Cooper’s abject refusal to speak!

FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2013

Flatly false, also ugly: Does Anderson Cooper like his job? His job as a national journalist?

On Tuesday night’s show, he failed to challenge a guest when he plainly should have. The guest in question made a false statement—a statement he knew was false.

Elsewhere, Cooper has corrected this misstatement. Tuesday night, with high feeling all around, he simply gave it a pass.

The guest in question was Barbara Arnwine, president of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Arnwine made this statement about the juror Cooper interviewed one night before:
ARNWINE (7/16/13): This is obviously a woman who sees herself as divorced from “they.” She doesn't say this is the way “young people” think, this is the way “young people” act. She doesn't say this is the way “our community” acts. This is a person who I noticed, even in your interview, she kept talking about “George,” “Georgie.” And Trayvon was the “boy of color.”

GERAGOS: That goes back once again to what I said. This case was over in jury selection.

ARNWINE: Right. I agree with that.

GERAGOS: Nobody thinks of themselves—and I said this to you before. Nobody thinks of themselves as a racist, and I'm not accusing anybody of being a racist. What I'm saying is, race is the prism through which people see things. They don't—people don't consciously know it. And none of these jurors, when you interview them, if there's going to be five more that get interviewed, are going to say, “Yes, I'm a racist, and that's why I voted for George Zimmerman.”

COOPER: I have interviewed people who are in the KKK and they don't even say they're a racist!
“I'm not accusing anybody of being a racist,” Geragos said, as he and Cooper suggested the jurors are racists.

That said, the highlighted statement by Arnwine was false. Cooper should have had the stones to say so.

Sorry, lynch mob! The juror in question never referred to George Zimmerman as “Georgie.” She didn't call Martin a “boy of color” or say anything like that.

Lynch mobs have always whipped themselves up through the use of such colorful claims. But the juror didn’t say those things—and she spoke on a first-name basis with regard to both Martin and Zimmerman.

Here's a large chunk of her basic assessment of what happened in Sanford that night. Routinely, she speaks on a first-name basis regarding both “Trayvon” and “George:”

COOPER (7/15/13): What did you think about George Zimmerman?

JUROR B37: I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done. But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong.

COOPER: Do you think he's guilty of something?

JUROR B37: I think he's guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn't have gotten out of that car. But the 911 operator also, when he was talking to him, kind of egged him on. I don't know if it's their policy to tell them what to do, not to get out of their car, to stay in their car. But I think he should have said, “Stay in your car,” not “Can you see where he's gone?”

COOPER: Do you feel George Zimmerman should have been carrying a gun?

JUROR B37: I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think it's everybody's right to carry a gun, as long as they use it the way it's supposed to be used and be responsible in using it.

COOPER: Do you think Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

JUROR B37: I think he did.

COOPER: What makes you think that?

JUROR B37: Because of the evidence. On the T. or on the sidewalk, where George says he was punched, there was evidence of his flashlight and keys there, and a little bit farther down, there was a flashlight that he was carrying. And I think that's where Trayvon hit him.

COOPER: So you think, based on the testimony you heard, you believe that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor?

JUROR B37: I think the roles changed. I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him and get the one-up on him or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

COOPER: Do you feel like you know for sure what happened in the altercation? And did the other jurors feel for sure that they knew what happened?

JUROR B37: Nobody knew exactly what happened. I mean, it started at one point. It ended on another point. Witnesses said they heard left-to-right movement. Other witnesses said they heard right-to-left movement. But the credible witnesses said they heard left-to-right movement. So whatever happened, I think the punch came, and then they ended up in front of the—in back of the house. I don't think anybody knows.

COOPER: When the defense in their closing argument played that animation of what they believe happened, did you find that credible?

JUROR B37: I found it credible. I did.

COOPER: What did you think of the testimony of Trayvon Martin's mother and father? Do you find them credible?

JUROR B37: I think they said anything a mother and father would say, just like George Zimmerman's mom and father. I think they're your kids. You want to believe that they're innocent and that was their voice, because hearing that voice would make it credible that they were the victim, not the aggressor.

COOPER: So in a way, both sets of parents kind of canceled each other out in your mind?

