"Do the right thing, George. Or else."
Mansfield Frazier, whose name I was blissfully unaware of until I read his astounding opinion piece in The Daily Beast, thinks that in order to prevent another set of deadly riots along the lines of what occurred when the police who beat Rodney King were acquitted, George Zimmerman should be persuaded to accept a prison sentence without a trial by jury of his own. “The time is now for strong hands to take the helm and steady the ship of state—not to mention our national racial, political and legal discourse. The paramount concern has to be to avert a large-scale racial calamity.” he writes.
No, the paramount concern is for the justice system to give George Zimmerman the same due process of law, same fair trial, same guaranteed legal defense and same right to a trial before his peers as any other citizen accused of an alleged crime that has not been used to fan racial hate and suspicion on MSNBC. Those concerned about potential race riots should look to the people who irresponsibly lit the fuse to ignite them, and order them to snuff out the flame. Those concerned should observe the actions of the Florida prosecutors, who have given every indication that they either have no valid case or are incapable of presenting one. They should seek to discipline a national news media that has misinformed the public about the case, stating that there were elements of racism and profiling in Trayvon Martin’s death when the evidence so far firmly establishes neither. It is not George Zimmerman’s responsibility to sacrifice his freedom to prevent a social calamity that was not and will not be of his making.
Frazier doesn’t care whether prison is where Zimmerman belongs under the law (we only send people to prison who have been found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt after a fair trial); like so many who comprise the anti-Zimmerman lynch mob, he either assumes Zimmerman is legally guilty of murder, or doesn’t care if he is or not. That he does not hold facts in high esteem ( disturbing in a former newspaper editor but not, unfortunately, surprising) is shown by his description of the mood in Sanford, Florida, where Martin died:
“On the one hand we’ve got the three stooges of the New Black Panther Party running around Sanford, spouting off crazy ideas and becoming a total embarrassment to more thoughtful and reasoning blacks who simply want justice. On the other we’ve got the equally clownish neo-Nazis, goose-stepping around on their self-appointed mission to protect the white race.”
Sentence #1 shows that he believes “justice” to thoughtful and reasoning blacks (like him) is seeing Zimmerman in jail without allowing the justice system to operate without interference, political machinations and outside influence. Sentence #2 is a second-hand lie: the accounts of neo-Nazis patrolling Sanford were proven weeks ago to be a hoax, accepted as factual by lazy bloggers, some legitimate media outlets (including ABC News) and unconscionably reported by the Drudge Report even after they had been debunked. (And where are the editors and fact-checkers at the Daily Beast, to be allowing outright fiction to be stated as fact?)
Frazier’s grand solution is for Zimmerman’s lawyer to sell him out as his last legal team did, but worse. He writes (the parenthetical comments are mine):
“Fortunately Zimmerman’s new attorney, Mark O’Mara, appears to comprehend the broader implications and potential danger of the situation, and seems well qualified to negotiate a fair outcome for his client, and indeed for the rest of us. [COMMENT: It’s not his job to negotiate a fair outcome for “the rest of us.” His duty is to his client and only his client. Frazier’s definition of fair is Orwellian: his fair isn’t fair. Fair in Frazier’s terms means Zimmerman waiving his right to a trail because he might be found not guilty.] He has the calm demeanor of a law professor, and speaks in measured, but not calculating, terms. His first comments seemed designed not to convince anyone of his client’s innocence, but rather to take the heated rhetoric down a few notches. [ COMMENT: A defense attorney isn’t supposed to try to convince anyone of his criminal client’s innocence outside of the courtroom; in fact, it is unethical to do so. The fact that the special prosecutor in the case violated the ethics rules by trying to convince the public of Zimmerman’s guilt through the media just implicates her professionalism and competence, not Zimmerman’s guilt.] He cautioned that everyone should allow the justice system to work. [COMMENT: Ironic, since Frazier is specifically arguing that the justice system should be suspended.] So what would a fair outcome look like? To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with. [ COMMENT: There you have it: the lynch mob’s rationale. A fair and just outcome is what the majority of the public wants after they have been misled and biased by the media, intimidated by threats of violence by demonstrators and frightened by calm-talking hacks like Frazier.] …If O’Mara were successful in brokering such a resolution, he should be viewed as nothing less than a savior.”
