KOMPA! MAGAZINE

[daphnee]

Are you guys following the trial?!?

If you are, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what was "supposed" to be the star witness for the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel.

Here are some of the commentary I heard to describe her, "she's of Haitian descent, English was not her first language, she grew up speaking Creole and Spanish?!?, she's a product of broken educational system, she's illiterate."

Now this commentary was made about her due to her performance on the witness stand. Now here's a question to you fine Haitian Americans or descendants of Haitians on this fine board, are you offended by the commentary made by some?

Does English not being her first language, her living in an urban neighborhood or having lack of access to a decent education explain her venacular, demeanor, or lack thereof?!?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts.

Thanks
_________________
"Mwen di non, AYITI PAP KRAZE!!!!"

[Seby85]

daphnee wrote:

Are you guys following the trial?!? If you are, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what was "supposed" to be the star witness for the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel. Here are some of the commentary I heard to describe her, "she's of Haitian descent, English was not her first language, she grew up speaking Creole and Spanish?!?, she's a product of broken educational system, she's illiterate." Now this commentary was made about her due to her performance on the witness stand. Now here's a question to you fine Haitian Americans or descendants of Haitians on this fine board, are you offended by the commentary made by some? Does English not being her first language, her living in an urban neighborhood or having lack of access to a decent education explain her venacular, demeanor, or lack thereof?!? Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Thanks

Frankly, i have not been following these latest developments. With the media turning everything into a politicized circus show, these stories are often riddled with all sort of adulterants, in turn the unadulterated truth is almost certainly masqueraded by political correctness or hyper-partisanship. In other words, i have been distancing myself from the "mainstream media".

However, with respect to Rachel Jeantel, i do believe that someone's vernacular, demeanor, and everything in between are in part police by their immediate environment, of course there are exceptions to every rule.

But, needless to say, the media's always peddling an agenda. Both the liberal and the conservative media see this story from their own distinct social-political and biased prism. For example, one side of the mainstream media--mostly the right--might allude to her unlettered urban vernacular and lack of english proficiency as a mean to commence some type of character assassination, thus, making the subtle point that, just like Trayvon Martin, these black folks are not as cultured and educated as the rest of America, so put little stock in what she has to say. This is a classic Ad Hominem attack which points out the flaws in a person's character in order to undermine their argument. Conversely, the liberal media might celebrate this woman's courage to step forward despite her limited vocabulary.


But i have to admit once again that i have not been following this closely. Therefore, pls forgive me if my analysis was built on a flawed premise. I will definitely follow this trial more closely now...
_________________
Be who you were meant to be….

[owen1055]

This girl is just an idiot and I really don't care what the excuse is. I really cannot understand that someone who was born in this country is not enable to speak the one language that we do speak.

As far as for the case, the case was over right after the star witness (idiot) for the prosecutor handed the case over. I know that black people will be mad but the reality there is not enough evident to convict for the charges.
_________________
THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPINION AND FACTS.

[Neg2byen]

I have watched the closing arguments from the prosecutors and the defendent. Like Owen stated, there's just not enough evidence to convict GZ.
The prosecutors, although did not have enough to work with, did a very poor job presenting their case. They did not do enough to convince the jury that GZ purposely shot TM for no reason.
I know people will say it's because TM was black, but people have to understand in the court of law the prosecutors have to give proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime did happen. I'm afraid the persecutor in this case did not do that. I would love to see GZ goes to jail because I feel like he initiated the whole thing by getting out of his car and following the guy around, but that's enough to find him guilty of murder.
As far as the girl I did not see her but she was probably out of her league. I can only imagine how tough it would have been to be thrown out there in such a big stage like this. NOt only the pressure of being in the court in front of a judge and being questioned by lawyer but also knowing that people are watching you all over the world. That had to be tough on her.
_________________
"En ce moment historique de notre nation, notre mere haiti cherie doit retrouver sa dignite et sa fierte de peuple. Non a l'imoralite." Mirlande Manigat

[SIROMYEL]

I agree that Jeantel was not the most educated, well spoken person there is. However, I feel like the jury dismissed her before she started speaking.

They did not give her the respect she deserves as a witness.

The fact is she was the last person to speak to trayvon and she is the person in the situation to testify to that fact. I feel they should have looked beyond her inabilities and listen objectively to her testimony. That is their job as a jury... not to judger her by her level of education or the way she speaks.

I would like to think that if my mother was on a witness stand because she unfortunately witnessed a crime, the jury would listen to her objectively and not be blinded by her inability to speak perfect English.

Ironically, Juror B37 didn't think Jeantel was credible, except for when she said something that would help the defense during crossexamination. A witness is either credible or not credible. You can't pick and choose what parts of their testimony you believe.

As far as the verdict, yes I do believe that the prosecution did a horrible job. However, I feel that the jurors did not critically weight the evidence given by the defense either. I watched the trial closely and while the prosecution did not erase reasonable doubt, the defense did not make a case for self defense. And I understand that the defense does not have to prove anything but raise doubts in the prosecution's story, I believe in this case... it was important.

Simply put... this should have been a mistrial. Nobody knows what happened but Zimmerman and there is plenty of evidence that he lied from the beginning of the whole thing. So I believe that the jury unjustly agreed with his version of events when parts of it didn't really make any sense.

Listening to juror B37, I feel like no matter what was presented the verdict would have been the same. This lady is more ignorant that Ms. Jeantel. She is racist and Biased and had no place in this jury.

Now if I were on this jury, I would have voted guilty from the get go and nobody would have been able to change my mind. The fact that a grown man can follow a 17 year old who is on his way home and start a confrontation and then turn around and claim self-defense is mind boggling for me. I cannot even begin to understand how the law allows for such a defense. So simply put, people can go out and look for a fight, and then when they begin to lose that fight, they can pull out a gun and shoot the person who was originally minding their own business... and then claim self defense. For me that is twisted logic.

If someone asks me for a fight, I'm coming at you with everything I have. that's how I look at it. So I don't understand when people say what happened before the fight is irrelevant when that is what caused the whole darn thing.

I thing at some point... common sense has to enter the discussion here. It's obvious the law does not make provision for every situation.
_________________
A man who has taken possession of his own mind may take possession of anything else to which he is justly entitled_ Carnegie