JUROR B37: They did, definitely, because, if I was a mother, I would want to believe so hard that it was not my son that did that or was responsible for any of that that I would convince myself probably that it was his voice.

COOPER: How critical, though, was it for you in your mind to have an idea of whose voice it was yelling for help? How important was that yell for help?

JUROR B37: I think it was pretty important, because it was a long cry and scream for help that whoever was calling for help was in fear of their life.

COOPER: Do you feel that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin? Do you think race played a role in his decision, his view of Trayvon Martin as suspicious?

JUROR B37: I don't think he did. I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously. There was an unbelievable number of robberies in the neighborhood.

COOPER: So you don't believe race played a role in this case?

JUROR B37: I don't think it did. I think if there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George would have reacted the exact same way.
You may not agree with this juror’s judgments. But everywhere she referred to “George,” she also referred to “Trayvon.”

Lynch mobs will always find new ways to hate. This is a basic human reaction, until we learn not to do it.

You know? In the astonishing ways King and Mandela taught and displayed?

Cooper should have stood up on his hind legs and told the truth about the person who had been his guest one night before. Instead, he went with the feel of the crowd.

Geragos seemed to accept the accuracy of Arnwine’s statement. After that, he and Cooper had a good old time implying their R-bombs around.


  1. Lynch mobs generally hang people, and I believe Mr. Zimmerman is still walking around. When Anderson Cooper and Bob Somerby move on to the next tabloid obsession, and things die down, he'll probably get a book deal. At the Daily Howler the only one allowed to work the room with inflated retoric is The Daily Howler.

    1. Zimmerman walks around alive and as a free person, but only in spite of the lynch mob's efforts.

    2. Yeah, that ol' Bob Somerby, always harping on those tabloid obsessions like school test scores, budget plan details, and Gail Collins columns.

    3. And one day, after he is done milking the Zimmerman case for every drop, he'll get back to those topics. Particularly the Gail Collins columns.

      As for "school test scores," it's like the rest of this blog. Once upon a time, he had something original to say about education, and even at one time tried to turn this blog into an education blog.

      Then he quickly ran out of material. But like any good stand-up comedian, that never stopped him. He just kept using the old, worn-out, dried-up jokes over and over again, wondering how he went so fast from packing venues in Vegas to playing half-filled comedy clubs in strip malls in Des Moines with drunks yelling back at him.

      For instance, go to the "incomparable archives" and see how many times he has written about the broad topic of education in America without mentioning the name "Michelle Rhee."

    4. Hey, my language-recognition software knows you 3:13!

      You're one of those "I'm done with this blog" liars.

      Welcome back. Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

    5. Will whoever has locked their computers on this site, tied them up in front of it, and forced their eyes open with toothpicks, please let them go?

  2. When you keep your focus narrow, you make your point.

    Much better, though I agree with the post above that the use of "lynch mob" is the very thing you feign to condemn.

    1. No, it's not.

      Lies and "overheated rhetoric" aren't the same at all. But keep trying.

      Maybe someday something of merit will issue from your keyboard. Not hopeful though.

    2. Sometimes reality is such that oft-hyperbolic language like "lynch mob" becomes perfectly appropriate, and milder terms are rendered inaccurate.

    3. Lynch mob is an appropriate term for what has been happening here. Lynch mobs are fueled by inflammatory speech. They take the law into their own hands -- and make no mistake that those "protesting" wish to overturn the verdict. Some explicit suggest vigilante action. Lynch mobs of the past used fear and threat of lynching to control the behavior of others. In this situation, Zimmerman's act of self defense has dared to challenge the right of an African American youth to terrorize others with aggressive behavior on the streets.

      In Los Angeles, whole neighborhoods are controlled by such behavior. Witnesses are afraid to testify against criminal wrongdoing. Innocent bystanders who are actually young children (last month a baby) are shot as young men engage in their aggressive fights over turf and respect, drugs and other crime. But anyone who objects will be attacked (if African American) or called racist (if white). The lucky few move out of such areas. In Sanford, these residents are trying to protect their neighborhood -- the right to live without fear of home invasion or street thuggery or harassment by aggressive men loitering on the sidewalks, glaring aggressively at whoever they decide is creepy-assed (or a Cracker). No one has spoken about this juror's statement of context -- that there were a huge number of burglaries in the area. Trayvon's actions have a different meaning in the context of such a neighborhood.

