Skip to comments.In Defense of Rachel Jeantel-After days of mocking, viewers of Zimmerman trial speak out...
Posted on 06/28/2013 11:24:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The George Zimmerman murder trial has captured the nation's attention since it began. When Rachel Jeantel, the last person to speak with Trayvon Martin (aside from Zimmerman), took the stand, it ignited a dialogue on race, class and the cultural shaming of our own.
Many people have been very critical of the way Jeantel speaks -- her subject-verb agreement, her Southern accent, her tendency to say "axe" instead of "ask." Speech is a cultural marker often used to highlight one's otherness. The problem with "improper speech" is not that people who speak in such tongues cannot be understood. It's that they speak in a way that makes others uncomfortable; that it forces people to acknowledge and deal with an otherness that they may otherwise prefer to step around. It is an otherness that makes whites uncomfortable and, apparently, shames blacks to the point of publicly attacking Jeantel for who she is.
In discussing Jeantel's testimony, news_anchors made sure to point out that she wasn't using "the queen's English," harped on the defense's inability to understand her and questioned whether she understood her importance to the trial. On Twitter, black folks said much of the same but also called her fat, ridiculed her complexion and made memes mocking her.
Writer Sherri Williams of the website Backbone compiled a Storify of some of the tweets and memes and further noted: "The black_respectability_police pondered if her father is in her life. They said if George Zimmerman is acquitted it would be her fault because of her sassy attitude. Black folks said girls like Jeantel are the type to keep away from their children."
The important context of what Jeantel has been forced to endure both on the stand and on the night that she last talked to Trayvon Martin has been cast aside.....
(Excerpt) Read more at theroot.com ...
The teachers are not the problem. They could have sterling teachers (and some are) and still have no chance of learning anything. It is more simply that they have no respect for authority (other than arbitrary orders from their disfunctional parents) and no ability to learn. This is instilled in them as children, and once in school they literally pay no attention to any of the teacher, talk amongst themselves and distract others.
It is a rare sight in an inner city school to see a child actually listening to a teacher. And that child will probably end up on the losing end of a few fights.
I thought I read that she was from a Haitian family which spoke Creole. South Florida is full of Haitians, many of whom are illegal aliens.
I have only heard criticism of the way she lies and criticism of how the prosecution could put such a liar on the stand.
It truly is amazing, isn't it? I grew up in the South and I and the folks around me often commented on the subject you raise. It wasn't complimentary, either.
Angry, illiterate, immoral, uneducated, liar, racist, hate filled and unable to comprehend what truth is... much less the truth itself... THAT is what America has seen and black America should wake-up and change this rotten culture that infects everything like a cancer. That woman lives in Florida, USA... she was educated in the most expensive education system in the world... and she represents the result of all of that federal spending. She deserved better and it was the US government and the dim enslavement party that failed her.
I can’t wait for the defense to call her back and have a creole and Spanish translator sitting next to the witness booth (she testified she was tri-lingual)
This leads right up to the present occupant of the White House. There has never been a more racially divisive president in the history of our republic.
And how would that help their case? (Even if race riots are going on outside the courtroom, that should not affect what is going on inside the courtroom.)
The only people the prosecution should be concerned with influencing are the six women who sit on the jury. They have to examine Ms. Jeantel's testimony on its own merits, not on whether someone outside the courtroom might be upset.
They probably tried to coach her but gave up in frustration. She is an ignorant slob and no amount of training can hide that fact.
Jeantell made it quite obvious what happened, SIR. The instant Trayvon saw GZ, he interjected race into the situation and got an attitude, (creepy ass cracker, nigga). He could have said hey, been polite, explaining why he was in the neighborhood, that he was visiting his dad. It would have been over. Instead, he took the ghetto route, confrontational, violent, arrogant, believing what he has been taught, “you don’t have to answer to no white man, cause they are out to get you.” His white-hating, racist parents have to look no further than to themselves as to why their son died.
Just how does prosecution’s “stoke the fires of racism” convince the Jury to wrongly convict Zimmerman in the face of all the evidence?
This prosecution was foolish for bringing this case to court.
Proofread is your friend....... got yo spell check turned off?
6/27/2013 testimony of Rachel Jeantel
WEST: Well, what culture is that, where people describe other people as creepy ass crackers?
