"So many unscrupulous people have got hold of the progressive
cause of late and have so distorted in their own interests everything
they touched, that the whole cause has been dragged in the mire"
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky-
So we have yesterday on MSNBC,
the cable network we liberals prefer by default, the millionaire Al
Sharpton smearing the memory of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by
acknowledging that although the cause of justice and equality in America
has made great strides we still need to overturn the Florida 'stand
your ground' law that makes it illegal for someone like Trayvon Martin to walk home.
You'll
notice that I didn't put Reverend in front of Sharpton's name. He
doesn't deserve it. He's a liar and he knows he's a liar today as well
as he knew he was a liar when he amplified the lies of Tawana Brawley
and used them fraudulently to vilify innocent people in the name of the
Progressive cause, used the lies to ignite hatred, used the hatred to
make himself rich and important. He could have picked a better day to
insult the preacher of non-violence than the 50th anniversary of his
famous "I have a dream" speech -- a better day to drag the cause of
equality before the law and justice through the mire.
That
law was not invoked and did not apply to the shooting. That law would
have justified Martin's resistance to someone trying to chase him out of
his neighborhood, had the gun been pointed in another direction. That
law does not make it illegal for any one to walk anywhere. It played no
part in the acquittal.
The world is full of dishonest
men and men who use sincere and well intentioned people wrongly.
Sharpton recruited many influential African American figures back in
1987 and he's doing the same today and aren't we being duped when we
raise our liberal voices against things that didn't happen, presuming
prejudice and bigotry where it isn't? There's a difference between
righteous and right and self-righteous - a difference between acting
from virtuous indignation and reacting to our own ingrained and
unexamined prejudices, which makes us little different from vicious dogs
loosed on the innocent by an unscrupulous master.
Once
again, Mr. Sharpton has put his wedge between people Dr. King dreamed
about uniting and once again he rung the Pavlovian bell, but instead of
the food we've been trained to expect, he's once again given us a full
plate of shame.
I hate to disagree Mr. Fogg, as I am otherwise a fan of your posts, but Stand Your Ground DID play a role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman. First of all, the Sanford police "cited the statute as grounds for their decision not to file charges against... Zimmerman". Second, the judge sent the jury to their deliberation with instructions that said "self-defense meant Zimmerman was entitled to STAND HIS GROUND with no duty to retreat". And I think it highly probable that racial bigotry played a role in the killing. In my strong opinion the Reverend Sharpton did not "ring the Pavlovian bell", but is playing is role in speaking out on behalf the Black community in condemning this bad law. I'm a Liberal who does not consider himself a dupe and I'm raising my voice in support of the Reverend. Tawana Brawley may have lied, but Al Sharpton isn't responsible for her lies. And, seeing as this name is always brought up when someone ON THE RIGHT wishes to slander Mr. Sharpton, I am disappointed to see a Liberal invoke it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAllowing self defense in some cases without a duty to run away was designed to do away with the many ruinous horrors victims of violence have faced. Countless people have defended themselves rightfully and were none the less ruined by decades of litigation. You should be aware of this. As a liberal you should give a damn. The SYG law has nothing to do with racism or with permitting you to shoot someone you think looks at you funny, even if there are bad judges, prosecutors and juries.
ReplyDeleteTo be a liberal without integrity is just partisanship.
This outcome had to do with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence. I'm standing firmly on that ground.
George Zimmerman was not found innocent because of the exception to the prior duty to retreat. The duty to retreat would have been mooted by the jury's duty to consider the evidence of the inability of Zimmerman to run away even in the absence of Stand Your Ground laws. An appeal to partisanship isn't going to change the truth and it won't make me forgive Sharpton's ugly history.
And do you remember that Sharpton himself affirmed that the law in question had nothing to do with this case? Al has cried racism too often. All of us as good partisan and righteous anti-racist liberals jumped on his bandwagon - mea maxima culpa. We were wrong and we should have learned a lesson. He could have checked some facts before going on a crusade and ruining people's lives and the people who jumped on that juggernaut should still feel shame, but they don't, do they? A simple mistake? My God - isn't that about shooting first, lynching first and asking questions later? Is a liberal lynch mob still liberal? Sorry. I'm still standing my ground here.
One could have claimed self defense years ago and long before this disgustingly mistitled "shoot the Avon Lady Law" but would have HAD to show that retreat was impossible AND THAT'S JUST WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID within a reasonable doubt. Can you PROVE that an impetuous Martin didn't jump on him, knock him down, punch him in the face? Can you be sure who started it? That's the only way you could have had a murder verdict and the jury found a reasonable doubt as was their duty. SYG did not come into play, partisan convictions and loyalties notwithstanding - sorry.
ReplyDeleteThis case was pressed into service by some gun control interests in desperation and it was a poor choice. It was pressed into service as 'proof' of rampant racism and it was a very bad choice. It's time to let it go because there are better cases and because it stinks of fraud.
