What did this blog tell you abut the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin matter, IN FORESIGHT (based on the actual FACTS available, and logical inferences)?
What this blog told you was that the most DEFINBITIVE FACTS (not a matter of opinion, as the RACISTS of CNN and the mainstream media tried to make it) as to who PHYSICALLY attacked whom (before the gunshot) would likely be the respective INJURIES suffered by George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin . This blog told you that the Trayvon Martin injury FACTS shuld be DEFINITIVE, because there was an AUTOPSY. This blog further told you that th eFACTS avilable on Goerge Zimmerman's injuries were likely to include IMMEDIATE eyewitness (by "first responders") accounts, and medical reports. This blog told you that such FACTS were going to be much more important than a "video" NOT MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOEING INJURIES, and which was not clear enough to evaluate injuries (other than that it was likely Zimmerman surrered no truly "serious", life threatenting injuries). I just watched a baseball game (St. Louis Cardinals v. LosAngeles Dodgrers) where one of the subjects of discussion by the announcers was a Dodger player who recently suffered an injury to his leg that APPEARED not to be werioius. The announcers noted (albeit they are mainstream media people in whom yu cannot believe) that the injury turned out to be so serious that anothe towo hours DELAY in aggressive treatment, iincluding surgery "might" have resulted in in loss of the leg. Thhis shows, by the way, how ABSURD it is to take the position that George Zimmerman "shuold have known" that he was in no danger of his life, and should have just accepted the beating he was taking. As this blog told you, IN FORESIGHT, GeorgeZimmerman was LOSING the "fight", before Zimmerman resorted to deadly force.
What FACTS have come out over the past week>? A medical report from the next morning indicates that Ximmerman suffered a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts to the back of his head (although not werious enough to cause stitches). You can look to the NFL, by theway, for the dangers of a closed head injury (concussion), although it is unlikely Trayvon Martin punded Zimmerman's head with the froce of a "head-hunting" NFL linebacker. But might Zimmerman have REASPNABLY thought that his life was in danger? Head and neck injuries are terrible stuff, and your mind does not work that well when yu have a broken nose and your head is being piounded agaisnt the ground.
The autopsy reort on Trayvon Martin appears to be even more telling. There were, apparently, only TWO areas of injury to Trayvon Martin. One, of course, was the close range gunshot wound (evidently only ONE,, which is actually a reather important point, and I have not followed hee media cocrerage--not nearly so extensive on EXCULPATORY facts--obssessivel, since this is really a case of little imprtance except as an example of media hhysteria). Somehow, I hink I wowould have heard if there were SIX gunshot wounds, as yu would expect there would/might be if this were really a "hate crime". The ONLY other injury of importance on the body of Trayvon Martin was BRUISED/RAW KNUCKLES (injuries to the HANDS indicating that Trayvon Martin was HTTING George Zimmerman, and not the other way around).
Enter Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz and The Maverick Conservative almsot toally AGRE on the overall evaluation of the "prosecution" here. We agree that the prosecution GROSLY OVERCHARGED Zimmerman, KNOWING the FACTS that have been "leaked" over the past week. The Maverick Conservative TOLDY YOU this was likely true,, IN FORESIGHT, weeks ago. This blog tol dyou that the prosecution acted as leaders of a LYNCH MOB, rather than "nekutral" evaluaters of the facts. Dershowitz merely says the prosecution has acted ILLEGALLY, by LYING to the court in the affadavit used to support "probable cause". We now KNOW why the prosecutin did not want this to go to a grand jury It is almsot impossible to believe that a grand jury would hav e"indicted" for anything more than manslaughter. That is what Dershowitz and I agree totally upon: The FACTS here could not possibly support a charge of SECOND DEGREE MURDER. Dershowitz and I further agree that there is at least some resonalbe argument for a charge of manslaughter, even if even that case appears weak ("beyond a reasonable doubt?"). But Dershowitz and I agree even for fully on the crucial pont here: The prosecutin has shown that it was DETERMINED to "charge" George immerman with second degree murder, rahter than to evaluate the FACTS (know to the prosecution) in an "impartial" manner. The gross OVERCHARGE proves that, as well as the fact that the prosecutin left out of the "probable cause" affadavit these very IMPORTANT facts. As Derhsowitz points out, the prosecutin actually "alleged" that Zimmerman "parofiled" Trayvon Martin, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. That was merely an assertion--FALSE, for all of the known FACTS--seemingly lifted right from the MEDIA LYNCH MOB.