WEST: I'm sorry? Do you understand what I mean by the culture, the culture that you were raised in, the culture that ‑
JEANTEL: The area I was raised, youre saying to say?
ATTORNEY: Right. Ill say it this way: The people that you live around and with call white people creepy ass crackers?
JEANTEL: Not creepy but cracker, yeah.
ATTORNEY: So the creepy is the pervert part that you were talking about?
"Ass cracker" is defined in urbandictionary as "one who engages in anal sex." If that is to be believed, then Jeantel was trying to be polite in court. West was not getting it. From Jeantel's perspective, West was being dense for not getting ghetto slang, and as a witness, it was not her job to respond more than the minimum necessary to answer the question.
Why would defense want to plant that suspicion among an all female jury? Weakness, sympathy.
It is actually the prosecution witness, Jeantel, who used the term, but only in allegedly quoting Martin. If Jeantel is to be believed, Martin was saying that he thought Z was following him because Z was homosexual and sexually interested in him.
[[My father (b,1899) came off a dirt farm in Alabama. Left the farm 1924 and self taught himself to electrical and a refrigeration engineer degrees. His creedo was if anyone else can do it so can I, even if it is brain surgery. He also invented some machinery safety equipment when he saw some fellow employees lose life and limbs to badly design machines he worked around.]]
Sounded liek a great father- accomplished much- and you’ree right- stupid and ignorant are two distinct ‘conditions’- But liek I mentioend in previous post- there are times when ‘being ignant’ is fine, and times when it’s not- being o n a wtiness stand isn’t one of those times- Is she was ‘celebrating her selfness’ and can’t turn off her selfness when it’s appropriate to do so, then yeah- she’s stupid- which does appear to be the case-
A quibble: It may yet be shown either that her testimony and evidence, including what is in practical terms a forgery attributed to her after the fact, was created before she was auditioned, cast, and paid to deliver it, or that Parks/Crump, the attorneys for Trashcan's parents, are paying her out of a slush find derived from the HOA settlement to lie in the manner they specify.
Any time I see an author instructing us on “otherness” or “the other”, I know I don’t need to read any more.
[[This leads right up to the present occupant of the White House. There has never been a more racially divisive president in the history of our republic.]]
Exactly- what he did in htis case alone should have been enough to turn America from supportign him- He BLATANTLY tried to stoke the flames of racial hatred- did his damage, and then dissappeared when all the damage was done-
Any DECENT president woudl have been calling for calm, woudl have WARNED the black panther movement who issued death htreats that the fedetral govenrment owuld NOT tolorate such vigilantism- and would have demanded that proper charges be filed, asnd if none coudl be filed, then george shoudl have been let go because he was already foudn innocent by an investigation
But nope=- not htis president- Not htis antiamerican president- He was all too ready to further divide htis coutnry and to put george zimmerman’s life at risk because he thouight george was white at that time-
While I was watching the trial coverage on HLN yesterday, I saw an ad for a new movie about how a white BART cop in SF accidentally shot an unarmed black teenager and killed him. It comes out on July 12. There is no way the timing is just a random coincidence.
Early reports were that blacks were wildly, statistically improbably, overrepresented in the line at the courthouse on the first day of jury selection. But many were dismissed for cause. Some just came right out and declared their bias, some unconvincingly pretended they weren't biased, and at least one was a "stealth juror" who was sniffed out by the excellent work of the Defense team.
Good catch. Coincidence? I think not.
Here are the comments on IMDB:
[[And how would that help their case? (Even if race riots are going on outside the courtroom, that should not affect what is going on inside the courtroom.)]]
Because if that is ifnact what is goign on, it will subtly work i nthem inds of jurors the idea that an ‘upper class’ man hunted down a lower class minority- After weatchign thecasey anthony case, I learned nev3r to underestimate the guillibility of a jury
[[They have to examine Ms. Jeantel’s testimony on its own merits, not on whether someone outside the courtroom might be upset.]]
