Friday, July 12

A responsible president would explicitly call for no rioting or assaults if GZ is acquitted

I'm not following the Zimmerman trial very closely, but I gather that just yesterday--with the trial almost over and the prosecution widely said to have presented a weak case--the prosecutor suddenly asked the judge to amend the charges to include two lesser charges.  Presumably this was so if the jury didn't convict on the original charge, it could convict on a lesser one.

I understand it's not uncommon to add charges, but to do so at the last minute is a huge injustice--because the defense doesn't have a chance to put on *any* defense against the lesser charges.

Obviously the prosecutor knew he was planning to do this.  And the judge shouldn't have allowed it at the last minute.  That she did allow it speaks to a second, larger point:

With the trial essentially over, the barest whispers of speculation are starting to appear in the Lying Media about what will happen if--by some wild chance--Zimmerman is acquitted.  The actual subject of the concern typically is never mentioned:  how extensive will black rioting be?

You'd think the government would have a huge stake in preventing any rioting.  With that in mind, a responsible president would go on national television and sternly advise "people" (cuz you couldn't say "blacks" cuz, raacism) not to riot or attack others after a verdict is reached.

If I lived in a large city I'd certainly want the president to do everything possible to ensure no riots.  But I suspect the extent of Obama's prescription for no rioting is for the jury to return a guilty verdict on the murder charge.

Maybe Obama will act responsibly.  But I suspect he won't because doing so would be viewed as criticizing or oppressing blacks--something he simply can't bring himself to do.  It's the same reason he never criticizes Muslims, no matter what outrageous butchery they commit.


Oh well.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home