Before reading this post please watch his video so that you can get a full understanding of what he is saying and in what context.
I took a few moments to watch an Undertakerfreak1127 video someone sent me where he spoke about the public’s reaction to the George Zimmerman trial outcome. I found that he was very angry about the public’s reaction. This is no criticism because I’m frequently emotional about the videos I make. I was interested in what his anger was focused on, meaning what he was angry about. I felt was wrong and very indicative of what he was really thinking.
He begins by saying that it doesn’t matter what the public thinks. It does matter what we think, public opinion is actually very important. How the public views events like this shapes many things. When events like this happen it says something about the state of affairs of racial relations and the functioning of the justice system. These cases impact political careers. The views the public have of stand your ground laws can affect whether people try to have it repealed or supported, pubic view affects how the defense is seen by a jury in future cases.
He speaks about people becoming “forensics experts” and this is wrong, he doesn’t say that but I assume that’s what he means given how angry he is when he says it. It was a high profile case via the issues of Treyvon’s age and both their races. Of course people are going to talk about it. Crime and punishment are news and people are going to talk about it when it comes up. People are going to discuss the facts/evidence in the case, they are not 100% informed, but this causes them to look for knowledge on the subjects, even on a small level. It’s important that people do know what is going on, it’s important they stay knowledgeable in these events, otherwise no one will know what is going on. Or events of miscarriages of justice like this will go unknown about.
In a strange moment he complains about social justice being an issue. This was a case of social justice for Martin because he was an unarmed 17 year old was attacked and killed by a man, a known racist, playing cop. Approaching him based on nothing but the kid’s race. The stand your ground justice is lopsided in favour of the murders of Black people in stand your ground situations. This lopsidedness is a context, material conditions in which this case proceeded. This is the context in which it happens that it cannot be separated from.
In fact we can demonstrate this by figures that have come out in the wake of the trial showing that Black people are not treated the same with such laws.
“In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.
– Disturbing chart shows rise in “justified killings” of blacks in U.S.“
I suppose as a White male he doesn’t see a need for it as he’s not the victim or part of a group that is victimized.
He complains that the court of public opinion having (supposedly) more power than the court, tough, it’s called society, it’s what happens when a society knows what is going on (relatively speaking). He just said Zimmerman was innocent in HIS opinion, but now he’s complaining about the court of public OPINION. He is part of that public. He says as long as the court of public opinion exists it stays this way he can’t see where the justice is. It seems like he’s actually complaining that the public disagrees with him.
This farce of a trial is not the best we can do, there was terrible misconduct by both sides. This case was a mess.
From here he goes into the often repeated media circus complaint. While it is a legitimate criticism I often am baffled by the inability of those who make it to see where it comes from. They usually when pressed for an answer say that its human nature. In fact it has its entire basis in capitalism itself. All these media companies (all media companies) have two functions. The first is to generate profit. They survive or die based on this alone. They must make money at all costs. In fact the company is bound by law to do so for its shareholders. The only way they make money is by having people watch it and then view the ads in the programming. They must do whatever possible to get people to watch. This almost always ends up in sensationalizing in order to get the most attention. This is why media does it; this is why media has to do it. There should be no confusion as to why. It is the very basis of the system. The second function is to propagate a particular view or opinion to the public. Different stations have slightly different views that they broadcast, but essentially they all end up in the interest of the ruling elite.
Around the end of the video he seems to make much less sense in what he is saying. I mean that in what he is saying, is not saying anything. Or it doesn’t seem to have any point. Take this as an example.
“As long as there is some possibility that truth is being lost, that justice is being raped, what does my opinion really matter? Who’s guilty, who’s innocent.”
The way this is phrased is extremely vague; it doesn’t indicate anything specific and can be left up to interpretation. I don’t get what he is trying to say here, the tone of his voice when saying it indicates different meanings.
Despite all of this, here is what I think the points of the video were:
1. People will always be angry at rulings one way or another. Public opinion is pointless because there are always going to be people who disagree with the ruling. So what is this supposed to mean? It can be interpreted many ways. He’s not actually making a point.
2. He’s just complaining about public opinion. He’s not making any point with it other than to say it is annoying. He’s really complaining that public opinion doesn’t agree with him. Has public opinion not agreed with him about things in the past? Probably. But he’s taking this one to heart because of the way people who disagree with him see people like him. There was no real point to this video other than to complain that public opinion doesn’t agree with him.