Wed. Jul 24th, 2024
by Ken Carman

  Large numbers attempting to get on a jury, willing to lie about their agenda: acquit George.
 People willing to lie about their desire to convict Mr. Zimmerman trying get on the jury…
 Really? Is this we need in a justice system? Is the justice system to become a contest between which side has better Pinocchios?
 One might argue it’s the next illogical step in an already corrupt system.
 I’ve written many times about the injustice that has been built into our justice system, and I have written several times about the Zimmerman case. Never did I imagine this case could become a focal point of all that’s wrong with what might more accurately be referred to as an “injustice system” sometimes. The Zimmerman case, viewed properly connects many dots indicating how corrupt the justice system has become.
 Now citizen advocates are doing all they can to make it worse.
 The precedent was already there….
 Once upon a time our pinocchios were just paid, and coached, professionals who showed up at, oh let’s say, every tobacco trial. Or criminals offered sweetheart deals to tell nasty tales about what very well may be an innocent man or woman: often having shorter sentences dangled in front of them to entice them to say what one side wants them to say.
 And, in my opinion, in the Zimmerman case deals the prosecution has made stink to high hell. The prosecution in the Zimmerman case has agreed not to mention many things: most bothersome that he was told not get out of his vehicle.
 Because he had already gotten out of his vehicle.
 So, in other words, he was being even more aggressive in his pursuit means you can’t mention that at all? Is the prosecution trying to lose this case?
 I have already suggested such because they insisted on over charging George. I understand the rage driven desire to convict him of murder, but we certainly can prove his actions led to Trayvon’s death. That’s manslaughter. Can we prove intent?
 Very hard.
 Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath for a prosecution which would agree to a defense team’s dream laundry list to be able to pursue such a difficult conviction, especially after agreeing not to talk about him even getting out of his vehicle.
 And those who back George? I’m sure they’re shaking their heads at some of what was agreed to, if not at the defense’s opening performance.
 But people willing to lie to get on a jury because it suits their hatred for a kid with a hoodie? Or because they hate George?
 This is one hell of a giant ripple in the justice system, and something we absolutely don’t need. There’s already so much wrong with our justice system. For example the idea that one can plea to a lesser charge is wrong. I know it’s considered a lubricant, but do we want fast justice, or fair justice?
 While plea bargaining may make provide lubrication it’s about as close to true justice as buying sex is to love. Guilty people get off too easy for their sins and reenter society sooner to commit crimes again, innocent people go to prison because it’s easier to succumb being sentenced to a lesser sentence than spend the money to defeat the state… a “state” with a bottomless pocket book and a big hard on for sticking it to both the politically convenient, and the politically inconvenient.
  Witnesses; a major part of trials, are notoriously unreliable: especially when the state finds one criminal, one unreliable person, and makes a deal to get them to say what’s needed to convict someone who may well be innocent.
 The witnesses to Trayvon’s extermination have proven equally unreliable: shifting their stories back and forth. That’s not totally unexpected, for no one saw, or heard, exactly what happened: just bits and pieces.
  I knew all this, and I suspect many of my readers did too. That’s why I have written about what I refer to as the “injustice” system before.
 But I sat up and listened when I heard about a potential juror who lied in the Zimmerman case. He was asked about his having any connection to either side: George Zimmerman or Trayvon Williams, and answered, “No.” Apparently he gave money to George’s defense fund but said he had no connection. When discovered, and asked, he said he could still “keep an open mind.”
 One of the lawyers mentioned this has become a big problem in past years when selecting jurors: people with agendas doing and saying anything to get on select juries: including outright lying.
 In a time where any lie, any fabrication, any form of slander or libel, is acceptable as long as the agenda is politically, or socially, “correct:” this has to be very frightening.
 We live in a time when your organization is “convicted” in the court of public opinion because an activist dresses up like a pimp and then edits down his expose’ as if that’s how he scammed his targets.
 We live in a day when recordings are edited to derail a political appointee by making that appointees to say something that doesn’t represent what they really said. The edit is damn obvious: but that doesn’t matter.
 We live in an era when one’s commitment to what one believes is more like belonging to a Jimmy Jones/Children of God-like cult where anything is justified to get converts for the cause, or make them drink the Kool Aid.
 Our justice system exists in a time where armchair pundits proclaim George a hero for killing that “punk,” then may go out and try to get on that jury. And maybe there are those on the other side who believe him innocent who may wish to do the same.
 But these two do not balance each other out, for most of us simply wanted this investigated, tried in court. Despite stand your ground, simply claiming you were defending yourself after killing the only witness should never be “good enough.”
 The elephant size question in the philosophical room here is: how many overall are able to lie well enough to become jurors, especially a highly charged cases like this? They are termites: eating the already fragile, rotted, wood that barely supports our justice system.
 Honestly: there was a time when, as a nation, we agreed on this matter: no matter what we believed. My father was a Bill Buckley conservative, his friend and fellow commuter into NYC: Gene Setzer, was a Roosevelt Democrat. I know neither would have ever tried to do this. Why? Because it’s dishonest, it’s being a scam artist and so obviously wrong: no matter how much you agree with the defense or the prosecution.
 But times have changed.
 I can’t think of any case these days with more riding on an objective jury able to weigh both sides, able to assess guilt or innocence without an agenda. And I can’t think of another case where I have debated with so many folks so committed to the guilt, or innocence, of Trayvon or George. And I can’t think of another court case I’ve debated in years where one side is so dedicated to smearing the other, and justifying their “hero.” I imagine they would gleefully do anything, say anything, just to make sure a trial turns out as they want.
 At least it was obvious when the fictional Pinocchio lied. But how do we make damn sure this doesn’t happen to our courts, our juries? People’s noses don’t grow when they lie, and a fair justice system requires a public willing not to game the system to get the politically correct results they want. And a society with any borderline decent justice system would have to be able to make damn sure such scam artists never sit on any jury.
 Not sure we have that kind of society anymore.


Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

©Copyright 2013
Ken Carman and Cartentual Productions
all rights reserved

By Ken Carman

Retired entertainer, provider of educational services, columnist, homebrewer, collie lover, writer of songs, poetry and prose... humorist, mediocre motorcyclist, very bad carpenter, horrid handyman and quirky eccentric deluxe.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Tick
The Tick
11 years ago

It is simple for me – Zimmerman pursued and confronted Trayvon, if he had stayed in his car has instructed there would not have been a fight… If you start a fight with someone and then you need a gun because you are losing the fight that you started – you cannot claim self defense! The problem is the ‘Stand your ground’ law the NRA pushed – it enables such a stupid defense to get beyond the laugh factor… In some ways I think things may be better in the UK – in that such high news coverage would have been blocked until AFTER the trial, where as here 90% of the educated public has already made up their mind, meaning if you have not made up your mind – – you are not really connected to the outside world. I learned so much about this trial without even trying to look it up, without seeking out news, it was spoon-fed to me! As far as I can tell the gun toting crowd is afraid this will dismantle their incredibly stupid ‘Stand your ground’ law and are more concerned with that than justice, that and the victim was not white…

The Tick
The Tick
11 years ago

The entire ‘Stand your ground’ law is stupid, the idea of comparing the situation of someone breaking into your house with that of someone arguing with you in a parking lot is ludicrous! Since that law has been passed the number of people shot in its name with no court cases is embarassing…

The Tick
The Tick
11 years ago

There was a news article a few months ago about an old man shooting a kid in a station wagon at a gas station because the teenagers would not turn down their music, and he claimed ‘Stand your ground’ defense!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x