The SYG law as I read it and as I've heard from the legal profession I've discussed it with does not allow you to pull a gun unprovoked and them claim self defense or to shoot someone on suspicion and I'm tired of hearing otherwise. I regret the outcome. I believe Zimmerman is responsible for a wrongful death and will be found so in civil court, but to prove murder - and you have to prove it you'd have to prove the shooting was unprovoked by Martin or was provoked by Zimmerman and there is no way to do that.
Again, lastly and finally and once again, if one has no ability to retreat, questions about duty are moot. The right not to retreat thus played no part in the verdict, diversions notwithstanding. Zimmerman raised reasonable doubt that he could have run away. There was no evidence to show he was wrong and so he was found not guilty. Sorry, that's the way the law works in a free country. It's not a fox hunt or a kangaroo court. We don't have guilt by partisan fiat and I'm not falling for another Sharpton crusade especially when he can't keep his story straight.
Exceptions to the duty to retreat do not make it "legal to murder black people" and I can't sufficiently express my repugnance that such idiocy has come from a movement started by good and righteous people some of whom gave their lives, because it's not only a lie, but a lie intended to harm people and interfere with justice.
OJ's murders didn't make it legal to murder Blonde women or Jewish waiters. The shooting of a baseball player by minority kids and the beating death of an octogenarian veteran don't mean anything relative to a political agenda. It's just wrong to use such tragedies for political reasons and if this kind of irresponsible idiocy is what it takes to be a Liberal you can count me out. Truth isn't liberal any more than lies are and it isn't slander if it's true.
I agree with the verdict because of reasonable doubt, not because Zimmerman proved his right to shoot, or "stand his ground."
Delete"Can you be sure who started it?" No, and I don't take Zimmerman's word for it. Martin may have given a different version consistent with the few facts that were proven, but he is dead, thus the reasonable doubt. Proving the old saying: Make sure the guy is dead so you don't have to face the questions of a different version of the incident. Dead men tell no tales.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI think you should be ashamed of yourself for the attitude behind this post.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is expressed in words. Please be liberal enough to address the argument and the words therein and any facts referenced and not presume an "attitude?"
DeleteThat's the very thing I'm talking about.
I think any commitment he has to seek justice for all is overshadowed by self pity, self righteousness and not a little self interest. Why am I bound to respect him? Because he's a "reverend" I'm a reverend too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI think you should be ashamed of yourself for the attitude behind this post.
ReplyDeleteI'm not and especially not twice. I'm ashamed of how a movement once lead by great men has become the property of small men.
DeleteWell, you certainly jumped on my comment about being disappointed to see a Liberal trash the good Reverend. I didn't mean facts should be ignored in favor of partisanship. The facts point to increased killings via gun due to SYG, and the facts point to Zimmerman being a racist liar and SYG playing a HUGE role in this case... and it's the facts and not partisanship that cause me to stand my ground regarding this position. SYG is a law that allows people to get away with murder.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I also stand my ground on my assertion that Al Sharpton is a good man. A flawed man that has made mistakes (mistakes that he may have not done a good job owning up to)... but he's like most of the rest of us in this regard. I shall continue to have a good deal of respect for him.
FYI, Zimmerman had the ability to retreat. He continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him not too! The proof of that is Zimmerman's lie about how far he traveled looking for an address to give the dispatcher... when the dispatcher never asked for an address! Read the transcript. He sure as hell provoked the shooting.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDid I miss something? Have we started allowing unquestionable racism in the comments on this blog? James Hanvers has published nothing but hate filled comments. Who is this person and why were his comments published? Did someone miss Hanvers' comment: "Maybe if TrashCan had ID'd himself or not acted like NO LIMIT NIGGA and a tough guy, he'd be alive today.
DeleteDo I have to explain that this is offensive?
Sorry, I should have been quicker to take out the trash
DeleteI don't think the facts point to anything like that at all. I think that's just another shibboleth we're required to assert for membership in the Lock-Step Liberal club - like printed guns and legal automatic rifles. Are we so eager to prove our liberal credentials that we have to outdo each others gullibility?
ReplyDeleteThe inability of prosecutors to prove murder in some cases of murder may have increased, but murder in the USA peaked decades ago and is at a 100 year low and continues to decline. Panic is not required. It's also made it more difficult for ambitious and racist prosecutors to convict the innocent, as the law was designed to do. The way I see it, it has long been nearly impossible for a minority person to prove self defense. What's wrong with a law affirming the presumption of innocence in the absence of proof?
That things are always getting worse according to people like Al is another symptom suggesting that we've taken another page from the Tea Party book of revelation, perceived crisis being a good way to take power and make money. I am not willing to clear a swath through law and justice just to burn a racist and I'm not willing to support anyone just because they claim to be against racism. Being against wrong doesn't make you right.
It seems that Zimmy being a murderous racist is another article of faith being shored up by flimsy props. Certainly some of the arguments for that are weak at best, (A neighborhood watch guy calls 911 a lot - duh, that's what they're supposed to do.) He chased Martin? OK, he's stupid and impetuous. Hispanic guys never chase white guys out of their neighborhoods?
