Amateur Lawyers Writing Scathing Briefs In Their Scathing Briefs
By Mitch Berg
If you’re a conservative who’s spent the past decade or two assailing theStar Tribune’srigorous editorial pro-DFL, pro-“progressive”, pro-leftist bias, there’s some good news.
Sorta.
But we’ll get back to that later.
Jay Larson of Saint Bonifacius t is apparently upset about the Zimmerman verdict, and has apparently seen enough episodes of Law and Order that he feels himself quite the Monday Morning county attorney, in an op-ed that the Strib opted to run in preference to goodness knows how many intelligent pieces they could have run:
In response to the July 15 editorial “Due process plays out in Zimmerman case”: Really?
It is a given that the state of Florida was dragged into the Zimmerman case kicking and screaming because of public pressure from the black community.
Now, I’m sure to Mr. Larson that means something different than it does to people who actually care about justice.
For most of us, the fact that the State of Florida – which is never shy about prosecuting people they believe to have committed crimes, and carrying out sentences with frothy abandon (from a large, full prison system to a legendarily-busy electric chair) didn’t opt to press charges was pretty clear evidence that there was no there there; that the homicide, tragic as it is, was justified on its face under the laws on the books in the sovereign state of Florida.
To Jay Larson – who apparently believes Sam Waterson was a real lawyer – it means the “justice” system does, and should, respond to whomever cheers or jeers the loudest.
Due process? What due process? I was appalled at the lack of zeal with which the prosecution tried this case. It allowed the key witness, a young uneducated black girl, to testify without being properly prepared — a girl for whom English was her third language and who was quite evidently intimidated.
“English was her third language?”
Does that sound racist to anyone but me?
And to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to trial with the witnesses you have, not the witnesses you want. While Mr. Larson would apparently have preferred the prosectors hire Halle Berry to play the role of Ms. Jeantel, it would seem to be an irreducible fact that the “uneducated” Ms. Jeantel was the best the prosecution could find on one years’ notice.
Next, the prosecution brought the lead detective, who was supposedly there to bolster the prosecution’s case. He testified that he was certain that George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Why did he say that as a prosecution witness?
Offhand, I’d say “that he felt committing perjury would be a bad career move?”
I’ll give Mr. Larson of Saint Freaking Bonnie this much; he apparently watches a broad range of TV. In addition to the diet of Law and Order that apparently qualifies him to back-seat-drive the prosecutors’ office, he also apparently watches enough CSI or NCIS to fancy himself quite the investigator:
There were so many inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s story of the events that night it was absurd to think that he was telling the truth. For instance, Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin punched him 25 times and slammed his head against the sidewalk an additional 25 times.
If someone has been hit in the face 25 times, that person is going to exhibit a lot of bruising and swelling around the lips and eyes. Zimmerman had none. If his head had been slammed against the sidewalk 25 times, where is the concussion, where is the blood, where is the swelling?
Well, he doesn’t look quite curb-ready in these crime-time photos:
I’m neither a doctor nor Jay Larson, but this looks painful.
And I suspect when you’re getting your head slammed against a cement sidewalk ones count might not be utterly accurate. Adrenaline makes detailed actions like “keeping running totals of how many times you’ve been punched and slammed to the pavement” difficult; also. And I know this not just because the slamming illogic and assumption of Mr. Larson’s piece is making it difficult to think – it is, but it’s not from adrenaline, trust me – but because it’s one of those things they teach you in carry permit training, if nowhere else.
How could Zimmerman have been constantly screaming if his mouth was covered by Trayvon’s hand and blood was running down his throat from his broken nose?
Question. Perhaps because his mouth wasn’t constantly covered, perhaps?
Where was the blood that should have been on Martin’s hands?
If he was slamming the head on the ground rather than punching it – as, by the way, the prosecution said he did? There’d be no blood.
How exactly did Zimmerman pull out his gun from his interior holster if he was laying on it? (Additionally, it would have been covered by Martin’s legs if Zimmerman was truly on the bottom as he claimed.)
Good point. Clearly Zimmerman had his gun drawn as he walked onto the scene, pointing it where he was looking like a wanna-be cop, and waited until he’d been pummeled into near-submission before shooting.
Alternately; the holster was accessible enough – which isn’t that hard to believe if Mr. Martin had normal legs, or was sitting facing Martin rather than away from himn, pinning the gun to Zimmerman’s stomach with his butt.
As to this next bit (in which I’ll add emphasis)…:
There was no due process in that courtroom. The only process exhibited there was the Jim Crow process of the old South. Granted, this wasn’t the lynching of a black man after a quicky trial. Rather it was the unlynching of a white man who murdered a black child.
