Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

Sir Thomas More on the Trial of George Zimmerman

July 16th, 2013 - 6:25 am

“A modern-day lynching.” That was the NAACP about the verdict in the murder trial against George Zimmerman, the man for whom The New York Times invented a new race category, the “white Hispanic.” In a reprise of his Tawana Brawley  fiasco, The Allegedly Reverend Al Sharpton is planning protests in 100 cities. Yesterday, a rally protesting the verdict closed a major intersection Newark, New Jersey. Meanwhile, the parents of Mr. Zimmerman have gone into hiding because of the cataract of death threats they have received.

What’s going on? George Zimmerman ought never to have been tried for the lamentable death of Trayvon Martin. The police in his town in Florida understood that. It was only when the President of the United States said that, if he had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin that local authorities got with the program. Eric Holder’s amusingly named Department of Justice actually sent people to Florida to stir up sentiment against Mr. Zimmerman (isn’t that racist?). Now that the jury has spoken — NOT GUILTY — the Department of Racial Justice is pondering bringing a civil suit against George Zimmerman. As Mark Steyn observed,

In the Zimmerman trial, the state’s “theory of the case” is that it has no theory of the case: might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it’s something.

Fortunately for George Zimmerman, the jury decided the case on the facts. George Zimmerman acted in self defense. He wasn’t guilty of any crime.

That’s not stopping the race mongers, of course. For them, the death of Trayvon Martin is an allegory of how America is a racist society. If only they could take a break from their race baiting histrionics to watch an improving film, The Man for All Seasons (1966), for example.  A friend, pondering the spectacle of race hatred on view in the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial, sent me these exchanges from the movie:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

And this:

Margaret More: Father, that man’s bad.

Sir Thomas More: There’s no law against that.

William Roper: There is: God’s law.

Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

*****

Cross-posted at PJ Lifestyle

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (1)
All Comments   (1)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I don't know how much of the dialogue is truly Mpore's and how much is sappy crap from the playright. Query: if a tree stands as an obstacle for Thomas More, but does not pose any obstacle for the devil, what difference does cutting it down make? Today, the frikkin' fact is that laws apply to whites, but not to blacks. More was a victim of the Enlightenment, which was neat theory, but completely incorrect regarding human behavior and it's inherited, innate, immutable nature.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All