Regular readers will recall that I have not, in any substantive way, addressed the issue of race in the Trayvon Martin case. I have addressed it only to note that there is no evidence whatever to suggest that race is involved, quite the opposite. However, the proponents of The Narrative have labored mightily to conjure racism out of thin air.
Rachel Jeantel
AKA “DeeDee”
NBC News ended up firing a number of employees, arguably including the boss, after it was revealed that they tried to make George Zimmerman look like a racist by selectively editing his call to the Sanford Police. CNN had to retract its hysterical reports that Zimmerman called Martin a “fucking coon” when its own experts revealed that Zimmerman actually muttered under his breath–in a cruel and unprovoked attack on Florida weather–“it’s fucking cold.” The FBI, no doubt at the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder–he who called Americans “a nation of cowards” for allegedly avoiding discussion of race–conducted an exhaustive investigation of Zimmerman, hoping to find evidence of racism for federal charges. They not only came up empty, they discovered that he has a black ancestor, and therefore far more black blood than the non-existant proportion of Indian blood in blonde, blue-eyed Elizabeth Warren, AKA Fauxcahontas. They also discovered that when a homeless black man was beaten by the son of a police lieutenant, Zimmerman waged an impressive public campaign on his behalf against the Sanford Police.
In fact, Zimmerman’s only mention of Martin’s race came in direct response to a dispatcher’s question about his race, and was delivered with no more emphasis or animosity than his mentions of Martin’s height or weight. Oh yes, and Zimmerman is actually Hispanic. All of this, to the Black Grievance Industry and the Media, somehow equates to racism, though Scheme Team member Daryl Parks recently denied ever thinking race was involved (I took that whopper to task in Update 32.2).
The renewal of the assault on American’s supposed racial cowardice comes as a result of Rachel Jeantel’s explosive testimony (also recounted in Update 32.2). I say “explosive” in the sense that her testimony blew up in the faces of the prosecutors. This is manifestly obvious to observers who are willing to consider facts and evidence. For those who still cling to The Narrative, it is simply not possible that Jeantel did not deliver as Benjamin Crump has always claimed she would. According to Crump, and the prosecution, Jeantel’s testimony would prove beyond any possible doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin in cold blood. Yet, confronted with the unmistakable proof that her testimony actually supported Zimmerman’s case, her own admissions of perjury, her invented testimony leaping into the case for the first time from the witness stand, and her angry, rude, crude, and blatantly inappropriate behavior in court, combined with her often unintelligible and nonsensical testimony (she somehow heard grass over a cell phone), The Narrative was clearly in danger of coming completely unglued. How can the credibility of a witness that is a virtual textbook example of an utter lack of credibility be restored?
Christina Coleman, publishing in the Global Grind, attempts to answer that question in an article titled “Why Black People Understand Rachel Jeantel.”
If ever I thought myself objective and unbiased, the George Zimmerman trial is definitely not that moment.
So let’s cut to the chase. Any attorney, jury member, judge or white person in that courtroom is not going to understand Rachel Jeantel. And I don’t expect them to.
In fact, I certainly, like my fellow writer Rachel Samara [Samara’s article is similar to Coleman’s], understand why white people wouldn’t like Rachel.
She’s hard. She’s black. And your assumptions about her background and lack of education make you feel like you are better, somehow. That her testimony, no matter how powerful and impactful it may be to this trial, is implausible. Weak, maybe? Let’s impeach her.
Powerful and impactful testimony? Was Ms. Coleman watching the same trial? I suspect the primary assumptions being made are by Ms. Coleman, who assumes that others must think themselves somehow better than Jeantel, apparently because she is black and has a “lack of education.” It is certainly not necessary for anyone to impeach Jeantel; she impeached herself. I do agree with Ms. Coleman on one point: I certainly wouldn’t consider her to be objective and unbiased in this matter either.
But maybe the reason white people don’t understand Rachel Jeantel has something more to do with white privilege then, what they would call, Rachel’s capricious nature.
Let’s for one second try to understand why Rachel is ‘angry’ (read emotional), ‘hood’ (read blunt), and ‘unintelligent’ (read multilingual).
The thing is, what white people see in Rachel has little to do about her own issues, and more to say about the America that white people are blind to.
Uh, well anger is an emotion, but being from the “hood” inevitably makes one blunt, and being multilingual makes one unintelligent? Talk about assumptions! This case, and Jeantel’s behavior and testimony have nothing to do with “white privilege,” but everything to do with truthfulness and credibility. That’s where Jeantel is lacking. Coleman goes on to excuse Jeantel for not calling the police despite her supposed concern for Martin’s welfare. A more likely explanation for rational people of any color might be that Jeantel was lying in one way or another. Perhaps she didn’t actually hear what she claimed to hear. Perhaps she really wasn’t worried about Martin. But no, white privilege keeps us from seeing the deeper truth, just as Don West was unable to see that truth:
Don West doesn’t understand why Rachel didn’t call the police when she heard a struggle. Rachel, who is a black woman, doesn’t call the police. Why? Black people and police officers don’t mix.
The tottering seesaw between black people and law enforcement leaves us in a position where we are afraid to call the cops because we’re not exactly sure they are on our side. And in an age where police responding to calls for help will still result in an innocent black person’s incarceration or death, it’s difficult to know who to trust or turn to during times of need….
The point is, black people can understand Rachel’s hesitancy when it came to contacting the police because the fear and doubt that comes with dealing with law enforcement is as entwined into the tapestry of our culture as is our slavery past.
This line of argument works only if no people of pallor, like George Zimmerman, for instance, have never come to grief through their contacts with the police. And it’s a weak argument indeed that must invoke slavery to sustain it. Here’s the best evidence that Coleman was watching some other trial:
It’s not that Rachel can’t be trusted. In fact, her testimony has remained solid and consistent throughout her nearly seven hours of questioning.
Actually, Jeantel can’t be trusted because she is a confessed perjurer, and because her testimony has changed dramatically over time, and actually during her appearance in court, much of it is nonsensical, and because her behavior made her appear to be untrustworthy.
But all of you white people out there just can’t understand, not only because of white privilege, but because you’re unable to understand the unique culture of black people:
But what’s more are the cultural differences between white and black people.
When asked why she omitted the words ‘creepy ass cracker’ and ‘nigga’ when speaking in front of Sybrina Fulton about her son’s last moments, she simply told the court that she didn’t want to disrespect her.
As West looked at her in utter disbelief, Rachel looked back, unwavering. How could he not understand that she couldn’t bring herself to upset someone who had just lost a child? Better yet, curse in front of adults.
Note: Disrespect to elders in the black and especially Caribbean communities is almost as bad as cursing the Lord.
Ah! So Jeantel was merely trying to be polite! There is no doubt that de la Rionda’s incredibly unethical and inept conduct of his interview with Jeantel put her in an untenable position, and West gave her an out for that reason in court. But this does not explain why she omitted that testimony in her later deposition–under oath–where the Scheme Team and Sybrina Fulton were not present, nor does it explain her entirely disrespectful conduct toward Donald West, and toward the entire justice system, all of the officers of which are surely her elders.
As one might imagine, Colemen invokes the apparently unalienable right of black people–but no other race–to use “nigga” in all its various colorful forms, all the while pretending that the tendency of white people to see hypocrisy in this is yet another of those cultural differences that white people will just never understand. And more:
For Rachel, these little cultural differences get lost in translation. And instead of trying to understand her, people are reducing the miscommunication to semantics, what they call her broken ‘Kings English,’ and her anger. Without even realizing that she comes from a home where Creole is her first language, or that her friend was killed just seconds after he last spoke to her. Wouldn’t you be frustrated in front of a court that refuses to understand you?
But most importantly, if there is anything that black people can understand that those judging her are not, it’s the loss of life without justice.
And as Rachel Jeantel sits on the stand, nervous, mumbling and annoyed, it’s not that she’s just a ‘hoodrat with no media training from a hostile environment.’
It’s just that your world and our world are…excuse the cliche…worlds apart.
And that, my friends, was never Rachel Jeantel’s fault.
It’s not Jeantel’s fault. Her perjury, her invented testimony, everything she did–or didn’t do–on the witness stand that utterly destroyed her credibility and helped to crush The Narrative, is not her fault, but the fault of white privilege, of white people unable and unwilling to understand her culture–the court was equally unwilling–and the “loss of life without justice,” which can only mean that any verdict other than “guilty” will be injustice. Oh yes, and once again, if Ms. Jeantel was so upset by Martin’s death, why didn’t she tell the police of her involvement (sorry, but Ms. Coleman’s argument won’t work here)?
Very well, Ms. Coleman, having been born, through no fault of my own, white, perhaps I can explain my culture, or more accurately, American culture.
We provide twelve years of free, public education not just to give children the opportunity to learn useful and necessary skills like reading and writing, but to civilize them, to teach them basic rules of behavior necessary to live and work with others, rules without which their success in life will be greatly diminished. In this pursuit, the influence of culture is not ignored, but channeled into productive rather than destructive behaviors. Showing up for a job interview, pants sagging, underwear showing, ball cap on backwards, may be culturally authentic, but it’s an excellent way to remain unemployed.
Black people–and people of all races and cultures–are perfectly capable of being polite, aren’t they? They are perfectly capable of using standard American English (even most residents of the United Kingdom don’t use the “King’s English”). After 12 years of education, they can read cursive even if they can’t write it well; they can form complete sentences and can make themselves understood in any company. They don’t drop prefixes and suffixes, they don’t drop verbs, they don’t turn words into fractured contractions, and they make sense. They understand the value in being truthful, and in not insulting others. All of this, they understand and practice, because they choose to do so, because they know that proper, commonly accepted and understood behavior will not only directly benefit them, but society at large.
