Friday, April 13, 2012

The People vs. George Zimmerman: How's It Going To End?

In a word: Badly.

Zimmerman was taken into custody on politically motivated second-degree murder charges in the death of Trayvon Martin.  At least that's what I am hearing from Alan Dershowitz:

 “This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.” Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit.

“It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz. Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman.

I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.

And what will happen when the jury - unswayed by political motivations - returns a not guilty verdict?   Remember Los Angles, 1992?  I do:

And what will Barack Obama do?  Nothing, at first. The actions (or inactions) of New York's first black mayor, David Dinkins, during the Crown Heights riots of 1991 is the precedent that will be followed:

Mayor Dinkins hesitated to deploy vast numbers of police to stop the rioting because he had been elected as a peacemaker. During the Crown Heights Riot, Dinkins stood on the stairs of a police temporary headquarters vehicle and addressed the several hundred police officers who were there for roll call. He stated the reason he had not allowed the police to stop the rioters was that "the community needed to be allowed to vent". He stated that he did not want the police to intercede too quickly to avoid escalating the rioter's behavior. However, this strategy proved disastrous....

More on the Dinkins/Obama analogy:

...a point that was widely held that fall: that Dinkins would lower the crime rate because disempowered blacks would feel a sense of belonging. Instead, Dinkins' election fired the starting gun for a racial free-for-all and the four worst years, murder-wise, in the city's history. It was Latinos vs. whites in Washington Heights (1992), blacks vs. Koreans in a heated grocery-store dispute (1990) and, in Crown Heights, four nights of unchecked rioting by blacks against Hasidic Jews (1991).

Side note:  Since the Dinkins debacle, the city of New York - 67% Democrat by registration - has elected Republican mayors (or occasionally "independent", as is the case with Michael Bloomberg in 2010) for the last 20 years. For some, that might serve as a warning, but...

Well, Obama and his mob (many of whom are morally indistinguishable from their white-sheeted brethren save for the color of their skin) got what they wanted, for the moment.  But this will spiral out of control at some point, with some citizens fully aware that a man got prosecuted based upon a liberal political agenda, and others using a possible undesired outcome as an excuse to burn down the cities.

Neither will help the Obama re-election campaign.  Just ask David Dinkins...

1 comment:

Drew458 said...

My worry is that the cardinality of "some citizens fully aware" is very small. After all, regular folks get their news and thus their views from CBS, NBC, ABC, and maybe CNN.

And what happens if half or more of the jury is black? Seriously, what happens? Zimmerman fries, regardless of evidence, that's what happens. All you have to do is hold a mirror up to the OJ trial. Which was thrown deliberately to avoid mob riots in LA.

And if the jury is >50% non-black, will the NBPP put out bounties on the members of the jury? Will they get "suited and booted" and start the race war they're screaming for? (not that they would stand a chance in any real battle form)