HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » What White People Don't U...

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:39 PM

What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel / witness in Zimmerman trial


What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel
by Rachel Samara for Global Grind Staff

the entire piece is here:

http://globalgrind.com/news/what-white-people-dont-understand-about-rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-blog#ixzz2XQSvwPzo




A predominantly white jury is not going to like Rachel Jeantel. Let's just be real here.
The 19-year-old Miami native is an easy target for obvious, yet shallow reasons. But let's not forget why she's actually on the stand in George Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Rachel was the last person to speak to a living, breathing Trayvon Martin. The guilt, shame and sorrow she must feel is something most of us will never be able to comprehend. You could hear it in her voice, see it in her jittery body language. She is feeling the wrath of this highly publicized case.
Rachel was thrown head first into this murder story, unwillingly. And although she had repeatedly said she did not want to be a witness, did not even want to believe she was the last person Trayvon spoke to, Rachel took the stand for all the right reasons. She was asked to by the family of her deceased friend and feeling part of the burden for his death, she wanted to help.
Rachel was raw, emotional, aggressive and hostile, and she was unapologetically herself.
And if the 5 white jurors (excluding the 1 Latina) are like most white people I know, they are unfortunately not going to like Rachel. They won't understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and this will unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn't.
I can imagine George Zimmerman's defense is just hoping some of those 5 white jurors have some prejudices (as most people do), or hell, are even racist, because if they are, their tactic to make Rachel out to be less intelligent, rather than less credible than she actually is, might actually work.
Less intelligent and more confused.

Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/what-white-people-dont-understand-about-rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-blog#ixzz2XR3eYxGr

37 replies, 7010 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel / witness in Zimmerman trial (Original post)
Mira Jun 2013 OP
Dalai_1 Jun 2013 #1
upaloopa Jun 2013 #2
spooky3 Jun 2013 #11
upaloopa Jun 2013 #15
Wait Wut Jun 2013 #3
spooky3 Jun 2013 #13
John2 Jun 2013 #14
spooky3 Jun 2013 #17
John2 Jun 2013 #19
spooky3 Jun 2013 #20
markiv Jun 2013 #4
AndyA Jun 2013 #5
Schema Thing Jun 2013 #6
russspeakeasy Jun 2013 #7
Skittles Jun 2013 #8
noiretextatique Jun 2013 #9
hamsterjill Jun 2013 #10
HockeyMom Jun 2013 #12
southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #16
John2 Jun 2013 #22
southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #23
JimDandy Jun 2013 #27
southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #33
JimDandy Jun 2013 #34
southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #36
bobclark86 Jun 2013 #18
erpowers Jun 2013 #21
flamingdem Jun 2013 #28
pscot Jun 2013 #24
yurbud Jun 2013 #25
KT2000 Jun 2013 #26
Cronus Protagonist Jun 2013 #29
customerserviceguy Jun 2013 #30
quadrature Jun 2013 #31
Mira Jun 2013 #32
JimDandy Jun 2013 #37
midnight Jun 2013 #35

Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:45 PM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:45 PM

2. Give people more credit. Last night on the last word

they spoke of how interested the jury was in Racael's testimony. They were leaning toward her trying to hear and understand what she was saying even taking notes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:31 PM

11. good point. I think I understand what the writer is saying, but I think most of us can empathize

with her for all the reasons the writer notes and others here have posted.

Just because a person does not have a "made for TV" appearance and confidence/comfort level, does not mean that the jury and the majority of TV viewers will dismiss what she has to say. Very few of us can stand up to the glare of cameras and the grilling of people whose job it is to make you look ridiculous even if they believe every word you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:48 PM

15. read todays thread about the live feed and

Rachael's testimony today. DUers all have empathy for her and are mad at the defence attourney. I think there are white DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:48 PM

3. I'm white...

...and my heart goes out to this poor young lady. No one wants to be put under a microscope and she's being examined as if she were the criminal. It's sickening.

She does seem confused. I would seem so, as well. I don't work well under that type of pressure and I'd freakin' snap a helluva lot worse than she has. She's scared, confused, hurt, sad and just wants to go home. That doesn't make her less reliable or truthful. It makes her human. She had to sit by and listen to her friend get murdered. I don't expect her to be any less upset.