Another lesson all fully functional people embrace is that social flexibility is essential. One can–and must–speak and act differently before their friends, in a classroom, and surely in a courtroom. Deciding to be “authentic” (as Ms. Samara wrote), which in Jeantel’s case means to behave in a rude, inappropriate manner in court, has nothing to do with culture, white privilege or racism. It is simply bad manners, and considering the stakes, inherently foolish.
The only way that Jeantel could have aided The Narrative was by presenting herself as an unbiased, calm and earnest person, a person concerned with presenting her part in the case as honestly and credibly as she possibly could. And yes, this would impose the horrors of using standard American English, and of behaving in a manner appropriate to the occasion.
Anyone who had been paying attention in life–and Jeantel had 19 years of practice, including 12 years in American schools–would know that presenting herself as an authentic member of the “culture” about which Ms. Coleman speaks would simply not work. Surely Ms. Jeantel’s personal attorney, and the lawyers of the Scheme Team, and the prosecutors, tried to convince her of this? They obviously had some small success in somewhat improving her demeanor on the second day of her testimony. Are they thereby racists? Are they too–despite many of them being black–unable to understand her culture? Are they betraying their own for political and financial ends?
I judged Ms. Jeantel, just as I have judged every witness during my police career and thereafter, based on their obvious intelligence–or lack thereof–on their demeanor, their ability to communicate clearly, their apparent motives, their body language, their honesty, and their evident humanity. I’m sure that the overwhelming majority of Americans did, and do, the same. Race has nothing at all to do with it. Ms. Bahadoor’s testimony and presentation, despite having its own problems, was far superior to Jeantel’s, and I’ve no doubt she made a much better impression on the jury, yet she too was black. Doesn’t she understand black culture?
To excuse inappropriate behavior by blaming others, or by claiming a cultural exemption from the accepted and well-known rules of polite conduct would reduce the criminal justice system to a snake pit of political influence, where the loudest and most “authentic” voices could triumph on cultural grounds alone. I suspect that in the Zimmerman case, that’s exactly what some would prefer. I judge this, and all cases, on the law and the evidence. Those supporting The Narrative have other criteria that have nothing to do with law or evidence.
Rachel Jeantel presented herself before the court as a very poor witness with a virtually complete lack of credibility for all of the reasons any witness might choose to do that. It had nothing to do with race. She choose to behave badly in a situation that called for the most proper and polite behavior. That was her choice, and very much her fault, no one else’s.
TL:DR: Christina Coleman is a racist, projecting her own racism on others in order to rationalize the testimony of Rachel Jeantel.
Mike,
I totally agree with you.
I can only feel sorry for her in a limited way. No one really cared enough about Rachael to show her how to act. I limit it because I have met people who have risen above their starting station in life. There is little excuse to remain ignorant. I hope that this experience along with the public ridicule that she richly deserves serves to give her some sort of reason to improve herself.
I see it as where do white people get off demanding that she act white? That’s white supremacism, or cultural imperialism, or something. Who are you to say anything is better than anything else?
Oh please! He’s not saying she ‘should act white’. What exactly did you just read, surely not the above piece. He is saying she should act credible and suitable by the usual norms in a serious situation.
I was stating the multicultural PC argument. That’s why I began “I see it as . . .”–this is where they are coming from. What some see as hostile and rude, others call “keeping it real.”
Some go further, decrying the whole justice system as rigged against the oppressed. See, for example, Critical Legal Studies, which holds that the legal system is inherently racist, by white men for white men. In Canada, one of the would-be train bombers refuses to recognize the authority of the court, which is man-made law, as opposed to Allah’s shariah law, per the Koran.
Understand?
Edit: Critical Legal Theory.
Yeah Gainny…its all part of critical race theory which wouldnt be scary if it werent being disseminated nationwide and worldwide
No one was demanding that she act “white.” Lying under oath, being upset that she has to come back the next day, and being agitated/annoyed by questions does not go over well regardless of race. I don’t care what race she is, how she talks, or what she looks like. I care about how she acts, I care about the level of respect she shows for others, and I care if about whether or not she lies or tells the truth. Rachel has come off as a liar, not trustworthy, and very disrespectful to the court system of the United States of America. It has nothing to do with race. It has EVERYTHING to do with how you treat another human being. There are some ways better than others, every single culture on earth recognizes that and no single culture is omitted from this matter. Respect has to be earned, and she has not earned it, especially based on her “performance.”
Food for thought. On Rachel’s own Twitter feed, she has for her description something like “judge me based on my actions.” That’s what we are doing. We are colorblind, why aren’t you?
Exactly spot on Mike
Justice For Trayvon? But not if it involves a whole 7 hours of testimony thus far?
.
Sure, a guy could go to jail for 25 years to life, but the witness cant spare a few hours to clarify thinhs for the court?
.
If she were merely snide, petulant and softspoken, but exuded a certainty that could be conveyed in some laguage, she might be credible, but much of her credibility issues come not from her, but from the possible apparent coersion of tm’s mother. I actually feel bad both for trayvon and rachel. This has been tragic.
.
But though rachel is a teen, she is not 13, she is 19. She is legally an adult, but most of her defenders want to remove from her any responsibility.
.what she says may incriminate gz, but as we noted recently, she may incriminate tm as well as herself.
.
I feel i have fallen and not been as good as i can be, but i feel our leader jas also fallen down on this issue.
.
Peehaps when our potus returns from africa, he can begin with a discussion of the limitations of black anger he might habe considered after our AG called all us crackas cowards.
.
I am for one ready to talk about issues of race with anyone. Whites have a history of bondage the story of which is rarely told. Sanford was supposedly built by swedish indentured servants.
.
Irish & Scotts werr ensalved bg the vikings, the romans AND the moors (blacks enslabved whites, they just hope you forgot) for over 1000 years.
Also why you dont mess with the scotts irish btw
indentured servants are not slaves. They had their fare paid for them, and they had to serve those who paid for their passage for a minimum period of time.
Slaves on the other hand are bought and sold as commodities. A lot of them are used as unpaid servants.
true, true, therefore indentured means that you are the first to be made president of the US, right?
.
1) 50 % of all indentured servants DIE before manumission (i know, a slave that perishes always felt more pain than any indentured servant-dont worry, i have had this argument before).
2) as long as you sold yourself (due to your poverty-whites can be impoverished, too, btw).
3) indenured servants didnt have 1st class accomodations on the boats, btw (they may not have been in chains, but they suffered man of the same indignities, diseases, and threats to life and limb – they didnt have steam liners or airplanes then-all sea travel was very dangerous for all back then)
4) this is the part that gets real interesting (so pay attention cuz I dont think you ever empathized with an indentured servant before)….many folks were deliberately impoverished so they would be forced to sel themselves or one or more of their kids (not saying they had things equally rough nor am I suggesting that indenured sercvants were in first class accomodations).
5) recall the movie “Gangs of New York” do you recall the part of the moview where THOUSANDS of irish coming right off the boat get to go fight in the civil war so slaves can be freed (a good thing, by why must irish pay for their way with their life to fight for others and then the claim is their suffering was less than those they fought and died for ? really?
.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/11/30/ayatollah-obama-long-legged-mac-daddy-barack-does-fairy-tales-for-america-taqiyya/
.
And you prolly didnt even know this, but the US constitution was actually not a slave document (if it was, it would have had to have been eliminated in order to get rid of slavery).
.
TAKE YOUR WHITE GUILT AND STICK IT SOMEWHERE (it shows a real ignorance of the history of bondage of white people-the word slave originated not as a swahili word, but from the slavic region in the baltics (where folks are quite pale faced)
No, the Irish and many others were SLAVES. Yes, there was the whole indentured servitude piece, but there was also white slavery. Irish(and others) were enslaved and shipped over here to be used as slave labor. But this piece of history doesn’t fit with the lefts agenda and it is swept under the rug.
Christina Coleman has made all kinds of excuses for Rachel’s substandard behavior. And you know what? It’s all smoke and mirrors to try and hide the fact that Rachel was a poor witness, a dishonest witness, and a pathetic, disrespectful witness.
I have focused on a few things Rachel said under cross examination. One thing sticks out for some reason, and I wonder why Don West or Mark O’Mara didn’t pounce on it in some way.
When asked why she didn’t call the police the night of the shooting (after she tried to call and text Trayvon – and failed), she said she didn’t call the police because she thought it was just a fight. Coleman says it’s because black people don’t “trust” the police. Interesting, if that was the case with Rachel, why didn’t she just SAY so. She said because she thought it was just a fight.
OK, if it ends there, I suppose that’s a plausible excuse – because it was just a fight.
But it DOESN’T end there. Within a day or two, she discovered it indeed was NOT just a fight. She learned very soon that the friend she had known since kindergarten had been shot dead. So why did she not call the police THEN? If she was distrustful of the police, why didn’t she tell ANYONE! True, she told no cop, but also no friend, no teacher, no counselor, not her mother, NO ONE. Is she afraid of everyone?
It’s as if she pretended she hadn’t spoken to him at all – for 3+ weeks!! That ended when Crump found her. Until that point, there is no evidence she was planning to ever come forward. She claims she didn’t KNOW the killer wasn’t arrested (BULLSHYTE!) because she doesn’t watch the news, sir!!
You wanna know why I think she thought it was only a fight? Because he TOLD her before he hung up the phone that he was about to kick some cracker’s ass! And when he didn’t call back right away, she called and texted him. Then when she found out he was dead later, she thought “OH, crap.” and then she just pretended she wasn’t at all involved – which explains her utter silence afterward.
In my opinion, she didn’t hear the confrontation at all. She made it all up – having had the benefit of hearing the 911 calls and the non-emergency call Zimmerman made. From those she fabricated a plausible scenario, and even dove-tailed it with things Zimmerman had already mentioned in his OWN call….like how she mentions the mailboxes, and how she inexplicably injects how Trayvon told her he put his hoodie up after leaving the 7-11 because of the rain. Too bad she hadn’t seen the 7-11 video that showed he ALREADY had his hoodie on entering and leaving the store. And why would he narrate such an insignificant action?? That’s like telling someone on the other end of the line something like, “Oh, there’s a puddle. I’m walking around it now.”, or “I think I’ll far…there, I feel better.” You don’t DESCRIBE it…you just DO it!