I've called the sheriff numerous times to report teenagers partying on the docks and in the woods here. I can't tell what color they are in the dark or by their voices, but am I a racist? but so what if Zimmerman is? What if he was likely to presume that Martin was one of the young people vandalizing the neighborhood because of Racism and not a description based on experience? Are you willing to suspend rules of evidence because you 'just know' he's a bad guy? Because Reverend Al says so? That's not a liberal opinion, it's prejudice. Presumption of racism does not override presumption of innocence and call me what you like, I can't think otherwise.
The facts as I see them do not support your opinion as to the duty to retreat Vs the right not to be chased away. I think that opinion has been slinking about looking for a test case and grabbed this one without much consideration and of late, I've seen far too many ill considered and maybe unconsidered articles of faith, often based on distortion, hyperbole and outright misrepresentation marching down the street waving signs. It reminds me of the commotion when the 55 mph speed limit was done away with. The certainty that highway death would increase led to a flurry of "statistics" proving there was a bloodbath. Only there wasn't and the death rate went down while people continued to weep and wail and mourn.
After all these years I've begun to see that the Republican argument that "both sides are just as bad" is not entirely without truth.
Sorry, making a career out of shouting "racist" doesn't mean he's honest or honorable and particularly when compared to the giants of the civil rights movement. Dr. King wasn't all about accusation or denunciation, he was about justice and sacrificing to make it happen. Sharpton is about being a self appointed judge and jury and making up evidence. It's not only his waistline that's gone down in my estimation.
Capt. Fogg,
DeleteI am not going to argue with you, because I think something is seriously wrong with us, as individuals and thus something is wrong with the sum of the parts....our country.
No doubt that Dr. King "...wasn't about accusation or denunciation, he was about justice and sacrificing to make it happen...." but that was then....and we are not as we were then.
Oh, I know there were mean, angry, hateful people then too but the majority of Americans COULD be shocked and appalled by the pictures of Bull Conners using water hoses and vicious dogs on peaceful protesters.
Could we be shocked and appalled, as a nation? As a people?
I agree with your assessment of Rev. Sharpton, but I wonder if we could even recognize MLK today if he spoke....
And I wonder if he would recognize us. I wonder if he would agree with the Sharpton that the right to stand and resist an attacker is "the worst violation of civil rights" ever. Worse than Slavery and Jim Crow and Segregation -- worse than burning people alive, hanging them from trees, shooting them down like dogs. These crimes against humanity can't be compared to a jury struggling to find enough proof to send someone to the electric chair when there was nothing but ambiguity, but that trial seems to have had as much coverage as the March on Washington or the murder of Medgar Evers.
ReplyDeleteThe effort to keep up the momentum and the anger by elevating bogeymen like Paula Deen to the status of James Earl Ray or Byron De La Beckwith suggests to me that yes, there really is something wrong with us.
Stand your ground did indeed play a role in the Martin case. I have neither the time nor inclination to explain all the reasons why and how. The law is problematic and legal minds far more knowledgeable than I or Rev. Sharpton agree that SYG needs to be repealed. However, I do think that Devrish Sanders has explained the whole matter quite well. Al Sharpton isn't the problem nor is he a liar. The problem is white people such as yourself who believe that their experience defines the parameters of what it means to be a racial minority in this country. It doesn't.
ReplyDeleteCaptain, there is so much that you do not understand as you filter the world through your narrow window of experience. I know that you mean no harm, nonetheless you do plenty of it with your broad declarations and total cluelessness as to the issues of race in this country. I won't be back to argue this with you. I gave up a long time ago in piercing the wall of belief with which you have surrounded yourself and I wish you well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI've had to deal with racism all of my life. I will not tolerate it here. Perhaps James Hanvers hacked the Zone. I have no idea. But if he stays, I go. I don't have time to deal with ignorant racists and James Hanvers, go fuck yourself.
DeleteWhen you publish crap that opens the door for racism even a crack, the hood wearing scum ease their way in, believing themselves to have found a home.
I'm sure he lacks the equipment to do so
DeleteGreen Eagle, I agree.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg: ...another article of faith being shored up by flimsy props. Certainly some of the arguments for that are weak at best...
ReplyDeleteNo, not an "article of faith" but a conclusion I reached based on the evidence. More than 40 calls, many of them to report a suspicious "BM" (Black Male)... including a seven year old. He said Trayvon passed his vehicle, so why didn't he identify himself at that point? Then there is the (disputed) racial epithet on the call to the police and the accompanying "they always get away" remark ("they" being Black thugs). In addition there was a witness (who didn't testify during the trial) that said "Zimmerman and his family were racists who disliked blacks". And finally there is the racist friend of Zimmerman who made the rounds defending him on various media programs. According to Frank Taafee (the friend) whites and blacks have no business mingling. Appearing on the podcaset "The White Voice" Taaffe said, "they don't want to be with us and we don't want to be with them". Obviously he considered George to be one of "us". And I heard there is even more evidence of racial bias, but that the judge ruled none of it would be permitted.
If there is a civil rights violation charge more of this will surely come out. But we shall just have to wait and see if that happens. Regardless, there is enough evidence that the question is at least a valid one... and enough evidence that I should be able to say I think there may be something to the racial bias charges without being insulted with this "article of faith" charge.
