Friday, July 19, 2013

So is the president going to talk about the riots?

So, as bash mobs sweep through Southern California, I have to wonder - will the president be spending much time telling people not to riot, attack bystanders, or smash anything over being upset that a man the state had insufficient evidence to find guilty was not, ultimately, found guilty?

Or have we reached the point where it's just acceptable for certain classes of people to cause crime and vandalism when they dislike a political outcome?


whiteroseofsummer said...

My question is why are there bash mobs in California at all? The alleged murder (which was ultimately proven not to be) took place in Florida. Is it that these people are simply looking for any opportunity to make trouble?

malcolmthecynic said...

Here's something else about that case. Let's say, though we have no actual evidence of this and are only assuming it, that Zimmerman found Martin suspicious because he was black. Let's say that, despite police warnings, he followed him. Let's say he provoked the attack verbally. By provoked I do not mean challenging him to a fight. I mean, say, calling him a punk or some such thing.

EVEN THEN George Zimmerman would not be guilty of murder, because Trayvon Martin attacked him and was slamming his head into the ground. Shooting him was STILL self-defense.

That's something I think people keep forgetting - that even if his following of MArtin WAS racially motivated, shooting Martin was STILL not a crime if Martin really started bashing his head into the ground, especially with the evidence they had.

I feel like innocent until proven guilty is forgotten a lot of the time. I remember seeing a "Law and Order: SVU" episode where the ending was left ambiguous. A man was accused of rape, and both him and the woman accusing him sounded completely honest.

The thing is, we're not supposed to know the verdict. But the man on trial should have been found innocent, because the evidence was not enough to establish that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the whole point of the ambiguous ending.

It's also the whole problem with "trial by media"; if the media convicts somebody the jury damn well better follow, or there will be blood. Nobody likes the idea of innocent until proven guilty with people they don't like, but you bet they'll all become fans if they're ever accused of a crime.

Nicholas Rose said...

I remember that episode Law & Order: SVU. I believe the episode title is "Doubt." Go figure. I agree. Our standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury had any reasonable doubt then they did their job when they acquitted him.

Same thing with the Casey Anthony case. True, her behavior and her lies certainly proved that she was a dishonest and unscrupulous human being, but there simply was no smoking gun that could have held her responsible for the death of her daughter in a court of law.

A friend a mine has another name for these "trials by media." He calls them distractions and I could not agree more.