She also talks of him running, and how minutes later Zimmerman was still following him. Hell, he wasn’t out of his CAR long enough to have chased Trayvon like she says. She obviously made errors in her fabrication that should have been exploited more. But maybe West and O’Mara felt she came across so poorly that to fan the flames might backfire. That first day, there is no doubt in my mind she cam across as arrogant and mouthy. The second day, she was simply dishonest. She helped win the case, and she was the prosecution’s BEST witness!
I am 100% positive that when her phone records are compared with the KNOWN time of the first 911 call, and the 911 caller’s best recollection of how long SHE took before she called 911, we’re going to find that she and Trayvon Martin disconnected LONG (relatively speaking – like a minute or so) before the 911 call connected, and well before the start of the fight. I hope someone does the math and SHOWS there’s no way she heard ANYTHING between Zimmerman and Martin.
Any chance Christina Coleman will read this article and change her views?
Nope.
Kudos to you, kind, sir.
.
There once was a man that said we should be judged by the content of ojr characters, not the color of one’s skin.
.
Mr McDaniels writings are much appreciated.
.
I wouldnt care if miss Jeantel showed up in tattered robes and spoke through an interpeter if she gave credible testimony.
.
The beauty of this country are the opportunities of upward social mobility offer in few places ever. Upward social mobility is not easy, but it is possible.
.
The Usa is highly criticized for its social safety net not being as great as europe, but the day they begin to pay their fair share of the global security role this country has funded is the dsy i shall take them seriously.
.
Miss Jeantel was not viewed harshly for her origins or her station in life, but for how she acted in a court of law where the whole world watched as we sought justice for trayvon martin and george zimmerman, not one or the other but for both
I have been to some of the toughest inner cities thjs nation has.
.
I have found that there are plenty of hard working, honest people trying to get ahead kr merely to survive in every inner city. Not all of them are white nor educafed nlr highly intelligent in graditional senses, but i dont feel the need to disparage them.
.
Our inner cities do have grifters & con artists & shakedown artists. Sharpton & charlatan come to mind in this case.
.
Domt disparage the hard working honest folk of all stripes and persjasions by trying to oass of hucksgers as forthright people.
.maybe they coulda got away with con if they had a smaller audience. But they invited the audience.
.
As Mr M has noted-LOOK at the DIVERSITY of the worjforce on display in sanford. Shouldnt we rejoice at the diversity our nations enjoys?
.
Those who used to shout keep hope alive now want us to keep hope a lie
Any chance of reading Ms. Coleman’s article to change your views? Nope..
Interestingly, i had already read Ms. Coleman’s drivel and had trouble swallowing for hours due to nausea.
.
Having been raised on white guilt male guilt and heterosexual guilt (for tp, we only wiped with the nation or the ny times sunday edition) i jumped straight to the comments to see if her intellectual honesty included allowing comments.
.
Amusing thing about the coming death of the lsm. Its their fault.
.
I was raised to yell at the tv, fight the power, and to fight racism (which i halpily did for decades). Nkw that the acrimony seems direcged at a different group, my irish blood gets up and i speak up for the underdog.
.
.the internet makes tv, radio, newspapers, etc a two way medium. But the lsm wants to give you your opinion, not the facts.any medium that doesnt wanta two way interaction with its viewers has a limited shelflife.
Poor lsm, race hoaxes may just get harder to do in the future.
.interesting how afraid the nyt is about all their gz/tm articles to have comments.
They dont want the readers to know other readers know this is duke lacrosse II.
.you been duped 2 i think
.
.
If this were real-i would man the barricades with you
.
If you knew your history, you’d knkw how they used to treat the irish.
.
Dangerous job. Dont let the slave do that job, let the mick do it, they aint worth nothin. How long for italians to gain acceptance?
I am the one who wants folks to be judged by the content of their character while you want them to be judged by the color of their skin., I feel sorry for you, RACIST
Susan,
.
Four words for you, m’dear: keep hope a lie.
Wow.. Whoever taught you those words needs to be slapped! Explains alot of your thoughts behind your comments though. So sorry for you..
and yet such an attitude by our president is something you prolly applaud
susan, are you for real? that article was crap.
Mr mcdaniel.
One measure of your success is how many trolls you elicit.
Hope you are well rule of order
“…One measure of your success is how many trolls you elicit.
…” — that, and by the company you keep.
In any case, I am well, thank you for your concern.
Jeantel is credible because she is the only other person that was on the phone when Trayvon was talking. It doesn’t matter if the witness was a 6 year old baby brother or a ninety year old aunt, they were on the phone therefore what they have to say is very important. It’s too bad Trayvon didn’t survive to speak for himself. It’s unfair to say the one who killed someone is telling the truth. He’s as innocent as O.J. Nicole couldn’t say he kicked the door in, so they have to rely on evidence. Jeantel, regardless of her behavior or attitude, is a credible witness since she was told by the murdered boy a man was approaching him. It’s amazing how so many know what happened from the media reports, but won’t believe the person who spoke to Trayvon while this was taking place. The word nigga and cracker and many other derogatory names are used by the blacks so I guess you want to argue he’s racist against both blacks and whites. It’s wrong to use, but they do and that needs to change. This article claims Jeantel is all of these derogatory things, and that’s wrong too. She is uneducated, yes. She is also not used to being spoken to as an idiot and was forced to respond when she really, according to her culture, would’ve flagged him and walked away. Is it right? No. But you have to understand this culture to understand her behavior. I seriously doubt blacks weren’t embarrassed and annoyed. The difference is, they know when the school system has failed one of their young. The free public school system is not created equal, but you would have to attend one that’s less fortunate to be amazed. It’s really sad, but I have seen many who are passed on to the next grade never getting the help they need and complete this free school system unable to read on grade level.
Lol @ 22:04
I thought the jury had been sequestered
Wassamatta, couldnt find the all caps button?
When an ear witness pretends to be an eye witness even a moron like me can smella rat. Dat u baghdad bob?
she lied repeatedly, made racist remarks and made unbelievable claims. what does wet grass sound like over a cell phone when it is raining?
She could NOT read the letter she had claimed to write!!!!
She wasn’t credible because her story changed, and changed again. Whether that was due to outside infulence or simply her inability to keep it straight in her head is irrelevant. And don’t try to mitigate it by saying other people’s stories changed, too. Her story changed while she was on the stand. She not only said things on the stand that were different than her previous statements, she said things on the stand that were different than things she’d said on the stand a couple hours prior! I understand she was the last person to talk to Trayvon, but if she is incapable of telling that story the same way twice without it changing, she is useless as a witness.
Did Rachel Jeantel not state that the phone was also used by someone else?
This other person has not been identified.
Perhaps this other person was in contact with Trayvon Martin, rather than Rachel Jeantel, on the critical final call.
Really? What planet did you arrive from?
You dont know how many young kids were swept up off the streets of dublin, placed in a ship (as an indenutreded servant) and sent to America as an indenured servant (but their suffering we cant even mention cuz blacks might have suffered more, so we must ignore the sufferign of poor whites?!?!?!?!?!??!?!) NONSENSE
.
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
.
there is a weird word in the TITLE of this book (i wonder what it means)….HIDDEN…..as in the HIDDEN HISTORY ( a hidden history is one that is either not well known or more likely it is a history that has been HIDDEN from puclic underastanding and consciousness……
.
This story of white servitude is hidden and they represent (AT LEAST) 1/2 to 2/3 of the first settlers of the America colony.
They were temporary chattel.
.
You’ve been warned. keep your white guilt to yourself. until you know the history of white suffering and the history of white bondage you should keep your mouth shut cuz your ignorance is showing in a big way……
.
http://www.amazon.com/To-Hell-Barbados-Cleansing-Ireland/dp/0863222870/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y (To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland)
.
you prolly didnt know how many white indenured were brought to the carribean islands (or that the first slaves brought to florida were white).
.
it may surprise you to know that white indentured servants werent the most educated folks (they likely couldnt read and could easily be taken advantage of).
.
of the various ways a white indenutred might be taken advantage of…..\
.
might not be released at the end of his/her bond (while some like to pretend all masters of blacks were cruel-these same folks pretned all mastyers of white slaves were automatically nice to them all the time (farce)…..a white indentured servant could be held well beyond his/her period of indenture if the person was ignorant and couldnt read a calendar (it happened a lot)…..
.
The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy
.
During a Biblical seven years in the middle of the nineteenth century, Ireland experienced the worst disaster a nation could suffer. Fully a quarter of its citizens either perished from starvation or emigrated, with so many dying en route that it was said, “you can walk dry shod to America on their bodies.” In this grand, sweeping narrative, Ireland”s best-known historian, Tim Pat Coogan, gives a fresh and comprehensive account of one of the darkest chapters in world history, arguing that Britain was in large part responsible for the extent of the national tragedy, and in fact engineered the food shortage in one of the earliest cases of ethnic cleansing. So strong was anti-Irish sentiment in the mainland that the English parliament referred to the famine as “God’s lesson.”
Drawing on recently uncovered sources, and with the sharp eye of a seasoned historian, Coogan delivers fresh insights into the famine’s causes, recounts its unspeakable events, and delves into the legacy of the “famine mentality” that followed immigrants across the Atlantic to the shores of the United States and had lasting effects on the population left behind. This is a broad, magisterial history of a tragedy that shook the nineteenth century and still impacts the worldwide Irish diaspora of nearly 80 million people today.
.
.
.