Capt. Fogg: Sharpton [said] that the right to stand and resist an attacker is "the worst violation of civil rights" ever.
Actually he didn't. This article from the Orlando Sentinel says Sharpton calls 'stand your ground' law 'worst violation of civil rights' in America... as in CURRENTLY. Not worse than all the historical examples you give.
The article goes on to say that Martin Luther King III, who appeared with Sharpton at a rally said "Our children are targeted... In a real sense, history has a way of repeating itself". Clearly the grandson of MLK does not agree with Mr. Fogg's assessment of SYG or the Reverend Sharpton.
NB: The word 'ever' is outside of the quotation marks and thus not part of the quote.
DeleteHowever SYG is CURRENTLY not the worst violation of civil rights in America either - if in fact it is at all. I consider it to be an inherent and inalienable right that we not be forced to run from an attacker or face murder charges. Nor is there one word or stipulation that would apply to one race over another in it and if it somehow did violate anyone's civil rights it would be as likely to violate those of all groups equally. Is it coincidence that as of yet, not one word of that legislation has been referenced or quoted? It's a damned sight easier to damn a law you don't quote.
If you want to argue that courts and prosecutors and cops and defense lawyers and juries are subject to error, bias or malice, you'd have an argument, and I'll agree with it, but no one is making that one.
As to the evidence of racism in the number of calls to 911: a Neighborhood Watch volunteer is charged with calling 911. That's the job description - call it in and let the cops check it out. In a neighborhood subject to petty crime, vandalism and burglary, one would expect multiple calls.
But you know, the important thing here is that Zimmerman was not on trial for bigotry, but for murder. People's hearsay testimony about racist views are rightly inadmissible. Speculation as to what he meant by "they" is inadmissible. Support of his case by an admitted racist - guilt by association - is inadmissible. What are you suggesting? You're welcome to put your faith and such it is in hearsay and innuendo and indeed you may be right, but we don't allow it in court for good reason. One of the things that bothers me about this furor is that it spits in the face of the rule of law and judicial procedure and if that doth not a witch hunt make, don't know what does.
There was an eye witness to OJ fleeing the murder scene who was not allowed to testify because she had talked to a reporter and another who saw him climb over the wall coming home. His defense was based on the idea that damning evidence could not be considered because one cop had been heard using the N word years ago and the closing arguments asked the jury to send a message to the man. Does anyone get to be satisfied with that outcome and dissatisfied with this one?
Can we dispense with the micro-exegesis, fallacy and logic chopping here and look at a bigger picture? The judicial system, by design and necessity, is inefficient and sometimes lets the guilty go free. This does not argue against rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence much less the opinions of the public. It does not of itself show inherent racism. Yes, I'm aware that minorities often get stiffer sentences and poor legal council. I'm aware that minorities get hassled and followed and threatened. I've had it happen to friends and family but that's not the law, it's people.
I agree, Zimmerman may well have racist opinions and those may suggest that his choice to chase the kid was influenced, but a charge of murder has to be tried on what he did and not why. If motive were enough, there would be a line at the electric chair.
My grandson disagrees with me on many matters and I doubt that
MLK would subscribe to Sharpton's antics.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI hesitated to weigh in on these comments having close friends on opposite sides of this argument. Dread! My comment will not disabuse friends of their opinions, or heal wounds; but wade in, I must.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Tawana Brawley incident, I was living out of country at the time and missed the media circus. Thus, I have no opinion of the Reverend Sharpton, one way or the other.
Researching the story in retrospect leads me to believe that the Good Reverend left behind an untidy mess: A prosecutor, a police officer, and a state trooper falsely accused of rape (including a 28-year old officer, Harry Crist Jr., who committed suicide a week after false charges were made against him); and a runaway 15-year old girl who may have been subject to violent abuse at home from her mother and step-father.
A grand jury dismissed the case. Later, the accused prosecutor won a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton, his lawyers, and Tawana Brawley. Has justice been served in the matter? Hardly!
How can you sue an underage 15-year old girl over a bogus story that served as cover for a runaway teen avoiding domestic abuse? Brawley, now age 40 and working as a licensed nurse in Virginia (way to go, girl!), owes $431,492 to Duchess County Prosecutor Pagones (aw shucks!). To date, she has paid 10 checks totaling $3,764. Sharpton’s $66,000 in damages were paid by friends, one of whom was Johnnie Cochran. Case closed.
Thus, Tawana Brawley is still paying a heavy price for a youthful misadventure; whereas the good Reverend is free of all obligations in the matter and now has an cushy MSNBC contract.
continued ...
ReplyDeleteResponding to scattershot threads under a single post is always a bore, especially the time it takes to cover multiple bullet holes – so typical of blogging these days. Nevertheless, the Tawana Brawley case and the Zimmerman-Martin story appear in the same post (so disconnected in time that one story has virtually no connection to the other story), starting with this headline: “ Al Sharpton is a lying son of a bitch.” Is there a mendacity quota that merits this epithet?
