Commentary by BlackKos editor JoanMar
I watched part of Travis McMichael's attempt to convince the carefully chosen jurors that he deserves to be sent home and that it was surely a travesty that he even has to be defending himself after he did such a grand deed for them and all his skin folks. Murderer and his defense lawyers made the decision for him to testify because they were so confident that no spot of blood would show up on his well-groomed person. Damn, if you didn’t know better, you’d think the murderer was a law professor or a representative of some such high falutin profession. If you didn’t know better you’d think the murderer was a law-abiding, Christian, all-American neighbor...not so funny thing is that those kinda murderers are usually just that.
The murderer cleaned up well. Soft-spoken, calm, elegantly dressed, even. And I swear I could smell all the ‘perfumes of Arabia” right through my TV screen. Certainly a far cry from the person who confronted Wanda’s son as he jogged toward his fate. The murderer on the stand was certainly a far different person from the red-faced, frothing, snarling, blood-splashed slave-catcher who was the last person Ahmaud Arbery saw before he closed his eyes one last time...forever.
Of course, the murderer on the stand was also cosplaying as a real-life cop… as an authority figure; using terms like “compel compliance.” Murderer, you impressed me. Really, you did. And then, I had a feeling of déjà vu — I have seen this movie before, I thought. Said the murderer:
“He had my gun. It was obvious that he was attacking me and if he’d have gotten the shotgun from me, it’d be a life and death situation… I’m not screaming at the guy I’m just trying to figure out what happened… He looks very angry. He was mad. It wasn’t what I expected…
The defense team offered on his behalf:
Arbery then “began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun, at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot.”
I had heard this before. I must have heard the general sentiment many, many times before, but I was sure that I had heard these same words uttered in almost the same sequence… let me think…
What the fuck is your problem, homie?" Zimmerman said he got his cell phone out to call 911, and he told Martin, "I don't have a problem." Martin then said to him, "No, now you have a problem." Singleton testified that Zimmerman told her that Martin then punched him and was banging his head into the concrete. Zimmerman also said that within seconds, Martin's hand was moving down his body toward his gun, and fearing for his life, he shot Martin. Singleton testified that during her interview with him, Zimmerman didn't appear angry or spiteful to Martin
Well, so not exactly the same words, and the circumstances are not quite the same as there were no videotapes and zimmerman didn’t have time to round up a lynching posse. Despite that, the similarities are sorta scary, aren’t they? Young Black man going about his business, racist(s) attacks him, kills him, cops come and refuse to arrest the killer(s); District Attorney’s office has to be pressured into pressing charges, defense team does its best to paint the innocent victim as a thug who deserved what he got. The same ol’ racist script that we all know so well.
Those of us who were on this site for the zimmerman verdict watch remember how we all felt that night — simply devastated. We all remember the lackluster performance of that prosecuting team. I saw shades of that on Wednesday when the lead prosecutor began her cross-examination and acted more like a friend of the murderer on trial than as an advocate for justice. I groaned out long, loud, & hard, and looked to the heavens for fortification. But then she redeemed herself on Thursday and got the killer to contradict himself a number of times. Will that be enough to convince an almost all-white jury to hold one of their own accountable for murdering a young man who was just out jogging? We shall see...
...but I’m not even holding my breath this time around. As to that case in Kenosha? As I watched the online celebration of the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, the sermons of our own mohistory2 sprung to mind. Rittenhouse killed two white people and racists did not care. Those two white lives mattered not one iota to the racists who inhabit FoxNation. Hardly anybody knows the names of the murdered victims. The orchestrated campaign on behalf of the killer — from the inaction of the cops on site that night, to his gofundme page, to the exclusion of Black jurors, to the antics of his grandpa who acted the part of judge, to the ever loyal MSM (who always understand their assignment) — paid off, and those who are currently celebrating this unjust acquittal, are celebrating their own depravity and the disintegration of the bonds that must hold a civil society together. Because one thing we know for damn sure: A Black Kyle Rittenhouse would be sitting in jail right now going through the process of being transferred to prison...if he had been so lucky to leave the killing field alive, that is. Justice is not blind.
I am sending positive energy to Ahmaud’s parents. Holding you in the light, Wanda Cooper-Jones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News round up by dopper0189, Black Kos Managing Editor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the coming weeks, a panel of 12 jurors will have to decide if Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William “Roddie” Bryan acted in self-defense when they cornered Ahmaud Arbery with their trucks before shooting him and leaving him to bleed out in the street. From the very start, the racial dynamics of the shooting—the fact that three white men killed an unarmed Black man and walked free for months—have raised questions about if the trial would be fair or unjustly tilted in favor of the white defendants.
Roughly one week in, the notion of fairness is already in peril. Eleven of the 12 jurors are white. Only one is Black. “This court has found that there appears to be intentional discrimination,” said Georgia trial court Judge Timothy Walmsley, who allowed defense lawyers to use their peremptory challenges to dismiss eight of nine African Americans during jury selection. Despite the intentional discrimination, Walmsley refused to reseat any of the Black jurors. How is it possible to acknowledge intentional discrimination but allow the trial to proceed as usual? Unlike challenges for cause that require lawyers to state reasons for striking prospective jurors, peremptory challenges allow each side in a criminal case to excuse potential jurors for any reasons or for no reasons at all, as long as they have not been removed because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. The number of “peremptories” varies from state to state. In Georgia, each defendant accused of a felony has nine; the prosecution gets the same number.
