Monday, July 15, 2013

The Zimmerman acquittal was a massive victory for the prosecution

Yea. The prosecution won this one, big.

How so?

Consider:

1) The prosecution has behaved bizarrely from a legal standpoint. Why did they bypass the grand jury, and indict without it? After all, a grand jury would be a test run, a way for the prosecution to find what charge-- 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, whatever-- would stick. It would make a lot more sense to have run the question of charging through a grand jury, and get a charge that might be sustainable before a criminal jury. It's almost as if the prosecution didn't want to be successful.

2) The prosecution chose the most serious charge-- 2nd degree murder. Why? Every objective legal analyst has noted that the evidence does not in any way support 2nd degree murder. Even the lesser charges go beyond the evidence, but 2nd degree murder means that Zimmerman pursued Martin with malice aforethought-- he carefully and deliberately planned to kill him. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that allegation, let along enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's almost as if the prosecution didn't want to be successful.

3) In trial, the prosecution witnesses were catastrophic for the prosecution. They clearly helped the defense case, again and again. One of Zimmerman's attorneys quipped that the defense proved Zimmerman not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case was so weak that the defense took all the initiative.

It's almost as if the prosecution didn't want to be successful.

So let's take seriously the suggestion that the prosecution intentionally lost the case.

Why would they do so?

We conservatives misunderstand the Zimmerman affair. We think of it as a criminal prosecution, gone awry. But I think we're wrong.

The Zimmerman prosecution is a political affair, wholly, and has nothing to do with law.

The Zimmerman case is a perfect political storm for the Obama administration. The 2012 election hinged on voter enthusiasm. Obama had to motivate his base-- blacks and leftists-- and discourage Romney's base-- cultural conservatives and Tea Partiers. The suppression of conservatives and Tea Partiers by the IRS and associated alphabet agencies is a matter of record. And the Zimmerman case enraged and motivated blacks, who voted in 2012 in record numbers and whose turn-out at the polls exceeded that of whites, which is unprecedented.

Why was the Zimmerman case so effective for Democrat political leverage? Democrats needed an issue that enraged and motivated blacks, but just as importantly they needed an issue without cloture. If Democrats chose a cold-blooded deliberate murder of a black man-- the horrendous James Byrd case in Texas is an example-- the outrage would be intense, but short-lived. The perpetrators were caught, promptly tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. In the political calculus of the Washington-Chicago mob, the Byrd case peaked too soon, and left blacks with the reassurance that they could count on the justice system.

The Zimmerman case is perfect Democrat politics. The opportunity for race-baiting is endless. Seventeen year old black kid, incessant TV pictures of Trayvon as a twelve-year old, the fact that Trayvon was genuinely minding his own business before the incident all buttress the victimology necessary to stoke fear and hate. Zimmerman's enthusiasm in following Martin, his 'wanna-be-cop' persona, all played into the race-baiting stereotypes.

It was essential for Democrats that the Zimmerman case not be resolved with a conviction. Zimmerman's acquittal is what makes this case so valuable for Democrats. The outrage among blacks needs to be stoked. And nothing stokes black outrage like Zimmerman walking out of the courtroom, a free man.

So why exactly would the prosecution, which clearly was led from Washington (the Seminole County prosecutors were sock puppets), want to win the case? To calm fears, bring justice, secure civic harmony? Why the hell would they want that? A conviction would placate blacks. Of what political value are happy blacks for Democrats?

For Trayvon Martin's death to continue to be of value to Democrats, the prosecution needed to lose.

There will now be a federal civil rights investigation and civil litigation. More trials, more headlines, more spin about how blacks are victims and get no justice. There will be get-out-the-vote campaigns in black neighborhoods in 2014-- "Do it for Trayvon! Vote!" The race-baiting engine that moves Democrat Party politics needs fuel, and an acquitted Zimmerman, like a fugitive Emmanuel Goldstein and a globe-trotting Trotsky, is political high-test.

