I agree entirely with the analysis of the case below. I believe the prosecutors never exhausted the argument in this case. Hoping it is not a conspiracy.
Nkolika
From: Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com>
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict
To Chideo Nwankwor *(continued)
Much as I may sympathise with your position about the sanctity of women,
what has been said about the Hispanic woman has implications about the type and quality of persons who serve on US juries.
Cutting out all the tittle-tattle about any disparaging, ad hominem remarks about the persona of the Hispanic woman juror, there are more important questions about
First, there is the matter of the identity of the person on trial – this time a Hispanic being tried (ignorance asking here) by his peers when the victim is of another ethnic identity? This is something we have to sort out, since justice is supposed to be neutral and not ethnically or in any other way, humanly biased.
I guess that the Hispanic woman is there because she has eight children and it should be assumed that she is a caring mother and like any other normal mother would be sensitive about her own child being shot to death, in whatever circumstances.
An all black jury would have probably found Zimmerman guilty of first-degree murder if the prosecution had advanced the psychological probabilities that make so much sense, as presented in Niyi Adebisi's analysis, which I quote below, in its entirety:
"Dr. Ola Kassim,
I believed the crown did not do excellent job. Here are my reasons:
A. GZ is an adult who had professional self-defence physical training as part of his preparation for security job and his life time ambition of joining police. With this, he was better positioned to be able to defend himself, without using gun, against TM, a teenager with no such training. The crown was supposed to have exploited this point;
B. GZ was an "A" student in a criminology course that put him at significant cerebral and cognitive advantage over TM as regards to the application of "Stand Your Ground" laws in FL in proving self-defense. GZ knew that all he had to do was to provoke TM just enough to set off a fight so that he could be injured (whether self-inflicted or not in this case) or avenue for self injury could be created. The injury he knew he might suffer from altercation with TM was a deliberate plan to be used as an evidence to prove self defense after killing TM.
C. GZ was in his vehicle when he spotted a lone black male walking down the street;
D. GZ profiled TM as a possible burglar because TM fit into his mindset identity of possible burglar;
E. TM did not branch at any house to indicate that he was about to burgle any house, yet GZ profiled and pursued him;
F. GZ called police and police advised him not to follow TM;
G. Because GZ knew what he was doing, which was to kill TM and claim it was in selfdefense, he jettisoned the advice of the law enforcement agent that advised him not to follow TM. He had option of waiting for the police to arrive because at that point TM posed no immediate danger to him. He deliberately made a wrong choice and followed TM against the advice of the authorized law enforcement agents;
H. GZ, while leaving his car to follow TM against the advice of the police, took a loaded gun along with him because he knew that he was going to kill TM and would then claim self defense;
I. GZ eventually caught up with TM who was eating and speaking on the phone at the same tome while walking down the street unarmed;
J. TM asked GZ why he was following him. Just as GZ had expected and planned, TM's question set-off a face off that GZ knew would happen and altercation that GZ knew would start soon after catching up with TM did start;
K. GZ had enough physical and mental training and experience and capability along with age maturity that he could have used to defend himself against TM without using gun;
L. Because GZ had planned to kill TM and claim self-defense, he deliberately chose not to defend himself with the skills he acquired from his judo training. GZ allowed altercation to lead to physical combat without defending himself adequately with appropriate physical force because he had another plan - that is to shoot TM dead in cold blood and claim self-defense knowing fully well that he would be exonerated based on his excellent understanding of the FL "Stand Your Ground" law;
M. GZ murdered TM with a single bullet wound as he had premeditated. He knew that he needed some injuries on his body to convince others that the murder he just committed was in selfdefense. He injured himself and blamed the injury on TM who had been killed and could not refute such lie;
N. TM autopsy showed that he had no blood or flesh of GZ on his hands or fingers. It was practically impossible for TM to have been the cause of the blunt injuries to the nose and occiput of GZ that were shown bleeding without TM's knuckle or any part of his hands showing evidence of such brutality and or body parts of GZ - say flesh or blood,
O. The defense counsel held the shoulders of the model that was used in the court as if a human being in combat could have been held the same way and he or she would not have been able to free self from a teenager but the crown did not see anything technically wrong in that demonstration. Unfortunately, the jury believed this flawed misrepresentation of facts;
P. The crown and the police were already acting on assumption that GZ was not guilty and the crown's way of prosecuting the case revealed the sloppiness that came with lack of self belief in what was being done. Even the police testified in favor of the defense and against the crown/the victim of murder - that is American judiciary for you!
