0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The real “elephant in the room,” however, is that race should not be a factor in the George Zimmerman case, and should never have been made one.
However, if the FDLE conclusions point to an adequate, non-racially biased investigation from the Sanford Police Department, and if the FBI investigation concludes that George Zimmerman did not violate Trayvon Martin’s civil rights by acting in a racially biased way, then Mr. Crump should acknowledge that the George Zimmerman case is not about race, and he should focus his efforts on a case where a black man has been wrongfully arrested for murder in a clear case of self-defense, and he should champion that cause.
Mr. Crump is right in talking about the George Zimmerman case when he says: “It shouldn’t be about race.” But by projecting race onto the George Zimmerman case, Mr. Crump is pinning a supposed civil rights victory on a Zimmerman conviction. The problem is that by associating a Zimmerman conviction with a civil rights victory, Mr. Crump has framed a scenario where a Zimmerman victory in a Self-Defense Immunity Hearing or a Zimmerman acquittal will represent a civil rights defeat. That is inappropriate and dangerous to us as a nation.
Mark O'Mara is batting 1.000 with his media strategy after some early missteps. He summed it up for me here:
It seems that MOM is suggesting to Team Crump that if one of the parties to the case isn't claiming racial animus in the courtroom, then a non-party shouldn't be claiming it through public discourse. Now where have we heard that before?