Is it even a surprise? An extremely divisive case begets an extremely divisive reaction to the verdict. A case that provides an horrific instance that not only is extreme polarization causing the United States to be ungovernable, but lawless as well. When anyone can pick up a gun, shoot anyone who "threatens" them, real or imagined, and get away with it; that is the state of nature imagined by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. A war of all against all.The FB post where I took this meme from was decidedly anti-Martin, but this one is decidedly double-edged. Take this comment by "B. Oblamer" on a Politico story:
The jury did a fine responsible job and found for the defense based on the overwhelming evidence. A very fair trial.And this was a very, very tame one.
Later, a decidedly liberal philosophy professor I know posted the exact meme, somehow I do not think he would suffer the fools, now "instant lawyers" and experts on legal defense all over the interwebs, very gladly. Lawyers deal with the law, however poorly the laws are constructed or for whose benefit they are enforced. Even the above comment from "Oblamer" who probably put as much intellectual punch into that derp which his hamster brain could muster, manipulates anyone who reads it. "Responsible... fair... overwhelming evidence," this has got to be the racists' finest hour. Not only did they vicariously murder a proxy Barack Obama, but they got away with it. Cue the victory lap of gloating.
Just survey the comment section of any news story on the subject, this one from Daily Banter is representative. His/her name is Michale, this individual has deemed it their mission to respond to absolutely every comment even slightly critical of the jury's decision. If there is a single person fitting the "instant lawyer" description implied by the above meme, this is it. All I can say is in a million years I could not hope to have the kind of free time to waste that this individual has spent in the past few days locking down any chance of honest and rational debate. What kind of passionate hatred could drive this commitment? How much is he/she being paid by some authoritarian outfit to spend this much time here? Just a small sample.
cfdman said:
17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would haveMichale replied: "Your list of "undisputed evidence" is very much in dispute..
been no physical confrontation.
18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.
19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.
20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.
The man was ADVISED by a police operator not to follow the SUBJECT. A police operator has absolutely NO authority to tell on sight security personnel ANYTHING..
4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.
Inaccurate. The man, at that point, turned around and started to return to his vehicle. In other words, he followed the advice of the police operator, even though he was under absolutely NO legal obligation to do so.
11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.
Inaccurate. The teen initiated aggravated assault (with Hate Crime special circumstance) against the man while the man was returning to his vehicle.
12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches
were exchanged.
Inaccurate. No punches were exchanged. Martin was the only one throwing punches.
14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.
Inaccurate. The man shot the teen while the man was on the ground and the teen was on top of the man.
17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have
been no physical confrontation.
Accurate as far as it goes. It is equally accurate to say that there would have been no confrontation if the teen hadn't doubled back and attacked the man. It's also equally accurate that there would not have been any confrontation if the teen hadn't been kicked out of school for drugs and violence.
20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
And if the teen hadn't attacked the man, the teen would ALSO be alive.."
He/she continued:
"One problem with your scenario.
Martin attacked Zimmerman.
That tiny little, but oohh so important detail completely decimates your argument.."
The comment thread goes on and on with this individual injecting these kinds of faux legal sounding shout-downs everywhere. I scanned through page after page of this crap. How many of these idiots are out there? They have just been waiting and waiting for the chance to frame their racism through a legal case like this. "No, I'm not a racist, I am supporting the 'justice' system." For authoritarians, this is a dream come true, wonderful cover to aggress against the enemy, the ability to openly and honestly express their prejudice couched in legalese, and prostrate themselves to authority when they like the result. So, in response I say: "Are there any circumstances under which you can support the verdict, actively, not just passively accepting the outcome, and not be a racist?" I ask because I honestly cannot think of any. and flipping the circumstances of the crime around... Would he/she be asserting the opposite as vehemently, or would he/she suddenly notice that GZ is not white enough?
And how stupid does all that gloating look in light of the fact that GZ was acquitted, not exonerated. There was enough reasonable doubt not to convict, this was not a vindication. Thank goodness for all the racists that tomorrow will bring a new outrage and everyone will move on (sarcasm font) and not notice how completely full of shit people like Michale are in their whacked out assertions.
No comments:
Post a Comment