You could offer the same empathy for poor whites as you have for poor blacks, but if I never expect whites to get empathy though I have seen how much scron we save for poor whites whil we try to empathize with the poor blacks
“Jeantel is credible because she is the only other person that was on the phone when Trayvon was talking.”
Your grasp of the concept of “credibility” is severely lacking.
Jeantel’s testimony was of potential significance.
That someone’s testimony is of potential significance does not mean that it is necessarily credible once delivered.
If I’m the only living witness to a murder, my testimony is potentially significant. If I then claim in an affadavit that I saw Abraham Lincoln commit the crime, and I then later in court change my story and claim that I saw a little green man from Mars do it, then my testimony is not credible, despite its potential significance.
@Chris Thorne: What a great summary of significance vs. credibility. Thanks!
She is NOT credible simply because she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin. What if she didn’t relay to the jury what it was he actually DID say. You really think she did? Because I would like to know a couple things.
Let’s recall that according to her own testimony under cross examination, she told Mr. West that she didn’t call the police the night of the shooting because she assumed it was only a fight. She actually said that, and Mr. West didn’t really follow up on that.
Question #1 – Can you explain why she assumed it was only a fight? I mean, she said Trayvon told her he was being followed and basically he couldn’t shake the guy. Then she claims to hear what SHE claims is some sort of physical encounter, and ultimately Trayvon’s voice saying “get off, get off”, right before the phone goes dead. She apparently tried to re-connect (I would like to know how long before she tried), and then she sent him a text…but she got no reply. SO, with no reply from her friend after he was being followed and allegedly caught up to, and then involved in a fight, she suspected it was “just a fight”?? Back to that later…
Question #2 – If we are to believe that Rachel didn’t call police THAT night because she thought what transpired was “just a fight”, what stopped her from calling when she discovered it WASN’T “just a fight”. What prevented her from telling a living SOUL about it for 3+ weeks? She didn’t tell a friend, co-worker, relative, teacher, counselor, or ANYbody that she had been speaking with Trayvon Martin immediately before his death. Why is that??
I’ll answer BOTH of the questions with a very plausible explanation. She was on the phone with Trayvon Martin during part of the time Zimmerman was following him. She knows Trayvon didn’t try to get away, and she knows he actually was pissed someone was following him. He hid right after he ducked around the corner and took advantage of the darkness to mask his location. When Zimmerman walked by the “T” he saw nothing and continued on to Retreat view Circle for an address. Probably on his way back to his vehicle, Trayvon told Rachel that he was going to kick some “creepy ass cracker’s butt”, but he would call her back later. And he hung up.
Rachel didn’t hear back from him in what she deemed a reasonable time, so she tried calling him. No answer…so she texted him…no answer…knowing what Trayvon had told her before hanging up, Rachel assumed Trayvon got in a fight with the cracker – THAT’S how she assumed it was “just a fight”!
Then, a day or so later at school, she learned the truth – that her “friend” was shot and killed. When she learned that, she KNEW she was one of the last (if NOT the last) person to talk to him. When she found out what time he died, she became pretty certain. And she told NO ONE. Not a soul…of her involvement…perhaps even her goading of Trayvon to go ahead and kick the cracker’s butt. And she would have remained incognito, except that Benny Crump was able to track her down. But even then, to make up a story that was plausible – one that was believable – she had the opportunity to hear the publicly released 911 calls and Zimmerman’s call to the police dispatcher. Because of that, she was able to pick up details and add some authenticity to her own fabrication – things like mention of the hoodie (why would Trayvon mention putting his hoodie up??) and the mailboxes, and Zimmerman in his car. I wouldn’t be too surprised if Crump’s insistence on the release of the 911 calls and Zimmerman’s call came as a result of a need to fabricate the story. I firmly believe he has been dishonest in this, and although he may have covered his butt to some extent, he is behind Rachel saying what she said.
YOU say she is credible because Trayvon told her this or that. But how do we even KNOW what Trayvon said?? We only have to trust the friend who didn’t come forward of her own volition, who lied under oath and who created new evidence at trial. She also acted quite disrespectfully while on the stand…how is she “credible.” Your “this happened”, “therefore, this is true” logic is wanting.
I couldn’t care LESS what her education level is, or how well she speaks English. She LIED, and she told NOTHING that can be corroborated. You are blind to not be able to analyze her deficiencies a bit more in-depth.
It sort of ironic that Ms. Jeantel is receiving a similarly harsh treatment by her community, Ms. Coleman does not mention that. Her own peers have critized her demeanor, have said that she lied and have asked her to tone it down.
Though most of the critizism directed at her is because she has not accomplished what Shyster Crumb promised and that is make a convincing case of Zimmerman’s guilt. So how it is that we are at fault for pointing out what her own community is also expressing.
No irony at all. Since whitey in general and individuals crackas at large do all da worlds evils- we knkw whitey is a guilty a** cracka n he no good n u know it n stuff.
.
If Miss Jeantel is being criticized by her own community, npr must blame whitey at all times according to critical race theory. Look it up.
Dont make me go all caps on u
N dat movie idiocracy aint no fiction. It be a documentary.
(Betcha didnt know i spoke ebonics)
“It be a documentary.” is too close to an actual sentence that can be understood by creepy a## crackers.
“It be documental” is closer. A better one is. “Docment it be.”
Her own community? Once again you are judging with ignorance. I said I doubt blacks aren’t thinking this. I’ve had the priveleges of getting to know many well educated blacks and it’s a shame this is what ignorant people love to believe is the norm. Those type of blacks are found in the very small black hood or ghetto areas. Just like poor white trash isn’t the norm for us whites. Yet if someone wanted to ignorantly portray us as that, we would be offended not only by this categorizing, but embarrassed every time one of these uneducated white people are shown on the tv and in movies, and label it as their fault. People of every race have misfortune. It takes an intelligent person to decipher when someone who displays wrong behavior is the victim to their environment. Jeantel is a prime example of someone who has evidence to a crime, but because she doesn’t sit up straight or answer intellectually, she’s a train wreck of a witness. What she said on the stand is what’s important, between her broken sentences. You’re so focused on her use of English. I just hope the people on the jury aren’t as ignorant. I’m not saying Zimmerman is guilty or not, I’m just saying this judgment to this girl is unfair considering her circumstance. Perhaps she has a learning disability? Is this what you do to someone who has delays? Scrutinize them for their handicap? She was not confused about what happened. Whether you understand how blacks feel about the police or not is irrelevant. They are freaked out and think they are going to jail whether they are part of a crime or not. She’s clearly not very intelligent, and made a bad decision. That does not discredit her anymore than any other witness who waits until the last minute to come forward. People are afraid. Maybe you’re brave and have no reason to be nervous? But some people are. It happens all the time in the courts.
Ms. White yes I said her own community, you know how I know because I am part of it. Obviously you are not, or you would not make blanket assertions as if you know. Many in the community see Rachel and despair, because this is the representation of the community.
The problem is made worse by people such as Ms. Coleman and others who claim that they understand and make excuses for them. All while blaming white privilege, well their is something that I would call “black privilege” and you know what it does it excuses the failings of the community.
It excuses when as you said, blacks are scared of the police, in my experience that only happens because they have a reason to be scared of the police ie they have or are doing something that they know is wrong. We are not living in the 1950’s anymore, but some act as if we are, to excuse their own failings.
Every year the black community fall further behind, and is not becuase were are not capable, it is because we keep lowering the expectations, instead of raising them. And when a Rachel is shown in the National spotlight we think of all kind of excuses for her, what is the message that we are sending? You don’t have to try to better yourself, it is okay to make a fool of yourself, to lie, we got your back.
Rachel is just a pawn in a bigger game by those that did not let those lowered expectations deter them, and they achieved but rather than lift the community they have come to plunder and abuse them for their own benefit.
That is saddest thing of all.
I know quite a few people with learning disabilities, Miss White, several are of color, yet none of them are disrepsectful and rude like Rachel Jeantell.
As a Guardian Ad Litem, I have met with many, many underpriveledged children, some have learning disabilities. Some are from the projects. Yet, of the dozens and dozens of them, they are always respectful when I am with them or when we are in court. Children much, much younger than Miss Jeantell.
Your rant is full of holes.
“Jeantel is a prime example of someone who has evidence to a crime, but because she doesn’t sit up straight or answer intellectually, she’s a train wreck of a witness. What she said on the stand is what’s important, between her broken sentences. You’re so focused on her use of English. I just hope the people on the jury aren’t as ignorant.”
If I’m on the jury, and I can’t understand the information she’s attempting to relay, despite two attorney’s multiple repeated attempts to wring it out of her, then what she said on the stand is not important, it’s completely useless. She could be telling the gospel truth and if I was unable to understand it due to her sullen, disrespectful behavor or her lack of comprehensible speech, then it doesn’t matter how true that truth is, because I didn’t hear it, therefore I cannot factor it into my decision-making. You can make all the excuses you want, but if the State was counting on her for a conviction, then they’re screwed.
Maybe she should have asked for an interpreter, like Ms. Mora did.
Is that you Nasty Natjack?
george’s white privelege was the opportunity to have his life snuffed out by an aspiring gang bannger
“Ass cracker” is, according to the urban dictionary, “One who engages in anal sex.”
Why did DeeDee feel guilty? Maybe because she suggested that the “creepy ass cracker” was a rapist. This may have been the motivation for Trayvon to go after Zim. We all assumed it was “creepy-ass cracker”. Turns out it may have been “creepy ass-cracker”.
This would explain why she said “cracker” was not racist. She also said something about “pervert”. “Creepy” works well with “ass cracker” when used like this.
So, this was a hate crime. Trayvon attacked someone who he described as a creepy ass cracker! Mike, what do you think?