    4. "In this situation, Zimmerman's act of self defense has dared to challenge the right of an African American youth to terrorize others with aggressive behavior on the streets."

      Gimme a break!

      I'm a "jury was correct" guy through and through in this case, but this comment of yours is grotesque.

      You don't have a leg to stand on implying Trayvon Martin was "terrorizing others with aggressive behavior on the streets."

      There's every reason to believe that if he had not been tragically suspected by Zimmerman, Martin's would've been a name and face we never came knew.

    5. You don't have a leg to stand on implying Trayvon Martin was "terrorizing others with aggressive behavior on the streets."

      The commenter's view is perfectly reasonable. Trayvon Martin attacked a man causing him to fear for his life, and might have murdered him but for the fact that his victim had a gun.

    6. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was coming over to check him out, glaring at him with his hands in his pants (pretending to have a weapon). Later Martin approaches him and asks him why he is following him and do you have a problem? These are aggressive acts, testified to by Jeantel, the prosecution witness and a friend of Martin who was on the phone with him. Not to mention the MMA-style beat down witnessed by Good. That sounds like aggressive behavior meant to intimidate Zimmerman. If Martin had not engaged in it, his would've been a name and face we never came to know, but perhaps he would have been familiar to those in his neighborhood who experienced similar acts, beginning with that bus driver he claimed to have punched (evidenced by the contents of his cell phone). I think there is plenty to support my suggestion that he was engaging in aggressive behavior, like many other African American youths who have made their communities less livable for others.

    7. The act of following someone, in your car or even more so on foot, is an aggressive and threatening act. If I think someone I don't know is following me, I'm threatened. Martin indeed seems to have engaged in threatening and aggressive behavior, but it was in response to Zimmerman's following him.

    8. The law doesn't think "following" is reasonably "a threatening act."

    9. No it wasn't. He walked up to Zimmerman's truck to check Zimmerman out, as Zimmerman was in it, on the phone. You could say that Zimmerman could have driven on home (even though the dispatcher was asking for information about Martin's behavior), but then you'd also have to talk about those damn 4 minutes.

    10. Bottom line: Somerby is free to label people who thought Zimmerman was guilty of some crime with the racially charged "lynch mob" epithet.

      Garagos is not free to express his opinion that a particular juror might have looked at the evidence in this case through the lens of her own racial experience. That is "clearly" in Bob's mind, calling her a racist. No other interpretation is possible, unless you are part of the "lynch mob."

    11. You're walking home in a slightly familiar neighborhood when you notice someone you don't know following you. You feel threatened or not?

    12. No, no, no 3:19 Anon.

      Not "people who thought Zimmerman was guilty of some crime."

      People with big media platforms who lied and withheld facts in order to convince others that Zimmerman was guilty.

      That's the "lynch mob" behavior. It's the right term.

    13. Likening Arnwine's behavior to a lynch mob's is not comparable to telling outright lies as Arnwine did.

      It's not a lie to suggest that the bald-faced lie that this juror had referred to Martin as "the boy of color" and to Zimmerman by "Georgie" was meant to inflame the audience. it was to suggest that this juror was an inveterate bigot utterly estranged from Martin because of his skin color and unabashedly familiar and sympathetic to Zimmerman because of his.

      THAT is the sort thing that mobs do to fuel rage.

      THAT too is also the very thing you are wrongly attributing to Somerby. Arnwine did do the thing she was bemoaning in the jurors. She attributed the worst sort of thinking to this juror because the juror is white. And she lied in order to accomplish it.

      What's even more shocking is that Anderson let this go. You can't argue that he did that out ignorance or sloppiness or even tribal assumptions. They were speaking of an interview that he had conducted.

      Frankly, this was a form of collusion on his part.

    14. " express his opinion that a particular juror might have looked at the evidence in this case through the lens of her own racial experience. "

      That's another way of calling her a racist without any evidence.

    15. Look what Geragos said Anon 5:28.

      He knew that the case case was over in jury selection. In other words, as soon as he saw five white women.