Zimmerman's prosecutors-- the real ones in Washington and the tools in Florida-- threw this case. That's why they overcharged and provided the defense with witness after witness. A conviction would have been a political catastrophe for Democrats. They don't want cloture. With a conviction, blacks would have felt that justice had prevailed, and the system worked. Confident hopeful black Americans are an electoral catastrophe for the Democratic Party.

The prosecution won this case, by losing. Deliberately. The trial was not about law. It was politics, by other means. The 21st century now has its Emmett Till and Medgar Evers, although the comparison is not precise: Till and Evers were killed by Democrats, whereas Martin's death is merely exploited by Democrats.

The Zimmerman prosecution's deliberate victory-by-defeat will reverberate through the next several election cycles and will reap millions of Democrat votes.

This is brilliant political theatre. 

17 comments:

  1. Doctor, you seem to have penetrated yet another of our conspiracies. When I get back to Skull Mountain and report this to Overlord Soros he will not be pleased. I’m afraid you’re too late however; the racist rants of the right we’ve unleashed will propel progressives to victory for generations to come. The future is ours suckers Bwahahaha!

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 15, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    Well, Doctor, I have a different theory. It's based on one of my most cherished heuristics:

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    --- "Hanlon's Razor"

    It's difficult for some people to understand what it must be like to live in the Progressive Bubble. It's most perfectly described by another quote about the Nixon landslide in '72, attributed to Manhattan film critic Pauline Kael:

    I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him.
    --- Boston Globe, 2008

    Well, of course you don't know anyone who voted for him, darling. Of course you don't! People like you, enlightened people, simply don't know "people like that". They're bitter, and cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them. As Michael Weisskopf wrote in the Washington Post, they're "[P]oor, uneducated, and easy to command." Correct?

    Progressivism is a politics of hate and envy. Progressives don't believe that people who disagree with them should be heard; Progressives believe that people who disagree with them should be punished. The insular nature of their world makes Progressives vicious and stupid.

    If you doubt that, consider the case of Bill Lockyer, former Attorney General of the State of California who currently serves as the state Treasurer. When he was asked about the Ken Lay prosecution, he famously said:

    I would love to personally escort Ken Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, "Hi, my name is Spike, honey"

    Thus we have a Progressive state Attorney General, the "top cop" of California, advocating - nay, gleefully anticipating - vicious, felonious prison rape for a man who had not even stood trial. Lockyer's words even suggest he might have wanted to watch. While wearing a trench coat. Prison rape is one of the most disgusting and horrific aspects of incarceration. And Lockyer is a poster boy for the sick and demented ideology of the Progressive Left. He "misspoke" under the influence of the Kael Effect: those words slid from his tongue, the trained and cautious tongue of a polished politician and accomplished trial lawyer, because he didn't know anyone who would disagree.*

    Do you wonder now that Progressives could believe the Zim trial would be a slam-dunk and are now are amazed, shocked, and horrified that an innocent man was spared a prison sentence? Even after open and widely broadcast threats of murder, mob violence, and arson?

    No, the Zim trial was no conspiracy in my opinion. It's just another case of Progressives being blind to likely future outcomes because they are intentionally stupid. They choose to live in a world of lies, a world that must be willfully sealed from outside influence to avoid the sobering influence of reality.

    *Amusingly, Lockyer is also an advocate for gay marriage. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Progressives won this case, Admiral, big time. This will stir hate for years. Mission accomplished.

      Progressives are not dumb. They are, politically, much smarter than we are. They are just evil, but they know exactly what they're doing, and they are ruthless.

      The prosecutors in this case who willingly made themselves look incompetent will soon get their pay-- a nice plum federal job, etc. The judge will be rewarded too.

      Delete
    2. “They're bitter, and cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them. As Michael Weisskopf wrote in the Washington Post, they're "[P]oor, uneducated, and easy to command." Correct?”

      Correct.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

      Do you have a skill besides copying and pasting, Popeye?

      Sorry... that should be Nuclear Reactor Control Copying and Pasting. Right, sailor?

