So, morally speaking...

if war can be justified, snark certainly seems justifiable.

Necessary? Well, no, not necessarily, but does everything have to be necessary? I wouldn't think so.

Why do toasters suck now?

I find this development inexplicable, but for whatever reason, toasters do, in fact, suck now.

I agree with Jesse Jackson.

Black Americans oughtta should boycott Florida, and every other stand your ground state.

Some people might be willing to subsidize their boycott.

OMG, Geragos, what are you doing?

vomit-inducing pandering to a majority black audience.

why do i put myself through this?

The Real Test

of De La Rionda's decency as a human being will be the length of time he can wait before coming out with a statement or perhaps a book explaining how disappointed and embarrassed he was by the performance of his star witness, and how opposed he was to even including her in the trial.

Could go either way. Depending on his overall financial situation, he could crack in a few months, or he could take it to his death bed, but one way or another, he's gonna tell that story. I'm certain of that.

Corey, on the other hand, will defend the decision to her grave.

A Debatable Point

Is prosecutorial pandering a justified aspect of governance?

I would reject the idea out of hand, but to play devil's advocate, if it saves lives by pretending to be readying a federal case against a defendant because it placates the throngs of angry dimwits long enough for them to forget what they had been angry about, is that justified?

Well, no, but I am of the opinion that that is part of the calculation for those making the top-level decisions. Thanks for yet again bringing the country to the brink of racial strife, Barack. And thanks for being a complete authoritarian tool, Eric. You both had the chance to truly lead by telling people what they needed to hear instead of what they wanted to hear, but you chose otherwise.

The Piers Morgan / Rachel Jeantal Interview

is what you call "a wrap".

The black community will not be satisfied

until individual citizens are held individually responsible for the collective actions of their ancestors.

It wouldn't take long to get them to admit that they want to sacrifice "non-whites" or "white Hispanics" or "those who are not sufficiently black" at the altar of racial reparations, and the details of any specific case do not matter. They want placating convictions, because those will make them feel better about themselves. LITERALLY. This is the request. 

"someone can always explain away why this person got off, why this person was not found guilty and what we have is a bunch of dead black men."

Well, we also have a bunch of dead black men at the hands of other black men. Mostly that is the case, in fact, but you are focusing strictly on one segment of this situation because it confirms your preferred identity - racial justice crusader. You see yourself in a certain light, and the facts are fixed around that conclusion. Guess what? We also have a bunch of dead white people at the hands of blacks. Does that concern you at all? I didn't think so. Convenient, to say the least. Now let's look at the (quite rare) incidents of DISPUTE. I assume you accept that in many instances, even black men are arrested for legitimate reason. Right? Ok, what percentage does that involve? You don't care? Well there we have it, and that's why no one cares what you say any more. You have cried wolf too many times. 

There are two possible reactions to this. First, you (not the same you as above. you, the salvageable one who has to deal with them, the you above) can shake your head and say, "they know not what they do. They are simply incapable of functioning at the intellectual level necessary to understand the situation without being consumed by their emotions and the social pressures involved." That would probably be the correct response.

Second, you could possibly consider acquiescing to their demands. You could decide that the wrongs of the past can only be righted by further wrongs today, against the descendants of the original wrongdoers. But only the white descendants, mind you. The descendants of blacks who held and sold slaves are not culpable at all, because we are talking collectivism in its purest form. Even if you are the black descendant of black slave owners, you are entitled to reparations from white America, because you are black, and that's that.

This here what you call a "irreconcilable diffince", and I believe the best response is a combination of the first, with perhaps a few sticks poked into the eye of those who need to be pushed back off my lawn. Back, dumbass. Back. Get off. You're not getting any of my stuff. Now go, or I will call the authorities and you can conclude that you are being arrested because the authorities are racist. I don't care either way. Now beat it. Maybe come back when you can control yourself and you are willing to learn a lesson or two, but not before.

We have reached a very important racial crossroads in America. We have squeezed out every last drop of give a shit by those who might be inclined towards white guilt, but who have their own lives, difficulties, struggles, and opposition to deal with. Those who have nothing better to do will always support another fight, but productive society has a cutoff point, and we have reached it. The conclusion is that "nothing will ever be good enough", and that conclusion is correct. If you want money to return to your homeland, you will enthusiastically get that. I promise you. But nothing else. Anything else constitutes extortion, and people won't be extorted any longer. Get your shit together, or get out of the way. Those are your options. Best of luck.

STUNNED by MHP

"It is possible that this jury, these six individuals, made the right decision..."

Not an exact quote, but close enough. STUNNED she would have the guts. She didn't get to finish it, as "Crump" started his presser, but good on her for having the guts. I don't remember her saying much before the verdict. Regardless, credit for the statement.

Credit to Crump for the "Peace" statement. It was quality.

Tangentially, the more I hear the "help help" audio, the more sure I am that it was George. Higher register.

UPDATE:
MHP says "this tells black families that it is ok to kill a black child who has committed no crime".

Assault and battery is a crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a felony.

Short-lived moment of courage for the MHP. At least we had that I guess.

"Generally there's always some truth to a stereotype..."

Fascinating statement by a white woman in the overall context of the discussion.

The statement was specifically made in regards to female jurors tending, to some degree, to at least talk about emotional impact (at least in focus group research settings) moreso than their male counterparts.

The other window showed a black woman nodding her head in agreement most of the time and then finishing by saying "interesting" somewhat under her breath. Since this white woman is mostly on her side on this specific case, I wonder how easy it will be for her to ignore such a statement or at least explain it away in her mind and to others, since to do otherwise would be to force herself to draw a distinction with a person who is currently an "ally". That is something we do not like to do.

Ironic

Had Trayvon realized that George was Hispanic he probably wouldn't have been as scared of him or held animosity towards him, and therefore would not have attacked him (which would make his assault on George racially motivated) and wouldn't have been shot.

BTW, in all of the Trayvon pictures, in all the accounts of his daily activities, is there any indication that he was around white people on any sort of regular basis? There are literally no white people in any of the pictures I have seen (compared to stories regarding George's involvement with blacks). I'd like to see his parents interviewed regarding any statements they've made or beliefs they hold regarding "white people" and any lessons they had taught their son in that regard. That likely won't happen, and the desire to not cause further emotional distress would prevent any real inquiry from taking place, but I'm interested in the answers.

Finally, would Jeantal have made the "crack" about the person "following Trayvon" being a possible pedophile if Trayvon had not described him as a "cracker"? Probably not, which indicates a racist "assumption" (meh. less serious word needed) by her immediately upon hearing the race of an individual.

Sounds like maybe Trayvon surrounded himself with anti-white racism and it got him killed, ironically by a Hispanic. Yet the responsibility still somehow lies with white American racism. Ironic, and in certain ways freaking hilarious.

Racial Cognitive Dissonance

is some of the best.

The current argument is that, hey, "maybe" Trayvon felt threatened because George had the gun pulled early on!! huh? huh? .....

....

So he saw that George Zimmerman was wielding a gun.... and he attacked him?

What unarmed person outside of your favorite action film goes towards a person they see wielding a gun?

Especially when they have

four

minutes

to run.

So when do you think George pulled the gun? And what do you think Trayvon's reaction was?

So far, there is only the most random collection of desperate and disparate delusions allowing those attempting to justify their initial (and, therefore, continuing) blind support for Trayvon Martin and for a murder conviction for George Zimmerman to continue to hold their position.

That's the funniest part of the prosecution's case. Embedded directly in the central part of the argument is a prosecution admittance that they themselves have all kinds of "reasonable doubt" regarding exactly what happened in those crucial moments. They don't know. "We the prosecution have serious doubts about what happened in those crucial moments, but you the jury should have no reasonable doubt regarding same."

Funniest thing ever.

Thoroughly Entertaining

to watch media talking heads tailor their comments to the network they happen to be on at the moment.

It's like watching politicians tailor their accent to the crowd.

When trying a 17 year old for a crime

do prosecutors refer to him as "young boy"?

LOL

"That's nothing?"

um, what you described would be something.

what you described is not what happened.

what happened is.... legally speaking, "nothing". meaning, not a crime, because we have the right to self-defense as human beings.

Responsibility vs. Rights

Not having the responsibility to do some thing does not imply that you have no right to do it.

This should be obvious but, like so many things, it is not.

Weird Coincidence

Mark O'Mara looks quite a bit like Mark Fuhrman. Plus, of course, his name is Mark.

Inconsistencies... I mean LIESS!!!!! ARRRGGHH!!!

"When I walked back towards him..."
I haven't heard this on recording, so it could have been a simple transcript error. But assuming the statement was as reported, it very easily could have been a simple misstatement of "When I looked back towards him", given that the next statement would include the words "walked" ("he was walking back towards me"). This is extremely common, especially when you have a common phrase  like "back towards" in both parts of the statement. Ever play music? You'll do this a lot. You have similarities, and you accidentally duplicate additional aspects in the different parts of the statement/phrase/sentence/etc.

Even so, worst case, what would be the implication? That he walked towards him? Or that he walked towards him and started a physical altercation by striking Trayvon? Where is it supposed that he struck him? Was there any evidence of that strike? Of course not. But that's not relevant, only the specifics of the actually present injuries to George are relevant, and relevant as evidence that he was NOT physically assaulted.... or something like that.

.... people are using it against him that he knew the street name in a post-event interview, as if that proves he necessarily knew it that night, in that moment. this qualifies as pathetic and embarrassing childishness. this should be beneath a prosecuting attorney.

as to the statement, "THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSES,, THERE'S NO ADDRESS HERE.... "

PROSECUTOR, "BUT THERE'S A NUMBER ON THAT HOUSE RIGHT OVER THERE..."

THAT HOUSE WAS NOT ON TREEVIEW CIRCLE. IT WAS ON THE OTHER STREET, WHICH HE DIDN'T KNOW THE NAME OF. HE ONLY KNEW THE NAME OF THE TREEVIEW CIRCLE ROAD, SO HE HAD TO GET A NUMBER OF A HOUSE ON THAT STREET, SO HE COULD GIVE A FULL ADDRESS TO THE OPERATOR.

The claim that there are no bushes in that area? NO BUSHES?... THERE ARE BUSHES ALONG THE SIDES OF THOSE HOUSES.

WOW, THIS WHOLE THING JUST GETS MORE RIDICULOUS BY THE SECOND.

"I moved his hands apart [to check his hands]" , but he wasn't dead yet, so why is it surprising that his hands may have instinctively come back to the wound? what a joke.

HOW IS IT INTENTIONAL MURDER WITH A DEPRAVED MIND, WHEN HE LEFT THE INJURED MAN AFTER SHOOTING, NOT ONLY BELIEVING HE WAS STILL ALIVE, BUT WHILE HE WAS, IN FACT, STILL ALIVE?

gee, no one can keep their distance while attempting to monitor someone they are scared of... that's not possible! lol.

ARMPITS! How does he get the gun out!!?
Again this is ridiculous nonsense. They would be moving around and he already said he was shimmying along the ground, which means they would have been adjusting almost constantly. Silly, ridiculous nonsense.

Race pimps have wasted millions of dollars, gotten people fired and threatened, and brought the country to the brink of racial riots for nothing.

FACT: the prosecution has not presented any theory as to the origin of the physical altercation. they have no theory that fits the facts of the single most important aspect of the event. that alone is reasonable doubt.

The next time I see a fight

I'm going to pay particular attention to how static the situation is, because even in courtroom situations where people's lives and freedom are at stake, individuals act as if a statement regarding circumstances at one moment would necessarily represent the circumstances at a later moment, even almost immediately afterwards.

I bet I'll see a lot of different positions and situations when I watch two individuals fighting. I bet it'll be almost non-stop motion.

As to "seeing a gun" in that dark situation, one could easily imagine an individual "noticing" a small, holstered gun during a struggle, perhaps feeling it first, and then looking down to verify. It wouldn't be hard to verify from point blank range.

And again, the idea that an individual of depraved mind intending to kill would shoot once while on the bottom of a struggle where he is being beaten, and would then tell the other individual to "stay down" while he waits for the police is nonsensical.

Apparently

"Stand your ground" laws are "humiliating" to black people. Is that the funniest thing you've ever heard? I think it's right up there.

Apparently the clearer the law makes it that individuals have a right to self-defense and do not have to retreat in the face of an assault, the more you "humiliate" black people.

Funny

Shizzle

My Nizzles.

On George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin

As to the depraved mind, were one to even assume it existed, it was not the motivating factor, in any way, for the shooting, were one to agree that the physical altercation took place resulting in the injuries to George Zimmerman's body. The depraved mind, were one to assume it existed at all, and that would be based on the initial words uttered, would only have "driven" the defendant to investigate the individual he found suspicious, and to call the authorities as he is supposed to do. The actual act of shooting was the result of the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm due to the physical assault taking place against him.

Even if you are assuming the most egregious case proposed by anyone - that George Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation with Trayvon Martin, and did so with a depraved mind - you are making that determination of fact based entirely upon the statements of one of the least reliable witnesses who has ever taken the stand, who changed the specific testimony serving as evidence of this position (testimony consisting of the reported hearing and interpretation of two words uttered over a cell phone call in which the witness claims there was "lots of wind") repeatedly. And what exactly are you assuming took place? Do you believe George Zimmerman, a fairly mousy, meek individual who had no history of such altercations, physically attacked Trayvon Martin, a significantly taller, fairly imposing individual on a rainy evening? Or that he attempted some sort of restraint until the authorities arrived? Would even an attempted restraint be evidence of a depraved mind? Absolutely ridiculous.

Second, he shot only once. He didn't even necessarily intend to end Trayvon's life. In fact it appears he did not intend that. How depraved is that? "A person could reasonably assume that the act *could* result in death", but that, in itself, is not depraved, if it's done in defense.

Third, there is evidence he didn't even believe that Trayvon was dead.

There is exactly zero legitimate reason to convict on the 2nd degree murder charge and it should be tossed out. I assume that would also toss out all "lesser includeds", but i don't know for sure, and perhaps that should be a lesson to future prosecutors to charge in a more reasonable fashion, if charges are to be filed at all.

As to the 3rd degree child abuse, when exactly did the abuse take place? It again would have to assume a physical assault initiated by Zimmerman prior to the shooting, as the shooting was the result of the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. So the abuse-related charge of 3rd degree assault would have to, again, be related to the testimony of a single witness, who is an entirely unreliable witness for all reasonable people.

The correct verdict, based on the charges filed and the lesser includeds, is not guilty on all charges.