Posted on 07/03/2013 11:15:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Watching the testimony of Rachel "Dee Dee" Jeantel last week and the strong reaction her testimony elicited in the press and on social media provides a fertile opportunity for us to examine if we are, as Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court argued in Shelby County v. Holder, truly post racial.
In 1865, the state of Mississippi sought to disqualify blacks from participating in legal proceedings as witnesses by subjecting them to "rules and tests of the common law as to competency and credibility." At a time when very few African-Americans had the benefit of an education, literacy was the most common device used to exclude the testimony of black witnesses and relatedly through the denial of the right to vote, black jurors (selected through rolls of eligible voters). The inability to read and write was often used to challenge a potential witness's competence, while the inability to articulate oneself clearly was used to establish a lack of credibility.
Although clearly not barred from providing testimony in the Trayvon Martin case, it seems that many in the public sought to hold Rachel Jeantel to the same "racialized" standard. While the ridicule and mockery cut across racial lines, it is hard to believe that critics would shower such harsh treatment on a white witness of similar speech and disposition. While her language and demeanor may not have been palatable to some, neither should impugn either her credibility or integrity as a witness. The intense focus on her conduct alone, and not in conjunction with the actions of George Zimmerman's defense attorney, is equally problematic. The failure of Zimmerman's lawyer to show compassion for a young woman who was the last person to speak with Martin and "felt guilty" over his death was hardly the most egregious example.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ctpost.com ...
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink. The social pressure that many blacks face for m their own community to remain or act ignorant is very powerful.
That is why I go to Walmart at 7:00 AM. The IQ of the clientele declines over the course of the day.
Indeed.It's supernatural.
........AND THEY BREED AND VOTE!
Allen West. Ben Carson. I’ll bet they can read cursive.
So, Rachel is being subjected to the same standards as earlier Blacks...I thought she had every opportunity to get educated and become literate. her failure to do so should be looked upon and a problem with their credibility. Her inability to articulate well is directly correlated with her failure to become educated despite it being free, accessible, and the law.
Let’s keep it simple.
She lied but then she was honest about lying. She’s still a liar and not credible.
Nothing else counts.
How did they treat the white beauty pageant contestant, Ms. Prejean?
Yep agreed. When I go to wal mart, it is usually after 11 pm or so, so it’s mostly empty.
Sorry you racist pos... but I will believe my lying eyes and ears this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She lied but then she was honest about lying. She’s still a liar and not credible.
Nothing else counts.
Which is precisely why Jeantel's defenders try to make this about race; it's precisely why they try to make this an issue of how she testified, not what. Manner over content; creed over credibility.
The irony is that by arguing for Ms. Jeantel to be given extra consideration for her, ahem, cultural style, her defenders are surrendering the very moral high ground they claim to defend: by arguing that the defense attorneys are not supposed to treat her like any other witness, but instead (apparently) use kid gloves, they are revealing their own racist attitudes.
Why shouldn't Ms. Jeantel be rung through the wringer?
Funny, I thought that a defense attorney could get disbarred for not pursuing the most vigorous defense possible for a client? I thought a defense attorney's exclusive allegiance was to the defendant, not to the trumped-up ruffled feathers of the easily offended.
I ask again, why shouldn't Ms. Jeantel be rung through the wringer?
This ain't 19th-Century Mississippi. It's a 21st-Century murder trial. And as others have pointed out, Ms. Jeantel has had all sorts of opportunities for acquiring an education as well as a basic ability to communicate. She's 19-freaking years old. There are other 19-year-old Americans standing watch, on patrol, and dodging bullets for crying out loud. I'm supposed to have sympathy for a voter who is still a junior in high school because she can't manage a few tough questions??!!!
As you concisely stated, Right Wing Assault, Ms. Jeantel is just not credible. Nothing else matters.
All the psuedo-intellectual, sympathy-plucking word-play in the world can't change that simple fact.
Really? Next time my old butt types an obviously silly sentence I will be sure to add the ‘joke’ tag for ya. Okay, back to the RLB!
When the truth is not on your side, use the race card.
Nice strawman set-up attempt-REJECTED.
Have you bothered to follow the facts of this case at all?
Are you watching the trial?
Or are you just watching the MSM and deciding you know all about what is happening here?
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.