Q. To further show that the actions of GZ were deliberate, he lied about having knowledge of the "Stand Your Ground" law so that they would not think that he knew what to do to claim self defense and that his actions were premeditated.
The bottom line is that the crown had enough evidence to prove intentional murder that could have been prevented but the crown failed to utilize those pieces of evidence in effective way. Whether this was due to incompetence or deliberate injustice is what is unknown.
Niyi Adebisi "
On Monday, 15 July 2013 23:35:13 UTC+2, Chiedo Nwankwor wrote:
--
Dear Cornelius,
To say that I am disappointed with your blatant disregard of such glaring infraction on the human's, albeit, woman's dignity is to put it rather mildly. If we find ourselves in a bind to call a spade a spade when so little (friendship or whatever else) is at stake, how can we cry foul at the conduct of six individuals who obviously felt that while they could not retrospectively "fix" history a la the triumph of the struggle for civil rights, they could at least contribute to sustaining a hierarchic relations of race in America. And so they did. But you disapprove, 'steaming" and all. Might I suggest that in light of your comment here, you take a hard long look in the mirror before you throw another stone. Really, we ought to be the change we seek.
To some of the particularities of your comment, "brother to brother" can only mean that you assume this forum to be an all male affair. Either that or the events that you decry unfolded in a space in which female commentary is least expected and perhaps unwelcome? Rather telling assumptions, would you not say? By the way, I take it that "orthodox language purism" is code word for civility in the public sphere, if nothing else. Why suggest that he leave some reference to "her legs" out of it, unless of course you do realize that his word usage is problematic. Then perhaps a simple "Brother" you got this one wrong! might have served him better. Perhaps he might have acknowledged that he did indeed get it wrong and apologized. That I guess would have been un-"Brotherly" I guess.
Again, we must hold ourselves to higher standards.
Chiedo NwankworOn Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:The Brother was letting off some steam, Brother to Brother. He's got the right to shout , or does he have to ask permission from you to blow his mind? Surely, you orthodox language purists don't grudge him telling it as it is?Of course, you can all pray that he won't be saying things about her legs on the BBC at 3 a.m. tomorrow morning. I'm sure that he can be more elegant and even more circumspect when push comes to shove and as potent in wordology as my man Ishmael Reed is in delineating in JUICE how racism reared its ugly butt during the OJ Simpson trial. The nation was evenly divided about OJ's guilt back then, just as the nation is divided now about Zimmerman.On page 113-114 of "Juice", the following conversation takes place:"You're just sticking with your black brother. Playing the race card""You could be accused of playing the gender card by bonding with your white sister. Calling her Marcia. Very unprofessional. The only thing that white women expect of you is to be their maid. You Latinas still don't get it. They put this 187 up to kick your ass out of the country and you still love white people. They beat up Mexicans at the border and you don't do shit. They insult and laugh at Rosa Lopez and you remain passive.""How dare you insult me this way. I'll put in a compliant. You blacks are always bitching, always complaining about your victimization. Rev Eugene Rivers is right. You should work hard like other people entering the country. You and your Chaka Zulu leaders. Asking for affirmative action – ""Your ass wouldn't be here if it weren't for affirmative action. Why do you think they made you the co-anchor? Because they were afraid to hire a real Latina, somebody unafraid to take a position that wasn't approved of by the Rathwheeler crowd. You and that sinister creep Geraldo Riviera ain't doing nothing but carrying buckets for the white man."… And so the argument goes on...
On Monday, 15 July 2013 06:35:44 UTC+2, Ikhide wrote:Chika,I am surprised and disappointed that the BBC would grant you an interview. Your remarks below are hateful, sexist and racist. You should be ashamed of yourself. And just in case you have not been told this, you are a shameless self-promoter with delusions of grandeur. Be well.- IkhideTo post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.comBBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict
BBC Program on Zimmerman VerdictI have agreed to be interviewed on the BBC where I am interviewed frequently, at 11 pm, New York Time today, which is 3 am British time. I am emotionally angry and sad that an unarmed black teenager, minding his own business, was gunned down and his killer acquitted by almost all-white jury, with a buffoon of a so-called black/hispanic woman whose passion and obviously profession is making children, eight children and working at a nursing home. The idiot doesn't even know how to close her f**king damn legs, let alone knowing how to decide on a murder conviction with the white women intimidating her.Listen to the BBC at 3 am GMT.Chika Onyeani--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group /USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferen ces/africa/ads/index.htmlunsub...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups .com.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@ googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialo...@ googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.