Derek Chauvin is the former Minneapolis cop who was found guilty of murdering black career criminal George Floyd.  Chauvin had Floyd face down on the ground with Chauvin’s knee on the side of Floyd’s neck to immobilize Floyd.  The knee on the side of the neck is not fatal or dangerous, it was accepted police procedure when Chauvin applied it.  It does not choke nor crush the windpipe, according to what I’ve read.  

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has ended and the jury is out.  Kyle shot three leftist rioters during the August 2020 riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  Videos and witnesses show Kyle acted in self-defense in fear for his life.  Most responsible pundits say Kyle should be acquitted.  He is charged with murder and other charges.  

If you have been following the Zimmerman trial over at Legal Insurrection, you are aware that the great majority of witness testimony has supported Zimmerman's claim that he acted in self defense.

There is no way anyone remotely objective could come to any other conclusion:  George Zimmerman is innocent of second degree murder or manslaughter.

There has been a lot of discussion over the 911 call during George Zimmerman's scuffle with Trayvon Martin.  Someone is screaming for help.  The Martin witnesses claim the screamer is Trayvon, while the Zimmerman witnesses claim the screamer is George.  The Zimmerman witnesses are by far the most credible -- and, there are more of them.

So why would Trayvon Martin scream for help while he was straddling Zimmerman's chest and pounding the man's head into the cement?  The claim that the screamer was Martin is entirely laughable.

This is a case that should never have gone to trial.  It was tried in support of Democrat racial politics, assisted by some conservatives like Michael Savage and Rich Lowry (there are always those who seek to ingratiate themselves with the liberal establishment and media).  Now, as the obnoxious prosecutor tries desperately to fend off the flood of defense witnesses, the trial would appear to be headed for an acquittal.  Or so one would hope.  You can never be sure.

A lot of underclass blacks on Twitter and other forums are swearing to commit violence and riot if Zimmerman is acquitted.  I really hope that isn't true, because I really do desire genuine racial harmony and peace, even as I insist on a color-blind justice system (i.e. one that doesn't stage show trials in order to motivate and appease a key constituency).

There's an even more pressing reason why the would-be rioters should reconsider.  George Zimmerman isn't the only "crazy-ass cracker" with a gun.

Introduction:
There's no doubt in my mind that 90% of black Americans believe Trayvon Martin was cruelly and unjustly murdered by George Zimmerman.  After all, Martin is black and Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Not white, but close enough to justify racial biases.

A Neighborhood Watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, shot and killed an unarmed, black 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin in February 2012.  Zimmerman claimed it was in self-defense and was released as police said there was no evidence to dispute this.  Indeed, Zimmerman's bloodied face and head clearly supported Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

Once again, it was simply not a very good day at all for the prosecution. The primary State witnesses today were Rachel Jeantel, Jenna Lauer, and Selma Mora. The first had her credibility substantively destroyed, the second was powerfully–almost humiliatingly–co-opted by the defense, and the third provided testimony entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense.

My Conclusions:
Based on testimony and evidence so far, George Zimmerman is proved innocent of murder, as he clearly acted in self-defense and in fear for his life.  Martin's death was a tragedy, though largely self-inflicted by his own uncontrolled rage.  It most certainly was not second degree murder.

However, will the jury agree?  Who knows.

Some prosecutors need to exchange places with the innocent that they framed and imprisoned.  Michael Morton, of Austin, Texas, is a case in point.  After Morton left for work one day in 1988, an intruder came into his house and beat his wife to death with a club.  The police blamed the crime on Michael Morton, even though the real perpetrator had stolen his wife's credit cards and checks and used them in the days following her death.  These facts, among others, were hidden from the defense attorneys representing Morton.

The AP has the story, and relates:

New DNA testing linked the killings of Debra Baker and Christine Morton to another man with a prison record in several states. Police have not publicly identified the suspect, whom they are trying to locate, but his genetic links to both slayings led to Morton's release from prison last week after nearly 25 years behind bars, and his formal exoneration by an appeals court on Wednesday.

But lawyers for the Innocence Project, a New York-based group that spent years fighting for DNA testing in Morton's case and the release of his police case files, say he likely never would have been convicted if the prosecutor in charge of the case hadn't withheld key evidence from the defense, including his mother-in-law's statements.

To see what his mother-in-law said, read the whole article here.

