Who is Lawrence O’Donnell?

In one sense, O’Donnell isn’t to blame for what he did. He didn’t claim to be a criminal defense lawyer, knowledgeable in the ways we think, act and work. He is what he purports to be, a talking head on a third-rate cable channel watched by insomniacs and people wearing elaborate hats made of tin foil. But then, these tend to be the types of folks who are most easily misled, most impressionable, as they lack the radar that enables them to distinguish reality from the O’Donnells of the tube. These are the people seeking confirmation bias, validation of their wildest imaginings, and if some guy on TV says so, then so it must be. Proof that they were right all along!
. . .
Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a criminal defense lawyer anywhere who would explain that the only reason a defendant doesn’t testify is because he’s guilty. That’s just crazy. I mean, totally batshit nuts. It’s simply not true.

And yet anyone watching O’Donnell will leave the couch thinking they now know the magic secret of the inside world of criminal defense, and carry that stupidity with them as they speak with friends, teach their children and, pathetically, sit on a jury.

It would be one thing for O’Donnell to hold a foolish opinion if it was just something he trotted out at the occasional cocktail party, but when a guy has a television soapbox, with its inherent credibility as an entertainer paid to fill in the voids between commercials, he can do some serious damage. And no doubt he did.

To Talk Inside Baseball, You Have To Be Inside Baseball

We don’t need no stinkin’ bill of rights. “Racists” are the new witches, the new heretics.

It’s like a never-ending onslaught of destroying people’s rights lately! Did no one take civics class in high school?? What is wrong with people lately?! Recently, this little piece by Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC started circulating on Twitter. And I saw it. And it made my head almost explode.
. . .
This thought process, this complete and utter shitting on the Constitutional rights we’re all guaranteed, this idea that we don’t have to grant “bad” people–people charged w/ crimes–the full panoply of rights and presumptions because we’ve decided we don’t like those bad people…that’s why we’re all in trouble. Eventually, we’ll erode these precious rights down to nothing and everything this country was founded on–all the things that people fought and died for–all those principles will be meaningless. Because we decided we were going to ignore the right to remain silent because only guilty people remain silent.

And, for what it’s worth, if I were ever arrested even if I did nothing wrong, I would 1) not consent to any searches; 2) not agree to talk to police; 3) immediately demand a lawyer to be present for any questioning; and 4) probably wouldn’t testify. You know why?? BECAUSE I CAN. Because it’s my right to do all of those things. And it’s yours, too, despite what blowhards like Lawrence O’Donnell may think.

Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?

Strength in Unity! Forward!

Already this morning, television news has broadcast the twits of New York City politicians and candidates following the verdict. They have the potential to enlighten, to calm, to inform. Instead, they are pandering and inflaming the passions and ignorance of the public, playing the confirmation bias card.

Whether they too lack a working grasp of our legal system, or know better and just don’t care, is unclear. Either way, a million people could end the day stupider than it began. Is it worth a vote? Don’t answer.

Zimmerman: No Appeal From The Court of Public Opinion (Update)

The pro-Trayvon campaign shows how illiberal ‘anti-racism’ has become.
. . .
These accusations of racism might sound radical, but they aren’t. Today, we’re told, the roots of racial conflict are not found in government policy (Obama and others are seen as anti-racist), nor among the elites generally (it is gauche to espouse such views in polite circles), nor even so much among the police. Instead, the blame for racism is put squarely on the shoulders of working-class types like Zimmerman.

There is a terrible irony to the response to the Zimmerman verdict: it is those who profess to be on the side of Martin and justice, who claim to be anti-racist, who are really promoting prejudice and illiberal solutions. The pro-Trayvon lobby promotes explicit prejudice against ignorant jurors, against crazed men carrying guns, against ‘white Hispanics’ and others who fail to appreciate all races. It is also the loudest critic of basic legal principles, such as innocence until proven guilty and reasonable doubt. The whole thing reveals how what now passes for ‘anti-racism’ has become a divisive outlook with authoritarian overtones.

Who’s really promoting prejudice? (emphasis added)

Budding fascists.

Also see “A fool’s competition: who can be more ignorant about the Constitution?”

The government should not punish people for their beliefs.
. . .
Double jeopardy.
. . .
Although it was predictable that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would demand federal charges against Zimmerman after he was acquitted, it is sad to see the American Civil Liberties Union, which should be standing up for the rights of unpopular defendants, jumping on this bandwagon. In a statement issued on Sunday, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said “it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime.”

In other words, the ACLU is calling for a federal inquiry into an acquitted defendant’s beliefs with the aim of justifying a second prosecution for the same crime. What part of that says “civil liberties” to you?

4 Reasons to Reject Federal Charges Against George Zimmerman

Of all the young black shooting victims in this country, you can name 1. Because you’ve been trained like a circus seal to bark on command.