How does one detect if a lawyer has a discriminatory motive when using a peremptory challenge? There’s the rub. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky, issued a ruling placing the burden on trial court judges to determine if discrimination is the motivation for such challenges. Under Batson, when one side contends that the peremptory challenge is racially motivated or motivated by other types of discrimination, the other side must offer to the judge a “race-neutral” explanation for removing the prospective juror. It is left to the judge to determine if the explanation is plausible. And how has that worked out? Not well.
More than 30 years after Batson, trial judges continue to accept nonsensical reasons from lawyers utilizing peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from juries. A prosecutor in Missouri struck two Black men from a jury, explaining, “Those are the only two people on the jury with facial hair. I don’t like the way they looked.” The trial judge found the explanation to be race-neutral. A Pennsylvania lawyer used a peremptory challenge against an East Indian man, explaining, “I feel that he is probably Hindu in religion and Hindus tend, in my experience … to have feelings a good bit different than ours about all sorts of things … and I can be more certain with an American juror, and that was my primary reason for striking him. He may have religious beliefs that may affect his thinking.” Once again, the trial judge deemed the reason to be race-neutral.
The racial composition of juries is so significant that prosecutors have even shared lessons for how to exploit the rules. In 2001, prosecutors in North Carolina were offered a seminar about how to come up with race-neutral explanations should their peremptory challenges come under scrutiny. The seminar included a startling handout titled “Batson Justifications: Articulating Juror Negatives” that instructed prosecutors how to portray behaviors stereotypically associated with African Americans. Among the list of “race-neutral” excuses were “attire may show lack of respect for the system; rebelliousness” and “hairstyle may mean resistance to authority” and “arms folded, air of defiance, lack of eye contact and obvious boredom.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The actor plays the determined father of Venus and Serena Williams in this complicated look at the early life of the two tennis superstars, directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green. Hollywood Reporter: Will Smith in ‘King Richard’: Film Review | Telluride 2021
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reinaldo Marcus Green’s Telluride world premiere, King Richard, is an unusual picture to come from a major studio these days. Although Warner Bros. has made other inspirational sports movies, notably the Sandra Bullock drama The Blind Side, this new movie features nuances and complexities more likely to be found in indie releases. Although it will certainly be sold to emphasize Will Smith’s Oscar-contending performance, the actor creates a more ambiguous protagonist than we expect to see in what might have been a formulaic story of a Black family’s triumph.
Richard Williams is the father of Venus and Serena Williams, who drove his two daughters to unprecedented success on the tennis court as their monomaniacal coach. If Richard isn’t quite the demonic stage parent that we’ve seen in movies like Gypsy (coincidentally, another Warner Bros. release), he shares some qualities with the obsessive Mama Rose, who poured her own frustrations into the lives of her children. Gypsy ultimately ended on a positive note, and so does this movie, but what intrigues is that it is willing to make us uncomfortable in its portrayal of a man motivated as much by his own disappointments as by love for his children. Zach Baylin’s script honors these nuances.
The story focuses on Venus Williams’ early success, with Serena more in the background. And with the two sisters still at the top of their game after almost 30 years in the limelight, the film should hold undeniable fascination for audiences. It is far from a perfect film, but it tantalizes, thanks to the strong subject matter and the sharp characterizations and performances.
We are introduced to Smith’s Richard Williams as a determined, controlling man fighting to achieve recognition for his two young daughters, something he wants for himself as much as for them. Williams talks repeatedly about his own humiliations as a Black man growing up in the South at a time when the Ku Klux Klan remained a threat. Now living with his wife and five daughters in Compton, California, he carries a noticeable chip on his shoulder as he fights to find success for his children. An opening montage of Williams battling the skepticism of the haughty white tennis establishment is rich in humor, but with an undercurrent of sad desperation that is always apparent. Smith does some of his best acting in these early scenes, which mix Richard’s frustration, simmering resentment, and genuine love for his family.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people who live in Mukuru, one of the vast, sprawling “informal settlements” in Nairobi, used to dread the rains, when the slum’s mud-packed lanes would dissolve into a soggy quagmire of sewage, stagnant water and slimy rubbish.
But a few years ago, things began to change. On a newly paved road Benedetta Kasendi is selling sugar cane from a cart. It gives her a clean platform, somewhere she can keep her wares tidy. Her biggest challenge now is what to do with the sugar-cane waste as she does not want to clog up Mukuru’s revamped sewers.
“You can have a piece of sugar cane here. The place is clean now,” Kasendi tells Patrick Njoroge, programme officer at the Akiba Mashinani Trust (AMT), a fund that raises capital for slum improvement projects. Njoroge has been working for the past 10 years on a masterplan for Mukuru, and he knows how filthy the place used to be.
“This road was more of an open sewer. It is not a place you could have wished to spend an extra second. Walking was dangerous as one risked falling into the sewer. This lady set up here after the road was rehabilitated – slum upgrading spurs new businesses, however small,” says Njoroge.
A few metres away, Diana Mwende lines up jerrycans at a kiosk where free fresh water is available. “I used to walk 30 minutes to fetch water. Today, that walk has been reduced to two minutes since these water points were installed in our neighbourhood,” she says.
The improvements save her more than time: “I used to pay 400 shillings [£2.70] for water every month and 1,000 shillings to access the communal toilet. Now I have a clean toilet by my house.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WELCOME TO THE FRIDAY PORCH
IF YOU ARE NEW TO THE BLACK KOS COMMUNITY, GRAB A SEAT, SOME CYBER EATS, RELAX, AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.