process? And to provide some measure of fairness to the process, what if we appoint a jury of, say, a dozen impartial people with nothing pre-invested in the outcome of the trial to ponder the evidence and decide if it points to the innocence or guilt of the accused?

We might even begin with a presumption of innocence on the part of the accused until he is proven guilty, though that is increasingly out of step with our Police State mentality.

It’s just an idea I’ve been noodling as it’s begun to occur to me that TV audiences full of of ignorant people adjudicating questions of life and death based on rumors and hearsay may not be the best way to handle such matters.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

what does any of the crap on this site have to do with the war?

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 12:57:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Hey -- race wars, baby. I see you don't hang with the peeps.

Racism in the Army, gang culture ... it's all there, and here.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 1:07:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

So - given the Patheos citation - IS there any movement to empanel a grand jury for this? My understanding is that the DA for this jurisdiction has announced that they will not proceed based on their current information and understanding of the law.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 2:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

In a legal system in which we had faith, the D.A.'s opinion would be respected.

But now we have Al Sharpton and everyone wearing hoodies, so sure they'll be a grand jury. It's become a media circus, and we all love those.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 11:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

It has everything to do with the wars.
Our president recently gunned down a US citizen ,aged 16 and we all cheered.
Zimmerman does much the same and he's reviled.
I'd suggest that the events are related.
It's all colateral damage.
If you don't like what we write about then fuck off and go someplace else.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 8:46:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Lisa: I don't see any evidence of the local DA in this case moving towards a GJ. This one looks like a dead-bang case. Sucks to be Martin, I guess.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 8:53:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Personally, after the media circus, I hope Zimmerman does get his day in court. He has already been convicted in the press, though, so it would be hard to find an impartial jury.

I am fairly certain the DA will convene a GJ; if there's insufficient evidence for a trial, it will end there; that's how our system works, as you know.

When you say "It sucks to be Martin", I s'pose you are suggesting he got a raw deal (?) Just to be devil's advocate, what if Martin "sucked", himself?

This presupposition of his non-culpability confounds me. I would love to see the facts.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 10:34:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home