I have serious reservations about this jury. Not just because of the color of their skin, but their backgrounds. I'd like to say I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm not. I'm pessimistic as hell. I watched as a mother walked free after murdering her own child. Why should I expect anything better for Trayvon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:45 PM

13. Research shows that juries typically work hard to make unbiased judgments. I think bad outcomes

such as the one you described are more likely the result of poorly done prosecution. When the case has not been made clearly (such as to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt", juries are supposed to err on the side of the defendant. Obviously errors are sometimes made by juries, people can be unfair, etc., but I would not want to pre-judge this jury negatively.

Also, both sides had the opportunity to question prospective jurors before they were asked to serve, so one would hope that the both the prosecution and the defense did a good job of utilizing their "strikes" and if they didn't, then that responsibility also lies with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

14. I'm Black,

 

and has much more education than she does. I think that I could have made this lawyer look stupid by now. I think he would have been wanting to get me off the stand. Let me give you one example. If the assumption was Trayvon ran and was outta breath when Zimmerman caught up with him, then wouldn't it be logical that Zimmerman either drove fast or increased his speed to catch up with Trayvon?

If Trayvon saw the guy close to him within striking distance, then wouldn't it be logical Zimmerman was not in his vehicle? She does not have to prove Trayvon approached Zimmerman if he was not in his vehicle. If She used that logic, the Defense lawyer would look stupid. In order for Martin to attack Zimmerman, Zimmerman needed to get out of his vehicle. In order for Zimmerman to keep pace with Martin, he would need to chase him. He either did it on foot or gotten out of his vehicle. A lot also depends on where Zimmerman's vehicle was from the scene of the crime and the body.

It was irrelevant if Martin used a racial slur when citing Zimmerman chasing him. Martin was Black being chased by a delusional white man for no reason. It was a normal reaction any black person would react to being chased by a crazy white man. I would have gave that response to Zimmerman's Lawyer.

If Trayvon was near his house, he does not have to be at his house, if he was just in the vicinity back of his house. It depends on where Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon and where the murder occurred. The bottomline the defense lawyer is trying to confuse her and the Jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:03 PM

17. but fortunately, it is not her job as a witness to have to make the defense attorney look stupid

If anyone is to supposed to do that, it is the prosecution's job.

All she needs to do is be herself and tell the truth. It is really awful to be forced into the position she is in.

I'm not an attorney, and maybe I have watched too many crime shows on TV, but I think that, regardless, the forensic evidence (rather than the witness accounts) is going to be a lot more important than anything else in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

19. I've been

 

on the stand before. I think she is a very important witness, but there are other witnesses, testimony that collaborates what she said and the forensic evidence like you said. The bottomline, I don't even Zimmerman has a justification for Perfect Self Defense period, because he was at fault, even if Trayvon attacked him. He was advised not to pursue Trayvon.

If the definition includes last resort, Zimmerman didn't use last resort. They are claiming the aggression happened when Zimmerman caught up with Martin. The aggression beganned when Zimmerman pursued Martin with a loaded deadly weapon on him. The pursuit caused the provocation. I'm also insinuating own testimony on the 911 call incriminates him with his description of Martin. He had the choice to pursue a person that might be dangerous and armed. The very fact that he needed to approach Martin with a loaded gun, indicates it. So I do not see where the justification for self defense with Deadly force applies here, because he did not use every option available to him. That enough to me is why he should be found guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

20. You may well be right - my point is just that I am not as pessimistic as some people here are. The

process is that defense attorneys are SUPPOSED to be advocates for their clients. They can do many things to try to intimidate witnesses. That's our system. But that does not mean that the defense succeeded in destroying this witness, nor that they will ultimately carry the day (or that either side has an airtight case--I just don't know and I don't know the law). But I do believe that the system will work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:51 PM

4. 'what white people dont understand'

 

wow - you can tell what people do and dont understand, just by the color of their skin?

the author must be psychic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

5. I know exactly what Ms. Jeantel is going through--I've been there personally.

She has to deal with her personal sorrow, anger at the death of a friend, the frustration of an asshole attorney trying to make her look bad, and on top of that she has a camera stuck in her face.

Zimmerman's attorney is coming across to me as a complete jerk, intent on tripping Ms. Jeantel up. You don't have to do that when your client is innocent, you only have to resort to trickery when you're desperate.

It's hard to second guess someone when they're in the witness chair. She has my sympathies, she will remember this for the rest of her life. Yes, some jurors may not like her because she's black, or they may think she's not as intelligent or doesn't have the same credibility as a white person would have.