Q.E.D. Dershowitz and I agree that the prosecution was acting like the leaders of a lynch mob--the media lnch mob, led by the EVIL PEOP:LE OF CNN, as proven by blog articles citing chapter and verse--ratehr than people really evaluating the facts. Again, Dershowitz does not use the term "lynch mob", but he is saying the same thing (maybe being even harder ont he prosecutin) ., Dershowitz is sahing that the prosecution acted UNETHICALLY and ILLEGALLY in HIDING facts from the COURT. Does this remind y;ou of the Duke "apre case"? It should. Remember=, the prosecutor was DISBARRED as a result of misconduct in that case (I think, although I franky don't remember the exact "unishment", although it was SEVERE,: another exercise for yu, the reader).
This blog told you at the time that the problem with this "decision" to charge George Zimmerman was that George Zimmerman was being RAILROADED: whether there was a basis for SOME charge or not. Zimmerman did not receive a "fair shake'. Instead, Dershowitz and I agree that the prosecutor determined WHAT she would charge Zimmerman with, bassed on POLITICS and MEDIA assertins (perfhpas even some sort of personal bias), and tghen set out to MAKE THE FACTS FIT (even if it meant HIDING the MOST IMPORTANT facts from the court). Why are these facts (on the injuries) the "most imortant"? That is because they are OBJECTIVE FACTS. No one alive knows, witht he POSSIBLE exception of George Zimmerman, exactly how the "confrontation" between Zimmerman and Martin came aoubt. Sure, we know that Zimmerman was "following' martin, but Zimmerman says that Mhe "borke off" ursuit, and taht Martin ATTACKED ZIMMERMAN. It is almost certain now that Martin did attack Zimmerman (no injury on Zimmerman's hands from hitting Martin), meaning that the only real "questin" is whether MARTIN had reason to FEAR Zimmerman himself (some reason to believe Zimmerman was posing an immediate and serius threat to Martin). I think it is ironic, and telling, that the Martin family attornney is out there saying that MARTIN was "fighting for his life". We don't know that. We don't KNOW that Martin even knew that Zimmerman had a gun. It is even POSSIBLE that BOTH MEN thought they were "fightging for their lives". If the family attornney can see how MARTIN might have THOUGHT he was "fighting for his life", why woul a reasonable lperson not conclude that ZIMMERMAN could have rfeasonably THUGHT he was "fighting for his life"? Nope. HAVING a gun does not keep yu from getting KILLED--maybe even by having tthe gun taken away from you.
I would not be like our media. I would pay attentin to ACTUAL FACTGS, rather than EVIL BACK FENCE GOSSIP. But my tentative conclusion is that I would vote to ACQUIT, if I were on the jury, even on a charge of manslaughter, so long as there was ONLY ONE DEADLY SHOT. As I say, I am not sure of that. And I am not saying I would definitely convict if there were, say, two shots. But if there were only one shot, and the reports of the respective injuries are correct, I don't see how I could vote to convict. No. I would stil lnot regard Zimmerman as a "hero". But I don't see how I could vote to convict him of a crime.
Doesn't matter. Dershowitz and this blog are right: the MOTIVATION and PROCESS by which Zimmerman was "charged" was ooutrageous , unfiar, and had NOTHING to do with "justice". And teh killing itself had NOTHING to do with RACE (despite the media hysteria), always with the caveat that new FACTS might appear (hopefully not the MEDIA GOSSIP tyupe "facts", scuh as that Zimmerman had used the "N" word in an argument when he was 10 years old).
