Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Martin Bashir's Takeaway On The Attempted Character Assasination of Trayvon Martin

Alexa's picture

[FINALLY... A Mainstream Journalist Speaks Truth on the Trayvon Martin Travesty!, lipstick, YouTube]

This video came to my attention when I received the "Tweet" below. Frankly, I don't watch MSBNC or this Bashir dude.

Screenshot_072113_121918_PM

Would welcome and comments (or rebuttals) to Bashir's claims.

BTW, I've heard nothing but talk about the "Stand Your Ground Law" on Sunday (political) talk shows.

Would anyone care to clarify for me, please--"Did the SYG law apply to this case?"

0
No votes yet

Comments

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Can't say that I agree with your assessment, entirely.

As I mentioned, I rarely listen to the three major Cable News Channels (CNN, MSNBC or Fox News).

However, I regularly listen to all the Cable Network's "Business Channels."

And I often either listen to (or read the transcripts of) the Networks and Cable Network Sunday Talk Shows because they generally reflect the Corporatist Dems (and Repubs) political views "to a tee."

Heck yeah--I want to know what these "vermin" (lawmakers and opinion makers/shapers) are thinking and saying.

That's not the same thing as "believing" what they're, BTW. ;-)

Couldn't agree with you more about "watching TV." We cut off our service (but the most basic to C-Span, which is not where we stay most of the time) several years ago. Mostly, it is a waste of time. Especially with all the other available entertainment and news options.

We are able to get at least a modicum of "real" news via XM Satellite Radio (mainly we listen to international news, since American media is nothing but unadulterated propaganda, LOL!).

Today is a great example. At least I think that it may be.

Again, I didn't follow the Zimmerman case. But I thought that I'd seen several references to the fact that this IS NOT a "Stand Your Ground" case/defense.

And yet, that's the "misdirection or redirection" in which the PtB are trying to steer the African-American community. Or, so it seems.

Again, does anyone know if my impression is correct--that the Zimmerman/Martin case had nothing to do with the "Stand Your Ground" law?

I hope to do one last post on how the Dems are handling this "affair," but need to clarify that point (reference the SYG law) before proceeding.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Never mind.

Juror B37 "broke her silence Monday night on national TV to say Florida's 'stand your ground' laws played a role in the decision to acquit the Sanford neighborhood watch captain."

So I take it that even if the case is not tried on those grounds, jurors are free to decide the case by considering that law.

This "Tampa Bay Times" piece is somewhat convoluted--sorta all over the place. But here's a link to it, in case anyone is interested in reading it. Good luck!

Despite backlash, 'stand your ground' laws did not apply to Zimmerman case

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Stand Your Ground laws allow a victim, even if he/she can retreat to safety, to use deadly force in a public place to prevent or stop an assault on his/her person or even, perhaps, to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (property) crime. It is true that the judge included a Stand Your Ground reference in her instructions, however, she also, for instance, stated the applicable law regarding the rights of a defendant in his/her own home. Stand Your Ground and, obviously, the Castle Doctrine were not defenses that were asserted by the Zimmerman lawyers. I'll quote from the jury instructions and put in bold the basis for the self-defense right Zimmerman was asserting and in italics the rights that Zimmerman was not asserting but that belonged to him (or any other defendant):

INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE In this case, George Zimmerman is accused of Second Degree Murder. A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful. If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing....

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

Prior to trial the defense did not ask to make a pretrial Stand Your Ground assertion which could have led to a dismissal of the case by a judge and immunized Zimmerman from any civil liability but that probably would have required Zimmerman to testify on his own behalf in order to prevail and would have tainted the jury pool if it failed and might have given the prosecution a testimonial record to challenge at trial.

The key here is that the defense was asserting Zimmerman was in fear of severe injury and he had no opportunity to retreat at the time he used deadly force rather than that he used deadly force instead of retreating.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

to formulate such a detailed, informative and thoughtful explanation.

Considering how the Court defined "deadly force"--that "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force," the jury verdict makes a lot more sense.

This is a lot more plain than the newspaper piece that I linked to above. ;-)

Alfa Zog's picture
Submitted by Alfa Zog on

Yes. In full, the 1876 doctrine states: "A true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant."
I trust that the Judge read the correct instructions, those that apply under Florida law. [ but i'm not positive]. Googling on: true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant shows how things vary from one US state to another, and also the various shades of the Castle doctrine in the US, a defense against homicide when one kills while being assaulted at home, etc (roughly).

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

New Channel "Motto:" [paraphrased: "We don't just talk, we do (act?)."

Gag!!!

And boy, have they ever outdone themselves. Take a gander of the lineup sometime.

Talk about "buckets," LOL!