If someone is chasing me in the dark I wouldn’t wait for him to swing first. Had Zman stayed in his vehicle in the first place this article wouldn’t be written because a shooting would’ve never took place. That’s the bottom line no matter how you look at it. TM didn’t jump on his vehicle and pull him out. He was walking home in the dark with a crazy man following him. TM is the one who should’ve shot Zman. He felt threatened first. As I said, had he stayed in the vehicle this night would’ve never happened. And speaking of lies? Zman said he didn’t know how old he was when questioned, yet he told the 911 lady he was in his teens. Zman said he didn’t tell his wife to move money around in his accounts, yet another lie. So if you want to be consistent, then say how HIS story isn’t credible either since he has lied many times. I guess he proves the fear aspect of getting in trouble too. You people are on a mission to prove this man’s innocence, even if it means a guilty cold blooded murderer walks. If his next victim is white all hell will break loose. Just pitiful Hippocrates!
There are so many things factually and interpretively wrong with your comment that I’m just going to pick one: I think you meant hypocrites. Hippocrates was an ancient Greek physician, after whom the Hippocratic Oath is named.
Oh, hmm, going that direction, DD said Trayvon was at his daddy’s fiance’s home. Why didn’t he just enter and lock the door?
That’s a mouthful of bull you just spewed ther, Justice. Fortunately, we do not have to prove George is innocent, nor do his attorney’s. The Stae, however, is doing a mighty fine job of proving his innocence.
I would sugggest you are the hypocrite, being that, after over a year of this case being on every form of media available, you have yet to get the facts straight. Getting out of his car was not wrong morally or legally. TM beating him was illegal.
Gatorfan that’s my iPad that entered that word. I didn’t see that until I hit enter. You’re not smarter than the average person. I finished GRADUATE school and am highly respected by all who come in contact with me. Your comment was ridiculous and vague and all you had to say is how I misspelled hypocrites?? Go back to watching tv dude..
Tinylaughter I’m not saying getting out of his car was wrong moron. I’m saying that if he didn’t get out there would not have been a fight. You can’t even understand the few sentences I just wrote, so I see how you think you know what the media’s facts are. It’s safe to assume you misunderstood what they meant as well.. And I just wasted two minutes of my life writing to an…….
OK, I’ll do the rest.
Had Zman stayed in his vehicle in the first place…
GZ did exactly what a neighborhood watch person should do. He was curious about something that looked amiss. I want people like that in my world. People like GZ who are willing to stand up and question things that don’t look right make this world a better place. I suppose you’d prefer everyone just stay behind their locked doors and mind their own business. If it’s not your house being robbed, why should you care, right?
…with a crazy man following him.
Crazy is a subjective judgement. Others might say curious, or watchful, or inquisitive.
TM is the one who should’ve shot Zman. He felt threatened first.
Then TM would be the one on trial, because simply following someone is not grounds for shooting them. Self-defense shootings have to meet a “reasonable man” standard of “feeling threatened,” and simply being followed at a distance by a neighborhood watchman would not meet that standard. Not by a long shot.
Zman said he didn’t know how old he was when questioned, yet he told the 911 lady he was in his teens.
On his NEN call, he said “late teens.” I am unfamiliar with the “when questioned” of which you speak. What was the exact question and answer?
You people are on a mission to prove this man’s innocence, even if it means a guilty cold blooded murderer walks.
I’m not on a mission to prove anything; he has attorneys for that. However, I am capable of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, and that conclusion is that this case never should have been brought. The SPD did an investigation in which they found no real evidence of guilt, and handed the information over to the prosecutor, who declined to file charges. When the race-baiting blowhards got involved, the Governor appointed a special prosecutor, who filed a patently false Affadavit of Probable Cause, and left BDLR, Guy, and Mantei with a stinker of a case to lose.
If someone is chasing me in the dark and I lost him I don’t go back to confront that person. Deal with it, you can blame GZ all you want but the fact is that GZ would not, could not catch TM with a 2 min. head start in the dark had TM not wanted him to. So no GZ was not at fault, if you are scared as you said and feel threatened as you say, then act like it, don’t go searching for trouble by doubling back.
As RJ testified to, TM did not even see get out of the truck but saw him much later, stop trying to make excuses for a very bad decision, this time a fatal one.
there is no evidence that GZ was chasing TM. In fact the evidence points in the opposite direction.
TM had time to reach Brandi Green’s apartment but he did not enter that residence. Instead he backtracked to the T ahd had a fateful confrontation.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever chased Martin. Martin ran, and eluded Zimmerman’s visual contact, while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, he had no idea where Martin was. For the duration of Zimmerman’s NEN call, while he remained in the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, he had no idea where Martin was. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”. There is no evidence that Zimmerman knew Martin was literally right by Brandi Green’s home, 380 feet south of the sidewalk “T” – much less, that Zimmerman made any effort to approach either Brandi Green’s home, or Martin himself.
Use of force in self defense requires a reasonable belief that use of such force is necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force. Zimmerman was walking on a sidewalk. Martin walked 380 feet north, from his previous location right by Brandi Green’s home, to verbally accost and to physically assault Zimmerman.
Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle at 7:11:47 (something that Martin didn’t even know took place, since he had already taken off running at 7:11:40, and he would later tell Rachel Jeantel that he “lost” Zimmerman) does not make Zimmerman responsible for the physical assault Martin initiated around 7:15:43 – some four minutes later.
Nor did Zimmerman walk down to Grandi Green’s home and drag Martin 380 feet back north to the sidewalk “T”, where the altercation started. Martin circled back of his own volition. Martin initiated the verbal confrontation. Martin initiated the physical assault. Thus, Martin bears the responsibility for the outcome of that assault.
For the record: nothing either Martin or Zimmerman was doing is relevant, up until the point one of them did something unlawful. That act was Martin initiating a physical assault of Zimmerman.
That said: whatever Martin’s motives, they were obviously other than merely walking home from the store. It doesn’t take 40 minutes to walk 0.8 miles. Further: per Rachel Jeantel’s testimony, Martin was literally right by Brandi Green’s home by 7:12:06. At that time, Zimmerman was still standing in the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, where he would still be talking to the NEN operator until 7:13:40 (over a minute and a half). If Martin merely wanted to go home, all he had to do was walk in the door.
Instead, he walked back up to the sidewalk “T”, 380 feet away.
Use of force in self defense requires a reasonable belief that use of such force is necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force. Zimmerman was walking on a sidewalk. Martin walked 380 feet north, from his previous location right by Brandi Green’s home, to verbally accost and to physically assault Zimmerman.
The NEN (not 911) call operator, Sean Noffke, is a man, not a woman.
Noffke asked for a description, and Zimmerman provided a description. Given that Martin was a stranger, Zimmerman did not, in fact, know how old Martin was.
When and where did Zimmerman make such a statement?
Kindly point out a material inconsistency in Zimmerman’s statements.
Material elements of his statement would include:
1) Whether he was doing anything inherently unlawful
2) Who was the initial physical aggressor
3) Whether Martin’s assault constituted a forcible felony
4) Whether Zimmerman reasonably feared imminent risk of life or great bodily harm at the moment he used deadly force
“Cold-blooded”? Odd: I don’t remember the State charging Zimmerman with first-degree murder.
Did you miss the huge sign above the door? The race card is not accepted at this ATM.
(But maybe this is progress, of sorts; at least you’re tacitly admitting that Zimmerman is Hispanic, and not white?)
By the way: about 93% of black homicide victims are murdered by black assailants. Where is your outrage over those murders? Are those victims any less important, because of the color of skin of their murderers?
Perhaps one day you’ll recognize that, regardless of skin color, all life is equally valuable, equally important, and endowed with equal inherent worth by our Creator. Then, perhaps you’ll accept that all murder is equally heinous, regardless of skin color of murderer or victim – and that all victims, regardless of skin color, have a right to defend their own lives, regardless of the skin color of their attacker.
Justice, thanks for the tone, the goes miles to helping our point.
“GZ who are willing to stand up and question things that don’t look right” — there in is the problem. When the chance to actually question something came up, he declined it. Rolling the window up on the person you then follow? Sorry, the “amicable” result to this ended when Martin took off running. Same thing with lying straight faced to Martin when standing toe to toe.
“Others might say curious, or watchful, or inquisitive.” — and over zealous (sp?).
“and simply being followed at a distance by a neighborhood watchman would not meet that standard. Not by a long shot.” — TM didn’t know Zimmerman was a Watchman. That is part of the problem. Being followed by person whom refused a dialogue and has exited their vehicle with unknown motive, yeah, that is threatening. Especially having just RUN from said person.
“..Martin circled back of his own volition..” — evidence? (Chip).
Trayvon Martin either hid or circled back. There’s no other possibility. He turned the corner 2+ minutes before Zimmerman’s call ended, yet was at that very spot STILL some 3-4 minutes later – when a slow walk would have got him home in the cover of darkness within about 80 seconds. He was not home, was he? That’s your evidence….unless you think teleportation is an option.
@RuleOfOrder:
Rachel Jeantel’s testimony.
She said that, before her penultimate call disconnected, Martin said that he was going to run for Brandi Green’s home. She said that when she reconnected, he was there.
Things we know:
1) Zimmerman was on the sidewalk at Retreat View Circle (east of the “T”) for another minute and a half, completing his NEN call. We know he wasn’t moving (no wind noises).
2) All witnesses said that the altercation started at the sidewalk “T”
3) New information from Rachel Jeantel on the stand: she said that (even though she just said that Martin was *at* Brandi Green’s home), she could tell that he was still walking (she could hear the wind noises) from then until he re-encountered Zimmerman.
4) Per Rachel Jeantel’s testimony, Martin was “talking low” while continuing this inexplicable walking for the approximately two minutes after already having reached Brandi Green’s home.
If we can believe Rachel Jeantel’s testimony that Martin was literally right by Brandi Green’s home, then the only explanation is that Martin circled back. We know where the altercation started. We know where Zimmerman was beforehand.