I’m wondering if Mr. Larson is even a capable enough writer to know that he’s tacitly admitting that the malicious prosecution and mob-rule attack on Zimmerman was a “lynching”.
Oh, yeah – the “good news” I talked about at the top? Here it is:
For years, I’ve believed that the Strib editorial board would cherry-pick the letters and op-eds they’d print. Now, that’s their right – but I’ve believed (not without justification) that they did it to slant the perception of their reading public by printing letters and op-eds from well-spoken, thoughtful (if usually wrong) liberals, along with a distortedly-pejorative sample of conservatives that sounded like cranks, crackpots and stereotypes.
And the “good” news would seem to be that the Strib, by printing the likes of Mr. Larson, is now giving the left at least a little of the same short, dismal shrift.
It’s fairer, I suppose. But is it really progress?
July 17th, 2013 at 8:04 am
Spot on Mitch. My impression of media-trained attorneys like Mr. Larson is the same as that of media-trained doctors: they’re ignorant of the basic facts of the profession and they wouldn’t recognize a logical statement if it sat on their chests. I’m not sure the Strib was attempting to hold him up for ridicule however. I don’t give them that much credit.
July 17th, 2013 at 8:42 am
It might be fun to invite Jay Larson, Dog Gone, Emery, to lay out their theories of What Really Happened and link each step to the evidence adduced at trial.
Zimmerman’s busted nose and bleeding head prove he was the aggressor, how, exactly? Treyvon’s knees being wet prove he was lying on his back how, exactly?
We might get a great screenplay out of it for a made-for-BTV movie. Tyrel Jackson Williams can play Treyvon, Luis Guzman can play Zimmerman and, of course, Beyonce would play Jeantel. Based (loosely) on a true story.
.
July 17th, 2013 at 8:49 am
I don’t know Joe, I’m not sure Beyonce can capture the true porcine malevolence of Jeantel
July 17th, 2013 at 9:35 am
There were so many inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s story of the events that night it was absurd to think that he was telling the truth.
Zimmerman did not testify at his trial. These remarks came from his statement to police. According to Zimmerman’s written statement, Martin covered his nose and mouth with his hand after banging his head on the ground. He had been shouting for help while Martin banged his head. Zimmerman couldn’t breathe through Martin’s hand. He managed to slide down enough to expose his weapon, which he then drew and used to shoot Martin.
Larson would have known this if he read the source document (easily accessible online) instead of relying on opinion and analysis presented by MSNBC or found on some Lefty blog.
And keep in mind that Zimmerman did not know that Martin was a minor, did not know that Martin was unarmed, and did not know that Martin was returning to his father’s house by cutting through backyards rather than along the street.
I agree with Joe Doakes. Let the people who do not believe Zimmerman fired his weapon in self-defense explain what they think happened, and compare it to the evidence and witness testimony presented.
July 17th, 2013 at 10:31 am
Zimmerman did not know that Martin was a minor, did not know that Martin was unarmed, and did not know that Martin was returning to his father’s house
Skittles, you forgot THE Skittle defence!
July 17th, 2013 at 10:47 am
The people of Duluth also participated in a famous social engineering project in the early part of the 20th century. Justice based on the demands of the majority, (or of the majority of those present at the time), was meted out to three circus workers accused of sexual assault. The event can be studied in the book by Michael Fedo, “The Lynchings in Duluth.” It was originally published with a very politically incorrect title.
At least Mr. Larson’s introduction of the word “lynching” was able to provide a useful analogy (although not the one he intended).
July 17th, 2013 at 11:23 am
“English was her third language?”
Yes. Ghetto (“My thoughts of the jury, they old, that’s old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation…”), Creole, and finally a distant third we have American English.
July 17th, 2013 at 11:24 am
Sorry, I forgot to close the link and besides, it didn’t exactly go to the quote but to something else…
July 17th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Forgive my single-mindedness, but I cannot let the contrast between the reaction of the media, Obama and leftist scumbags during the horrific trial of mass murderer Kermit Gosnell and the cut and dried self defense case of Zimmerman.
Obama stands out especially, in that he has made it a trademark to stick his nose into cases that have an impact on the social consciousness of the country, but only when it serves his own, low, purposes.
Do these people not think we see what they are, or is it they just don’t care?
July 17th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
They are pandering to 50%+1 portion of the populace that gets them elected. They do not give a damn about the others.
July 17th, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Mn GOP candidates should promote “Stand Your Ground” legislation as a part of their 2014 campaign.