Let’s focus attention on the Zimmerman-Martin case (now beaten into a dead horse by media and bloggers alike):
Recently, a court struck down NYC’s Search-and-Frisk law because 87% of all subjects searched under the law were racially profiled. For those of us who have never experienced racial profiling, how would you feel being stopped, searched, frisked, and regarded with suspicion everywhere you went?
Perhaps this is how minority teenagers feel – perhaps how Trayvon Martin may have felt when George Zimmerman stalked him. Racial profiling is not necessarily the same as racism; yet this tendency to regard certain ethnic groups with suspicion, but not others, cannot be dismissed.
Stand your Ground? This too needs to be examined within the context of a double standard that was applied under law (unfairly in my opinion):
Pre-Stand-Your Ground. Under the old standard, you had an obligation to withdraw, retreat, or escape before resorting to lethal means. Avoiding confrontation and backing down meant saving human lives.
Post-Stand-Your-Ground. Under the new law, you could literally stand your ground with no obligation to retreat and blast away with virtual impunity under protection of law.
Trayvon Martin was judged posthumously under the standard of Pre-SYG. Although he was stalked for no apparent reason as it appeared to him, the court decided that he was NOT entitled to stand his ground – even unarmed. In other words, Martin was required to stand down … or end up shot justifiably under Post-SYG. Zimmerman was acquitted under the Post-SYG standard. How contradictory and hypocritical is that!
Since SYG was passed, there have been numerous senseless killings – a teenager on Halloween night who was trick-or-treating, an honors high school students who entered the wrong party house on graduation night, as examples. It is a stinking rotten law, one that should never have been passed by any legislature, and one that we are well within our rights to challenge given the needless and heedless bloodshed.
"Nevertheless, the Tawana Brawley case and the Zimmerman-Martin story appear in the same post (so disconnected in time that one story has virtually no connection to the other story)"
DeleteSpeaks to his character, your honor. Does time make a man's deeds moot? If time makes ancient good uncouth, surely it doesn't work the other way. I'm defending my accusation of mendacity.
"Since SYG was passed, there have been numerous senseless killings"
Objection!
And well before then. There needs to have been an increase to imply causation and there has not been. The evidence may imply an actual decrease.
Indeed far more egregious killings, mass killings, mobs, riots, lynchings. You're the smartest guy I know, surely you're not doing a post hoc propter hoc. . .
But here's where I'm at. To date all attacks on that law have distinguished themselves only with wild hyperbole and peremptory assertions of criminal intent and not by citation. I've been trying to discuss the law itself and my reading thereof shows it's being - to be polite - misrepresented.
So why can't we discuss the actual wording of this law with respect to the problem it was designed to solve rather than just assuming the noise in the street is valid? Are we talking about the law itself or are we repeating another political piety?
If challenge need be made as to the nature of a credible threat, and I think it's obvious that it does, how does that suggest the intent was to justify the murder of minorities and not to address the problem of home invasion, mugging and hijacking victims having to stand trial and be ruined even if exonerated?
I've seen no willingness to do so.
SYG calls for a judgment call on the person involved in an altercation, where fears run high. Judgment calls are always open to dispute, not regarding the facts, but different people react (make different decisions) differently to the same facts. Like many laws it is ambiguous, open for abuse, and full of loop holes. Seems we should have a higher level of "judgment" when asking why a person is dead, than just the judgment of a person who might have been "under fear" because of the altercation. Does every bloody nose, or physical fight give proof of using deadly force? What about the old advise: It's sometimes better to walk away from a fight; or as the Bible says, "turn the other cheek."
DeleteI am continually dismayed at how Rev. Sharpton is repeatedly characterized as being in some sense responsible for the events surrounding Tawana Brawley's false allegations.
ReplyDeleteShe was a 16 year old who told a credible story of police misconduct and brutality. Certainly black people had seen such stories play out in reality since slavery came to these shores. Sharpton was not the only person who believed her story. Nor is Brawley that unusual, there have been other instances where alleged victims manufactured the details of an assault. Notably similar is the case of the Scottsboro Boys, nine black teens accused in 1931 of raping two white girls, and sentenced to death by an all white jury. One of the victims eventually recanted and said that neither she nor the other alleged victim was raped or even touched by the defendants, but it didn't matter. After three trials and three more convictions, four of the defendants were released by the court for lack of evidence, but five still received sentences of 75 years or more and one of the five received the death penalty.
Sharpton didn't gather a group to drag the alleged perpetrators out of their homes to hang them from the nearest tree. Let's recall history, a black man accused of a crime against a white woman was lucky to stay alive long enough for a trial for a long period in the history of this country. Lynchings were public entertainment well into the 20th century. Fifteen year old Emmett Till was savagely beaten to death in 1954 for allegedly speaking to or possibly whistling at a white woman.
Sharpton didn't foment violence, he simply led the efforts to ensure that the alleged perpetrators were brought to trial under a sincere belief that Brawley's tale was true. Quite frankly, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the reference to the Brawley case as indicative that Sharpton is a liar. Was he, were we, supposed to dismiss Brawley's allegations out of hand and declare that nothing happened because police officers are all upstanding and never do such things?