In an ideal world you are right- in the world of florida and california (OJ simpson trial) the jurors were manipulated by emotions and jsutice was not served-
Remember, the prosecution began the volley by appeaklign to the jury’s emotions- and I of course don’t know for sure0- but I suspect this ‘may be’ a calculated move o ntheir part to manipulate the emotions of htep ublic- she ‘may have been’ instructed to act even more ignorant and beligerant- the prosecution knowing hte judge wouldn’t dare chastize her for innapropriate court conduct because she’s black and becasue the media has sio racially charged htsi trial that everyoen now must tiptoe around the delicate sensitivities of a cvrowd that’s ready to explode at the slightest provocation
and don’t get me wrong- I’m just guessing- I suspect the prosecution is devious- but they may not too- it was just a feelign I have about hte case
"...is no way to go through nine years of high school, missy!"
[[They probably tried to coach her but gave up in frustration.]]
You coudl be right- and probably are- But I never liek to udnerestimate the potential deviousness of an opponent- sorta liek ‘prepare for the worst, but hope you’re overestimated’
"This film embodies what happens when a filmmaker is ignorant of some of the facts and twists the others. He maintains it wasn't meant to be accurate; if so, he should have chosen a less incendiary topic. Left out is the most salient point that Mehserle had been warned by Dispatch that the huge "partying" crowd arriving soon that would coming out of the door had been already stopped by the police, found to be drugged and drunk, many had known records, were behaving rowdy and violently, and some had been arrested earlier on the spot for weapons violations.
[[Just how does prosecutions stoke the fires of racism convince the Jury to wrongly convict Zimmerman in the face of all the evidence?]]
[[This prosecution was foolish for bringing this case to court.]]
Perhaps- but we’ll see how corrupt the court system is there i nflorida- IF it is a just justice system, then the judge will allow charges be field against the prosecution for falslely chargign george zimmerman with a crime he was NOT guilty of- they charged him as havign a ‘depravede indifference to human life’ and ALL trhe evidence that the police collected do NOT even begin to hint at such a wild accusation-
As I said in previous post here or in another htread- the judge shoudl have read the case, read the evidence, and been able to determien that there was NOT any evidence to brign such charges agaisnt george- thsi shoudl have never even got to this point- BUT because it’s such a racially charged issue- with our dear leader even weighing in for crying out loud, and the FBI threatening to fuerther bring charges DESPITE the lack of evidence, there is NOTHING just abotu htis case at all- George was FALSELY charged- and the prosecution engaged in serious prosecutorial misconduct and IF justice is to be served, shoudl be charged and disbarred for her blatant violation of the law
Hell, even hte previous judge was corrupt- Remember when george and his wife were charged with lying and brought before hte judge? I watched a tape where Mrs’ zimm asked hte judge “Do you want me to call my brother inlaw and find out how much is in the account?” The JUDGE said Nope- not necessary- He’s on record stating that- and hten he turns aroudn and ruels that she ‘lied’ about how much money was in the account? How did he determine that? She said point blank her cousin was handklign them oney and she didn’t know exactly how much was in there- she even offered to fidn otu for sure- buit hte judge said ‘not necessary’ and ruels that she lied-
This hwole case has been a serious violation of hte law- I am very suspicious that the jury will be much better, especially concidering we can’t even expect that thsoei n charge of the law carry out hte law any logner apaprently-
“He maintains it wasn’t meant to be accurate”
But the intended audience will see it as a documentary.
“Rachel is a functional idiot. I blame her parents and her segregated culture for that.”
The MSM defends her. On Fox last night (Laura hosting O’Reilly, IIRC), two talking heads both commended Rachel as being an “excellent” witness. The whole situation brings to mind that quote about “The soft bigotry of low expectations.” (D.P. Moynihan, I think.) Everyone in her life has failed her. She has chosen to fail herself. She is applauded. Why should she aim higher?
[[On Fox last night (Laura hosting OReilly, IIRC), two talking heads both commended Rachel as being an excellent witness.]]
