Monday, July 15, 2013

Fred Reed on the Zimmerman Trial

Caution: For those afflicted with politically correct sensibilities, this is likely to be offensive.
Has there ever been such focused inattention as the case has produced? Nothing of importance is noticed, and everything lacking it is. The crucial fact to come out of the whole adventure—crucial, and therefore utterly overlooked--was that  Rachel Jeantel, a prosecution witness and black girl aged nineteen years, can´t read. The grim implication of this fact is confirmed by the illiteracy of tweets from blacks regarding the case. “Ima kill dat dumass cracker be racis.” Here we see as neatly displayed as if in a jewelry box why so many young blacks will go nowhere in the remaining fifty years of their lives. They can´t read, or barely can. In a fading techno-industrial civilization—I use the latter word frivolously—this consigns them to a life on charity. Is this not of more note than who started what?
Read the rest here.

14 comments:

Matushka Anna said...

What a breath of fresh air. Everything else about the trial has just about make me sick.

123 said...

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/52697/rachel-jeantel-s-language-is-english-it-s-just-not-your-english

123 said...

When you back poverty out of educational results the US is #1 in the world. We are beaten by countries like Finland and Canada who invest in alleviating poverty. The realize better educational results at all levels of society (we only do well at the high end where we spend the most money among kids that tend to be from the wealthiest families) as well as much higher rates of social mobility (meritocracy).

Stupid socialists.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

123 - there are proportionally way more poor blacks and Hispanics than whites. When you "back poverty out," you are dropping large numbers of blacks and Hispanics from your data.

Anonymous said...

Don't be surprised when the future comes roaring at you...

Neglecting educationg children obviously results in illiterate, uneducated children...don't be surprised that the resulting adults are who they are.

The U.S. is.... ( you know the phrase)

The Anti-Gnostic said...

More idiocy. The US provides public education to all through high school. Thousands of dollars are spent per pupil per year to provide a basic curriculum of literature, grammar, history, geography and math. And we still have enough money so teenagers can burn excess energy in music and athletics.

We have a "people" problem, not an "education" problem, as in, we persist in this delusion that all people are equally educable.

Jason said...

Spiritual poverty is the problem - and the whole country shares it. There are plenty of illiterate Saints.

Gregory DeLassus said...

The whole Reed essay is such an unparalleled mass of non-sequitur, false equivalence, and question-begging that it would be wearisome to write out a full bill of particulars against it. However, one particular howler strikes me as so appalling that I feel compelled to respond, and as the Reed site does not invite comments, I post the response here.

How many of those emoting about who threw the first punch have read Florida´s case law on the question? For good reasons, it doesn´t matter who punched whom first.

So, as it happens, anyone who wants to can find Florida's caselaw on this point rather easily on Google. If you look, you will see that the most recent case on this subject explains Florida's law on who-threw-the-first-punch thusly:

[T]he use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find that [the defendant]... initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless the force asserted towards the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force...

Call me crazy, but that rather reads as if the caselaw says exactly the opposite of what Fred Reed claims it says. Mind you, I am not saying that the jury was wrong to conclude as it did. I think that the verdict was a fair application of Florida's (appalling and barbaric) law. But for a man ready to pontificate about how idiotic the whole rest of the world is, Mr. Reed seems not to have taken much more effort to get his facts straight than any of the multitude of bloviators he decries.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Gregory
I think you make a good point. Frankly I am not wild about Florida's law which removes some very ancient restraints on armed citizens designed to prevent vigilantism. In most states an armed citizen carries a special legal obligation when outside of their home to avoid if at all possible situations where a violent confrontation can result. They are normally obliged to retreat where that is a safe option if threatened. This is for the very good reason that when a gun is present in a physical altercation the odds of someone ending up dead or gravely injured rise exponentially.

I think Zimmerman was not guilty on the law as written in Florida. Morally I think he has some culpability. He chose to stalk and harass an unarmed private citizen going about his lawful occasions. What exactly happened in what order is not clear and probably will never be known with certainty. But I do feel confident that if he had done what the police told him to do and stayed in his car, this tragedy would never have occurred.

And that is a degree of guilt that no court can absolve.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

"Thusly" LOL.

Got your law degree from Google U?

Gregory DeLassus said...

Got your law degree from Google U?

Pretty much. On the other hand, I do not see anything that leads me to believe that Fred Reed is a certified expert on this topic, so I am not inclined to defer to him. He is the one citing "Florida's case law" to prove his point, so it counts against him in my book that the first case on the top of the reporter says that it makes a difference who is the initial aggressor.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Actually, the case law you cited makes it clear that who threw the first punch is not determinative. Read your cited portion again. Slowly and without moving your lips.

Gregory DeLassus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gregory DeLassus said...

Read your cited portion again. Slowly and without moving your lips.

Bracketing your gratuitous swipe, I have read the cited portion again as instructed. I can agree that the matter of who is the initial aggressor is not "determinative." It is possible, under appliable Florida law, to throw the first punch and still legitimately claim self-defense.

This observation does not make Fred Reed any less full of baloney. Reed said that "it doesn´t matter who punched whom first" which is rather a bolder claim than "not determinative." The linked essay is as full of hot-air as any of the "over-coiffed network babes" against whom Mr. Reed rails.