But I would hope they all understand the gravity of their responsibility. It's not to let their personal opinions interfere with the facts of the case. Ms. Jeantel is still young, and this is a new experience for her. She seems sincere and credible to me, I hope the jury sees her the same way.

Sending good thoughts to Ms. Jeantel--no one should have to ever go through what she's going through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:03 PM

6. I watched about 5 minutes of her early testimony from yesterday



and she came off as credible and real.


I didn't watch enough to get a feel for if she is "intelligent" or not, but wtf does her relative IQ have to do with anything related to why Trayvon Martin is dead?


Then again, I often feel like I'm a freak among my fellow white people, and I know exactly where the writer is coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:05 PM

7. Thanks for pointing this out. I am white and I "thought"

I understood her. She is credible, at least, that's what I thought until you pointed out that I didn't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:09 PM

8. I understand her and I am as white as this background

I understand people like Rachel far more than I do quiet, sweet people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:26 PM

9. i don't think this article is about any particular white person, like the Duers in this thread

it does apply to some in the media, racists and the uninformed, in general. white people who have little to no contact with black people will probably not see this young woman in a favorable light. i wil include all the asshole trolls here who are furiously spinning for zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:30 PM

10. I understand what you're saying.

I certainly understand and sympathize that this is a very difficult time for her. Who would want to have to testify in front of the whole country, knowing that any mis-step will be pounced upon not only by the defense, but also by television and media networks. They will be running her testimony as sound bytes to increase viewership on the evening news - - and I'm sure she's aware of that. The pressure must be tremendous.

I was listening to a portion of her testimony this morning and yes, sometimes, I had a hard time understanding the words she was using. I could tell that when she was concentrating on forming the words she wanted to use, she was more clear. When she was pressured or having to think about what to answer, she reverted to her more natural, normal way of speaking. But I found her testimony credible once clarification was made. I was glad that the court reporter and judge seemed ameniable to making sure the jury could understand her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:31 PM

12. Knock, knock?

That was just plain stupid and not one person laughed. Cracker? Statistical fact. 2/3 of the population of Florida is from another state. I am a transplant to Florida. Cracker? Huh? That would have elicited the same response from me as the Knock, Knock "joke".

I did like her. As a MOTHER, I felt he was badgering a very young woman, whatever her race. How many different ways can you ask the same damned question until you have the witness in tears?


I also have a paralegal degree, and was called to be a juror once. There is a very fine line that an attorney has to walk with cross examination. While they want to discredit witness testimony, they have to be very careful to not be seen as badgering a witness. In that case, the witness will elicit sympathy, and the attorney will receive the backlash.

Getting into the voire dere process, you cannot dismiss the fact that the entire jury, and judge, are all females. What does this mean? What is the difference? Ask an attorney, and there is supposedly a science to this. Women will not just listen to testimony, but look at body language also. Doesn't matter what race they are. How does a witness hold up their head? Do they look the attorney in the eye? Are they crying or scowling? Are they fidgeting? Most men, according to the data on this, would not even notice.

The race of the jury will make a difference? No, if anything, it will be gender of the jury. Does they testimony match the witnesses body language. I do not think you will see George Zimmerman take the stand in front of jury of all women for exactly this reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:51 PM

16. I don't think she comes off well because you just can't understand what she is saying.

 

But she is 19 yrs old and I don't think its fair if people are judging her for the wrong reasons. Today she comes off alittle better. I think there is such a generational difference and I think the defense is harping and harping on her. I do think today she comes off creditable. She doesn't hold back what she thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:14 PM

22. There is

 

street talk and urban talk. She is from Miami and plus her mother seems to be an immigrant. There is a difference in communication like on the streets in large urban areas, with diversity and some urban areas in the suburbs, or upper residential areas. It also applies culturally. Some areas in the United States are like night and day. I would communicate a different way on the streets than in an upper scale community.