And of course laura didn’t laugh ion their faces and say “Are you kidding me? Did you not hear the same testimony I did? She coudl barely get two compelte sentences out without resortign to gangsta speak- and I’m sorry ladies, but gangsta speak is not ‘excellent’ it’s ignorant”
Or am I just dreaming again?
whatever, not tryign it again- not sure why it won’t paragraph- but at least it’s not too much to sift through— but anyways, it’s goign to be tough tryign to read motive into someone’s sentence structure-
basically what hte previous said was “Was martin saying ‘ass cracker’ or was he saying ‘creepy ass’ cracker- there is a difference- West shoudl have questioend her mroe carefully to make it absolteuly clear what martin meant- We’re not sure if martin ever came out and said or even indicated he thoguht george was a homo- so far all we have is jenteal’s opinion that she thought martin thought george was- If amrtin cvame right out and stated soemthign akin to ‘that homo’ or had jenteal said “What do you mean ‘ass cracker’? do you think he’s queer?” then yeah- it could be established with a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that martin felt george was queer
Which brings up antoehr great point- IF martin meant ‘ass cracker’ meaning he htought george was gay, and then decided to murder what he htought was a gay person- then Not only was martin racist agaisnt ‘niggers’ (in his own words) he was also apaprently homophobic- and it’;s unlcear why the lefgt isn’t turnign on martin for beign both racist and homophobic
It’s never been about principle for the left, the have none that we’d recognize as such. Racism and homophobia are quasi-legal psychobabble intended to undermine and eventually destroy the existing power structure. Does it damage the existing power structure for Trayvon Martin to be depicted as racist or homophobic? No, it does not. Therefore, he isn’t.
You got that right!!!
No ready cursive too?
Saw a poster for this movie today at an Oakland BART station.
First, there is no recording, so there is always doubt as to what was said and what meaning was intended.
However, if you perform a web search for the phrase “ass cracker” in conjunction with the word “gay” it will return many hits which collectively confirm that the term is used to denote anal sex between homosexual males.
All Z needs is reasonable doubt, not “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Most likely, West left it alone since Jeantel confirmed that she heard and understood M to consider Z a homosexual (’pervert’). I do not know if you have been around young disadvantaged black students in remedial school, but their speech can be shockingly graphic and matter-of-fact at the same time. There would be imho nothing strange about M and Jeantel referring to Z as an ass cracker in the anal sex sense. It would imho simply be just another phrase in their everyday vocabulary that they would employ to describe someone who was acting in the manner of what they presumed to be a homosexual stalker. West only needed the references to “pervert” and “rapist,” but no doubt he got the notion that M was hostile to homosexuals, and that provides a motive for M to suckerpunch Z and try to beat him down. Should West choose to invoke further reasonable doubt in order to impugn a motive for M to initiate aggression against Z in his closing arguments, a web search of the term “ass cracker” will provide that. West does not need to circle back and give Jeantel an opportunity to retract the motive that supports Z’s version of the incident that she just gave West. Actually, doing that would be shooting himself in the foot.
I did see the term pop up in a gay forum in web searches I performed a couple of hours after the testimony. However, when I followed the search engine web link, the thread had been removed. I conjectured at the time that the forum moderator did not want to attract further possibly violent attention to gays in schools as a result of encouraging more widespread discussion of the term.
No one should be bullied simply because of their lifestyle-- especially school age minors.
If what Jeantel said was true about M's attitude towards gays, there may be more witnesses among his former student colleauges who could corroborate it.
It might be interesting for the Z defense team to learn why the grief counseling to M's high school was delayed for a month. (For example, perhaps it was to attempt to avoid inciting violence against gay students at the school, and perhaps they already know.)
Shh, we’re not supposed to know about that. :-)
[[However, if you perform a web search for the phrase ass cracker in conjunction with the word gay it will return many hits which collectively confirm that the term is used to denote anal sex between homosexual males.]]
I am not doubting that- but growing up years ago- another very common slang term was ‘crazt ass” as in somethign like “That creepy ass stranger in town” or “Have you heard abotu that creepy ass teacher in science class?” or somethign liek that
It’s likely martin meant it the way you dewscribe, however, it’s goign to be hard to state that without corroboration from jenteal- did hse come right out and state martin waqs intimatign Z was a creepy homo? I hadn’t heard that?
[[I do not know if you have been around young disadvantaged black students in remedial school,]]
No but I’ve been aroudn disavantaged white folks with much the same vocabulary- even took part in it for a spell in my dumb years
[[West does not need to circle back and give Jeantel an opportunity to retract the motive that supports Zs version of the incident that she just gave West.]]
Had he struck whiel hte iron was hot, she wouldn’t have been bright enough to figure out what west was doing- buit now that the issue has been dormant, I’m sure her lawyers were alarmed and have instructed her as to how to handle any fuirther question like that shoudl there be more-
[[a web search of the term ass cracker will provide that.]]