      Nothing like bemoaning racial assumptions and admitting that you immediately typecasted five people based upon race.

    16. "Nothing like bemoaning racial assumptions and admitting that you immediately typecast." That is right on point.

  3. It's important that Bob cover this the way he has because, although there are many, many progressive journalists who agree with Bob, very few of them have had the BALLS to say so publicly.

    Very, very few. Fewer than five.

    For the most part, the only ones on the left you're hearing from are those who have joined the lynch mob.

    Most of the others are hiding under a rock somewhere, afraid to alienate those in their audiences who have gone off the deep end over this case, and with no inclination to use their positions to speak up about what is right.

    Just waiting for it to all blow over.

  4. Sadly "lynch mob" is exactly right. Ever since the event, Zimmerman and his parents have been in hiding. Z wears a bullet-proof vest. Suppose Zimmerman simply returned to his home and took no safety precautions. I think there's a good chance he'd be attacked or killed.

    1. I don't believe that to be the case. In my eyes, the "lynch mob" are the groups that keep marching, demanding that Zimmerman be brought up on federal charges, who have turned him into some cartoon Klansman.

    2. You know what, David and Marcus?

      I am truly glad that nowhere in your history or the recent history of your families have you ever had cause to know what a real "lynch mob" is.

      And neither has Somerby, or he wouldn't throw the words around so loosely.

    3. It's the right term.

      You get a big megaphone, you make shit up, you withhold exculpatory evidence, you whip up racial animus. That's rousing a lynch mob.

      Also, you don't know anything about anybody's history or the history of their families, so you oughta shut up about that. Just sayin'

    4. Oh, I get it. An actual lynching isn't necessary, is it? Just a bunch of people whipped into a frenzy and screaming

      So would Somerby term the people who screamed at Democratic congress people at town hall forums during the health care debate as "lynch mobs"?

      If not, why not?

      Now as for me, I'd be careful about condemning others for using incendiary terms, while you want to bandy about your incendiary terms, lest you rouse a "lynch mob."

      But of course, that would require a bit more self-examination and a bit less hypocrisy, which is rapidly becoming the stock in trade at this particular blog.

    5. Trying to send someone to jail for 20-30 years for a crime he didn't commit sounds close to a lynching to me, especially since it is being based on mass hysteria instead of reality.

    6. To the Dumbass 6:47 Anon,

      Did "the people who screamed at Democratic congress people at town hall forums" have a large media platform? (No, they had a relative minute of media attention, from a platform they didn't control).

      Did "the people who screamed at Democratic congress people at town hall forums" withhold exculpatory evidence about someone they wanted charged with murder? (No, they didn't).

      Did "the people who screamed at Democratic congress people at town hall forums" make up just-so stories about someone they wanted rounded up by police for a supposed brutal crime? (No, they didn't).

      Is there any reason to suppose "the people who screamed at Democratic congress people at town hall forums" are somehow analogous to the various bullshit-spewing pundits who engaged in making shit up about Zimmerman, withholding evidence from their audiences that might've tended to exculpate Zimmerman, and baselessly stirring racial resentment against Zimmerman? (No, there is no reason to suppose they are analogous, dumbass.)

  5. Funny, reading these comments, how Bob has apparently found, at last, his ideal audience -- profane, quick to make personal attacks which would almost certainly get one's teeth knocked out in a bar (so many fearless and obstreperous men on the 'net!--how is it we Americans are such mice when it comes to following orders, listening to Rush and watching TV?), and every bit as prejudicial and blinkered as the subjects of Bob's alleged press criticism. It's enough to make one side with that ignorant flunky, Anderson Cooper.

    Maybe a man can't be blamed for his fans -- including admirers here who have advanced new theories of arithmetic, in the cause of Bob and Mitt Romney -- but the question is, how close does Bob come to deserving them? I'd say it's a close call.

    1. You've convinced me. Zimmerman did something wrong.

    2. Hey now 1:51,

      Watch that! I'm the one making those "personal attacks" -- or maybe I'm not -- which ones are you talking about? -- and I'm no man. I'm a little boy. I mean girl. Fine, you've got me: I'm a doggie.