What this proves is that the police and the prosecution are not infallible, and in some cases, downright dishonest.  Prosecutors are under pressure to find the criminals and prosecute them, lest they bear the wrath of the public and the voters.  Sometimes these prosecutors delude themselves and prosecute the innocent and the latters' lives are ruined (or ended) in the process.

That was the case of Amanda Knox, too.  If you ever sit on a jury, try to actually believe the maxim that one is "innocent until proven guilty."

Hat tip:  View From  the Right

Feel free to copy and pass this along.

Douglas Preston, whom I have quoted here frequently, has another thought-provoking article on the Italian justice system that railroaded Amanda Knox.  Writing in the U.K. Guardian, he says:

About 50% of all criminal convictions in Italy are reversed or greatly modified on appeal. Knox and Sollecito join the 4 million Italians since the war who have seen their lives ruined by false criminal charges, only to be proclaimed innocent after many years of agony and imprisonment.

While they don't like others pointing it out, many Italians are well aware that their judicial system is dysfunctional. Silvio Berlusconi is absolutely right when he says the judiciary needs fundamental reform. The Italian judiciary, a holdover to a great extent from the Mussolini era, when Italy was a police state, acts with no checks and balances, in which prosecutors and police wield enormous power.

If you are arrested for a crime and have no alibi, you are in very serious trouble. The de facto burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence, despite lip service in the Italian constitution to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

Read it all here.

The verdict was just delivered and I watched it live on Fox News.  Amanda Knox was found not guilty on almost all counts, including murder, but her conviction of "defamation" of Patrick Lumumba was upheld.  This latter was probably to shield Perugian officials from any lawsuits by Knox.  Knox was therefore sentenced to three years, time already served, and ordered to pay 22,000 Euros to Lumumba.  She was then ordered to be released immediately.

The verdict in Amanda Knox's appeals trial is expected today around 4 pm PST (2 pm on the east coast).  What we have learned from this case is that Italian justice leaves a lot to be desired.  There is no habeas corpus, no protections against self-incrimination, no prevention of double jeopardy, and no right to a speedy trial.

Per author Douglas Preston, who wrote a book, the Monster of Florence, the Italian system is rife with corruption, coerced statements, lawyer vendettas, forced confessions, planted evidence and other illegal methods.

Today Italy has an opportunity to change course, to right at least one wrong in its system of justice, and that is to acquit Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of a murder that they obviously had nothing to do with.  The question is, will the jurors in this trial place more importance on their cultural ties than on facts and evidence?

Italians accord great respect and esteem to a father-figure, the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini.  Will they base their decision on this misplaced deference, or will they base their decision on facts and evidence?  We shall see.

A famous (among law enforcement personnel) murder expert, John Douglas, was intereviewed on the murder case of Amanda Knox in Italy.  Douglas comes with impressive credentials.

Since retiring as head investigator for the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI, Douglas now travels the world hired by international and domestic law enforcement and defense teams who request his help in investigations.  He studied the evidence in the Knox murder case and concluded that Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, had nothing to do with the crime. He said:

Two people [were] convicted that should have never been convicted. The media pictured Amanda as a cold-blooded murderer. Frankly, I was surprised that they were charged. I was surprised by the conviction. The appeal is wrong. It’s wrong because of the lack of concrete evidence. No forensic evidence, no behavioral evidence. Nothing points to their guilt. They’ve got nothing.

Read the entire interview here.

The Obama Justice Department is apparently dissatisfied with the Johannes Mehserle verdict and is now considering bringing charges against former BART cop and prosecuting him again for the same crime.  No matter what your rationale, the Feds being able to try someone twice for the same crime is "double jeopardy" and unconstitutional.  However, the Feds like being able to use crime and racial politics to further political goals, i.e. to pander to a certain voting bloc.

George H.W. Bush did it against the cops who arrested Rodney King, after a California jury found them largely innocent of wrong-doing.  The cops were tried a second time in a federal court, found guilty and sentenced to prison terms.  There is no doubt in my mind that this was done to placate the majority of American blacks (blacks are far more racially conscious than are whites).

Justice had little to do with it.  Had the races been reversed, there would have been no federal retrial.  Think of O.J. Simpson, an obvious double-murderer with mountains of seemingly irrefutable evidence of his guilt.  A mostly black jury let him off.  It was clearly a case of jury nullification, i.e., delivering a verdict that was contrary to the evidence.  This was done because the black jurors did not see the case as the people vs. an accused murderer; they saw it as a case of white people vs. a black man.  To the jurors, skin color pre-empted any consideration of justice or evidence.   No Justice Department ever considered retrying O.J.  He was the wrong color, as were his victims.