I may be taking bets soon on how long the Dem Party can even hold it together. If the ACA doesn't take it down, the Dem Establishment will destroy it themselves, with pathetic radio programming.

As though we needed any more proof that the Dem Party is THE corporatist party!

If Sirius/XM gets rid of "hard" news, Mark's "MIP" with Glen or Bruce on Wednesdays--Shout Out to BAR, the business channels, C-Span, POTUS, music (classical) channels, and the Golf Channel, Mr. A and I will have to look elsewhere (where, we haven't figured out).

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

to CH 127 (America Left on XM) anymore.

In case there are any more Sirius/XM listeners, here's the press release:

SiriusXM Renames SiriusXM Left Channel As 'Sirius XM Progress'

July 16, 2013 at 12:15 PM (PT)

SIRIUS XM RADIO has rebranded its liberal talk channel SIRIUS XM LEFT to SIRIUS XM PROGRESS, starting AUGUST 22nd.

The new name comes with an altered lineup, with a new show with MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA's ARI RABIN-HAVT moving from evenings to 6-9a (ET) and SIRIUS XM OUTQ's MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE taking the 3-6p (ET) slot weekdays. MARK THOMPSON's show continues, as do the syndicated STEPHANIE MILLER, ED SCHULTZ and THOM HARTMANN shows.

“From sports to music to all perspectives of political talk, SIRIUSXM’s non-traditional, groundbreaking hosts live their lives in their fields as much as on the air.

We are very pleased to launch SIRIUSXM PROGRESS with that spirit, expanding and enhancing the quality and depth of our diverse political lineup across multiple SIRIUSXM channels,” said SIRIUSXM SVP, Talk and Entertainment JEREMY COLEMAN.

“Whether our audience agrees or disagrees, seeks out information or challenges what they hear, we now offer truly insider radio featuring progressive politics and perspective from veteran activists who have earned their stripes and are ready to take calls from listeners nationwide.”

What a joke. Doesn't even resemble the old "Air America" lineup.

Alfa Zog's picture
Submitted by Alfa Zog on

Alexa, I see arguments cutting each way:
(a) The thresh-hold for justifiable use of deadly force is
very high, under "common law" established by case-law, going back to English Law. As a side-note, I was wondering if SYG laws were constitutional; that's a complex question: States of the Union have "rights" to set their own rules, irrespective of the Feds.; they're a whole body of case law devoted to State Laws being pre-empted (or not) by Federal Law. So, SYG laws might run afoul of State Constitutions/Common Law, but that has to be tested in Court.
(b) Under civil and criminal procedure, all elements of a crime must be established "beyond a reasonnable doubt".
(c) No double jeopardy: Zimmermann can't be tried again by the State for the same acts (roughly).

Someone can be (arguably) over-charged by the prosecution. I hear that Lambert thought (perhaps) that Florida might willfully "bungling" the charges. I think it's the prerogative of the District Attorney's Office to decide what charges to lay. In case the prosecution "bungles" through over-charging, I'm not aware of a remedy: the injunction against double-jeopardy (not trying a man twice criminally for same stuff) is very strong, and reasonnable.

To give a sense of perspective, over here in Canada, the mentality is such that SYG-type laws would never be passed, IMHO. Hope this helps, Alfa.

Alfa Zog's picture
Submitted by Alfa Zog on

With respect to "the duty to retreat", the US on the one hand, and Britain and her former colonies on the other, have gone separate ways, AFAIK. In clear, under English Law, stand-your-ground only "makes sense" as a self-defence argument if you're at home (the "castle" doctrine), or if you literally/figuratively "have your back against the wall"; No Exceptions ... Un "American" variant common law, the "duty to retreat" is practically nullified, in the same circumstances. I read about this in the New Yorker, and it goes back to the time of Linoln or thereabouts: Link to New Yorker article
Alfa

affinis's picture
Submitted by affinis on

It seemed to me that, while Trayvon Martin's character was impugned by spinning elements of his online footprint, etc. (a heavy focus of media attention), the media attention to Zimmerman's online footprint (and prior violent acts) was minimal.

Addendum: A relevant link. Also, a useful tool that everyone might not be aware of - Race Implicit Association Test.

Alfa Zog's picture
Submitted by Alfa Zog on

Yes, I agree with the linked-to article. One confounding variable is that income correlates with race (at least for the blacks and the whites). Therefore, whites on average can affford better defense counsel. Hence, conviction rates are not a proxy for "factual guilt". So, using conviction rates, probably unconsciously, could give rise to prejudice, IMHO.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

Some of the discussion of Trayvon Martin's character speaks to countering the simplistic (and inaccurate) narrative that he was nothing more than a child walking home with candy who was chased and shot by a racist disobeying police orders.

