The foolish injustice of calling for "Justice for Trayvon!", after justice has already been served.

I rarely follow criminal trials, because, it seems I know something that most other people seem not to know: I wasn't there.

I wasn't there for the crime and I wasn't there for the trial, therefore I'm not in a position to know, one way or another who did what. THAT is what we have a judicial system for. That's what we have trials for.

If you've been lucky enough to miss out on the relevant details of the matter, or sadly unable to understand them, let's recap, shall we?

• There was a violent incident, and a person died.
• Another person was put on trial for that death, and was just found innocent of murder.
• No one has shown any evidence of tampering with either the evidence or with the jury, and until someone does, that is the end of the matter, justice has been done.
• If someone would like to react violently or riot over it, then that will be the start of a new matter.

Now if that system is being abused, ignored or maliciously altered, then that's something I might be likely to take an interest in it and I might be able to have some additional knowledge of, and an opinion, to offer on it, but to the best of my knowledge there has been no such evidence brought forward (and no, not liking the verdict, is not evidence of wrong doing). Do you have some evidence? Again, evidence, not opinion of news stories. No? Then sorry, not interested. I'm actually more interested in the Royal's new baby... and I'm not the least bit interested in that.

For those who keep trying to get an opinion out of me on the zimmermartin trial, what I had to say about the matter last year, pretty much goes the same for this year:

"If we had a way of knowing what happened and who was to blame, we’d have no need for a Judicial system.

That is the very foundation of the Western concept of Justice, indeed of society. Clearly these people who are so loudly and violently calling ‘for justice!’, have no interest in Justice, whatsoever."

On the other hand, the Left one of course, if government officials, like an Attorney General or a President for instance, would like to raise some noise about trying the case again in order to get a 'better' result... well... that I do have an opinion upon... but there's really way I could fit that in this post, but in lieu of that long long wind, how about simply reviewing the Fifth Amendment? You don't even need to read the whole paragraph, just this clause will do:

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

Of course, if all those years of college 'education' has made it too difficult to actually think about such a non-PC concept as that, you could always let Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on it get you started:

"§ 1781. Another clause declares, that no person shall be subject, "for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb." This, again, is another great privilege secured by the common law. The meaning of it is, that a party shall not be tried a second time for the same offence, after he has once been convicted, or acquitted of the offence charged, by the verdict of a jury, and judgment has passed thereon for or against him...."

That's not that complicated, is it? Simple enough for even an adjunct law professor to understand, isn't it? And I can't resist adding this next part about the nature of jury trials, especially the bit towards the end,

"§ 1785. The other article, in declaring, that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state or district, wherein the crime shall have been committed, (which district shall be previously ascertained by law,) and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the witnesses against him, does but follow out the established course of the common law in all trials for crimes. The trial is always public; the witnesses are sworn, and give in their testimony (at least in capital cases) in the presence of the accused; the nature and cause of the accusation is accurately laid down in the indictment; and the trial is at once speedy, impartial, and in the district of the offence. Without in any measure impugning the propriety of these provisions, it may be suggested, that there seems to have been an undue solicitude to introduce into the constitution some of the general guards and proceedings of the common law in criminal trials, (truly admirable in themselves) without sufficiently adverting to the consideration, that unless the whole system is incorporated, and especially the law of evidence, a corrupt legislature, or a debased and servile people, may render the whole little more, than a solemn pageantry. If, on the other hand, the people are enlightened, and honest, and zealous in defence of their rights and liberties, it will be impossible to surprise them into a surrender of a single valuable appendage of the trial by jury."

IOW, if you are calling for "Justice for Trayvon!", such as those in this picture Stacy Washington took at the St. Louis rally, now, after a trial has already been held, in which evidence has already been presented and argued and a verdict of "Not Guilty" has been rendered, then please, stop pretending as if Justice is of any interest to you at all. You're simply spewing out words of thoughtless thuggery which someone else put in your mouth. Which is just gross.

And if you do have an interest in preserving your Rights and Liberties, then when you do hear someone talking such non-sense as "Justice for Trayvon!", point out that justice has already been served - a trial has been held and a verdict has been rendered - and ask them to explain themselves. It probably won't take much more than their own explanation of what they said, to show what a foolish thing it was to have said it.

"Justice for Trayvon!" = Injustice for us all

This last week St. Louis's own 'Occupy Wall Street' held a rally seeking 'Justice for Trayvon!’ - in a park which their supporters had vandalized just the previous week. Prior to that the Mayor of St. Louis promoted justice by attending a prayer vigil... chanting 'No Justice, No Peace!' for Trayvon Martin. Various other high profile individuals all over the country have been ‘speaking out!’ and holding rallies and marches, demanding that action be taken, demanding that we all recognize that George Zimmerman IS a racist! That he must be Jailed! Tried! or, if the New Black Panthers, or Spike Lee, have a say, he, or anyone who shares his name, should just be ‘rounded up and dealt with!’ with the dealers being nicely rewarded for their vigilante service. Meanwhile, they are all taking their actions and making their demands before anyone knows for sure, or even has a reasonable guess, as to what did or didn’t happen that night between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, which resulted in the teenagers death.

No one knows the facts, but all of them should know that this ‘rush to judgment’ is the anti-thesis of truthfully seeking after Justice. Certainly the main players in these marches understand this, Mayors, judicial activists and community activists and other fascist gangs - all of these people who are using this incident not only know that they do not know what happened, but they are entirely unconcerned with their own ignorance, and worse, they are thankful for yours.

