It's Always Racism, Stupid

The prevailing denial of the prevailing fact in the U.S. -- racism -- mainly on the part of a much too large segment of the controlling so-called "white" population, but also smaller but still noticeable slices of other ethnic groups, even including some among the very people who have had to bear the lion's share of all that long-running, kneejerk hatred -- so-called "black people" -- causes me to awaken each morning with extreme discomfort.   This is because, despite all the nitwit statements to the contrary, no end to the racism is anywhere in sight, and though I don't like to predict anything, absolutely nothing exists to suggest that any end or even a light amelioration of it is even possible.  Instead it seems there is a better chance of being able to journey to Mars on an escalator tomorrow than there is for any "black" person (other than the completely deluded and also unscrupulous ones) to see a day when their presence in this land, more than that of any other group, will not be resented, deeply and completely.  And somehow, some way, they will keep hearing about it forever and anon, now that the continuous resentment of "white" conservatives to the double elections of B. Obama has made open expressions of racism so fashionable, 

One reason the Trayvon Martin case is so important, is that it bears out this contention so starkly.

The killing of Trayvon Martin was clearly a racially motivated capital crime, and yet the judge seemed to be collaborating with the defense in trying to prevent any mention of racial motives from being considered.  At the very beginning she decreed that the prosecution could not even use the term "racial profiling."

Still the fact remains that George Zimmerman, the self-appointed and clearly mentally challenged spotter, stalker, and eventual executioner of Trayvon Martin, would not have been the least bit interested in the youth if Martin had not been clearly identifiable as being of the despised hue, and Zimmerman indicated that by using "black" as one of the identifying characteristics of his quarry during one of the calls he made to the police.  And the state of Florida, one of the least enlightened of the states, would not have downgraded this essentially premeditated murder to the status of a non-capital crime if Martin had been the color of Zimmerman's father.

But Zimmerman did stalk and eventually kill the unarmed teenager in cold blood, confident that the consequences would be light to non-existent because his father is not only a so-called “white” person but also is, or was, some kind of a judge, and in that arm of the crime industry called "the Law," all -- or nearly all -- of its participants stick together.

Zimmerman had reason to feel especially connected with the police because, as came out in trial testimony, he was encouraged to appoint himself watchman over the community by a policewoman, even though the local neighborhood association kept itself clear of that.   No  matter.   It’s still well-known that the police pretty much have carte blanche to kill young, "black," males, and that after varying periods of inconvenience they will eventually be let completely off the hook under the aegis of that traditional and infamous police alibi:"justifiable homicide."

And that state of Florida did downgrade the charge against Zimmerman to second-degree murder, and so, because that is not considered to be a capital crime, the case is being tried not even with a jury consisting of the regular 12 members that one would expect but only half that number.   And furthermore all six are of the same gender, female, and only one is not "white," being Hispanic instead, like the defendant's mother.   And none, not even any of the four alternates, is "black."  In this day and time this sort of jury cherry-picking would seem to be improper and even illegal.   Can the lack of an outcry be as good a sign as any that no one really expects justice to be done in this case?   Not, at least, in Florida.

 All in all, going by the standards prevalent in most of the rest of the U.S., this is a miniature jury, filled with women who professed to have no prior knowledge of the case, and so it has been dubbed by some as "the Incurious Jury."

Nevertheless one wonders how could they not have known about the Trayvon Martin case?  At the time of the shooting, it was all over the national news, and for a while, too.   And as women, as mothers or potential mothers, wouldn't they have been interested in the central fact of some mother's child having been killed on his way home after having invested at a convenience store in nothing more than some tea and a bag of Skittles, even if that mother wasn't the preferred color?

This leads one to wonder next why hopefully uninformed people like this are considered by attorneys, whether on the defense or on the attack, to be the most desirable jurors?   The excuse in this case is something notably weak, notably that women have many other concerns to take care of, and so they have no time to be up on current events.  But, unless I am badly mistaken, being well informed is still considered to be a sign of real intelligence, and in all trials of any importance, especially those involving the death of a human being (and Trayvon Martin WAS a human being), wouldn't it be best to have people of real intelligence deciding the outcome, instead of a collection of pleasant and nice-looking know-nothings (if that is how these ladies were thought to be)?

But no.  The law, or the Constitution, or the Magna Carta, or somebody has decreed that juries must consist of one's peers, which I assume means people in the defendant's general situation in life.   And so it must have been decided by both the defense and the prosecution that these six ladies approximate George Zimmerman's peers.   The news didn't say so, and it may be malicious, but, looking at the defendant, I can't help wondering if they asked all the potential jurors how much experience they had had in riding to school in the short buses?