The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On another point, the real loser in this affair is the mainstream media.

The propaganda machine was unable to rewrite the rules for criminal evidence and conviction no matter how strident it got or how much crowd manipulation it used in lathering up anger and hatred in people.

The mainstream media keeps discrediting itself.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I see your reasoning, as I said before. But if it were me I would have taken the chance and had him testify. If your case is strong and your defendant is prepared, that can be the so influential on a jury.

He would have been eaten alive by the three (3) prosecutors and the Judge who was in the tank for the prosecution.

That is another reason not to have put him on the stand. She would have leaned over backwards to protect the prosecutor's cross examination and denied the defense counsel's objections to the prosecutors cross examination.

Zimmerman is not smart enough to not get caught in all the verbal traps and pace of the prosecutor. He is not stupid. However, he is just not that smart.

A....

Smart? If you are innocent it's only smart to testify when that's your main hope.

--Brant

and never talk to the police (unless you called them)

[Selene]

I see your reasoning, as I said before. But if it were me I would have taken the chance and had him testify. If your case is strong and your defendant is prepared, that can be the so influential on a jury.

He would have been eaten alive by the three (3) prosecutors and the Judge who was in the tank for the prosecution.

That is another reason not to have put him on the stand. She would have leaned over backwards to protect the prosecutor's cross examination and denied the defense counsel's objections to the prosecutors cross examination.

Zimmerman is not smart enough to not get caught in all the verbal traps and pace of the prosecutor. He is not stupid. However, he is just not that smart.

A....

Smart? If you are innocent it's only smart to testify when that's your main hope.

--Brant

and never talk to the police (unless you called them)

Brant:

It was not his main hope. The prosecution was horrendous. Most of the witnesses that they called, including the only "eye witness" who saw Martin on top of Travon were skillfully used by the defense to establish the fact pattern that Zimmerman had given to the police and on the Hannity interview[which I never saw).

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's an account of merely a small taste of the mainstream media's sorry performance:

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: HOW THE PRESS PROSECUTED ZIMMERMAN WHILE STOKING RACIAL TENSIONS
by JOHN NOLTE
13 Jul 2013
Breitbart

From the article (which was published earlier today before the verdict):

As we await the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, the Florida man who claims to have shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin in self-defense, this seems the perfect time to reflect on the media's cynical and dishonest role in turning a local crime into a national obsession.

As you will see below, by hook and crook, the mainstream media did everything in its still-potent power to not only push for the prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman (the police originally chose not to charge him) but also to gin up racial tensions where none needed to exist.

It all started with the anchor of a major television network (Al Sharpton) inserting himself in the story to spread division and hate; it continued straight through to the closing days of the trial when another major news network, desperate to keep a fabricated racial narrative alive, propagated the portrayal of Zimmerman as part of a racial group that doesn't exist -- the "white Hispanic."

In-between, there has been an astonishing amount of malicious fraud and lies, all in an effort to serve a president, stir racial hatred, and influence the justice system.

In the story, there follows a litany of media manipulation and misrepresentation. If anyone is interested, click on the headline and read it. It's damning.

But look at how a lot of people just don't care and how pissed off they are. This, to me, shows the danger of propaganda.

The problem with propaganda in a free society is that if you allow it to work for those you support and that's fine with you, this is surefire evidence that it will also work in favor of those you are against. Propaganda wars in a free society are not preludes to a dictatorship, but instead a seesaw of really bad vibes.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I see your reasoning, as I said before. But if it were me I would have taken the chance and had him testify. If your case is strong and your defendant is prepared, that can be the so influential on a jury.

He would have been eaten alive by the three (3) prosecutors and the Judge who was in the tank for the prosecution.

That is another reason not to have put him on the stand. She would have leaned over backwards to protect the prosecutor's cross examination and denied the defense counsel's objections to the prosecutors cross examination.

Zimmerman is not smart enough to not get caught in all the verbal traps and pace of the prosecutor. He is not stupid. However, he is just not that smart.

A....

Smart? If you are innocent it's only smart to testify when that's your main hope.

--Brant

and never talk to the police (unless you called them)

Brant:

It was not his main hope. The prosecution was horrendous. Most of the witnesses that they called, including the only "eye witness" who saw Martin on top of Travon were skillfully used by the defense to establish the fact pattern that Zimmerman had given to the police and on the Hannity interview[which I never saw).

A...

I'm assuming the prosecution really didn't want a conviction, only the judge and those above. No grand jury returned an indictment in this case, which should tell all and sundry plenty.

--Brant

the jury de jure was actually the grand jury de facto

[Brant Gaede]

Now, according to Ayn Rand's impotence of evil premise the looting and rioting will be next to nothing. That's what I think. In 1993 with the Rodney King police acquittal the rioting started when the cops broke and ran. Guess what, ain't gonna happen this time.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Now, according to Ayn Rand's impotence of evil premise the looting and rioting will be next to nothing. That's what I think. In 1993 with the Rodney King police acquittal the rioting started when the cops broke and ran. Guess what, ain't gonna happen this time.