Under Obama, this disparity in justice on the basis of race will only get worse.  Per the Hillbuzz blog:

Testimony from Justice Department officials has revealed a policy under Holder not to prosecute blacks accused of crimes against whites. Black people are not to be prosecuted, and, under Holder, are to be treated by a different set of laws than whites.

Now Eric Holder is thinking of retrying Mehserle, himself a white victim of circumstance in an accident that killed a black man.  Perhaps Mehserle will be the next sacrificial lamb on the altar of racial preferences.  You see, to liberals, black people are really a nation of Dali Lamas living in our midst, a sacred tribe whose every prejudice and paranoia must be gently handled with great deference and sensitivity.  It is more than a crime to ever offend a black person for any reason at any time:  it is a terrible sin.  If it ever happens, heaven and earth must be moved, if needed, to remove the offense and right the wrong.  If that means retrying a man already convicted, in order to get a more stringent verdict, so be it.

And that, my friends, is why we have a different standard for black people than we do for white people.  And if you think this unfair, you're a raaaaacist.

Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA, has taken up the cause of Amanda Knox, a 22 year old American college student who was convicted of murder by an Italian court.  Senator Cantwell is quoted by CNN:

"The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, said in a written statement. "Italian jurors were not sequestered and were allowed to view highly negative news coverage about Ms. Knox.

"Other flaws in the Italian justice system on display in this case included the harsh treatment of Ms. Knox following her arrest; negligent handling of evidence by investigators; and pending charges of misconduct against one of the prosecutors stemming from another murder trial," Cantwell said.

CNN shows just how confusing the case is.  Even though there was no motive or physical evidence tying Knox to the crime, there are other aspects of her behavior that have produced a lot of speculation.

Speculation, however, should not replace hard evidence when convicting someone to a 26 year prison sentence.  The jury seemed to have the attitude that "she might have had something to do with it, so let's convict her just to be safe."

The family of Amanda Knox will appear on Larry King Live tonight to discuss Amanda's trial and conviction. It should be interesting.

Update:  Since I posted this, I have come to believe that Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito are innocent of the crime.  See Injustice in Perugia, a site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito.

Yesterday in Las Vegas, O.J. Simpson was found guilty on all counts of armed robbery and kidnapping. His trial verdict came thirteen years to the day after he was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. O.J. Simpson was given an undeserved free pass thirteen years ago.

Although the evidence of his guilt in the Simpson-Goldman slayings was overwhelming, the almost all black jury let him off. Their verdict was was clearly jury nullification on account of their shared race with the defendant. Simpson's acquittal was an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

It was very shocking to me when the 1995 verdict was read on television and I realized, for the first time, that black people are, as a whole, very racist. This was made clear by the fact that 90% of black people nationwide wanted O.J. acquitted (regardless of his guilt) and broke into cheers when the verdict was read. To them, the trial was not about murder or guilt or innocence, it was about black people against white people. My college-inbred racial idealism went flying out the window and has not returned.

So O.J. got to play golf for the next decade, even though largely spurned by a society who knew the truth: that he was a vicious murderer who had been given a get-out-of-jail free card. He was successfully sued in a civil trial by the families of Nicole and Ron and found liable for their deaths. The jury awarded millions of dollars to the families, if they could collect it. Then a year or so ago, O.J. did something incredibly stupid. He attempted, with five accomplices, to rob two sports memoribilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room.

How he could have thought this was a good idea is not obvious to me. Did he think he wouldn't be recognized? That the victims wouldn't report it to the police? No, there was something else at work in this drama: O.J.'s deep feelings of guilt for Nicole and Ron. I suspect that O.J. was operating on a subconscious level, that he committed such a bone-headed crime because he wanted to be caught and punished. Then and only then might he be finally released from the guilt of the murders he committed. The fact that he was finally convicted of a serious crime, on the 13th anniversary of his acquittal in Los Angeles, is truly amazing. It seems that God had a hand in it.

Somewhere, Nicole and Ron are smiling. When the cell door finally slams shut in O.J.'s face it will be because he wanted it that way. O.J. Simpson has judged himself and pronounced sentence: guilty on all counts.