As I’ve mentioned earlier on this site, when people march in the streets for “justice” in a cross-racial homicide, they’re rarely after justice; they’re usually after revenge. The national news, a few evenings ago, showed blacks marching in the streets demanding “justice for Trayvon,” the black 14-year-old killed by neighborhood watch member George Zimmerman. What about justice for Mr. Zimmerman? I wonder if those marchers have ever heard the Pledge of Allegiance. If so, they’d remember the closing line, “…with liberty and justice for ALL.”
Unfortunately, the pendulum of the civil rights movement has swung well past center, so now too many blacks think that they should be immune to all responsibility and consequences. I still think that if George’s last name had been “Alvarez,” the blacks would have been at least a LITTLE slower to rage in the streets. Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect they imagined that they were dealing with some skin-head neo-Nazi when they heard a German name. Of course, to save face, they couldn’t back down when they learned that Zimmerman was from another minority. Then again, maybe it wouldn’t have made any difference, since black gangs and Hispanic gangs often clash on the streets. I saw what I think were some of the jury members that had been chosen for that trial a couple nights ago. Of course, they were black. Considering that 95% of black voters were foolish enough to vote for Obama a SECOND time, I can’t help but wonder about the likelihood of them listening to any facts about the Zimmerman case.
That isn’t the only thing that bothers me about that trial, though. It will be tried by a jury of only six members, NOT twelve. People have been sold a bill of goods that we needed to cut costs on trials, and that halving the size of the jury was the best way to do it in some cases or jurisdictions. That leaves the rest of a defendant’s life hanging on the moods and whims of only half a jury. I find that scary. I believe it may be just one step in the desired direction of the powers-that-be, however. I look for there to eventually be a move to drop the jury size to three members, and eventually to no jury at all, only a judge. Wouldn’t THAT a sure-fire fair trial?
Another thing that I think is foolish is trying to find jurors at this point who have either never heard of the whole affair, OR have heard of it and profess to have formed no opinions, whatsoever. It seems to me that they should want people informed enough to have heard of it, but MATURE enough to change their mind if facts contradict any opinions that they may have formed. The jury they seek would be comprised either of liars, idiots, or a mix of the two. For Mr. Zimmerman’s sake, I hope they don’t get exactly the jury that either the attorneys or the judge profess to want.
Yes, I have an opinion on the matter. I don’t know how anyone who’s heard everything on the news COULDN’T form an opinion. But I also realize that the media can’t be trusted to get out ALL the facts, so nothing is cut in stone with me. Then again, I also know that many judges will not allow many relevant facts to be told in court, even though they demand that witnesses tell the WHOLE truth. I’m glad that I’m not in Mr. Zimmerman’s shoes; but who’s to say that YOU OR I won’t be in that very situation tomorrow? May God have mercy on this insane nation! © 2013-