Skip to comments.Sources: George Zimmerman Could Be Arrested Soon; Grand Jury Won't Get Trayvon Martin Case
Posted on 04/09/2012 1:46:42 PM PDT by lbryce
click here to read article
There is not a all White jury with to balls to acquit Zimmerman in the political climate of today.
They can arrest .... but can they indict without a grand jury?
If the alternative to the ordeal of trial is to simply live under a cloud of suspicion, I’d say you’re right.
But in this case, the alternative is to either get lynched or be forced to leave the country. The ordeal of trial is preferable, both to Mr. Zimmmerman and to society.
So, the rule of law is to capitulate to the rule of the mob. Good for society.
This is what I am thinking too sadly.
The mob will not accept a verdict of innocent. There is no way to "win" by subverting the legal process to put on a show that ends in innocence.
So, either the mob is superior, or the state (and its rule of law) is. Might as well get the difference of conclusion out in the open sooner. If the evidence cannot support a finding of unjustified use of deadly force, then the charge should not be brought.
See this case for what happens when mob rule is submitted to.
The Scottsboro Boys were nine black teenage boys accused of rape in Alabama in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The case includes a frameup, all-white jury, rushed trials, an attempted lynching, angry mob, and miscarriage of justice.
Kind of strange how a strong vocal minority within the black community is acting simular to the white racist during Jiim Crow era (likely a democrat BTW).
Forget about the facts, put on a show trail, and then lynch this cracker!
No, the rule is to rebut the mob, not capitulate to it. A trial is the opposite of what they want.
The last time this occurred, during the Crown Heights pogrom, a grand jury refused to indict the driver in the fatal accident. As a result, the evidence remained sealed, and the race-baiters kept on making the same heinous accusations.
Same thing happened in the Tawana Brawley case. Grand jury refused to indict, and the testimony did not become known until the slander trial years later.
A public trial would bring all the testimony out in the open, and the usual suspects would be sitting in the front rows, behaving like boors and thugs both in and outside the courtroom, for all to see. Thus, Fat Al and Jesse Johnson will be quickly discredited, and Spike Lee will think twice the next time he offers a bounty on someone’s head, and Mr. Zimmerman can get on with his life, maybe suing NBC into the bargain.
I would acquit.....and I carry 24/7.
The “mob” might or might not. But if the evidence is publicly given in a court of law and contradicts the wild allegations and doctored recordings, the mob’s hangers on will melt. That’s why there are courts of law in the first place, so that society can decide an issue based on facts, reason and evidence, rather than mobs and feuding clans based on blood loyalty, hysteria and rabble rousing.
The mob is clamoring for a trial.
But it is contrary to the rule of law to put known innocent / justified people on trial.
-- A public trial would bring all the testimony out in the open, and the usual suspects would be sitting in the front rows, behaving like boors and thugs both in and outside the courtroom, for all to see. --
The testimony can come out already, once the investigation goes inactive. The press isn't going to show it, because it cuts against the narrative.
Anyway, we can disagree respectfully. I've had my say.
This is not 1931, and the jury pool in central Florida is not all black. The prosecutor in this case is a white Southern Republican. I lived in central Florida (Casselberry in Seminole Co.) for a few years. It’s a conservative area with a lot of juvenile crime, and tough law enforcement. The only similarity with the Scottsboro case is an angry mob, neither the first nor the last such aggregation of boobs. A trial will cause the professional rabble rousers to form circle jerks of conspiracy mongers, who will insist that the witnesses were bribed until they are old and gray.
There is still an open question as to who started the physical altercation (or rather, to put it in Florida statutory terms, whether Zimmerman "provoked" the use of force against himself), as well as several questions that follow that one. There's evidence on both sides, but it's far from resolved.
Nope. Fear of being called racist.
The mob is always clamoring for something, and mortified if they get what they clamored for. So they invent some new grievance to clamor about. As soon as the trial is underway, they’ll be claiming Ms. Corey is a racist who’s trying to paper over the death of a brutha with perjured testimony. The very last thing that a mob ever wants, especially one incited by Fat Al and Co., is what they claim they want in the clamor du jour. Next they’ll demand that the prosecution be taken over by the federal government, based on the bogus tape that NBC aired, bogus claims that Corey’s a racist, etc. Once the evidence is a matter of public record, however, a newly vindicated Zimmerman can sue Fat Al, Spike Lee and NBC, and I hope he gets awarded punitive damages in eight figure amounts against each.
That only applies to Federal prosecutions, not state cases. That part of the Fifth Amendment has not been "incorporated" against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Anyway, he’s not “known” to be innocent. The witnesses have not been heard except in the media, thanks to a leak emanating from the prosecutor’s office. They could be lying. They could have misinterpreted what they saw. The prosecutor who leaked their alleged statements could be lying. Until there’s been a trial with an opportunity to cross-examine them, they are an unknown quantity that we prefer to believe and others prefer to disbelieve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.