A lotta young people that like Hip Hop or rap, communicate a certain way. Take the word nigger for example. They call both Black and White people nigger in a positive or negative way among that Generation. Many of that Generation is against the system or authority. You have two worlds colliding probably. I imagine Trayvon probably was wild and Zimmerman this very Conservative guy, and despised people like Trayvon. He saw them as no good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:43 PM

23. Well I understand that. My own mother came from another country and has a heavy accent.

 

I usually do pretty well with accents. I also have worked around young people of all kinds of backgrounds. I just think the girl comes off terrible because she mumbles a lot. It seems she has a hard time communicating what she means and how she says it. I don't think the girl is lying. I think she gets confused with the defense. I feel bad for her. But she does need an attitude adjustment. I think the prosecutor will clean it up and bring her back on point. We shall see. I pray that she isn't the only important witness. I think the blonde lady that was before her was a real good witness. This young lady even said why she lied about her age and why she didn't want to go to the funeral. I don't like the way they are beating up on her in the internet world and twitter. That's not fair after all she is only 19 and I think an immature 19 yr old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #23)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:35 AM

27. She is credible and never swayed from her testimony.

She did a good job on the stand being Trayvon's voice in the prosecution of his murderer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 09:14 AM

33. She stood her ground. But she was a terrible witness. But I hope the jury just looks

 

at what she said because I agree she made her points. But I am worried the jury didn't like her because she was snappy and rude. Of course it didn't help that the defense lawyer was terrible to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #33)


Response to JimDandy (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:47 AM

36. Well I pray your right. There was so much clutter in the conversation but she did stand her ground.

 

I also believed her because she was so unfiltered its hard not to believe her. Also people need to remember that she was an EAR witness not a EYE witness and that is a big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

18. Yes, because white people can't possibly understand...

someone feeling horrible about hearing the last words of a dying boy, and who isn't a native English speaker. Yup, white people are pretty callous like that. And only the Hispanic woman can understand.

Oh, and she used the word "cracker." That's game over for the white folks. They're gonna let that whitey boy Zimmerman free just because of that...



Sounds like somebody judging the jurors based solely on their skin color, rather than the kind of people they actually are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

21. Not Just White People

I think race should not brought into this part of the case. Black people who have not lived Jeantel's life would see her in a somewhat negative light. Not all black people understand what it is like to live in a dangerous neighborhood and only be aware of the world a block away from where they live. Seeing Jeantel in a negative light is not a white or black issue it is a regional and socioeconomic issue among other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:05 AM

28. Very good point. People who are curious and learn about others are

more likely to understand that she has a special background. In fact one that can be seen as culturally rich, but rarely is, due to associations with poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:11 PM

24. She has some grit

I thought she did OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:16 AM

25. I hope this author is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:32 AM

26. I do understand

and I am white! The defense lawyer is a slime for putting her on trial. I only hope the prosecution is able to provide counseling for this poor girl when this is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:09 AM

29. I think she was totally awesome!

And her statements had the ring of truth. Good job young lady. You took on the responsibility and you kept it real.



(The color of my skin was in no way an impediment or even a small factor in coming to this conclusion.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:41 AM

30. She didn't help her likability with

"That's real retarded, sir." I know use of that word to describe a poor choice made by someone is grounds for having a post deleted here, I don't imagine that it played well with the "creepy-ass crackers" on the jury.

From my point of view, the prosecution is flailing around at this point, and we haven't even got to the defense's part of the trial. I've long said that O'Meara didn't take this case to preside over losing it, and it looks like he's done a lot to swing things his way. If the prosecutor had only charged manslaughter, the case would have been easier, but by reaching for murder, he's made things tougher for his team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 03:15 AM

31. so how did tub'o'lard outrun football player in a footrace? nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #31)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 08:32 AM

32. That's how.



(slow and steady does it every time...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #31)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:59 AM

37. Zimmerman was a fit MMA-trained fighting machine

when he killed Trayvon, a 154 lb, 5 ft/10.5 in. (per coroner's report), narrow-framed teen, nicknamed "Slimm" by his friends.

For the year and a half prior to Trayvon's murder, George Zimmerman trained in MMA fighting classes at a gym billed as "The World's Best MMA Gym". He was 194 lbs (of almost certainly dense muscle weight), which put him 4 MMA weight classes higher than a teen of Trayvon's weight.

Trayvon played football years earlier as a kid in a community rec league and had last played a game at his local park when he was 13 years old (four years before he was murdered.) His focus since then had turned to aviation and learning to fly a plane.

Zimmerman used the money conservative SYG proponents gave him to, in less than a year, eat his way to the 120 lb heavier "tub'o'lard" we see in court today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:58 AM

35. The photo of this women provides a very polished professional young women and

does not reflect any of the negativity or concern in this article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread