Archive for the ‘Political Correctness’ Category
The George Zimmerman trial is over except the formalities.
The prosecution has rested. And most of the prosecution’s witnesses support Zimmerman’s account of what happened.
We are now hearing from the defense. But this trial is effectively over based on the evidence and witnesses the prosecution put on. Either this is the most inept prosecution of all time, or there was no case and we should not have had a trial.
George Zimmerman’s injuries on his head and face, including a broken nose, clearly show he was beaten by the much-taller Trayvon Martin (6 feet tall vs the 5′ 8″ Zimmerman). There was a four-inch height difference. Trayvon was clearly far more athletic than the short, overweight, out-of-shape Zimmerman.
Jonathon Good — the most credible witness, the witness who saw the most – testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining down blows on Zimmerman.
The fact that the back of Zimmerman’s clothing was wet and had grass stuck to the back of his pants and jacket is strong evidence that Zimmerman was on his back taking a beating.
The prosecution has all but conceded Martin was on top beating Zimmerman.
The prosecution is trying to say that the fact that Zimmerman was not grievously injured suggests he used unreasonable force in response.
But the extent of the injuries has nothing to do with the law concerning self-defense.
The prosecution, of course, knows this. The prosecution is doing all it can to confuse the jury about the law in order to get a false conviction — a tactic by the prosecution that is, at best, immoral, if not illegal.
The law says you have the right to shoot an attacker in self-defense if you reasonably fear you might be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.
It doesn’t say you have the right to shoot only after you suffer grievous bodily harm. You just need to have a reasonable fear that you might be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.
If an attacker is on top of you pounding your head on cement, this would certainly qualify, even if you manage to escape grievous bodily harm.
It was only later, after an uproar from national black leaders (Al Sharpton, etc) and the media that a charge of second degree murder was filed.
President Obama even jumped into the case, telling America: “If I Had a Son, He’d Look Like Trayvon”.
When the President of the United States came out against Zimmerman, no doubt the State of Florida felt it had little choice but to move forward with some kind of show trial. Black leaders were also threatening riots if there wasn’t justice for Trayvon.
So now we have this show trial, at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Of course, I don’t know what really happened that night when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. I have seen nothing in the trial so far that disproves anything Zimmerman told police that night.
We have conflicting testimony about whose voice on the 911 call was crying for help. Trayvon’s family says it was Trayvon. Zimmerman’s family says it was George. The guy who actually witnessed the event, Jonathon Good , says it was George.
So we don’t know. No one really knows what happened that night.
The prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This means all six jurors must believe, with near 100 percent certainty, that George Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Trayvon Martin with malice. That’s what a Second Degree Murder conviction requires.
There’s absolutely no evidence of that. Zimmerman fired just one shot. He says he thought he had missed. He says he did not realize Martin was dead until after his arrest.
If Zimmerman had malice toward Trayvon Martin, or toward black people, or if he fired out of some sort of rage or hatred, he likely would have fired more than one shot.
The forensics show that the gun was against the sweatshirt, but not pressed up against the body, that the sweatshirt and the second shirt under the sweatshirt were several inches away from the body — as would happen if Martin were on top of Zimmerman, bending over Zimmerman, raining down blows on Zimmerman and pounding Zimmerman’s head against the cement, just as Zimmerman described.
The prosecution is desperately trying to make the case that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop.
The evidence for this is that he took a criminal justice course several years ago and applied to become a police officer. So the prosecution is twisting what most people would consider to be positives into negatives for Zimmerman.
But what courses he took at a community college and what jobs he applied for are irrelevant. All that matters is what can be proven happened during those few seconds before George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.
The prosecution is trying to make the case that Zimmerman, because he took this criminal justice course at a community college, understood Florida’s “stand your ground” law and understood what to say to police.
Assuming that’s true (a huge stretch), does this mean we can’t trust the testimony of cops in trials because they know what to say? Does this mean we can’t trust police reports because they know how to tailor their reports to whatever charges they want to prove?
Doesn’t making a point like this undermine the credibility of law enforcement and our entire criminal justice system?
Is the prosecution’s point that those who know the law can’t be trusted to tell the truth . . . because they know the law — and doubly can’t be trusted to tell the truth if they also want to become a cop?
This is an argument so bizarre and illogical I felt like I was watching a riff in a Monty Python movie.
Never mind that this case doesn’t even involve Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Zimmerman is not relying on the “stand your ground” law. He is claiming simple self-defense.
The state’s theory is that George Zimmerman is a wannabe cop who hates black people and who appointed himself vigilante (Charles Bronson-style). The state wants the jury to believes that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin and, motivated by racist rage, stalked Martin and gunned him down because Martin was wearing a hoodie.
The evidence for all this is that he took a course on criminal justice and applied to be a cop.
The fact that the prosecution has spent so much time on this point just underscores how flimsy their case against Zimmerman really is.
“Is this really all they have? Is this really their entire case?” I keep asking myself.
I kept waiting for the grand finale, which never happened.
I don’t think the prosecution really even believes its own case.
It’s as if they know they have to come up with something because the politics of this case demands it. So this is the best they can do.
This is a trial that never should have happened.
These prosecutors should all lose their license to practice law for bringing such a frivolous case, at enormous cost to taxpayers. Prosecutors are only supposed to bring cases they know they are near-certain to win. They are only supposed to bring cases where the evidence is overwhelming.
This is why most prosecutors have a 98-100 percent conviction rate. It’s considered a breach of ethics for prosecutors to bring to trial cases they have almost no chance of winning — in this case, zero chance of winning . . . because almost all the evidence the prosecution presented supports Zimmerman’s account of what happened.
The lead detective in the case (a witness for the prosecution) believed Zimmerman told the truth to the police, has still found no evidence to suggest Zimmerman was lying about anything.
Has there ever been a criminal case in history where the lead detective (the man in charge of the investigation for the state) takes the side of the criminal defendant?
Incredibly, that’s what happened here.
The law professor the prosecution put on the stand told the jury the prosecution had misstated the law, and proceeded to give a tutorial on what the law actually is concerning “stand your ground” and “self-defense” – and why Zimmerman appears to have acted in accordance with the law.
The judge should not send this case to the jury. The judge should summarily throw this case out for lack of evidence.
Of course, that won’t happen because this is a political trial.
This trial is happening because President Obama personally weighed in on this case against Zimmerman . . . and because of threats to riot from the black community. This is a trial about “political correctness,” not about what the state can prove happened that night.
George Zimmerman is the target of a modern lynch mob, with Barack Obama (the President of the United States) surreally leading the mob.
So, it’s come to this.
In America today, we really can be tried as a criminal (and potentially jailed for decades) for accidentally running up against “political correctness.”
It was just a “tragic event” (an inexplicable mishap) — nothing to do with jihadists, radical Islamists, or anything.
MARK STEYN: Waiting to be interviewed on the radio the other day, I found myself on hold listening to a public-service message exhorting listeners to go to 911day.org and tell their fellow citizens how they would be observing the tenth anniversary of the, ah, “tragic events.” There followed a sound bite of a lady explaining that she would be paying tribute by going and cleaning up an area of the beach.
Great! Who could object to that? Anything else? Well, another lady pledged that she “will continue to discuss anti-bullying tactics with my grandson.”
Marvelous. Because studies show that many middle-school bullies graduate to hijacking passenger jets and flying them into tall buildings?
You should never feel left out
You are a piece of a puzzle
And without you
The whole picture can’t be seen.
And if that message of “healing and unity” doesn’t sum up what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, what does? A painting of a plane flying into a building? A sculpture of bodies falling from a skyscraper? Oh, don’t be so drearily literal. “It is still too soon,” says Midori Yashimoto, director of the New Jersey City University Visual Arts Gallery, whose exhibition “Afterwards & Forward” is intended to “promote dialogue, deeper reflection, meditation, and contextualization.” So, instead of planes and skyscrapers, it has Yoko Ono’s “Wish Tree,” on which you can hang little tags with your ideas for world peace.
What’s missing from these commemorations?
Oh, please. There are some pieces of the puzzle we have to leave out. As Mayor Bloomberg’s office has patiently explained, there’s “not enough room” at the official Ground Zero commemoration to accommodate any firemen. “Which is kind of weird,” wrote the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle, “since 343 of them managed to fit into the exact same space ten years ago.” On a day when all the fancypants money-no-object federal acronyms comprehensively failed — CIA, FBI, FAA, INS — the only bit of government that worked was the low-level unglamorous municipal government represented by the Fire Department of New York. When they arrived at the World Trade Center the air was thick with falling bodies — ordinary men and women trapped on high floors above where the planes had hit, who chose to spend their last seconds in one last gulp of open air rather than die in an inferno of jet fuel. Far “too soon” for any of that at New Jersey City University, but perhaps you could reenact the moment by filling out a peace tag for Yoko Ono’s “Wish Tree” and then letting it flutter to the ground.
Upon arrival at the foot of the towers, two firemen were hit by falling bodies. “There is no other way to put it,” one of their colleagues explained. “They exploded.”
Any room for that on the Metropolitan Museum’s “Peace Quilt”? Sadly not. We’re all out of squares.
What else is missing from these commemorations?
What’s that — a quilting technique?
No, what’s missing from these commemorations is more Muslims. The other day I bumped into an old BBC pal who’s flying in for the anniversary to file a dispatch on why you see fewer women on the streets of New York wearing niqabs and burqas than you do on the streets of London. She thought this was a telling indictment of the post-9/11 climate of “Islamophobia.” I pointed out that, due to basic differences in immigration sources, there are far fewer Muslims in New York than in London. It would be like me flying into Stratford-on-Avon and reporting on the lack of Hispanics. But the suits had already approved the trip, so she was in no mood to call it off.
Huh? Campus Crusade for Christ changes its name to CRU to remove ‘Christ’ from the name so as not to offend people
That’s just really messed up.
So what’s their strategy for evangelism? Just spring it on people that they’re Christian? They think they can fake people out? Bait and switch? What’s up here?
FOX NEWS: One of the nation’s most prominent Christian ministries has decided to take Christ out of its name – a move that has generated cries of political correctness from within the evangelical community.
Campus Crusade for Christ International announced this week that it will change the name of its U.S. Operations to “Cru” in early 2012.
“We felt like our name was getting in the way of accomplishing our mission,” said Steve Sellers, the vice president for Campus Crusade, noting that the ministry will still be committed to “proclaiming Christ around the world.”
Sellers said researchers found that 9 percent of Christians and 20 percent of non-Christians were alienated by the name Campus Crusade for Christ.
The organization was founded in 1951 by Bill and Vonette Bright and today has 25,000 staff members serving in 191 countries. Bright died in 2003, but his widow offered support for the name change in a video posted online.
“When Bill Bright started the organization, he told his wife that someday they would have to change the name,” Sellers said. “As early as the late ’70s and ’80s he was looking at making the name change.”
Sellers said several factors were involved in the name change – including overseas sensitivities.
“Our name was becoming more and more of a hindrance,” he told Fox News Radio. He specifically mentioned the word crusade.
You can get a check for $50,000 from the Feds if you’re black and just say you once ‘tried to farm,’ but failed
JOHN STOSSEL-FOX BUSINESS: Want to get a check from the government for $50,000? If you’re black and willing to say you once “attempted to farm,” the money could be yours.
Why? In the 80’s and 90’s, some Black farmers were allegedly discriminated against by the Agriculture Department. Department loan officers supposedly did the opposite of what Shirley Sherrod was accused of: they granted government-subsidized farm loans to whites but not to blacks.
Government shouldn’t be giving out government subsidized loans to anyone. But that’s another story for another time.
When some black farmers sued, claiming discrimination, the USDA agreed to pay $50,000 to every black person who was discriminated against.
According to the census, there were 18,000 black farmers in the country when the lawsuit was filed. But 97,000 black “farmers” have applied for the money.
Black farmer Jimmy Dismuke says it’s fraud. He said lawyers went to black churches and told people who had never farmed to file for the money.
The President of France continues to make a whole lot more sense than Obama
AFP: French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.
“My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure,” he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.
“Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want… a society where communities coexist side by side.
“If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France,” the right-wing president said.
“The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women… freedom for little girls to go to school,” he said.
Lisa Murkowski loves this idea, so it must be good. Right?
THE HILL: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaksa) has joined Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) in spearheading Udall’s effort to have bipartisan seating at the State of the Union, Murkowski’s office announced Friday.
In a letter to members of Congress today Murkowski and Udall propose Republicans and Democrats sit together during the State of the Union address. Currently, the tradition is for Democrats and Republicans to sit only with members of their party during the presidential address. The proposal comes after an earlier one by Udall where the Democrat and Republican leadership would sit together during the presidential address.
So far, 21 senators and nine members of Congress of both parties have endorsed the proposal.
TONY LEE-HUMAN EVENTS: What if Jared Loughner had been a Muslim?
Shamefully and sadly, the media would have covered his horrific assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) and slaying and maiming of innocent Arizonans in a more responsible manner. They would have called for restraint and not violated the journalistic tenet of not assuming anything, a tenet they purportedly (and often facetiously sanctimoniously) claim to hold dear.
But because Loughner was not a member of one of the mainstream media’s protected classes, they used Loughner’s heinous act to go on liberal crusades against conservatives and Tea Partiers, to promote gun control, amnesty, and rail against those who may oppose ethnic study programs that erroneously teach students that the Southwestern part of the United States is a part of Mexico.
WRAL: An athletic and academic standout in Lee County said a lunchbox mix-up has cut short her senior year of high school and might hurt her college opportunities.
Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford, was suspended from Southern Lee High School in October after school personnel found a small paring knife in her lunchbox.
Smithwick said personnel found the knife while searching the belongings of several students, possibly looking for drugs.
“She got pulled into it. She doesn’t have to be a bad person to be searched,” Smithwick’s father, Joe Smithwick, said.
The lunchbox really belonged to Joe Smithwick, who packs a paring knife to slice his apple. He and his daughter have matching lunchboxes.