Iowahawk

It’s not that people intentionally determined that the Constitution should be ignored. It’s that the crowds have no clue. Maybe they slept through civics class. Maybe they don’t remember. Maybe they don’t care. But less than ten days after we celebrated the independence of this nation, the court of public opinion has decided they don’t like them.

There will be no appeal because of the double jeopardy clause, which precludes it. Zimmerman did not have to testify, and will never have to testify in a criminal prosecution, because he has the right not to testify. And most sadly, the fact that a young man is dead does not compel the conclusion that someone be convicted of a crime.

So much for the adoration of crowdsourcing, or the desiderata that the public can be entrusted with the handling of the law. In the court of public opinion, assumption runs rampant, as people get their own “feel” for right and wrong, and then become so entrenched in their own bias that they refuse to consider the hard details of evidence and proof. People need no trial to tell them what happened. They hear a story and whatever gut reaction they have to it becomes their reality.

As show trials go, this one has generated plenty of fodder for television heads to fill the empty minutes between commercials. But it has also shown that the court of public opinion can’t be trusted. Americans still don’t understand their own system. They don’t get that the rights they want for themselves have to be given to people they despise as well. They refuse to accept that someone they feel with absolute certainty is guilty can be properly acquitted.

Zimmerman: No Appeal From The Court of Public Opinion

There’s a reason we stand up for the rights of individuals like George Zimmerman against an overreaching State.

It’s not just about the individual. It’s about all of us, and the reality that there but for fortune could go you or I.

The highly politicized Department of Justice desperately wants to bring federal charges to placate the race-agitators, and has joined in the witch hunt.

This no longer is about George Zimmerman, it’s about a Department of Justice serving political interests.

It has to be evident to all thinking people by now that racism is the new witchcraft. Once you’re branded with the Scarlet “R,” some people do not regard it as immoral to assault you…or worse.

Calling someone a racist is sufficient to brand them as outside the pale of civilized company. In academia, the accusation is a career-wrecker. Socially it is enough to get you dropped from the A-list of the best parties.

Gosh, this racist thing must be pretty vile, something that needs to be combated with a public fervor reserved for satanic pedophiles.

But has anybody bothered to tell us what this vile thing is?
. . .
Jews have been the targets of some pretty racist sentiments themselves. Joseph Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death,” is sometimes cited as an example of how racism always leads to genocide. And we all know that if you’re a “racist,” that’s the gateway drug to becoming a genocidal Nazi.

Racism is generally associated with a fixation on “racial purity.”

What is a Racist?

And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But “investigating” is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We’re hoping that if enough time passes, you’ll forget about it.

This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It’s a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.

“Holder blasts ‘stand your ground’ after Zimmerman verdict.”

Here’s my response to what you just said. I think our society demonstrated great care toward Trayvon Martin, even to the point of putting Zimmerman through a trial that should not have happened. That is, it was an excess of care for Martin, a bending-over-backwards to show that we care about Martin and all the young men he was seen to represent. And now, after an extensive, careful trial, and a jury verdict that clearly hewed to well-honed instructions about evidence and burden of proof, you still want to use it to assert that we don’t care. If that’s the kind of conversation we get when we try to respond to the invitation to have a conversation, can you see why it’s something we avoid?

Now, just there, I did not avoid. I tried to be game about conversation, and I said what I truly think, which is probably what other conversation-about-race avoiders think. If you really mean “conversation,” then let’s continue, with a fair response to that. If what you really mean by “conversation” is let me lecture you until you humbly accede, then could you please stop calling it a “conversation”?
. . .
The accused is the one whose rights are systematically protected in the criminal process. Is that too boring? Ho-hum?! Ho-hum for all the rights of the criminally accused! Even if all Robinson cares about is how young black males are treated, young black males — the ones that still live — need these rights too. If the police — who had already been called — had arrived before Zimmerman saw fit to shoot his gun, if they had caught Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, pinning him down, and knocking his head into concrete, they would have arrested Martin, and Martin would have benefited from those rights you think are ho-hum when they protect Zimmerman.

So there, I’ve now said 2 things in the “conversation” Robinson wants to have. And I’ll say one more, and it’s why I found the front-page teaser “Why are black boys expendable?” heart-wrenching. It’s because so many young black males do end up shot dead or in prison. Can we talk about that? Or are must we fixate on the one young black male selected to be the conversation piece?

“Why are black boys expendable?” is the heartwrenching question on the front page at the Washington Post.

Eugene Robinson is a race baiter. And appears to have senile dementia (see video above).

A Very Important George Zimmerman Tip for the Department of Justice

Ozymandias.

Forward!

Unfortunately, it seems that the future Aldous Huxley predicted in 1932, in Brave New World, is arriving early. Mockery, truculence, and minimalist living are best, then enjoy the decline. However, we do need a Revolving Door Tax (RDT), learn what Members of Congress pay in taxes, and prosecute politicians and staff and their “family and friends” who profit from insider trading. Oh, and pay “public servants” what they are worth.