I would also remind anyone that when it comes to false accusations, this country has quite a history, from the young women who made allegations of witchcraft against those hanged as witches in Salem, Massachusetts to the McMartins and others whose lives were ruined by allegations of running daycare centers where they molested children, allegations whose veracity has become more and more suspect over time.
Blaming Al Sharpton for the racial unrest that made Brawley's claims credible makes about as much sense as the latest trend of right wing pundits to declare that race relations in this country have worsened because of President Obama and AG Eric Holder. Neither the President nor Holder have fostered any increase in racism. The only thing that has happened is that the racists have crawled from under the rocks and attempted to legitimize their beliefs by arguing that it's anyone's fault except their own that they are ignorant bigots living in a constant state of denial of their own race based animus to those that they see as other.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYou're the last person I would want to offend Sheria, and I will remain your friend and admirer even if you feel otherwise, but although I've never claimed to have experienced being black, I don't think it's necessary to have been accused of murder to be on the side of the presumption of innocence. I have to point out that prejudice is prejudice whether it manifests itself in the assumptions we make about a black person's intentions or in the assumption that white people are closet racists blind and unsympathetic, ignorant and afraid. I'm sure you're above that, but if experience is the great teacher, it isn't an objective teacher. Being wronged doesn't make either of us right, nor does being angry, whether rightly or wrongly. You just don't know me; what I love, what I hate nor what I stand for.
ReplyDeleteThe only belief of mine that pertains to all this is my belief that it's worse to punish someone without proof of guilt whether or not that person is otherwise reprehensible. No, I'm not a lawyer, even if I come from a family of lawyers and judges, I've spent time looking at it, discussing it and I do not see a racist intent or racist wording in a law that asserts one's right to use force in self defense rather than to being forced to run away or be chased out. That's how I read the law and its intent. SYG, had it been brought up at all, would have given Martin the right to use force against Zimmerman and perhaps he did. There is evidence that he did. Is it preferable to have required him to run away because someone didn't want him in the neighborhood?
It does not "make it legal to hunt black people" and that suggestion is as irresponsible a statement as has ever been made. It's a lie and a lie designed to foment hate, anger and irresponsible acts.
You'll notice, or you should have, that I don't claim Zimmerman is innocent, is a good guy, wasn't irresponsible, didn't cause an unnecessary and wrongful death. I'm claiming that Al Sharpton is once again fomenting public outrage on false pretenses and insufficient evidence as he has done in the past. Al is riding on the coattails of great men - and getting them dirty. No I don't blame him for social unrest and the excesses that result from it, just for making it worse. I blame him for his own wrongdoing, his own excesses, his own prejudices and the harm done to innocent people and to his own benefit.
We all believe things. If Sharpton believed Brawley's story because it sounded credible, based on his experience with bigotry that's one thing. Failure to examine the evidence before passing extra-legal judgement is another. If he had acknowledged his mistake and apologized -- ah but he didn't, did he? His objectivity is more than suspect to me and always has been and what of the judgement that I'm a bigot for questioning it? Is that really fair or is it really just convenient and is your anger affecting it?
Our long history of abusing minorities doesn't make the particulars of this case true or untrue.
If the right to self defense is not a fundamental human right, what is? If the presumption of innocence is not fundamental, what is? Was I listening to another trial or did the verdict hinge on the lack of evidence that Zimmerman could have run away and was forced to defend himself? That fact alone makes SYG moot nor did his defense once reference that law. I have that on the advice of much council.
The right to remain where you have a right to be and to counter force with force has no basis - in my opinion - in racialism and if you think I'm somehow a racist or that my ideas of basic human rights is a racist idea or that I support the Zimmerman verdict for any other reason than for the State's failure to prove murder -- If you think I blame Obama or Holder or you -- if you think I'm unsympathetic or closed minded or in denial, you have mistook me all this while and to my great sadness.
It appears to me that we may be repeating previously stated talking points. When a comment thread reaches this point, perhaps the better part of valor is to affirm our friends and colleagues, validate their best points, learn, and move on.
ReplyDeleteI’ll leave behind this last comment for whatever it’s worth.
I feel especially sorry for Tawana Brawley. Yes, she did make false accusation that were terrible, but she was 15-years old at the time, a juvenile, and a troubled kid.
We see this all the time in social work – abused kids fabricating stories to remove themselves from abusive households. An abused kid never accuses his/her abuser directly but creates a false allegation usually involving someone OUTSIDE the household. Why? Because the kid still has to go home at night and live with the abuser(s).
An astute social worker knows this. Twenty-five years ago, there were suspicions that Tawana Brawley may have been an abused kid, but a formal inquiry was never made or introduced as evidence during the grand jury investigation.
Why does this matter? We treat juveniles differently than adults because they are not yet fully developed human beings capable of acting in rational ways, i.e. capable of distinguishing right from wrong and therefore being held fully accountable under law. If we treat juvenile offenders differently in criminal court, why not in civil court?
Today, a 40-year old woman has a half million-dollar judgment over her head from which she will never recover. She has managed to become a licensed nurse, a laudable profession, and has made payments in good faith to pay down the judgment; but her life will never be free.
