Subj : Trayvon Martin To : BOB KLAHN From : Lee Lofaso Date : Mon Jul 29 2013 23:29:56 Hello Bob, BK>Ok, Trayvon Martin is back in the headlines. How can he be? The boy is dead. And buried. What others are saying about the boy is back in the headlines. But not the boy himself. BK>My interpretation: Trayvon Martin was black. His parents are black. That should tell you something. If you need somebody to explain it to you, just look at what a Facebook posting claims what was said by East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Jesse Bankston Jr. - "These people make up their names! What kind of name is Trayvon? It's no wondere he got shot." The NAACP says that Bankston made those comments on July 18 in State District Judge Lou Daniel's courtroom. The NAACP is really mad about what Bankston said - "It's our view that if what he said is true, we call on the D.A. to terminate him immediately." - Mike McClanahan, president of local chapter of the NAACP I hate to bust your bubble, but Bankston is right. The Martins are black. Not white, Asian, or Hispanic. BK>TV once more did it's damage. Just as in the OJ trial it looks BK>like the judge and lawyers played to the cameras. No trial BK>should be broadcast. TV trials are all the vogue these days. HTN ratings at #1 ... BK>As to the outcome, the prosecution was so inept, so incompetent, BK>it appears the prosecutor didn't want to win that case. She felt BK>she had to take it to trial, but winning it might have been bad BK>for her politically. So she overcharged and conducted the worst BK>prosecution she could. Or so it appears. It was a weak case to begin with. Especially for second degree murder. Even for manslaughter was a stretch, given Florida's stand your ground law. On top of that, the jury was confused by the instructions given when going into deliberations. Rather than explain the instructions, the judge instructed the jurors to read them again. Why? Because the judge did not want to take the chance on the case being declared a mistrial by not fully explaining the instructions. Best to let the jurors figure that out for themselves. BK>This same prosecutor got a black woman convicted for firing a BK>warning shot when she felt threatened by her ex-husband. That BK>woman got something like 20 years for not killing him. Seems BK>stand your ground only works one way. Excsues, excuses. Quit making excuses. Sure, the prosecutor screwed up. But that is not what lost the case. Attempted murder is often easier to get a conviction than murder itself. Also, keep in mind that killing and murder are not the same thing. BK>That case stinks of politics from the beginning. The shooter is BK>the son of a retired judge. The original detective wanted to BK>charge him with manslaughter. A cop on the scene called it BK>negligent manslaughter in his report. Yet it wasn't even BK>investigated as a possible crime after that, until BK>demonstrations began. Top brass did not want it prosecuted. Although conspiracy theories abound, this case was no conspiracy. A certain ineptness by the prosecutor, to be sure. But ineptness is not a conspiracy. Nor is a weak case. Just because a detective wanted the prosecutor to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter rather than second degree murder does not mean that Zimmerman should have been charged with either. And it certainly does not mean it would have been a slam dunk had the prosecutor only charged Zimmerman with manslaughter. BK>Get the cameras out of the courtroom, and enforce the law BK>equally. In order for the prosecutor to have gotten a conviction for either second degree murder or manslaughter, the jury would have had to be comprised of six black women, all of them from poor neighborhoods. If we started convicting people based on emotions rather than evidence, this entire country would be pure hell to live in. --Lee --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2) .