As will a search for ‘creepy ass’ which was common slang not too long ago-
[[Actually, doing that would be shooting himself in the foot.]]
At this point0- UI agree- I’m sure her lawyers were quite nervous when west was questioning her and have sicne made certain she will retract if questioned further-
[[If what Jeantel said was true about M’s attitude towards gays, there may be more witnesses among his former student colleauges who could corroborate it.]]
That’s a good point IF the defense can get to them before the prosecution has a chance to taint them- I think it woudl be a good strategy to lay out hte facts (especially if they show martin was ifnact hostile towards homosexuals) to shwo that martin set out that night to attack what he htought was a gay person - really lay it on thick- so thick that even soem o nthe left begin to see that martin wasn’t the sweet little kid the media falslely made him out to be-
[[It might be interesting for the Z defense team to learn why the grief counseling to M’s high school was delayed for a month. (For example, perhaps it was to attempt to avoid inciting violence against gay students at the school, and perhaps they already know.)]]
That’s a very good point and one well worth investigating IF it can be established that martin was ifnact hostile towards gay people- this may be just the ‘shock therapy’ the jury might need to snap them out of a possible ‘motherly isntinct’ that wishes to protect martin’s name because they might lean toward thinking he was just an innocent defenseless child- Thjat and the other evidence that martin used drugs, idolized gangsta lifestyle, wanted to be mma baddass etc- andm ostl ikely weanted to build soem ‘street cred’- the defense shoudl really be pushign htis to hopefulyl smash the msm’s false narrative abotu trayvon, and hopefully to wake up at least some who might have mistakenly thoi8ght trayvon coudl do no wrong-
Let’s not forget to mention that her testimony was all ‘hear-say’. She saw nothing of the altercation. I have seen it postulated that she may have spurred little Trayvon on to confront George in an attempt to teach the Cracker Ass Cracker a lesson.
as to my worry abotu an all female jury- I just ran across Rush’s comments abotu a couple of other all female juries that foudn blatant cold blooded murderers ‘not guilty’ because they ‘felt sorry for the kids because they now had no mother (the very mother they just murdered)- here’s the transcript of rush
“RUSH: Right. It’s a cultural divide. He doesn’t understand it! She’s the victim. I tell you, if she’s a star witness... I don’t know. Because you can’t predict juries. I mean, this is an all-female jury, and we’ve had those before. Do you remember the Menendez trial, the two brothers that slaughtered their parents? Well, they were acquitted. Lyle Menendez was acquitted, and they had some of the female jurors on Oprah. You may remember this; some of you may have forgotten it. But I’m not exaggerating.
A female member of that jury went on Oprah and said, “We felt so bad for him because he was going to have to go through the rest of his life without his mother.”
Yeah, that’s because he killed her. In fact, after he thought he killed her, he went back in the house, reloaded the shotgun, and fired again to make sure.
“Yes,” said the female juror, “but he’s suffering. It’s so tragic. He’s going to spend the rest of his life without his mother.”
Yeah, there’s a reason for that. He killed her.
“Well, that’s true, but it’s still very sad that he’s going to go through his life without her.”
I’ve just got a very bad feelign aobut hte jury- EVEN IF there is no evidence to convict george, because htese women are women with otherly instincts- liek I said before, they may very well give a guilty verdict becasue soem might ‘feel bad that trayvon’s mother no longer has her son’- Read the above transcript section- there was NO legal reason for them findign hte menendez brothers not guilty- they let their enmotions dictate their verdict-
[[Lets not forget to mention that her testimony was all hear-say]]
Soem heresay is allowed in court- usually when a person heres soemthign from someoen who can’t be in court themselves for whatever reason- there’s several other exceptiosn to hte heresay rule as well- but in this case, her testimony is beign allowed because she heard first hand even htough she wasn’;t there- and becasue travon is no logner here to testify, she is allowed to brign hte evidence that she audibly witnessed- but what we have to remember is that she is a cofnessed liar- the defense needs ot really drive htis point home- and hte fact that she is showign obvious contempt for the defense also plays to the fact that she can’t be trusted with what she says
OK...she failed to accept the education she was offered; but her attitude was equally awful.