Considering hiding is a plausible option, I don’t think teleportation is a requirement.
“Being followed by person whom refused a dialogue and has exited their vehicle with unknown motive, yeah, that is threatening. Especially having just RUN from said person.”
“Considering hiding is a plausible option, I don’t think teleportation is a requirement.”
So, Zim “refused dialogue” but then followed (for purpose of making contact?). What was George planning? Dialogue or apprehension? If George didn’t want to interface with the suspect while he was within the relative protection of his car, why would he follow for the purpose of dialogue? If George was planning apprehension, why wouldn’t he have his gun ready? Isn’t the simple answer the much more plausible? He followed from behind a safe distance to see if he could observe, or in light of the suspects running, didn’t it perhaps become more imperative for George to get a good address (street and number) to provide to the dispatcher. Since George was sure of neither, he was having trouble stating how the officer to find him (go straight, turn left…) with no exact address?
But the really big question: you seem to favor the thought that TM was hiding vs. circled back. So why did he come out of hiding? Why did he engage with the very ass-cracker from whom he had run 3 or 4 minuted earlier?
“Rachel Jeantel’s testimony” — so, the intention is to cherry pick her testimony, then? “Get off, Get off”. Since her words are Gospel, and she asserts Zimmerman was the aggressor, it doesn’t matter if she stated Trayvon danced a jig some place.
“So, Zim “refused dialogue” but then followed (for purpose of making contact?).” — now you understand why I find George’s actions puzzling.
What was George planning? — Good question.
Dialogue or apprehension? — either or.
If George didn’t want to interface with the suspect while he was within the relative protection of his car, why would he follow for the purpose of dialogue? —Why would he leave the protections of his car regarding his gut feeling of Martin?
If George was planning apprehension, why wouldn’t he have his gun ready? — why would he have it out? Has he been threatened? Menanced? Intimidated? Hm. Better question might be why he had it holstered, assuming the previous to be true. Same thing as to why he would follow some one whom did that… then flees from him.
Isn’t the simple answer the much more plausible? He followed from behind a safe distance to see if he could observe, or in light of the suspects running, didn’t it perhaps become more imperative for George to get a good address (street and number) to provide to the dispatcher. Since George was sure of neither, he was having trouble stating how the officer to find him (go straight, turn left…) with no exact address? —– given that George wanted to follow Martin by car or foot, isn’t the simple explanation that Trayvon fled from him reasonable, and in light of not seeing his car come around the other side of the block, resumed his original path? If he hid, expecting to see Zimmerman, then not seeing him some few minutes later, it might be safe to assume Zimmerman’s fascination is done, so he could resume his walking. Lo, he runs into Zimmerman by dumb luck. According to Zimmerman, he wasn’t following Martin, had assumed him to be long gone, but was so confident in those answers he gave police, he doesn’t even whisper his home address to the NEO for fear of being overheard in a courtyard. Why did Zimmerman do what he did is to a LOT of questions, and why he favored his present tack rather than staying in his vehicle to continue his slow rolling reconnaissance is beyond me. If you have no interested in a dialogue or apprehension of your suspect, move the car. Its that simple. If you were so adamant about discovery details of your “suspect”, ask him, early on, from your vehicle. This is being dismissed as unreasonable, but wandering around in the dark in pursuit of some one whom ran from you that you have described as on drugs and up to no good is some how a perfectly justifiable plan.
Rachel Jeantel also testified that she couldn’t be certain that the voice she heard was Martin’s. And West rather successfully impeached her on the point anyway, using her own statement to BDLR: “I couldn’t know it was Trayvon”.
Regardless, she also testified that Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman, along with the plain evidence of her testimony that Martin circled back to do so.
I’m not really sure where you’re going with this. All of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony corroborates Zimmerman’s testimony.
Cherry pick her testimony? While sort of restating my points, you ignored the questions. Why isn’t GZ’s explanation, the most simple and plausible? He had no expectation of coming in contact, nor was that unreasonable. Could he? possibly, but that doesnt make his expectation unreasonable. He was walking along the top of the T, he walked back just past the top of the vertical intersection of the T (not sure he ever went down the T) and TM comes out of the dark (perhaps the bushes) and attacked. Obviously, TM could have gone home, but he chose to hide (or circle back) and fight. Even after he hollered at Z and received a less than satisfying reply, he could have said, stay away from me or I’ll beat the hell out of you. Z on the other hand, had not seen TM when he walked by the dog walk, nor on the way back, until TM came out of the dark. AT THAT POINT, ZIM’S CHOICES WERE TAKEN AWAY. TM could have left after he punched Z, but he knew he would likely be arrested for assault. How do you make sure Zim couldn’t identify or press charges? You gonna die tonight, mfer.
Chip (and Allyn), that is part of my point. She can’t be certain that its Trayvon’s voice or not, but she can be certain that Trayvon was at the Greene’s residence. She has the gift of being able able to hear grass AND what/where Trayvon is, apparently, but is not able to glean her friends voice.
“Regardless, she also testified that Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman” — let me guess, we are sure it was Martin THIS time, right? I only ask because you mention she is not able to recognize specifically Trayvon’s voice.
In previous posts (and articles) her validity as a witness in general is questioned, being that her deposition made no sense, or at least was suspect. That is why I really don’t like referring to her in general, because I think her entire testimony is what she pieced together as a script. Much like Zimmerman’s story, her story can only be pushed so far before what is reasonable gets strained.
Allyn, Zimmerman had no expectation of contact because he had exercised no forethought into what he was doing. Trayvon came out of the dark 3 minutes (roughly) later, during which time Zimmerman is supposed to be either walking back to his car, or looking for a house number (which ultimately he never got before heading to his car). If Zimmerman is so interested in house numbers, why is he between the houses as opposed to on the street? Wouldn’t that make the most sense? Being out FRONT on the ROAD to find addresses? Re Martin,hiding would make sense as an option, considering up to this point, Zimmerman never exited his vehicle, he was following along behind in it. Again, if this is the pattern, what incentive does Martin have to lead Zimmerman home?
“less than satisfying reply” – a lie. Zimmerman lied to him. At this stage in the game, Zimmerman’s options were taken away because he didn’t make use of any. Again, no forethought. As I made reference to in a few previous replies, there were plenty of satisfactory answers that could have gone a long way in altering the mood rather than lying to Martin. Following up a lie with any action that could be construed as going for a weapon, along with all the other failures of Zimmerman to really identify his motive, and you have a recipe for disaster.
For the time being (because otherwise, you and the State would have nothing at all), let’s assume that Rachel Jeantel’s testimony is trustworthy. We have 3 statements to consider:
1) Jeantel testifies that Martin told her that he was right by Brandi Green’s home
2) Jeantel testifies that Martin said “What are you following me for?”
3) Jeantel testifies that, after the earbuds came out of Martin’s ear (and thus, the microphone was no longer proximal to Martin’s mouth), she could “hear a little ‘get off, get off'” – and further, Jeantel testifies that she can’t be certain who’s voice it was
The first two Martin statements testified by Jeantel are reasonably assumed to have come from Martin. Do I really need to explain why? Apparently so:
1) Zimmerman wasn’t anywhere nearby. Martin was speaking on an earbud microphone. Jeantel believed it to be Martin.
2) Martin was speaking on an earbud microphone. Martin believed Zimmerman was following him. There’s no logical reason for Zimmerman to say, “What are you following me for?”
The third statement is different for two reasons:
A) The microphone was no longer at Martin’s mouth, because Jeantel testified that Martin’s earbuds had fallen out.
B) Jeantel herself said that she couldn’t be certain whose voice said, “get off, get off”
Thus, we can conclude 3 Things:
1) Martin was right by Brandi Green’s home prior to the altercation
2) Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman
3) Jeantel cannot be certain who said, “get off, get off”
What was the lie that Zimmerman told TM? And how did TM know it was a lie?
1) Martin was right by Brandi Green’s home prior to the altercation” — would you be kind enough to quantify ‘right by’ please? Feet or yards, whichever you feel comfortable with.
So, we have Martin asking Zimmerman what his deal was (or whatever aggressive connotations you wild like to apply), Zimmerman lying to him (despite the obvious truth of the matter), and then reaching to his pockets. This is after a two and some change blocks worth of rolling reconnaissance and retreat. And Trayvon (the asshole and punk) is not allowed the expectation of violence. ::shrug:: Look, from what I can gather, both people were all nice and legal in their actions during this incident, right up until it became obvious Zimmerman got in over his head, which is right about the time he opened his mouth to veil his intentions. It went down hill from there, and my humble, justifiably so. Were I in Martin’s shoes, I have no expectation of glad tidings if the person I am addressing is lying about his motives, and has taken up a place where my location is after I left him in his car some half a block back. Why didn’t Trayvon yadda yadda? Stupid teen.
Granted, it’s a hypothetical, but if Trayvon had lived, IE the cops showed up before the shot, Rachel’s curious bit of testimony is no longer required. Trayvon says he was reaching for a weapon (Lo, one is found on Zimmerman), this coming after Zimmerman stating he was following the kid, and can’t give a good explanation for why he wasn’t at his car afterwards. Did Zimmerman ID himself? State his intention? ATTEMPT to diffuse this in any way? Sure, Trayvon sits in a cell for assault, but when he gets to tell what he thought Zimmerman was up to, and acted like (which Zimmerman himself explains on the phone), it starts to turn REAL gray as to whom the aggressor was. We have half a story, and the half we do is some what self serving.
Can you say anything that is modestly convincing that explains why you believe a single thing Rachel Jeantel has testified to? I mean seriously!!
Here we have someone who has been at least an acquaintance of Trayvon Martin for more than a decade. She was talking with him and texting him for literally HOURS over the days prior to Trayvon Martin’s death.