Talkleft has an excellent archive of information about the actual evidence in the case and thoughtful legal analysis from the perspective of a defense attorney. Yesterday's column concerned the the constitutional rights and protection of the accused vis à vis the Zimmerman/Martin case.

As for Martin Bashir being a mainstream journalist...I've watched hm. He's an angry, racebaiting, Obama acolyte who recently editorialzed that the term IRS is racist code used by republicans to attack "the black man in the White House."

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

those are the words of "lipstick" who posted the YouTube video of Bashir.

I first received the video as an embed in a Tweet. But I did not want to "Retweet" this particular Tweet.

The Tweet video was originally posted at MSNBC, but their was no "embed code" provided. So I sought, and found this video at YouTube, posted by "lipstick."

I always attempt to give appropriate, and exact or accurate attribution/credit when I post a video, photo, etc., from any source. So I used the same title that "lipstick" used.

It doesn't mean that I agree with her sentiment that Bashir is a MSM journalist.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

I understood from your post that "mainstream" was someone else's charactarization, Alexa. A few commenters had asked about Mr. Bashir, so I thought I'd give my impression, as I've seen his program several times.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

To some extent, I share your frustration with the very often "simplistic" framing by our crack mainstream media, LOL!

But I don't think that it's always about "race baiting, or being an Obama acolyte."

Now, it sometimes seems that "race baiting" is endemic to the Democratic Party. Certainly, it has long been used to garner the black vote. But not just by the Obama Administration.

Remember, former President Clinton was "the first black President."

Regarding whether Trayvon Martin should be classified as "a child." Obviously, at any age (if our parents are living), all of us are still "someone's child."

I'd say that it is not totally inappropriate to classify a 17-year-old as a child in some instances.

After all, one must have a parent "co-sign" to enlist in the Navy if younger than 18 years of age.

Certainly, this assertion is not the stretch that referring to "young adults up to age 26" as children, amounts to.

Guess the Democratic Party Establishment thought that this is a better "PR" message than referring to this particular plank of the PPACA as "The Budding Doctors, Attorneys and Academics" Clause. ;-)

[BTW, I am NOT against covering any young people in this age group. Our family members have, and will benefit from this coverage, too. I'm just "so weary" of the dishonest framing of the neoliberal agenda by BOTH parties.]

Regarding Bashir's politics--I don't watch his show.

However, I have found that there are many "talking heads" (radio and TV personalities, opinion columnists, etc.) who supported Hillary, who are more than happy to "shill for every Democratic cause--including enthusiastically supporting this Administration, and its neoliberal policies."

Could it be that Bashir is simply one of them?

I'm getting ready to post a "blurb" that I ran across yesterday regarding Hillary's Third Way vision of "entitlements." It's exactly what we're seeing carried out by the Obama Administration and corporatist Establishment Dems, today.

Hope that doesn't qualify me as an "Obama acolyte."

"Cause frankly, as anyone here should know by now (about me), I wouldn't 'walk across the street' for any of the corporatist/neoliberal/Third Way/DLC Democrats."

;-)

Alfa Zog's picture
Submitted by Alfa Zog on

You and others mention race baiting. I guess I'm not competent enough on US politics to discuss tactics and all that. But what's apparent to me is that in genereral, commentators speak in generalities. Here, it would be easy in one paragraph to explain that SYG stems from the Florida legislature, that it was passed in 2005 under Governor Jeb Bush and that a "professional" or "authoritative" reference to that law is this: Chapter 2005-27 Laws of Florida.
Why don't pundits just say: "Please consult Chapter 2005-27 of the Laws of Florida ?"
alfa

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

I thought hard before using the word "acolyte" to describe Bashir. He seems to mindlessly support / visciously defend anything that this adminstation does. He throws the R bomb around alot. It seems to be more than simlpy toeing the party line.

You, on the other hand, are no acolyte Alexa!

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Allow me to clarify, please. The US does have problems with systemic racism, IMO. And I did not mean to minimize or deny this issue.

But Dem politicians here (thirty years ago) decided to abandon the working and middle classes in regards to economic policy, and began putting their various constituencies in "buckets"--pandering to them off and on, yet doing very little or nothing substantive for them.
.
And certainly, I admire the actions of, and support rendered by Democratic Party lawmakers during the Civil Rights movement. It was not my intention to diminish in any way, the contribution of these politicians/lawmakers. ;-)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

just thought that a reread of my comment appeared to give "short shrift" to the topic. I sort of picked up the expression "race baiting" from a previous comment, and decided that maybe it did not exactly convey my intended message. That's all.

I agreed with your comment and the info that you provided.

I think it's very helpful (and refreshing) to exchange views with any of our friends north of the border.

You guys can probably spot attributes and weaknesses in the US political system that those of us enmeshed in it, fail to see. Much appreciate the input. ;-)