Notice how the whole 'fudking coon" ABSURDITY (so labelled by this blog from the very beginning) has disappeared. In fact this blog's assertin that the real prupose of that whole absurdity was to accuse Zimmerman of using the word, 'fucking", even though Joe Biden, and almost every other perso in this country--definitely including MEDIA people--usse the word. Yep. They are STILL trying to make an "issue' out of "fucking asshole", showing what their real objective was all along (to try to "label" Zimmerman as a "violent' person because of using language now used by your average 10 year old child). "Coon" was ALWAYS just a way to RAISE the "racist" issue. These people, including MEDIA peole, did not CARE whether the workd was really "coon" (again, obviusly ABUSRD, as this blog told you fomr the moment I heard it). These are EViL RACISTS, spreading evil (refrring to both the politicians playing racial politics and the mainstream media, such as CNN and SHEPPARD SMITH).
Yep. We come to Sheppard Smith. Do you remember Sheppard Smith's "descriptioni" of this evvent on the unfair and unbalanced network? I will give it to you again (as I HEARD IT LIVE): "Trayvon Martin was on his way home, holding a drink, and George Zimererman walked lup and shot him dead." Nope. I can't take EVIL on that scale. Sheppard Smith, you are an EVIL person. Thus, you have now joined Wolf Blitzer and John King, of CNN, on my list of peole TOO EVIL FOR ME TO EVEN SURF. I will never, ever, tel you anything about Sheppard Smith again, because I will NEVER voluntariy listen to any program upon which he is appearing. This is different from my continuing BoYCOTT of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk, for which Smith is alreayd partly responsible. I already have CEASED to EVER look at Hannity, O'Reily or Van Susteren. Notice that those three are not as EVIL as Smith, Blitzer and King (not to mentin people liekle Gloria Borger and Anderson Cooper) But that was my way of BOYCOTTING the unfair and unbalanced network, while still reserving the "right' to SURF the "network" for material. I actaully agree, on most political "issues', with Hannity. But I believe he has a CABLE TV MIND, and I just refuse to "support" teh unfair and unbalanced network by "supporting' their 'signatiure" prime time lineup. Similary, I stil SURF Anderson Cooper, on CNN, even though I expect any day now that he will show himself just SO EVIL that I cannot live with myself any mroe if I recognize even his existence. Sheppard Smith has now reached that point, even before Anderson Cooper. You might conclude that I will greadually get to the pont that I cannot stomach watching ANY of these people (on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, or the unfair and unbalanced network), even to keep up with their nefarius activities. That conclusin may well end up being correct, but I remain able to look at ANY of the programs on these networks, and keep up with the EVIL they are doing. For now, I am content to conduct an "exorcism" on the most high PROFILE, and MOST EVIL, of them. If I get where I jsut can't stand ANY of these people's evil incompetence, I will let you know. In the meantime, the SIGNATURE of this blog will remain ATACKS on the trly EVIL and INCOMPETENT people of the media.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng bad eyesight). Yo mgiht have guessed that I rarealy agree with Alan Dershoiwitz--a well know LEFTIST LAWYER (generally connected with criminal defense, but sometimes associated with other leftist legal positions). When I AGREE with thsese famous leftists, I like to pint it out. Thus, this blog has gtold yo uthat I AGREE with Bill Maher that President Obama is not a Christian, but rather a "secular humanist". And I have welcomed the AGREEMENT of James Carville that President Obama is a LIAR: Carville and I agreeing that Obama LIED about his opinin on gay marriage in the 2008 campaign, for POLITICAL REASONS. No. Carville did not use the WORD "liar", but what else do you call it when Carviell agrees with this blog that Obama has ALWAYS been for the "firght' for gays to marry, but said otherwisse before his recent "flip flp" for political reasons? I call that a LIE. Carville has no respect for tuth, although morfe respect than the media peole saying Obama has acted on "principle", and may not regard this kind of POLITICAL LIE as a "lie". --