> so-called liberals

I've been a real liberal for as long as I can remember.

As I've said elsewhere, "so-called liberals" are starry-eyed, New Age populists (Don't confuse them with facts!), and "so-called conservatives" are reactionary populists (Don't confuse them with history!).

While, as John says, the stand-your-ground statute was *not* invoked by anybody in the Z trial, the broader self-defense statute in Florida seems to include the phrase "while standing one's ground" to allow for use of the statute when applicable. Thus many people who should know better are claiming that the the SYG law itself was in play.

It wasn't.

And now for some more venting. (Sorry.) The evidence at trial showed that Z made *no* "fantastic" statements to police. Both detectives testified that his minor inconsistencies suggested sincerity rather than a made-up story.

When Detective Cerino tried to bluff Z that what *really* happened had all been recorded on one of the security cameras that Z knew were in the area, Z said "Thank God!" or words to that effect.

Unfortunately the camera that *should* have taped it was scheduled for repair. Murphy's Law.

Recall that the story was news because the Sanford DA said he had no case to prosecute. That marked him, and the Chief of Police who had to resign, as presumptive "racists." (The claim that Z had "not even been arrested" was only technically true: he was taken into custody on the scene and released only after several hours of grilling, but without being booked for a crime. If it had happened to you or me, I think we'd consider it "being arrested.") Then SYG was injected.

And get this, also BTW. After the verdict, I watched the Florida State's Attorney, who'd prosecuted without even bringing the case to a Grand Jury as is usually required, being asked on Headline News if she could describe Z with one word. She pondered for a long time.

Then she said (with a creepy smile): "Murderer."

Not "killer," mind you, which at least would be literally true. "Murderer." Never mind the legal acquittal.

The case pisses me off because it was hyped from the start with the implied accusation of Klan-like racism against the Sanford police and DA. (And the falsehood that Z had called T a "coon.") In spite of a trial, with a jury chosen by both sides, it's now claimed that the jury too was racist; that the prosecution "botched the case"; that Z was a racist "profiler" and a "cop wanna-be" (the police call shows that T's possibly odd behavior in the rain aroused Z's concern, not his race or his "hoodie"); that T was an "innocent child;" that the "cards were stacked in Z's favor from the beginning" (according to Jesse Jackson) and that the trial was a "miscarriage of justice." Jackson also noted that Z "was not tried by a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers."

The implication that an all-black jury would or could not have evaluated the evidence logically (and the secondary implication that that's a good thing!) should make everybody sick. Would "another jury" have convicted Z? Maybe, maybe not. But so what? That's true of every case that's ever been tried. And what are the odds that a *fair* jury would have convicted on this evidence?

Now T is being ranked as a "martyr" with 14-yr.-old Emmett Till (tracked down and murdered in 1955 for whistling in the direction of a white woman) and Medgar Evers (WWII veteran and Civil Rights leader gunned down while working to end segregation at Ole Miss).

Sickening. But not quite unbelievable.