      But, can you explain that a little more clearly? Cooper's bullshit is AOK because you don't like someone's tone on the internet?

      They don't come any stupider than you, Charlie.

  6. David in Ca's purple conjecture reminds us that what he is really what Bob is really talking about is a HIGH TECH LYNCHING.
    Last month The Supreme Court voted to kill the voting rights bill, with Clarence Thomas, a multi-millionare cipher and creation of the radical right, voting to kill this not very controversial measure designed to insure black people can vote in places where, historically, there has been some question.
    If you are not a member of the racist reverse racism cult (like David in Ca), take a moment and consider how that must have felt for any black american who is familiar with the history of the U.S. If Bob had anything to say about this shameful moment, he kept it to himself. And if he said anything, it was a fraction of what he has spent obsessing on this overhyped case.
    Might this Court's action, kicked in by the vote of a mercenary Uncle Tom who was too stupid to even know you shouldn't be going into graphic details about your favorite porn stars at work, actually keep some black people from voting? You think Bob Somerby is even interested in the question? As far as we have seen, the only level at which things are even interesting to Bob is if they can illustrate that the North was just as bad as The South. Which is of course bullshit.
    A black conservative who committed perjury to get on the court, and represents views held by only a sliver of the black population, killed the voting rights act! Do you think Bob Somerby gives two shits?! The Martian Case HAS at least provoked some talk (some from the right) about how dangerous is it to be black in American, how much crime is black on black, etc. Does Bob care, NO, several blowhards (or as Bob would have it EVERYBODY) said Zimmerman was told to wait in his car, and that's not true! Let's stick to what's important! We can go to the critical cases in history, like Bob does, The Duke Lacrosse team!
    Can we talk? Most of us have always understood the liberal who, scratched very lightly, will side with white racism most of the time. Bob's brain dead, one sided obsession with the case suggests he probably falls into that camp. As to the rest of the anti-racismism fetishists, who post here and now probably make up most of Bob's readership, you're all assholes and can flake off.

    1. Greg -- The Voting Right bill wasn't killed, just the section that required federal oversight for states that discriminated several decades ago. The Voting Rights Act still calls for federal oversight for places that are discriminating today.

      When considering how this change in the Voting Rights Act felt to black families, don't forget that many of them misunderstood what Congress did, because they were misinformed by the people who also misinformed Greg.

      Does it help black people to be told that things are worse than they actually are? I don't think it does. I think these falsehoods only encourage fear and hatred. However, it does help the Democratic Party. Fear and hatred will motivate people to get out and vote, even though they're based on falsehoods.

    2. Greg's right. There's racism. So let Anderson Cooper alone, you bad Somerby!

      No, wait. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

  7. When I was about thirty years old - now more than twenty years ago, sadly - I was driving in a small Honda in Seattle with my wife and infant son. Trying to enter a crowded main avenue from a side street, I cut into traffic between two jeeps.

    They both honked furiously and six or seven guys in late teens to early twenties piled out of both jeeps and started rocking the Honda up and down violently. They quite literally picked up the front end a couple feet and let it drop repeatedly.

    I'm a pretty big guy and not afraid of confrontation, but I mostly wanted to draw these young bastards away from my family, so I started to open my door to get out. One of these punks slammed the door shut with his hip and shouted, Stay in the car, motherfucker, or I will cap your ass!

    I stayed in the car.

    After another minute, they gave up their sport, piled back into their jeeps and took off.

    I swear, if I'd had a gun in my glove compartment, I could have shot them all. Or at least scared the shit out of them.

    And in retrospect that would have been very wrong, dontcha think? Regardless of how these fucking punks behaved when I cut them off, I'm thinking killing would be overkill.

    So what's my takeaway from this experience? It isn't racial - these assholes were country boys, crackers, if you will, visiting the city. They threatened me and my family, but they did not deserve to die. If I'd had a gun, I would have killed them.

    But I didn't. I shut my fucking mouth and let them blow off steam. With a gun handy, I'd have behaved differently, possibly resulting in tragedy all round.

    My takeaway: without a gun, chances are high that everyone lives. Which is why I would never think of carrying or owning one. Virtually every dangerous situation I've found myself in could be ameliorated by backing down, shutting up, and finding ways to defuse the confrontation.