My only beef with Al Sharpton is this: Why hasn’t he enlisted the aid of powerful friends, or dipped into his own resources, to help this hapless woman, now grown, get out from under this cloud – which started 25-years ago when she was a juvenile.
Other than this, I have no other beefs with Al Sharpton. I watch MSNBC assiduously, which includes news coverage by Alex Witt, Al Sharpton, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O-Donnell, among others.
With regards to Stand Your Ground and the Zimmerman-Martin case, I reiterate my earlier comment: SYG is a lousy law. We should consider what the NRA has become: It is no longer a users group that promotes safety and marksmanship, but a lobby wing for gun manufacturers. SYG is a marketing ploy designed for only one purpose: To sell more guns. SYG has not made people safer in their homes but has resulted in reckless carnage.
Nuff said.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis is an argument that, to my regret, isn't going to pass away for lack of proof any more than I can prove that my opinions aren't motivated by some racial stereotype - and although I can immediately think of arguments that seem trenchant and irrefutable to me but that I can't get anyone to read or consider, it's too much for me and the time at hand. I'm leaving town tomorrow for a while anyway so here it all is.
ReplyDeleteSo far all I have are assertions that the law is racist and zimmerman is racist and if rules of evidence and evidence itself raise doubt, why them I'm a racist right down to my racist boat shoes and the hell with everything I've said and done and supported since the mid 1940's.
The facts remain that Zimmerman's case for self defense succeeded for reasons unrelated to having made a choice to fight rather than flee. His testimony that he could not flee had to be considered because of the evidence at hand. Schluss, fertig, that's the end of it. The argument that SYG played a part is true only to the extent of the fact that he was not charged because of lack of evidence. The results backed that position up.
But as to lying -- why will someone say SYG, for instance, is designed to allow white people to murder black people when the law would, if that were true, allow anyone to kill anyone? If it protects white people from prosecution, does it not equally protect everyone? Has anyone actually read it? Flawed perhaps, but criminal intent? Racism? Seriously? Do we have racist speed limits if more black drivers get stopped or do we have racist cops?
Just how many black people have been shot by racist white people who got away with SYG defense in Florida? Is it a significant percentage of the whole picture or a tiny, tiny fraction? Is it maybe one? Is this a bad question to ask? Am I being a bad liberal for asking?
Have there really been an increase in shootings of any kind in Florida - really? The only increase the statistics show is from gang activity in areas of Palm Beach County. Everywhere else it's going down and has gone down more quickly after passage of some laws that we've screamed about.
Yes, there have been some very questionable cases having to do with what constitutes a deadly threat - some bad decisions, but is that the law or the prosecutors at fault? And how many of them have there been and how many other bad decisions have their been? I wrote about one of them and nobody listened. Why?
Is carnage a hyperbolic term? Has the 'carnage' from armed robbery and home invasion and carjacking gone down? How many survivors of armed attacks have avoided million dollar legal fees and the loss of jobs and homes and families because of SYG? I ask because without knowing that all we have are empty words.
What provisions, what wording in the law suggest any of the lousiness? Why is no one willing to tell me? I'm happy to change my mind in light of evidence but where is it? Are they provisions that can be changed - should be changed?
I believe Sharpton is a man who doesn't give a damn about who gets hurt while he's making a living accusing people of racism and fomenting divisiveness and hostility. I believe he's selling the idea that white people can't be trusted and indeed I'm hearing that from people I thought were above that solipsistic nonsense. How does this serve progress?
You'll recall that I wrote something about how we get angry and we cry on cue and this is an illustration. Why did nobody on planet liberal seem to give a shit about that young mother who got 20 years for firing a warning shot into the wall at her estranged husband? Are we that afraid of self defense or is it just that nobody told us to?
Octopus: My only beef with Al Sharpton is this: Why hasn't he enlisted the aid of powerful friends, or dipped into his own resources, to help this hapless woman, now grown, get out from under this cloud...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this, Octo (as well as your thoughts on SYG). Sharpton still says he thinks "something" happened. If so, why not pay her legal bills? Surely he could afford it, or raise the money from other sources.
Capt Fogg: Why did nobody on planet liberal seem to give a shit about that young mother who got 20 years for firing a warning shot into the wall at her estranged husband?
I give a shit about that case. The ruling was a travesty. She did the right thing. Perhaps she should have shot him dead and claimed self defense? Would the cops have then set her free (like Zimmerman) instead of arresting her, trying her, and sending her to jail for 20 freaking years?
The police don't give verdicts. Sometimes prosecutors decide the case has too little evidence and chance for conviction so they pass on it. Sometimes the outcome proves them right.
ReplyDeleteBut if we're looking for civil rights violations that really are civil rights violations, why not look at mandatory sentencing? And as long as we're going to speculate, I have to wonder if poor Shorty had had a gun and was able to defend himself against three young and strong but unarmed attackers he should have been tried for murder because he didn't run away - at age 88. The law in his venue did not extend to giving him the right to stand his ground. I'm just asking.
And of course it remains as of this morning that no law anywhere makes it illegal for Trayvon Martin or anyone else to walk home and hence that statement remains a lie.