--Brant

In what city or cities did the Rodney King Memorial Riot take place?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Now, according to Ayn Rand's impotence of evil premise the looting and rioting will be next to nothing. That's what I think. In 1993 with the Rodney King police acquittal the rioting started when the cops broke and ran. Guess what, ain't gonna happen this time.

--Brant

In what city or cities did the Rodney King Memorial Riot take place?

Ba'al Chatzaf

? I doubt I could answer even if I understood the question.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's part of an email I wrote privately to someone else after the verdict:

In my view, there are two dynamics running in the Trayvon case (that are driving it, actually) that I have not seen discussed in the news.

1. Although the charge has been trial by media, there was actually an organized propaganda effort underway to get the public to hate and scapegoat Zimmerman. I can't say who organized it or who was in charge, but I saw too many signs for mere coincidence.

I would break it down into case studies of the techniques used, but I have so much else to do, this would not be a productive use of my time. I would gain very little from it except the satisfaction of seeing the ugly underbelly with detailed clarity.

Off the cuff, I can say I saw the big lie, repetition ad nauseum, loaded language, appeal to fear (of race riots), the bandwagon technique, celebrity endorsements, personality cults, half-truths galore, name-calling, peer pressure, doctored evidence in mainstream news reports (especially the 911 call), stereotyping and scapegoating, emotional blackmail. and on and on.

If anyone were to undertake a serious study of the propaganda used in this event and trial, it would keep him occupied for a long, long time.

But I am curious about where the head of this octopus is. There were an awful lot of tentacles, but they all looked the same. So it's reasonable to assume they all came from the same octopus.

2. Now, to me, this next is more serious since it deals with an open wound and there is no easy fix. The way I see it, a lot of people hoped for an inversion of injustice in this trial. How many blacks were convicted of crimes, especially in the South, when it was clear there was no proper evidence? Or they were framed? Loads and loads of them.

With Zimmerman's situation being what it was and with the flimsy forensics, it looked like they would finally be able to do this to a white person (who was sort-of white, but who cares in a narrative like that?). Turn-about is fair play, so to speak. It didn't matter (from this perspective) whether Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. What mattered was that this trial represented a symbolic payback for the black community.

I'm glad the American justice system worked like it was supposed to in terms of basing judgments on objective evidence. But the need for some kind of accounting for all those wrongly convicted blacks over all those decades is not going to go away. The outcome of this trial rubbed salt on that wound.

(I blame the ringleaders and propagandists for getting people's hopes up for payback when they knew better, but that does not mitigate the reality of the wound.)

It's lollipops and roses to think those thirsting for payback are going to be swayed solely by reason--that the thirst for payback will be quenched by a cool drink of reason. That just ain't going to happen. Not even in a trial by jury.

I don't know how to fix this other than say it really, really sucked for the blacks before and try to invent and promote a new narrative that gives people solid grounds for hoping and expecting a lot better in the future. Then let time try to heal the pain.

MIchael

[Selene]

Now, according to Ayn Rand's impotence of evil premise the looting and rioting will be next to nothing. That's what I think. In 1993 with the Rodney King police acquittal the rioting started when the cops broke and ran. Guess what, ain't gonna happen this time.

--Brant

Seems like it only happened in Oakland California which is a war zone 24/7:

The gatherings Saturday night ranged from a few dozen to a couple hundred people. In Oakland, protesters broke windows at the Oakland Tribune and started small fires in the streets. Local media reports said some Oakland marchers vandalized a police squad car and police formed a line to block the protesters' path.

Footage from a television helicopter showed people spray painting anti-police graffiti. Protesters also burned an American and a California state flag and spray painted Alameda County's Davidson courthouse, according to the Oakland Tribune ( http://bit.ly/11Newz1 ).

The Oakland demonstration followed a raucous but largely peaceful rally in San Francisco. Police say officers escorted demonstrators as they marched on the city's Mission District. The group was dispersed by 10 p.m.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH_CALIFORNIA_PROTESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-06-36-06

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obama just presented a good trade-off for accepting the jury's verdict without rioting.

Let's have gun control, everybody!

(Never waste a good crisis.)

Michael

[caroljane]

Obama just presented a good trade-off for accepting the jury's verdict without rioting.

Let's have gun control, everybody!

(Never waste a good crisis.)

Michael

No, indeed, never waste one.

Without the comforting presence of his gun, would Z have confronted Martin? Would the fight have ended in death, instead of a bloody nose?

Someday George Zimmerman might think about this, if his handlers let him. As he becomes the symbol of true American justice and the definition of the right to kill, he will also remain defined by the life he took.

[Darrell Hougen]

Verdict is in. Not guilty all around. Any other verdict would have been a travesty. So now I suppose we will have riots.

Ghs

We should all applaud the jury for doing the right thing despite the enormous pressure and the temptation to compromise.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Obama just presented a good trade-off for accepting the jury's verdict without rioting.

Let's have gun control, everybody!

(Never waste a good crisis.)

Michael

No, indeed, never waste one.

Without the comforting presence of his gun, would Z have confronted Martin? Would the fight have ended in death, instead of a bloody nose?