July 17th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
From your mouth to God’s ears, Emery.
Of course, it would help if we could rename it “No More Running Away” or perhaps “Honest Citizens Take Back The Streets” to explain why it’s necessary.
July 17th, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Stand Your Ground? I heard that that was crap legislation, Emery. I don’t know why it is, and I’ve been waiting for someone to explain it to me.
July 17th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I got the answer. To assuage dim witted lefties like Peni who are froZe stiff to regulate *something* lethal while giving a well earned respite to those of us who’ve had to listen to their mind numbing twaddle for too long, I suggest MN pass strict regulations, restrictions and registrations for the possession of a suction curette.
That make your tinfoil hat vibrate Peni?
July 17th, 2013 at 9:03 pm
You sound like you’re posturing again swiftee. A principled individual would have a backbone and stand-up for what they believe. “Stand Your Ground” should be included in the MN GOP Platform.
July 17th, 2013 at 9:20 pm
A principled individual would have a backbone and stand-up for what they believe.
Advises the preeminent sophist on the board.
July 17th, 2013 at 9:33 pm
I also agree with Emery. However, Minnesota’s current laws governing the lawful use of force make SYG legislation unnecessary.
Still, if that were not the case, the MN GOP might be wise to do so. First, they should put their money where their mouths and philosophical roots are and start representing their conservative branch.
Second, if the anti-gun groups and race baiters continue to overplay their hands regarding the Zinnerman verdict, many current nay-sayers and fence sitters may start to personalize the need for self-protection and see the logic of its proponents.
Should these come to pass, the GOP would be foolish not to promote more stringent Second Amendment protections next time out …
July 17th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Polls show a plurality of Americans believe the Zimmerman verdict was just.
Since the lefty media has been working like mad to tie stand your ground to the Zimmerman case, maybe the national GOP should embrace it (don’t know about MN GOP).
Anyway, I’ve been telling youse guys for years (seems like it, anyway) that the Lefty push against concealed carry and stand your ground is based on the idea that these laws are racist, because Lefties are well aware that minorities are over represented in committing street crimes and property crimes. It’ll be hillbillies shooting black people and hispanics, and they don’t like that. Doesn’t matter if they deserve it, doesn’t matter if the 2nd amendment demands it, doesn’t matter if the crime stats say it will result in peace and order for all Americans.
July 17th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Just look at the success the NRA had at framing and defeating proposed gun legislation, both in MN and nationally.
July 18th, 2013 at 8:31 am
The model for current Minnesota self-defense law is Sir Robin The Chicken-Hearted, whose motto is Run Away!
If you can safely retreat, you must do so. The streets belong to the criminals. Sane, law-abiding adults are REQUIRED to retreat, to run away, to cower, to shrink, to hide.
Under current Minnesota law, the only people allowed to defend themselves outside the home are people who physically cannot retreat, criminals who own the streets already, and cops who get paid to take bullets. Everyone else must Run Away or spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Liberals think that’s how society ought to be structured: criminals own the streets, citizens cower behind locked doors. That’s plainly what the Founders intended, right? Why would we change that?
.
July 18th, 2013 at 10:45 am
Joe,
There’ve been exceptions to your description of MN’s self-defense law. People are required to run away if they reasonably can.
MN has had “Castle Doctrine” via case law inside the home since, IIRC, 2004.
In both of the current relevant self-defense justifiable homicides outside the home – the Grumpy’s shooting and the Evanovich incident – the shooters didn’t have the reasonable option of retreat, and the Henco Attorney’s office, mirabile dictu, didn’t pull such an expectation de anus.
On the other hand, the Anoka County attorney squatted all over Martin Treptow, although it wasn’t on Duty to Retreat grounds.
July 18th, 2013 at 10:48 am
First, they should put their money where their mouths and philosophical roots are and start representing their conservative branch.
The GOP drove a bipartisan majority to pass SYG in the 2012 session. Governor Messinger vetoed it.
I expect pro-Second-Amendment backlash from the DFL’s gun-grab orgy will help give us a few new GOP legislators in the next election.
July 18th, 2013 at 11:11 am
A principled individual would have a backbone and stand-up for what they believe. “Stand Your Ground” should be included in the MN GOP Platform.
vs
The GOP drove a bipartisan majority to pass SYG in the 2012 session. Governor Messinger vetoed it.
Hmmm. “Say” vs “Do”. Well, we’ve always known for EmeryTheSoci@listDegenerate it is all about blowing hot air.
July 18th, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Turn that frown upside-down jpa.