[lbo-talk] zimmerman not guilty

[Wojtek S]

What I meant to say that racism likely played a significant role in Z's
acquittal. How else do you explain it in the light of the undisputed fact
that it was Z who started the brawl, so Martin responded to an unprovoked
attack. Only a racist prejudice that Z somehow had to stand his ground,
whether that idiotic law was invoked or not, can lead to an interpretation
that he "defended" himself.

Wojtek
Sent from my Droid
On Jul 14, 2013 12:28 PM, <knowknot at mindspring.com> wrote:


>
> Re: [lbo-talk] zimmerman not guilty
>
> On 7/14/2013, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>  Did you expect anything different
>>  from a Southern jury?
>>
>
> The acquittal almost certainly has very little to do with "a Southern
> jury" in the sense apparently implied and, instead, by the trial being
> (even if not deliberately) one of the most incompetently prepared and tried
> criminal prosecutions especially of a high profile case that one is likely
> to see.
>
> It is easy to make a list of obvious things the prosecution should have
> done but did not do and of things that (with some exceptions by the two
> younger lawyers) the prosecution chose to do but should not have done or
> did (at best) ineffectually.
>
> BTW, except for the media frenzy from the outset of Z's non-arrest and
> ensuing incessant bloviating about it - e.g., on an important day of the
> Bradley Manning trial, which he hasn't even mentioned much less
> informatively covered, MSNBC's mostly execrable Chris Matthews referred Z's
> trial as "The Most Important Criminal Case In The Country!!!" - it was an
> essentially trivial case and trivial trial.
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>