So many people are excitedly using the story of Trayvon Martin's death as a pretext to further their own aims – that you as an American, you as a Parent, you as a Citizen, need to consider the situation carefully, because in this context, it becomes a far worse issue for all of us than simply the heartrending tragedy of a teenage boy having lost his life for no good reason. For those people who are using this incident to further their own agendas, the fact that a teenage boy lost his life is welcome news, even more welcome, for their purposes, than if he had 'only' been wounded or put into a coma.

And if it turns out that the shooting was motivated by racism, or by some ignorance easily spun as racism, then that will be all the more better for their purposes - IOW, they are discarding the Principle of Justice, rules of evidence and the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', while appealing to the appearance of 'Seeking Justice!' in order to inflame your sympathies so that you’ll overlook theirincidents of injustice (for the cause!); they are in effect calling for “Injustice for Justice!”, because they feel it will work for the moment, and help them further their positions.

How pragmatic of them (see my last few posts).

You, on the other hand, need to keep something in mind:

If we had a way of knowing what happened and who was to blame, we’d have no need for a Judicial system.

That is the very foundation of the Western concept of Justice, indeed of society. Clearly these people who are so loudly and violently calling ‘for justice!’, have no interest in Justice, whatsoever.

Did they ever have an an interest in pursuing the truth? If they did, then... they would have sought it out, wouldn’t they?

The fact is, however, that issues such as these exist in plain sight, though only the 'New Media' seems able to see them::

"“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” – from a letter to Turner Clayton of the Seminole County NAACP written by “a concerned Zimmerman family member”"

, should at the very least, raise questions about the prefabricated narrative, yet the lamestream news went out of its way to portray Zimmerman's response to a question during his 911 call, as if it were a damning declaration of his own racist! views...

"Back on March 27, a full month after the shooting, NBC’s Today Show aired Zimmerman’s call to the police, featuring these words:

“This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black.”

The recording then went viral as did the presumption of racism in Zimmerman’s overreaction. The juxtaposition of Martin looking suspicious and looking black was enough to accelerate a firestorm of anger and protest. Apparently, hearing is not exactly believing, or rather shouldn’t be. The folks at the the Today Show had shortened the Zimmerman tape for broadcast (as if the show didn’t have lots of time to devote to the story). Here is the fuller version of the recording:"

Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

911 dispatcher: "OK, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?"

Zimmerman: "He looks black."

, but even worse than what NBC did, IMHO, is what this columnist did in portraying the fraud, and which was reflected in nearly all of those few mentions that were made of this damning episode. In his characterizing of their actions - actions which were deliberate editing decisions on the part of several people in the editorial staff, not only of NBC, but of every other news organization which itself had heard the raw audio, knew it was altered and didn't report that news! - there is no possible way that key news material such as that was altered in a vacuum - with that in mind (or carefully kept out of mind), this columnist, a professor of criminal law, characterized these actions in this way,

"Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder."

A blunder?! Hellooo (or should I say Hell-Ooohhhhh...!)

Understand - I'm not in any way suggesting that Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, a swell guy or trigger happy nut - I don't know, but I do know that if you are concerned with truth and justice then the typical pattern of questioning and thinking which you go through does not begin with making accusations before making an investigation. And since it's obvious that with just a few google searches there is plenty of information available to, at the very least, make leaping to conclusions seem a less than wise thing to do.

Clearly however, 'they', those whose habitual thinking patterns enable them to go through the motions of thinking in a very different way, are not seeking out facts with which they can consider and infer conclusions from, rather, they have prefabricated conclusions which they seek some data, any data, even manufactured data that can be presented in such a way as to give some credibility to the conclusions they drew without them. 'They' have no interest in seeking out the Truth. None. This was not an error such as failing to carry over a digit in addition, this was the result of multiple and deliberate decisions which were made in order to mislead the public (that’d be YOU!), so as to sensationalize and stir up popular passions, and not only on the part of NBC News, but on the part of the rest of the media as well, who deliberately sought to promote their 'blunders' as fact - Truth be damned!

Clearly they have no interest in the Truth.

Clearly they have no interest in Justice.

Clearly they have no interest in your knowing of either.

The form of thinking which enables a person to be fully engaged in the mechanics of thinking - the questions asked, and not asked, the decisions explicitly made as well as those implicitly made through evasion - while showing no concern at all for whether or not their thinking reflects reality, is that of a pragmatic escape from what enables man’s thoughts to not just 'work for the moment' (which is the pragmatic ideal), but to retain an allegiance to the Truth over the long term. They have no interest in Principles, they only want to be 'pragmatic', they only want what will 'work for the moment'. Pragmatism, the philosophy which forms the basis of modern American thought, and is explicitly the guiding 'principle' behind America's Educational Philosophy (thanks to the Father of modern 'education', who also happened to be one of the founders of Pragmatism, John Dewey), is what enables a person to brazenly step over inconvenient obstacles such as principles of Justice and of evidence and of truth, in order to cobble something together that will 'work for the moment' in moving them closer to the Power they seek - and I have no doubt that they do so 'for the greater good'.

Clearly, this should scare the hell out of you.

In all its guises, the Change that the proregressive left is agitating for, is to get the power to do what they decide is best for you to do, and whether that means going through the govt, or, when govt is held back (by what?), then through inciting the mob, they are seeking for the power to force their will upon society without being hindered by such inconveniences as Individual Rights, or Property Rights, or your right of contract. Your desire to live your own life isn't going to thwart their desire to see to it that you live the life they know is best for you.

After all, "the science is settled" and 'the constitution is out dated', so just sit back, be quiet, and let them 'do good' unto you as they just know is best.

Where is the Justice in that?