In a case called Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), the Supreme Court wrote that "When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record," a court must base its decision on the record. Each night, after testimony in the Trayvon Martin case, people who claim to be attorneys bitterly disagree over whether Rachel Jeantel was a good witness, and generally over whether the prosecution is meeting its burden of proof. Those attorneys' arguments are divorced from the two salient facts listed below, and all good attorneys, and everyone else in the world, know that the primary goal of any opposition is to divert attention away from the facts if those facts "blatantly" contradict the opposition's assertions. Trayvon Martin's autopsy has two facts which cannot be explained by the defense. One fact is that Trayvon Martin was shot directly through the heart. Either the shooter was capable of pinpoint accuracy while having his head bashed in against the concrete sidewalk, or the shooter fired the luckiest shot in the world, or the shooter told a lie about how Martin was murdered. The second fact is that the autopsy report reveals that the bullet traveled in a direct line from the front to the back of Trayvon's 158 pound body. If, as the defense asserts, Trayvon was leaning forward as he was bashing in the shooter's head on the concrete sidewalk, there is no conceivable way that the shooter could have held the gun in a manner which fired a bullet in a direct line through Trayvon's heart. The bullet path would have had to be at an angle if Trayvon's posture, as he straddled the shooter, was also at an angle as he leaned forward, according to the defense. And understand, that the burden of proof is on the shooter to demonstrate that he used deadly force in a justifiable manner. The above facts from the autopsy report prevents the shooter from relying on the self-defense claim because the self-defense factual claim, as related by the defense, is "blatantly" contradicted by the above two facts from Trayvon's autopsy report. Just as supposedly experienced attorneys are opining about everything except the facts in Trayvon's autopsy report, the U.S. Supreme Court also has a nimble way of avoiding certain facts. For instance, the Court refuses to acknowledge the fact that African-Americans are the only group to ever be systematically reduced to slavery on the soil of the United States. So, while avoiding that unpleasant fact of history, the U.S. Supreme Court claims that we should all live in a color-blind society. But the fact is that we don't live in a color-blind society, and never have lived in such a society. Erasing the slavery history of African-Americans in this country provides the U.S. Supreme Court with several options; First, the Court can ignore the proof that African-Americans were part of the original people in what is now the United States prior to the arrival of any colonist, and second, the Court can go on pretending that African-Americans are just like everyone else in America, only darker and without the puritan work ethic that apparently existed, according to white historians, even though American slaves were doing most of the heavy lifting.
↧