Someday George Zimmerman might think about this, if his handlers let him. As he becomes the symbol of true American justice and the definition of the right to kill, he will also remain defined by the life he took.

The prosecution didn't have handlers--all the way up to Obama? Then there was that show trial of a judge "judge."

You have turned the right to self defense into the right to kill. One has the right to kill in self defense if that amount of force is justified--the amount needed to stop the attack. There is no such thing as the right to kill per se.

He will remain defined by the not guilty verdict. If he hadn't acted in self defense the jury would have convicted him of something.

Now I expect the Federal government will come at him directly instead of the failed sock puppet approach. He might be sued too.

GZ has turned into the victim of a trial that should never have happened and gross big media smearing.

--Brant

let's see: two dark alleyways: in one is TM and in the other GZ--if you must go down one or the other, which would you choose? (GZ has his gun and TM is unarmed)

[caroljane]

No Brant, I have not turned the right to self-defence into the right to kill. Your laws and this verdict have shown them to be inseparable.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wasn't Trayvon trained in martial arts?

MMA?

That's what I keep reading.

Michael

[moralist]

He will remain defined by the not guilty verdict. If he hadn't acted in self defense the jury would have convicted him of something.

Now I expect the Federal government will come at him directly instead of the failed sock puppet approach. He might be sued too.

GZ has turned into the victim of a trial that should never have happened and gross big media smearing.

--Brant

let's see: two dark alleyways: in one is TM and in the other GZ--if you must go down one or the other, which would you choose? (GZ has his gun and TM is unarmed)

There was an initial reluctance to prosecute because of a paper thin case, but in my opinion politics had overruled reason. I'm so glad that it wasn't an OJ jury this time, as I fully expected at least a manslaughter conviction. The lynchpin for a just verdict seemed to have been the gunshot evidence of loose clothing on the front of TM. That indicates that he was on top of GZ when the gun was fired in self defense..

Your final posed situation reveals that the real issue is values and not guns.

I was suprized to hear Obama inadvertently telling the truth when he said that if he had a son he would be just like TM. Their personal moral values are a near perfect match.

[caroljane]

Ah, values and personal morals, tidily resolved by guns.

[Dglgmut]

Ah, values and personal morals, tidily resolved by guns.

I love how comfortable you are with fights as long as guns are not involved. Knives? Yeah, okay... Bring whatever you want as long as it wont prevent a good fight.

You look at confronting someone as a crime, but assaulting a person as nothing, then shooting a person that is attacking you becomes a crime again. Anything outside of physical fighting seems to disgust you.

And Michael, Trayvon's older brother texted him, "When you gonna teach me to fight?"

[moralist]

Ah, values and personal morals, tidily resolved by guns.

Just the opposite. Guns are resolved by people with values and personal morality.

[Brant Gaede]

No Brant, I have not turned the right to self-defence into the right to kill. Your laws and this verdict have shown them to be inseparable.

No right to self defense recognized in Canada? I once cut a man on the arm in self defense. That is not a right to cut someone on the arm or I could do it willy-nilly or have it done to me (by right?). If done to me that cutting right would mean I'd have no right to my own self defense and would have to call 911 while being cut or run away. Of course if I were in a wheelchair I could roll away or on crutches--could I bash the guy on the head with one of them? Socialism, btw, is using government guns against the governed to take X from A and give to F, G et al. Maybe "gun control" should start with government guns.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

No Brant, I have not turned the right to self-defence into the right to kill. Your laws and this verdict have shown them to be inseparable.

Yes, inseparable in that if you have the right to defend yourself you logically have the right to defend yourself with something.

--Brant

my very liberal step father changed his mind about a lot of things after being mugged in California

[Brant Gaede]

Consider the United States is invaded by a horde of black teenage soldiers (each with their baby pictures on their photo IDs). As a U.S. soldier I man a machine gun and help mow them down. This is the right to self defense become the right to kill. After the bodies are removed the press collects all these IDs that were left behind on the battlefield and I and my fellow soldiers are depicted as racist baby killers and are tried for war crimes in the Hague.

--Brant

for the rest of my life I will be defined as a racist baby killer

[BaalChatzaf]

No Brant, I have not turned the right to self-defence into the right to kill. Your laws and this verdict have shown them to be inseparable.

But self defense by deadly means is a right under particular conditions and circumstances. Killing another person is not a general right, but killing another person when it is the best means of preserving your life or the lives or you family members is a right.

Ba'al; Chatzaf

[Selene]

No Brant, I have not turned the right to self-defence into the right to kill. Your laws and this verdict have shown them to be inseparable.

But self defense by deadly means is a right under particular conditions and circumstances. Killing another person is not a general right, but killing another person when it is the best means of preserving your life or the lives or you family members is a right.

Ba'al; Chatzaf

Really, and this is codified where?

The natural/God given right to self preservation exist in the natural rights theory of the Scottish enlightenment as George Smith has admirably established.

I, KNOW as a human, that I have the right to kill anything that is attempting to kill me, or, my family, or, my family.

Next...

A...