The Decline of Honesty

Others, including Himself, seem to agree that George Zimmerman can be both legally not guilty and morally totally wrong in the matter of Trayvon Martin's death. I think this is pretty clear. I ignored the contemporaneous trial coverage, which would have required far more time and energy than I had available or willing, but what I've read in the aftermath--at least, that which seems trustworthy and not overly afflicted by obvious agendae--seems to support a conclusion that the prosecution didn't do Trayvon Martin any favors, the defense didn't have to work very hard to create reasonable doubt, and the judge's jury instructions left them very little, if any, room to convict Zimmerman of anything.

Now let's be honest. I'll go first. George Zimmerman is, in fact, a creepy ass cracker, a cop wannabe who deliberately stalked Trayvon Martin because he was a young nigger in a hoodie, and at the least, deliberately provoked a situation where he was able to gun Martin down. Of course that's not a statement about the law, and if you try to answer it with a legal argument, you're not being honest.

Here's a statement about the law: It's unfortunate, to say the least, that the state of Florida was unable to come up with a charge to fit the crime, or to competently try the charge that it chose (I mean manslaughter, under Florida law--I don't think they ever had a chance of convicting him of second-degree murder). And it's really bad that while our nation's legal principles and George Zimmerman's rights as a defendant were upheld, justice was not, in any way, served. You might be honest if you answer that with a legal argument. Maybe. That won't make you right. But I titled the post the way I did, didn't I?

Let's discuss some people who really aren't being honest--or, if they are, they're so ignorant and/or prejudiced that their views on this case aren't worthy of the public discussion. Let's start with CNN's vaunted juror number B37. Here are some (admittedly selected) samples of her patter:

"I think all of us thought race did not play a role," the juror said . "We never had that discussion."

...

 She believes he thought Martin was suspicious because of the way he acted. "Anybody would think anybody walking down the road, stopping and turning and looking -- if that's exactly what happened -- is suspicious," she said.

...

Juror B37 said Jeantel was not a good witness because the phrases used during her testimony were terms she had never heard before. The juror thought the witness, "felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her."

...

The juror said she did not think the term "creepy ass cracker" was a racial statement. The juror said this was the way Trayvon and Rachel spoke to each other, "I think it's just everyday life, the type of life that they life and how they're living, in the environment that they're living in." [My note: she didn't say "Trayvon and Rachel." She said "they."]

Holy crap. Okay, I'm willing to concede the possibility that Juror B37 is honest. But if she is, she sure is one ignorant creepy ass cracker. Race didn't play a role? Suspicious? "The type of life that they live"? "Creepy ass cracker" isn't a racial statement? Holy fucking shit. Actually, it's that last one that strains my capacity for belief in Juror B37 most of all.

Look, in addition to the top-line reasoning--bad prosecution, adequate defense, judge's instructions--do we seriously believe that this verdict has nothing to do with the jury being composed of six white women? I mean, aside from known problems with verdicts in six-person juries (Google it), a racially and gender-homogenous jury? In Florida? And race didn't play a role? Oh my paws and whiskers, it strains credibility to believe that this woman is honest, but sure, it's theoretically possible. I didn't hear all the evidence, what the fuck do I know?

Let's move on. I was sitting in a doctor's office--and, full disclosure, my pneumonia is weakly relapsing and I'm doing another round of medical shit and another round of heavy fucking drugs and another round of attempting to rest, this attempt much less successful than the first, but I just started that, so cut me a break, but the point is I'm in a really bad fucking mood, and I'm not really predisposed to give anyone talking about this any more than reasonable doubt as to their honesty, so it's really kinda surprising that I went so light on such a disingenous piece of shit as Juror B37--actually, it was the radiologist's office, and CNN was on the big teevee in the waiting room, tuned to CNN, which is actually how I even heard any of Juror B37's line, because I would ordinarily and otherwise ignore CNN fapping. Anyway, it was whatever CNN polished media tart comes after the Noon of the Wolf, and she was talking to the President of Morehouse College, and some media blonde who founded the Daily Download and now whores for the Daily Beast, and Emily Pinchface-Whitebread, who is as I understand it the head of opinionation for the Washington Moonie Times, who argues that obviously Zimmerman was innocent, Florida should never have charged him, of course Trayvon Martin was a brutal criminal, and the President is a nigger. She cut off the President of Morehouse College, called him irresponsible for even discussing race in this context, and blasted the Daily Beast broad when she accused Ms. Pinchface-Whitebread of not discussing the matter civilly.

Okay, now I'm cherry-picking obvious examples of extreme dishonesty. Kinda like every fucking creepy ass cracker who's reading about one low-grade near-riot in LA and screaming, "Look, niggers are violent, we told you so!"

But wait, there's more. And no, I'm not going to start talking about Edward "I Am Not An Attention Whore" Snowden, famous attention whore, or Glenn "I Have Never Been Wrong and You Are Morally Reprehensible For Disagreeing With Me" Greenwald, famous Brazilian correspondent for a famous British newspaper known for its unerring accuracy (okay, you got me: actual British people mostly refer to it as "The Gruniad").

Yeah, fine. Cheap, tangential, opportunistic, and a little dirty. Like I said, bad mood. Sincere sorries.

But there really is more. Loomis, who some of you don't actually understand, some of you willfully so, points to Dick Cohen's breathtakingly racist column in YFWP. From Cohen: 

I don’t like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I don’t know whether Zimmerman is a racist. But I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the United States, I am a racist. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.

...

Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? 

...

After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. [My note: This based on an NYPD statistic that 78 percent of shooting suspects are black.] 

Loomis' added value:

Where is the politician who will openly race bait? Where is the politician who will call for racial profiling? Where are our leaders in this time of political correctness, where blacks have everything handed to them on the plate? 

Yup. I think it's pretty clear that Richard Cohen is, in fact, being dishonest. Maybe that's his job. Loomis also hat-tips Atrios' previous ode to Cohen's racism. And of course, Cohen is a go-to for every leftish blogger who wants to talk about racism in media. Just being honest.

Let's sum: failing to acknowledge that race has a role in this discussion? Dishonest. Shut up and go away. A particular verdict was necessary or legal or correct? Dishonest. Shut up and go away. Zimmerman utterly blameless? Dishonest or ignorant. Shut up and go away. "I understand George Zimmerman"? Definitely too fucking stupid to opine, possibly dishonest. Shut up and go away.

I think there's plausibly reasonable doubt about most of the rest.

[Edited 90 minutes later to fix background problem in block quotes. Which were appearing as a total whiteout. Heh. I made a funny.]