"And of course it remains as of this morning that no law anywhere makes it illegal for Trayvon Martin or anyone else to walk home and hence that statement remains a lie."
ReplyDeleteFogg, are you really this clueless? Sharpton is metaphorically referencing the practical outcome of the laws in many parts of this country. Try and follow this.
Young man is a house guest of a resident of a gated neighborhood. He goes to the store in the early part of the evening. On his way back, he is spotted by another man. The young man is doing nothing unusual. He's not destroying property. He's walking and talking on his phone. The other man declares that the young man looks suspicious, as if he's up to no good in a 911 call to the police.
Trayvon Martin was targeted by Zimmerman because in Zimmerman's subjective opinion, Martin looked as if he was up to something. Now, I would be concerned to have my nephews or godsons walk down a street where they could be followed by any person who decided that they looked like they were "up to something." That's what Sharpton is speaking of--the inherent danger for a young black male to simply walk down the street.
Ask yourself why Zimmerman followed Martin in the first place? Who he was referencing when he told the 911 dispatcher, "They always get away." What right did Zimmerman have to follow and engage Martin in the first place? When Martin perceived that he was being stalked by a stranger, why didn't he have a right to defend himself? How was he to conclude that Zimmerman fancied himself to be a part time cop?
See, the only answer that I can come up with is that Zimmerman views young black males as a threat and engaged in racial profiling. You've heard of that, right?
There would have been no encounter if not for Zimmerman. That's not speculation; it's a conclusion based on Zimmerman's own statements. Martin wasn't following Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed Martin and the police told him that he didn't need to do that.Why was there no presumed right of Trayvon Martin to defend himself from the stranger following him? If Martin had gotten the best of Zimmerman and killed him, do you really think that Martin would not have been charged with any crime until months later or that arguing self-defense would have been a successful defense in a court of law?
Sharpton is tired of young black men being target practice for police officers and neighborhood vigilantes, (so am I) and yeah, the effect of SYG laws just provide one more opportunity to shoot first and justify later.
As for the old gentleman who was murdered on the west coast, what does his death have to do with any of this? No one has suggested that his killers shouldn't be arrested. No one has argued that they were justified in killing him. His killers have been caught, charged and will eventually be put on trial.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSheria,
ReplyDeleteI haven't been ignoring you, nor at a loss for words. I've been out of town. It's sad that not only don't disagree with a thing you've said, I have spent a great deal of time agreeing and being angry about these things -- but I don't think that at a time when everyone's sensitivities are raw and emotions are inflamed it's time for hyperbolic "metaphors." I only brought up a prior incident to illustrate the trouble caused when one makes a passionate public crusade without taking time to verify facts. Anger breeds injustice.
My point was simply that the law in question did not, does not, justify pursuing or confronting anyone strolling through the neighborhood and as I read it, takes away the right to claim self defense to someone who instigated or even escalated the conflict. I believe and I think the defense was aware that having done so, Zimmerman had the duty to retreat just the way he would have in the absence of SYG. His defense did not cite the law for that reason.
Again, as I read it, that law would have given Martin the right to remain and to defend himself whereas previously he would have been required to run away from Zimmerman. That he chose to stand his ground and perhaps to defend himself physically proved unfortunate, but in principle I'm loathe to give up the right to stay where I am, in my home or car on on the street where I live if some fool uses force to chase me out.
If I were to suggest a remedy, I would propose that the law make it illegal for a neighborhood watch volunteer in the same way it makes it illegal to carry a weapon into a sports stadium, a condo meeting, a bar, a school or a post office or any other "place of public nuisance." No law gave Zimmerman the right to be a policeman.
I brought up the case of the 88 year old beaten to death for the sole reason that it illustrated the failing of a legal code that required him to run away rather than to use deadly force to protect against deadly force. It probably would not have helped, but he had the right, and I defend his right to meet deadly force with deadly force. Yes, they caught the perps, but he's still dead.
Had he shot or even shot at them, he would very likely have spent time in jail and a fortune in ruinous legal expenses and I think to some degree that's very, very wrong. There is a good deal of precedent for this.
With the greatest respect, I do not wish to discuss this further as emotions are at too high a level.
All,
ReplyDeletePlease note: I removed comment moderation a few days ago, thinking the worst of the troll invasions have passed. The idea was to restore "real time" to our conversations; otherwise no change in comment policy was intended.
In checking the email inbox this morning, I see a commenter named James Hanvers visited the Zone overnight - leaving a series of 11 messages, the first at 4:05 AM, the last at 4:54 PM - all inflammatory and offensive in the extreme.
Dutifully, a member of our community deleted the offending messages a few hours ago. Thank you, thank you, whoever you are!
If, in a day or two, the offensive troll invasion continues, I'll switch on comment moderation again. Too bad we are forced to live defensively in this kind of world. I wish things were different.
'twas only from over the sea
ReplyDeleteCaptain Fogg the sailor.
Yes, it's amazing but such a touchy subject and intemperate authorship does attract flies.
I'm sorry it was up long enough for anyone to read it.