    1. Thanks for your story, Sherrlock.

      Is it relevant to whether Anderson Cooper should rebut lies on his program?

      Is it relevant to how long a person should have their head beaten against pavement before they can defend themselves with deadly force if it's available to them?

      Maybe you're saying they should just wait, it'll always turn out OK like it did for you?

      I wish you the very best, but we have self defense laws for a reason. Your story doesn't put a dent in them.

    2. Sorry but you're not obligated to take the chance that everybody lives. If you'd had a gun you would have been within your moral and legal rights to protect your family and yourself. Glad things worked out as they did but there are people with stories like yours who didn't have a gun and who ended up dead because of it.

    3. Only in America, kids.

      Having a gun available changes one's behavior. I've lived in some pretty dangerous places - Uganda during Amin, South Sudan a bit later, and Inner City, USA - I can think of half a dozen times when grabbing for a gun would have been an option. Nevertheless, in each instance, somebody dies. Perhaps me, perhaps my family; not necessarily the assholes.

      Thus far, I've had to talk my way out, or just shut up. Why is that a bad thing?

      In any case, this is a personal decision, informed by my own experience.

      It's truly ridiculous to even consider taking away guns from anyone in this country. I'm only suggesting that, for those tempted to buy this self-defense bullshit, there are other, safer ways to survive confrontation than pulling out a gun.

      And my question for you anons 3:08 and 5:19 - have you actually killed someone in self-defense? Do you know what that feels like?


    4. What if, instead of telling you to stay in the car, they had hauled you out of it by your lapels and begun beating you senseless. Is that a happy ending? That is a lot closer to what happened to Zimmerman.

      Then there is the truck driver who was hit on the head with a concrete block during the Rodney King riots. He was in a car in an intersection and did nothing to deserve his treatment. If he had a gun perhaps he would be alive today. We cannot assume that a group of young men is just going to blow off some steam and then go on their way. Too many fatal road rage incidents contradict that theory.

    5. Frankly, I just get too pissed off. I'm still furious with those punks I mentioned above and occasionally re-imagine the situation with a gun. Nothing would give me more instant gratification than to blow those little bullying bastards away.

      And that's why I don't carry. It's too tempting to resolve these situations with a gun - and the resolution doesn't necessarily end in my favor. Statistically, gun owners are far more likely to do themselves harm than protect themselves from strangers.

      Again, I don't care if you have a gun - I know it's impossible to take away guns in America. But I choose not to use them, because I find it much to easy to give in to my natural impulse to do harm to those who threaten me. Thus far, I've found another way that works for me.

      N: Reginald Denny is the trucker you're thinking of. He was severely beaten, but did not die. Giving him a gun may have helped or not. There's just no way of knowing, given that particular situation. Rodney King, you may recall, was beaten similarly by half a dozen cops. If he'd had a gun, he surely would have died.

    6. It's a responsible decision not to carry a gun based on statistics, but it doesn't follow that it is a moral or ethical wrong to carry one, or to not alter one's behavior because of the fact you are carrying one. And one can go as far as to say it is ethically and morally positive to voluntarily keep watch on one's crime ridden neighborhood, even more so to put oneself at risk by getting out of one's truck to keep watch on a suspiciously behaving person.

  8. "COOPER: When the defense in their closing argument played that animation of what they believe happened, did you find that credible?

    JUROR B37: I found it credible. I did. "

    Ugh. Not good news.

    I'd just like to remind all the legal eagles who said they were on the side of the defendant: the state will be rolling out these very expensive cartoons, too.

    To convict.

    There were entirely too many "re-enactments" used in this case. I'm just not comfortable with their use in what is a he said/he said case where one "he" isn't there.

    1. You weren't comfortable. Big deal. Few are.

      So what's your suggestion? In the absence of proof, convict anyway? That's not America, bub.

    2. Anonymous on 7/19/13 @ 2:53P

      Maybe, but the defense gets to suggest a credible story (i.e., one that fits the evidence produced in court) for the purpose of raising reasonable doubt. The prosecution doesn't have the same kind of leeway to meet its burden

    3. Now THERE is something I haven't thought about before, and I wish people, whatever "side" they are on in the Martin/Zimmerman case, would pause to think about what 2:53 just said.

