Trayvon Martin Family Attorney Gives Game Away: Says She's a "Social Engineer" in Case

It is actually the defense they use.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_curious_case_of_the_lying.html

This guys grandfather is a community organizer in Chicago, and part of Obama’s faith initiative.

The kids defense about lying about police brutality is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED..therefore what he was doing to prevent it was moral.

The ends justify the means.

“How do you stop hate when evil rules?”

JESUS is the only answer for America.

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!

flr

Yeah, a new school where they can’t spell or “read cursive” or even construct intelligent sentences. But dey can rap, and dey can punch buttons on dey “app” and talk about “drank”.

I think we are balkanizing, certainly returning to some form of feudalism, technofeudalism in our enclosed communities.

The future has to be in believers, meaning certainly of God, readers of history, Christianity (not necc. fundamentalism) and a moral basis for society, which our Founders thought was essential. When, as in this case of race-baited kangaroo court,the deciding factor is money and how it can be made from the misery (esp. by the race pimps sharpton et al), then all bets are off on the morality of society— love of money being root of all evil. The race pimps have never held a job in their lives, and have not invented anything or made a shift in society by their efforts to improve mankind’s lot.

What should be said and encouraged in conservative society— is “have a family, with lots of children.. bring them up schooled at home, learn our country’s history, and laws and rights” Have lot’s of children— make the demographics change. It worked for Rome. And it would counteract this appalling nihilistic false culture.

As a Southerner am familiar with the meme, and you are right- they seriously believe this claptrap, pushed by their pimps for rewritten history. Like, the egyptians were negroes— which of course they were not, but they had nubian slaves, and interbred to some extent. Had a spate of this in GA with a group calling themselves the Nuwabians. crazy and were shut down on tax dodges. Believe wesley snipes was caught up in their investment, and some of them involved in trying to get Pigford money even so. It is a form of machine politics for blacks, and they abuse their own and all others.

(no link)

Reaction to the George Zimmerman Verdict
FOX News Channel - Monday, July 15, 2013
Show: FOX ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN
Author: Greta Van Susteren

EXCERPT

VAN SUSTEREN: And now to Trayvon Martin’s family. They hardly missed a minute of the trial, but they elected not to appear as the verdict was read, Trayvon Martin’s father, Tracy Martin, tweeting just minutes after hearing the verdict, “God blessed me and Sybrina with Tray, and even in his death, I know my baby proud of the fight we all (ph) along (ph) with all of you put up for him. God bless.”

One of the Martin family attorneys, Jasmine Rand, joins us. Jasmine, how are you doing?

JASMINE RAND, MARTIN FAMILY ATTORNEY: I’m doing pretty well this evening. We’re still obviously disappointed at the outcome of not guilty. And I’d like to point out that not guilty does not necessarily mean that George Zimmerman was innocent, and we still maintain that position.

As his legal counsel and his family, I think, you know, the last couple of days has been disheartening for Tracy and Sybrina, but we have had an outcry of support from the nation and from the international community. We’ve had statements from President Obama, from Attorney General Eric Holder. So we are hopeful that we may still get some justice for Trayvon.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you, you say “get justice for Trayvon” — first of all, let me tell you, I mean, I think it’s terrible when someone loses a life. But here’s — here’s the story, is that the prosecution picked that jury with the defense. The prosecution agreed to that jury with the defense. The jury heard all the evidence. The prosecution didn’t get shut down from presenting any evidence, as far as I know. And the jury then decided the case, and everybody was happy with that jury.

And then suddenly, after the jury renders its verdict, suddenly everyone’s dissatisfied or at least not everyone but some are dissatisfied with the jury as though they did a lousy job or heard a different trial or didn’t listen to the case.

What happened? You liked the jury in the beginning!

RAND: You know, our legal team has never said that we were happy with the jury or that we liked the jury. We never specifically endorsed the jury, but...

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, the prosecution most certainly did!

RAND: ... we said that we were...

VAN SUSTEREN: The prosecution most certainly did! They helped pick it. They were right there in the courtroom! They were there every single day picking that jury!

RAND: I’m not the prosecution, I’m the family attorney. And from the family attorney’s perspective, we never endorsed that jury. We respect their decision...