In her testimony, she told Attorney West that the reason she did not call the police the night of the shooting (after she lost contact with Trayvon) was because after all that had happened she thought the encounter with Zimmerman was nothing more than just a fight.
OK, maybe that’s plausible…maybe..but not if we look at everything ELSE she said she knew. She said that Trayvon Martin told her some creepy ass cracker was following him. She said Trayvon ran to get away, but the guy kept following him and then was very near him. She said Trayvon was scared and out of breath…tired. The guy was a stranger, and seemed intent on getting Trayvon, right? Then she says after Trayvon asked the man why he was following him, the man said “What are you doing around here?” She said she heard a bump, Trayvon’s headphones fall out, and then the sound of the grass, and finally, before the phone went dead, she heard Trayvon say, “Get off, get off.”
After all this, she attempted at some point to call Trayvon back, and when she got no response, she texted him. For obvious reasons, Trayvon was no longer able to contact her.
So, OK…let’s say she believed it was only a fight. Have you ASKED yourself why she thought that it was only a fight? WHy WOULD she think it was only a fight, especially when she never heard from Trayvon Martin again. It was about 7:17pm when Trayvon Martin was shot. She had been talking off and on with him for HOURS, yet she wasn’t alarmed when, after he obviously was in a physical altercation with a strange creepy ass cracker. Hmmmm…isn’t that a touch odd??
Now, let’s move on to OTHER things she has said under oath and in the interview with Crump back in March of 2012.
1 – She claimed Trayvon Martin told her he put his hoodie up after leaving the 7-11, because it was raining. But Trayvon Martin already HAD his hoodie up when he entered the store, and it remained there the entire time. Additionally, why would someone narrate such an innocuous action as putting their hoodie up – for ANY reason. I mean, can you imagine Trayvon saying, “Its starting to rain – I’m putting my hoodie up.”?? It’s not particularly plausible.
2 – She claimed he took shelter under the mailboxes. In fact, she said he ran from the store TO the shelter of the mailboxes. That’s 8/10th of a mile in the rain. Had he run there upon leaving the 7-11, it wouldn’t have taken him more than 45 minutes to get there. Had he merely WALKED that entire distance casually, he would have arrived in 20 minutes or less. Why did it tke so long if she said he ran there directly?? Doesn’t add up!
There is more….but let’s get back to why she didn’t call the police, and why she suspected that the encounter was merely a fight.
Remember why she told West she didn’t call the cops? because she thought it was just a fight. Even if that IS true, and I am SURE it is…within a day or so, she knew it wasn’t “just” a fight, yet she STILL didn’t call the police. In fact in 3+ weeks, she didn’t tell a living SOUL that she had been speaking with Trayvon Martin immediately before his death. NO ONE! Curious!
Here’s what I think. Yes, she was talking with Trayvon off and on that evening. Yes, when Trayvon Martin was being observed by Zimmerman, she was probably on the phone at least part of the time. But she didn’t make a single statement to ANYone until all 911 calls and the non-emergency call had been released to the public. In fact she had about four days from then until she made the recorded statement to Crump. In that statement, she mentioned the hoodie, the snack, the drink, the mailboxes – all of these were either revealed in the media or mentioned in Zimmerman’s call. She mentioned a TWO-PART verbal exchange between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that went something like this:
Trayvon: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: What are you doing around here?
She had no way of knowing that Zimmerman’s statements indicated a THREE-part exchange, and Witness #11 would say SHE heard a THREE-part exchange.
She had no way of knowing that the eventual release of the 7-11 video would show Martin already WEARING his hoodie.
She had no way of knowing how far the store was from the housing area and how it would have been impossible for Martin to have run and taken so long to get there.
She knew there was going to be a fight because Martin TOLD her he was about to kick some creepy cracker’s ass! And the phone records SHOW she was NOT on the phone with Martin when the altercation occurred. Her timing doesn’t match with Witness #11 (keep in mind Witness #11 did NOT send the majority of her testimony rolling her eyes and being disrespectful with attorneys.
She didn’t call the cops because she KNEW a fight was planned, and then when she learned Martin was dead, she didn’t want to implicate herself as having been any part of it.
Why else would she not have come forward? Why ELSE would she have said nothing to ANYone??
She is a LIAR, and if you believe a single thing she has to say about what happened on February 26, 2012 between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, you are a fool – unless you can explain her non-action without simply making apologetic excuses about it.
@RuleOfOrder:
Why don’t you listen to Rachel Jeantel’s on-stand testimony, and find out for yourself what she said?
As for Zimmerman “lying” to Martin? That’s real retarded, sir.
Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman in an obviously threatening manner, and Zimmerman understood “do you have a problem” to be hostile/fighting words. By saying “no”, he was saying, “I have no intent to fight you”.
You are so far afield of reason and logic that continuing to debate you is a complete waste of time. Henceforth, I’m done with your sophistry and pretzel logic.
“Do you have a problem, homie”
“NO” —- lets assume Trayvon has the situational awareness of more than a cauliflower, and puts two and to together that the person in the car that was following him for the past two blocks, and is now out of said car at the last reasonable place Trayvon could have been seen by him. Clearly, he has a problem. With Trayvon.
“…Henceforth, I’m done with your sophistry and pretzel logic.” — Look, dude. You are welcome to frame the argument as legally as you like, and as I have made mention before, congrats, you win. Zimmerman walks. But what you consider reasonable by any stretch of the imagination, isn’t. I can’t help but notice when it becomes obvious Zimmerman’s actions in a certain way were down right dumb, you use the “legal right” shield, as though that is a defense from his poor choices. Further, “obvious” as coming from Zimmerman, whom is last man standing. If Zimmerman was so intuitive as to Trayvon’s actions, like… say, the casing of houses he thought was going down, would it be out of the realm of possibility to think that a fight was coming, and reaching for concealed objects is a -good- idea? Is it unreasonable to think house numbers are printed on the road side, and not the courtyard side? Chip, be honest, how many house numbers do you think will be printed where the fight broke out, as opposed to where people drive by? Oh, wait, I forgot, plain common sense answers as to where the most likely place of reading a house number is sophistry. He was heading back to his car, because stating he was still looking for the kid is damaging to a self defense claim, its best to abandon that and lie lie lie since… well, last man standing and all. BTW, unless you consider the brief exchange an argument, and the one hit wonder of Trayvon sounding like two people playing basketball, George will probably have another bridge to sell you.
Juggs, who is your repy directed too? I think this will make the fifth time in me stating that I hate bringing Rachel up, because I think she is talking from a script. I only make mention of what she stated after some one else decides to use what testimony they find to be the ring of truth in whatever else she stated (lied about, was deceptive about, whatever).
Dear Allyn:
Understanding depends on context, which is also partly dependent on inflection and manner of speech. Where Jeantel is concerned, this can be difficult, but in this case, not terribly.
The meaning depends on what is the adjective and what is the noun. The most common understanding would be “creepy-ass (adjective) cracker (noun).” However, the alternate “creepy (adjective) ass-cracker (noun)” is possible. Some have suggested that because Jeantel, several sentences later added that she thought Zimmerman was a rapist, that Martin intended to suggest that Martin was in fear that Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist. None of her other testimony–about which I am less than confident, by the way–supports this contention. Judging by Jeantel’s inflection, and by far the most common use of “cracker” as a derogatory term for white people, I’m satisfied that “creepy-ass” is the adjectival element and “cracker” is the noun.
The rapist allegation was clearly Jeantel’s brainstorm, much like a similar, last-minute and unrelated outburst during her interview with de la Rionda when out of the blue, she added that Martin called Zimmerman “crazy.” Notice that this has vanished entirely. In any case, that was Jeantel’s assumption, not Martin’s, so it could not have figured in the incident in any case. Keep in mind it is entirely possible Martin said no such thing and Jeantel is making it up; these comments never appeared until her testimony on the witness stand despite having three–and likely more–opportunities to provide them.
All in all, I consider every element of her testimony to be inherently untrustworthy.
It’s interesting to note that Rachel has never previously mentioned anything at all about Trayvon thinking George was a homosexual, pervert, ass cracker, or gay rapist.
Did George’s brother Robert coming out a few weeks or so ago inspire the new ‘gay panic’ embellishments?
You could literally see the hatred on the Scheme Team faces as they watched Robert speaking that day to the press.
Dear Mike,
I have waited a while to reply to your reply, as I continue to think about the situation.
DeeDee’s testimony cannot be believed in total, but that is not to say her complete testimony is unbelievable. When she said “creepy ass cracker” she was mumbling and when she repeated it she said “creepy…….ass…….cracker”. From her speech patterns, I can not be sure where to put inflection, where to put attitude and where to put dismissiveness. At one point she did say something meant pervert. She did say she felt guilty. She did say maybe he is a rapist. She also said it was not racist. The fact we had not heard that before is not particularly instructive as follow up questions were rare during the original interviews. If she felt guilty, it could be that she did say “maybe he is a rapist” which would be consistent with her telling him to run home. If she said it, it may or may not have been kidding, or just thoughtless babble. If Trayvon was saying ass-cracker, it could have just been a handy expletive to use at the time, just as one might say “some fag sitting in the truck” without attributing any sexual connotation.
If Trayvon was at home, he may have told her, I’m gonna go kick that ass-crackers ass. She would never tell us that, and I hate to speculate so much like the Trayvonites do, but ……..
Dear Allyn:
I might add that part of my analysis here is my personal experience with black people, none of whom I have ever heard refer to homosexuals as “ass-crackers.” This doesn’t mean it’s impossible, I’ve just never experienced it. I have, on the other hand, heard innumerable black people refer to “crackers” will any number of colorful preceding adjectives.
This is in reply to Allyn above, although it looks as if it’s going to appear under Nivico’s comment – but it applies to that comment too, as it happens.