      Delete
  3. I think that George Zimmerman was lucky to have been acquitted. But then again, OJ Simpson was also acquitted, and he was clearly guilty of murder.

    A grand jury isn't necessary to lay charges. It's designed to assist the prosecutor, not the accused, who doesn't have legal representation. A defence case isn't presented to the jury. A grand jury is only there to decide if there's a prosecution case, not if there's a defence. It wasn't disputed that Zimmerman killed Martin.

    A grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich' if the prosecutor desired.

    I'm reasonably happy with the outcome of the trial. An over zealous neighbourhood watch volunteer killed an innocent 17 year old armed with a cool drink, a bag of lollies and a hoodie as he was on his way home. He should have been charged and prosecuted for something, and eventually he was.

    He was acquitted on the basis of self defence (Trayvon Martin was also defending himself, but he gets no consideration).

    The prosecution not getting a conviction isn't a bad thing. If prosecutors only started criminal cases in which they were certain to attain a conviction, so they have a 100% success rate, then that would mean that juries would eventually decide that they're only there to rubber stamp convictions, and criminal cases would become 'show trials'.

    It would also mean that guilty people would be released into the community, just because the prosecutor wasn't certain of a conviction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Trayvon Martin was also defending himself..."

      BZZZZZZZTT!!

      No he wasn't. Zimmerman never attacked him. Following someone is not 'attacking' him. Asking someone what they are doing in your neighbor's yard is not 'attacking' him. Calling the Police because of the suspicious behavior of St. Trayvon of the Skittles is not 'attacking' him. Trayvon had no reason to initiate violence. His offended honor as a 'gangsta' does not count as a reason.

      Delete
  4. Now that the Zimmerman thing is out of the way, conservatives can get back to hassling Cheerios for daring to show a mixed race couple in a commercial.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  5. ... and liberals can get back to killing each other in Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike racism, violence in Chicago has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. It’s just your almost daily racist reminder of how murderous black people are.


      I know your barely subtle racism is a big hit in conservative circles, but other people see it too.


      -KW

      Delete
    2. KW:

      Why are Democrats so violent?

      Why are blacks seven times more likely to commit homicide than whites?

      Why are black-on-white homicides three times as common as white-on-black homicides?

      Why is a black man ten times more likely to be killed by a black man than by a white man?

      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

      Delete
    3. KW. It isn't how murderous black people are. It is how murderous young men with no fathers are.

      Delete
  6. The answer to all your questions is drugs, poverty, and unequal justice, all stemming from the institutional racism you are championing here.

    Your constant pointing out that blacks are violent only serves to suggest that it was really Martin that was on trial in that courtroom, and you have to trumpet the very same racial profile that led Zimmerman to kill the in the first place. You are beneath contempt.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Racism causes crime?

      Can you name other persecuted minorities who went on crime rampages?

      Jews in Germany? American Indians in the US? Catholics in revolutionary Mexico, Spain, Soviet Union? Christians are treated like shit in North Korea. What is the murder rate for Christians in North Korea?

      Christians are horrendously persecuted in many Muslim countries in the Middle East. Are the crime rates astronomical among Christians in Egypt or Syria?

      Do you think that the 80% illegitimacy rate for black children, the endemic fatherlessness in black families, the economic and social devastation caused by corrupt inner city governments, the horrendous educational system, might have something to do with black violence?

      Here's a place to look for the cause: the political party that governs every poor black neighborhood, that is synonymous with "corrupt political machine", that sends welfare checks to families under the condition that fathers be absent, and that has over the past 6 years presided over the economic devastation of black Americans, even more than white Americans.

      Why are the results of your policies never your fault?

      Delete
    2. KW. Profiling? Nope. Being beaten into the sidewalk was the event which put Zimmerman's weapon into play.

      Zimmerman is Black, btw. You DO know that, correct?

      Delete
  7. So... The Republican administration of a Republican state is in cahoots with the Democratic administration of Barack Obama??

    ReplyDelete