      I do disagree with one thing. In this age of computers, it is not difficult nor "very expensive" to come up with these "cartoons" (good word!) that depict whatever either side wants to show, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they will start showing up for the prosecution very soon. And as technology and animation continue to improve, they will get even more graphic.

      And they will also be used against defendants with court-appointed attorneys, and without the means to produce their own "cartoons."

    4. 3:40, And so???

    5. No, just kidding.

      I know a concern troll when I smell one.

    6. Really Anonymous @ 2:53 PM, you're unaware that prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal trials and lawyers for plaintiffs and those for defendants in civil actions have been using computer generated graphics for years to make their case to juries?

    7. And before they are admitted, they are evaluated for accuracy and prejudicial effect. They aren't any worse than the reenactments seen during this and other trials or even a skillful delivery of a well crafted narrative

  9. Bob,
    Years ago when I came across your site and your focus was on educational issues and the political misconduct of the Dowds' & Richs' ( and prior to comments at this site) I wrote you an e-mail saying that I had to wait until I got home from work to read your posts. Why? Your reports were so spot on and upsetting that I needed a drink to settle my nerves.
    I believed then and now that our nation's problems could only be solved by JEPS (Jobs, education and public safety).
    You would regularly express your admiration for Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and, occasionally, Nelson Mandella. Fine. Great leaders in our world's struggles.
    I am a life long supporter of Israel for obvious reasons. Don't kill my people.
    But then it started to occur to me that to draw your admiration, black people needed to be passive, non-aggressive and willing to accede to imprisonment or death. They would have the moral high ground. That was their role to play. But they would be in prison or dead. No matter what was done to them they should accede to the abuse and be forgiving. Understanding. Ignore the abuse and threats.
    Then the Zimmerman-Martin case confirmed my concerns.
    Martin, followed by a stranger, should have walked home? Suspicious. Ran home? Suspicious. Confront the person following him? Threatening. Lose; Lose; Lose.
    Many of your new found commentors only confirm my feelings.
    What should Martin have done? Other than dying?

    1. He had 4 minutes to decide. He should have come up with something other than starting a fist fight. Someone should have taught him this. The next teenager who makes the same deadly decision might have become convinced by commentary like yours that he was justified. Bob, on the other hand, has not perpetuated such a dangerous idea.

    2. Confirmation.

    3. If Martin had continued walking (without going onto private property or looking into windows) he would have (1) reached his home and could have gone inside where he would be safe, or (2) been questioned by the police arriving on the scene after which he could have gone home and been safe. If there is any concern about leading an unknown person back to one's home, then the advice is to go to a public place where there are plenty of other people and call the police from there. That could have meant walking back to the 7-11 (or maybe someplace closer, I don't know the neighborhood). No one ever advises talking to a person who is following you, much less arguing with him or hitting him.

    4. Black people should start bulldozing trailer parks and build houses there.
      Fuck your people.

  10. What should Martin have done? Other than dying?

    It's not a question of what Martin should have done. It's a question of what he shouldn't have done. He shouldn't have punched Zimmerman in the nose and knocked him down. He shouldn't have repeatedly pounded Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.

    1. He shouldn't have repeatedly pounded Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.>>


      Why isn't Zimmerman dead?

    2. One possible answer: he had a gun

  11. "It's not a question of what Martin should have done".
    What should he have done?
    Run? Walk? Confront?

    1. Call 911
      Not call 911
      Keep chatting with his friend
      Walk up to Zimmerman, if he Intended to be nonconfrontational
      Not walk up to Zimmerman if he felt angry
      Go home
      Hang out on his back porch
      Keep walking down the path

    2. Remain passive. Become a victim. You may end up dead. But you will be a moral hero.

    3. Martin would have been a victim of a couple of questions from police.

    4. Behave like a 17 year old kid instead of a violent punk.

  12. You missed one. On the "They" over and over, on the previous night Cooper stated the juror wanted it known that the "they" she referred to was Raechel and Trayvon only, not to a race of people. So Cooper got a twofer with that interchange.