If you actually listen to DeeDee’s words, she very plainly stresses the phrase as CREE-pee-ass CRACK-ah, not creepy ASS-crack-ah. So Mike has it right when he hyphenates it as creepy-ass cracker, not creepy ass-cracker.
And no, I don’t think for a moment that she said (or TM believed) that GZ was a gay rapist. That notion was floated by those who have a vested interest (either financial or emotional) in insisting that TM was defending himself from a perceived threat rather than attacking w/o provocation. Given the disparity in overall fitness between the two parties, clearly TM had no reason to fear GZ physically (since at the time he attacked, he didn’t know GZ had a gun), so these irrationalists had to come up with some emotional reason for his alleged fear. And once the theory was out there, is it any surprise that someone should have fed it to DeeDee to regurgitate on the witness stand?
I had not heard that Trayvonites had propounded such a theory. But, bring it on! Any theory that provides a rationale for TM to attack, helps the defense. The prosecution hasn’t even acknowledged that TM threw the first punch. It doesn’t matter if the prosecution argues that TM was fearful and therefore righteous in his mind to attack. His reason is unimportant as he is not on trial. The fact that TM attacked is 100% important to the defense.
White-
Just because people have tried to soften the immorality of lying does not change what it is. To give cover for lying by saying it is part of a culture, does not diminish the intentional deceit. Liars can be found in every walk of life, from the wealthy business man, to the white trash people you speak of. It is never excusable, and, if it matters to you (as sit should), it is a sin. One that God hates.
No one cares what Miss Jeantell looks like, what color she is, etc. What does matter is the refusal to give respect to the court; the refusal to speak clearly in such a serious situation; and the main thing, she has lied, over and over again- even when a man’s life is at stake. It doesn’t show her culture, it shows her CHARCTER. All you have done, along with Cristina and her ilk, is to state that her lack of character is a result of her culture. But I don’t buy that, as there have been far too many who were raised in less than stellar backgrounds who rose above that because they knew their moral compass did not jive with it.
(thought minpin would appreciate the caps). ;-)
And if Trayvon had not left the home of his daddy’s side action; if Trayvon had just gone directly home rather than doubleing back; if Geroge and Trayvon both had just stayed in the house that evening… And no, I don’t get my information from the lame stream media. I actually read the motions, the reports, the statutes.
When you resort to name calling, you’ve identified yourself not as a thinker, but as a person of poor intellect, one who is not able to engage in critical thinking or debate.
Goodnight.
Reblogged this on A world at war.
trayvon defenders are consistent in their ignorance of both the facts of the case and the law. every post is the same. wrong information and wrong assumptions.
Christina Coleman’s weak apologia for Rachel Jeantel contains this gem, trying to explain away the fact that Jeantel is only barely functional in English:
“… she comes from a home where Creole is her first language”
I suppose that explains all those tweets from her in Creole. Oh! Wait. There are none.
However, even if true, she would not be the only person to testify this week for whom English is not a first language. Selma Mora, an immigrant from Colombia, apparently speaks serviceable enough English to transact business daily, but opted to testify via a translator. Because, as Mora told the court, this is a serious matter, and she would not wish for any ambiguity in her English to diminish the importance of what she had to say to the court.
Bravo to Mora for her integrity and good sense.
Yet there was no comparable degree of integrity and good sense on display from Rachel Jeantel. Who could also, had she wished, have invoked a translator from the Creole she allegedly prefers to speak. That she did not do so further buttresses the case that she is incoherent and inconsistent and dishonest in multiple languages.
This week in the trial also had on offer, proving the point that it’s possible to be incoherent and inconsistent and dishonest in skilled English, the testimony of Jayne Surdyka. Who insists that she saw and heard George Zimmerman fire three shots into Trayvon Martin’s back. A physically impossible thing to have happened.
Miss Jeantel thrived on ambiguity (thus she could never be prosecuted for perjury since she mumbled so much, no one could definitively understnad WHAT she said)
http://www.amazon.com/White-Slaves-African-Masters-Narratives/dp/0226034046/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y#reader_0226034046
.
White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives
.
.
Hey bori, why dont africans want you to know of THEIR histyory of holding europeans slaves? why dont africans want whites to know their history fo slavery?
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Mediterranean/dp/1403945519/ref=pd_sim_b_4
.
Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 (Early Modern History)
.
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056/ref=pd_sim_b_3
.
They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
.
DONT FREAKing come to me and tell me whites didnt suffer from indenured servitude (AND slavery) unless you expect to be smacked down (again and again)
http://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Irish-Slave-Girl-McCafferty/dp/014200183X/ref=pd_sim_b_7
.
Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl
.
Kidnapped from Galway, Ireland, as a young girl, shipped to Barbados, and forced to work the land alongside African slaves, Cot Daley’s life has been shaped by injustice. In this stunning debut novel, Kate McCafferty re-creates, through Cot’s story, the history of the more than fifty thousand Irish who were sold as indentured servants to Caribbean plantation owners during the seventeenth century. As Cot tells her story-the brutal journey to Barbados, the harrowing years of fieldwork on the sugarcane plantations, her marriage to an African slave and rebel leader, and the fate of her children—her testimony reveals an exceptional woman’s astonishing life.
And of course, one of my favorites (and spike Lee’s…..when spike lee found out he had slave owning family members, he didnt express any guilt-nope, he claimed they were entrepenuerial)……
.
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Slaveowners-Masters-Carolina-1790-1860/dp/0786469315/ref=pd_sim_b_9
.
Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860
.
right after suggesting that white bondage was no big deal, they claim that black slave ownership was no big whoop (just like they say jeantel lying under oath on the stand is no big deal)
.
Bound with an Iron Chain: The Untold Story of How the British Transported 50,000 Convicts to Colonial America
.
http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Iron-Chain-Transported-Convicts/dp/098367440X/ref=pd_sim_b_12
.
In 1723, James Bell grabbed a book from a London bookstall and started to run, but he was chased by several witnesses and was discovered hiding in a dog kennel. As punishment for his crime, Bell was loaded on a ship and sent to colonial America, where he was sold at auction as an indentured servant for a seven-year term.
Most people know that England shipped thousands of convicts to Australia, but few are aware that colonial America was the original destination for Britain’s unwanted criminals. In the 18th century, thousands of British convicts like Bell were separated from their families, chained together in the hold of a ship, and carried off to America. What happened to these convicts once they arrived? Did they eventually prosper in an environment of unlimited opportunity, or were they ostracized by other colonists and doomed to live in poverty?
Anthony Vaver tells the stories of the petty thieves and professional criminals who were subjected to this unique punishment, and in bringing to life this forgotten chapter in American history, he challenges the way we think about immigration to early America. The book also includes an appendix with tips on researching individual convicts who were transported to America.
.
(While some are eager to denigrate the history of bondage of white folks, I suggest you do so carefully as your ignorance you wear on your sleeve with too much pride)
White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam’s One Million White Slaves
.
http://www.amazon.com/White-Gold-Extraordinary-Thomas-Million/dp/0374289352/ref=pd_sim_b_16
.
http://www.amazon.com/Spirited-Away-Novel-Stolen-Irish/dp/1478140267/ref=pd_sim_b_24
.
Spirited Away – A Novel of the Stolen Irish
.
It’s May 1653. When young Frederica (Freddy) O’Brennan and her sister Aileen trust a stranger on an empty beach in western Ireland, they inadvertently place themselves in the crosshairs of Cromwell’s notorious Reign of Terror. Freddy awakens in the crammed hold of a slave ship bound for Barbados. She and Aileen endure the gruesome voyage only to be wrenched apart when purchased at auction by sugar plantation owners from different islands. Freddy is left alone to face the brutal realities of life as a female Irish slave on a seventeenth century Barbados plantation. As she struggles to survive the ordeal, Freddy’s harrowing experiences paint an intimate, compelling portrait of 1650s Irish and African slavery in the Caribbean.
.
when the white indentured servants were forced into a cargo hold agaisnt their will in very cramped quarters, was this their white privelege? Eh?
Is Amazon paying you for the click through, or by the post?
do you thrive on ignorance?
does it upset you that whites KNOW a little of the history of the bondage that whites have faced?
are you afraid of books?
do you avoid reading cuz you think it is like ackin white?
Does it upset you that I have so much PROOF when you have so little?
Well my impression of Jeantel had nothing to do with race.
She simply appeared to me as incredibly self-centered (like many folks her age of all colors/ethnicities/religions). She remarked several times that she just wanted to get various interviews over with. Get the lawyer off the phone. Get out of Fulton’s house. Get things over with. She seemed to me, to discount her potential to be a witness because she didn’t want the hassle. She didn’t want to spend her days talking to the police or in court testifying – not out of any fear of the police, or any cultural reason – but because she had better things to do. Things that were more fun and not a buzzkill.
She didn’t come off as ‘black’ and ‘keeping it real’, she came off as immature and narcisstic.
Well said!
She wanted justice for trayvon, but not if it interfered with her lfie for a few days (some friend?
trayvon’s life is over and all she worries about is her nails and not weather or not justice is done (i knew it was whitey’s fault)
I’m still waiting for any actual fact confirmation that it was Jeantel on the phone with Trayvon Martin. In her April 2, 2012 interview and sworn statement conducted by de la Rionda, he asked her about if the phone was in her name. She made a very curiously worded reply to the effect, ‘it should *now* be in my name’.
de la Rionda of course never bothered to tease out a clarification of precisely what she meant by that, but it did suggest some doubt as to whether or not that phone was registered to her or in use by her on the night of Feb 26, 2012.
If the jury acquits Zimmerman in cursive we can avoid a lot of unpleasantry.
Dear rspung:
Heh-heh!
justice has been served on this silly negro thug who was on drugs
Pingback: The Race Card Is Not Accepted At This ATM | The Chrishanger
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #55: The Prosecutors Are Incompetent Racists! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 58: Fraud? | Stately McDaniel Manor