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you saying it was a bad jury?

RAND: ... to the extent that — I do not believe that...

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you saying it was a bad jury?

RAND: I do not believe that Trayvon got equal justice in this instance.

VAN SUSTEREN: Specifically how? Tell me the evidence...

RAND: Because...

VAN SUSTEREN: Tell me the evidence that the jury didn’t hear.

RAND: The evidence that the jury didn’t hear?

VAN SUSTEREN: Right.

RAND: I don’t think that they properly considered the evidence. If they had listened to the evidence and if they had followed the law, then George Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well...

RAND: I mean, he got out of the car — he got out of the car...

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you — you’re a lawyer!

RAND: ... with a loaded gun. He followed...

VAN SUSTEREN: You’re a lawyer, right?

RAND: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: And the whole point of the jury is that we assign the job to weigh the facts. We draft them. We make them sit there. Lot of times, they don’t want to be there. We then present the evidence, and the judge then says, Here’s the evidence, here’s the law, instructs them on the law, and it’s your duty — it’s not mine, it’s not yours, it’s not anybody else’s in the community, but it’s the jury’s duty to weigh them. And all of a sudden, suddenly, afterwards, that you say they can’t do their job?

RAND: I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that’s to be a social engineer. And when the law doesn’t get it right, I believe that we have the right to peacefully and morally, conscientiously object to the decision of the jury.

That doesn’t mean that we believe that it’s going to be overturned or that it will or that we don’t respect the decision that those six people made. But there are millions of people out there who don’t agree with that decision. So it’s not just the legal team.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know what the problem is, though? You know, that...

RAND: It’s millions of people...

(CROSSTALK)

RAND: ... from all over the world.

VAN SUSTEREN: That’s deeply disturbing that you say millions are out there who didn’t see it! You know and I know that millions of people who may not like a verdict, whether it’s for it or against this case or another, didn’t watch the case, didn’t sit in the courtroom, didn’t weigh the evidence, didn’t listen to jury instructions. That’s just noise. That’s why we have court systems is so that people — so that both sides have an opportunity to be heard.

This social engineering — I don’t know if that’s more like social manipulation than social — I don’t want social engineering is. But actually, justice is presented in the courtroom with a jury deciding it and both sides having an opportunity. That’s justice, and the jury deciding it.

RAND: Courtrooms do not always deliver justice, as I’m sure you well know. You’re aware of the Civil Rights movement. You’re aware of the changes that we had to make...

VAN SUSTEREN: I — you know what? I bet...

RAND: ... in the courts historically in this nation...

VAN SUSTEREN: I bet if we put my career up next to yours in terms of Civil Rights and what we’ve done in the courtroom for — for people, I’ll put my career up next to yours any day you want, Jasmine! I just don’t criticize juries.

(CROSSTALK)

RAND: I haven’t been practicing law as long as you have, but I would also like an opportunity to finish my answers and explain my answers to you.

VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead. You got a quick — I’ll let you.

RAND: I think that when I’m talking about being a social engineer, George Zimmerman never would have been arrested if it wasn’t the outcry from black people, brown people, white people, Republicans, Democrats, Christians and Muslims in this nation who demanded his arrest. He was then arrested and he was tried by a jury of his peers. I do not believe that the jury got it right, and the federal government has a every right to bring the claim. That’s why we have federal preemption.

VAN SUSTEREN: Jasmine, thank you very much for joining us. Sorry I gave you a hard time, but thanks for joining us.

RAND: Thank you.

“The kids defense about lying about police brutality is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

A jury found Zimmerman innocent of innocent of murder when the physical evidence validated Zimmerman’s having acted in self defense. And Zimmerman cannot be tried again for the same beef. But Holder is trying to find a way to try Zimmerman for violating Trayvon’s “civil rights”. For example, when the police asked for a description, Zimmerman noted that Trayvon was “black”. Zimmerman could have suspected Trayvon of being up to no good just because he was black. Isn’t that something like profiling?

That Could Have Happened. Hell, even blacks profile blacks. One study showed that black cabbies pass up potential black fares just as often as white cabbies do. I hope Holder doesn’t see this. He might land the Great White Suspect after all.