No, he would be eligible for disbarment. So far, the indications are that the case against Zimmerman is shockingly weak, was unethically brought, and is being incompetently prosecuted. Any defense attorney who would urge his client to plead guilty under these circumstances would be violating the core duty of a lawyer to his client.
Frazier winds up his unethical article with the rationale that Zimmerman should avoid a jury trial because one way or the other, the justice system is gunning for him regardless of whether it can get a fair conviction or not, so he’ll be in jail for years anyway (Frazier didn’t figure on Zimmerman getting bail, apparently, which he did, on Friday.) In the name of justice, of course.
Gather up all of Frazier’s arguments, and what you have is a disingenuous endorsement of conviction by mob and media. Because racial tensions have been increased by serial misrepresentations of the known facts of the case and irresponsible statements by media figures, demagogues, elected officials and the President of the United States, George Zimmerman is obligated to accept a fate of being sent to prison by race politics and hate, so that hate doesn’t ignite riots. And Frazier calls that justice.
I call it government by extortion.
Ethics Alarms 
Very fitting image for this story. I hope Zimmerman is able to avoid the lynch mob.
Well done, Jack. Might be the best piece I’ve read since I started hangin’ ’round this joint.
Frazier’s Solution.
Wrong (100) + Wrong= Right
*Note: I used the number 100 as an approximation of all the “wrongs” which have occurred since the night Martin died. Feel free to use your own number. The genius of Frazier’s solution is that it doesn’t matter
what number you use! Your answer will
always be a right.
No, what we need to do is to use the full force of the U.S. military to quash any riots that spring up. For such riots would constitute violence to deprive an American citizen of his civil rights, and the core purpose of our military is to protect our rights.
That is what should have been done in Los Angeles in 1992. I only hope our men and women in uniform have the courage to do what is right, even if it means going against orders.
Optics matter. Appearances are important. A mass of soldiers gunning down young African Americans who have been convinced by the media and Al Sharpton that it was open hunting season on blacks in Florida would play right into the hands of the worst and most sinister activists. Even the LA police, who are hardly wimps, largely let the King riots play out. The irony is that when the police abdicate is when a business owner or other citizen really appreciates the importance of the 2nd Amendment. Riots will knock gun control efforts back another 20 years.
That is a concern, especially since the activists are likely to claim that it was a peaceful protest that was infiltrated by secret sgents of The Man ™ who threw bricks and Molotov cocktails to incite violence against the larger crowd. (I would argue exactly that if it happened and I was one of them.)
But stopping the riots by extreme force may be the only way to limit the damage and prevent more bloodshed.
The immediate bloodshed will be the lesser of two evils. By far.
Ironic… due to the perception that Zimmerman’s use of extreme force is what started all this.
Using A-10’s, Predator drones, and cruise missiles, followed by an infantry mop-up, to crush a riot is much better than the idea of trying to prevent a riot by sacrificing the civil rights of an American citizen. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines fight to protect the rights of American citizens, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What can we call riots in response to an American citizen exercising civil rights but an attack on America itself? Indeed, it would be a hate crime against America and everything it stands for.
If our military can not defend against that, it can not defend against anything.
What about ‘collateral damage’? How many innocent people will be killed or injured in this action?
Yeah, those “innocent” arsonists and looters and murderers.
if anyone is hurt, they must have been an arsonist, looter, or murderer. If you’re arrested, you also must be guilty, right?
Anyway, the main issue with your proposal is using the military on U.S. soil against civilians who are not attempting to overthrow the government.
No, just those of them using violence to deprive an American citizen of his civil rights.
Ku Klux Klan Act
That act requires a systematic failure to protect rights by a state or local government. So if Florida or local governments say it’s cool to riot, then the federal government can get involved.
Also, using federal troops appears to have applied when it was state militias that were not doing what they were legally required to do. That looks like it’s dead part of the law to me.
Are you now or have you ever been in the military?
I as a Marine, and the son of a Marine, the cousin of a Marine, the Maternal Grandson of a career Naval Officer and the Paternal Grandson of a Member of the Black Watch , find your comments to be those of some one who has never seen combat and finds it very easy to talk trash when he doesnt have to do any of the killing. Either enlist and put up or just shut up.
Your remarks about the military show :
(A) You play too many video games.
(B) Have never been in the military.
(C) Do not understand the role of the military in our society.
(D) That you must think that the American soldier is a robot who would willingly attack American citizens with no hesitation.
(F) Don’t know anything about the LA riots as the National Guard and Marines from Camp Pendleton WERE sent in.
For all your comments about the military and your willingness to use them in ways that would cause great harm to this country I suggest you find the nearest recruitment office and enlist. If you are not willing to do so then I suggest you go back to playing video games and shut up when it comes to the military.
While Michael Ejercito’s suggestions are ridiculously stupid, your dismissal based on his lack of military service and unwillingness to enlist is invalid.
Oh I dismnissed his opinion becuase he is an idiot. I was just pointing out that he was an idiot for opening his mouth when he does not have an informed opinion becuase he has no working knowledge of the military.
I know lots of people who have never been in the military but have informed opinions, they I respect and can have a conversation with. This guy doesnt so his opinion doesnt matter.
As to not serving, I’m sorry but anyone who is so willing to send people off to fight, kill and possibly die better be willing to pick up a rifle and come along. If not then they better be ready to to take some harrassment for being able to talk trash without backing it up.
I can’t agree with your “not serving” line. If it is a just cause, I am absolutely willing to send our servicemen to do the job they volunteered to do. I see no reason why my willingness to volunteer should matter.
Now, if we had conscripted armed forces, I’d back your argument, but we don’t, and the argument fails on this point.
I dont think that having a volunteer military has anything to do with it. If some one is all gung ho to send others off to fight he or she should be willing to join the fight. During the Invasion of Iraq I saw a great deal of 20 year olds who thought it was a great idea but when I proposed that they enlist and join the fight the all had other priorities. I think if someone believes a fight is just and right then they should also participate. That is hypocritical to not do so.
I also think that if we had a conscripted military we wouldnt have gon into Iraq and we would have been out of Afganistan years ago.
My position is absolutely not hypocritical. I’m not advocating that everyone else join the military.
Look at this with slightly different context. I believe that researching autism is just, but I don’t work in an autism related field. Am I a hypocrite? Absolutely not. Just like I’m not a hypocrite for not working for free speech organizations, no kill shelters, ethics organizations, libraries, or the Delmarva Shorebirds. It wouldn’t be physically possible for me to actually support all the causes that are just. That doesn’t make my opinion on those causes less valid than those of people who work the desk staff or writes press releases for those groups.
The people that sign up for certain work do that work. That’s a pretty important principle in our society. You’re position is akin to pharmacists complaining that non-pharmacists are telling them they have to give out Plan B pills. I’m not a hypocrite for not working in a pharmacy, and I’m not a hypocrite for not joining the military every time I believe there is a just cause in the world.
I will modify my statement about the people who are hyocrites becuase it really applies more to the people who Ive seen who have all the “pro” military bumper stickers, talk about how we should invade Iran, make Saudi Arabia a mirror, kill all the muslims etc etc etc and all the other tough talk that comes from wanna be Rambos, then to normal rational people.
If they pretend to be tough and hide, I’m with you, but there’s still a bit of wiggle room there. One can be a war hawk without being a hypocrite. It’s stupid, but not necessarily hypocritical.