Streams

“Trial by Twitter” and the Steubenville Rape Case

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Ariel Levy, staff writer of The New Yorker, investigates the Steubenville, Ohio, rape case—in which high-school football players assaulted an intoxicated girl—and looks at how online communities and social media transformed and distorted the story, turning a local crime into a national crusade. She discusses whether justice was served. Levy’s article “Trial by Twitter” appears in the August 5 issue of The New Yorker.

Guests:

Ariel Levy

Comments [26]

Reality Check,
Yeah, after I came across the 12-minute video, I started following the case through the media and read quite a lot. The victim blaming was mind-blowing. Based on what they did, I also think that the point was humiliation, not sex (a vomiting girl, lying on the floor,assault in front of witnesses, some of whom were there only for a short time, pics, vids,all the texting, 2 boys, one of them black). CS is one of their closest friends, and I don't think they could do it to her without his knowledge.
Regarding the uw, I guess a probable explanation is that they were covering their tracks and destroying evidence.
The tweet is from Mays, it's still on Twitter @TrentMays_12
I wonder that A. Levy claims there is no cover up without commenting if the proper procedures regarding the rape kit were followed and without mentioning the possibility that the girl was drugged and the absence of a drug test.
I am sorry about the way she wrote about A. Goddard - the woman had guts, she knew the celebrity status of the boys. She suffered through threats and a lawsuit. She did what many other media - mainstream or not, would have done, if they had found shocking evidence about a crime online. She was the first to show the public what these boys really are.
I wonder why A. Levy doesn't mention the grand jury at all, especially as it will deal with the question about the cover up.

Aug. 13 2013 05:08 PM
Reality check

SMR- thank you for saying that. Sounds like you also followed the case closely. We can hope the GJ finishes the job?? Long list of offenses by kids & adults. Seems it wouldn't be hard, by way of certain testimony of the 3 immunity stooges- to dispel their get out of jail free cards.
I think you meant Malík on that tweet, though Mays might have RT it. So many vile tweets, hard to recall who & what!! But there was something to do with theory of Cody's revenge to "ruin the B" conspiracy. That it was of great importance that there be documented proof she slept with a black guy. Apparently perceived by CS, it would be extra in the shaming of her reputation among peers. Hence the "favor" tweet in context.
I also strongly feel if the crime sceneS had been investigated promptly & accurately- critical evidence would have been recovered. The search of Cole's house was willing & invited by owner. Hmm. Curious on this visit, if they bothered to check the trash?? Possible her phone, or even the underwear (both never recovered) among other things, just might have been found..
Rather Curious as claimed by several, she was never fully undressed until that 3rd house, where sexually assaulted. Then would not her underwear-Uw have to be somewhere at the Coles? And if they couldn't produce it, bc of delays in search- is that not destruction of a common, potentially critical, piece of evidence in a rape investigation? Or obstructing justice?
Further, going with their version of events, proven to have no integrity... Given the violation of taking her clothes off and knowing she woke up in the same manner, scared & confused. >Contrary to article- had 3 boys standing over her, & yelling at her she was a royal pain, & they "took care" of her! (Reno-esque influence?!)
So an obvious question is- why would they feel a need to get rid of the Uw? Can we say DNA evidence existed on? Odd how it can't be explained away in how it could have gotten there in their false narrative!
Option B: SO WHERE was her Uw really removed prior to, if she didn't have it on her arrival?? Established missing next morning.
It has to be one or the other. They need to be made to answer & prove it!

Aug. 13 2013 06:09 AM
Lin T

Hearing this cleared up one of my questions from reading the article. Levy has a strong, and very obvious, bias against bloggers.

As for inaccurate reporting, after comparing what Levy's understanding of the case was against what Goddard reported, I think I'll stick with the bloggers and save whatever the subscription to The New Yorker costs.

Aug. 11 2013 08:20 PM

Reality Check,
I admire your insight into the crime and the trial! I feel the same about the skewed perspective of this article. Regarding the phone I have been wondering myself. Maybe it was lost and the story about the pass was fabricated. Or maybe the phone was in the 3rd house as Cole testified, and was stolen by one of the 3 boys before JD woke up. If it's the latter, one may ask why they snooped into the phone and why it was stolen. Cole testified that Mays was interested what she texted with A. Craig. In the context of the deplorable things Mays did to the girl, it seems strange that he would care about that, especially during a night of heavy drinking and just after the assault. If it was stolen, maybe it was to prevent her from learning what happened to her too soon or for the same reason for which they snooped into it - to read what she texted. This kind of fits with the tweet by Mays that he was dong a favor that night ("I’m so mad like I’m gonna get in so much so for doing a favor forreal.")

Aug. 11 2013 07:07 AM
pablo

Victim blaming from rape culture babies. Sick shit.

Aug. 10 2013 08:29 PM
Reality check

Bob,
Agree on phone. I'd also like to point out, her password was the space bar! Having an IPhone I messed around with back when to stage this claim. Fellow owners of will likely understand this moreso.
Phone is in sleep mode. Press bottom center circle button to power screen. Screen lights up in locked position, with display to enter password. The 3x as wide space bar is also dead center, very bottom of screen. 1/8 in above. A case makes the area raised.
Regardless, to access for use, one would typically, holding ph in either hand, using dominant typing thumb, press the press the main circle button. Next naturally slide or move upwards to hover just over the bottom of screen pad. To then enter the password. Guess what happens most often? Especially if done in a quick swiping motion. Without even touching, or just as likely, even grazing. The sensitive touchscreen activates the space button as if pressed. And voilà, the screens alive. Never having known the password.
SMR, I also noted how Malik was presented vs. Mays. Detected a bit of favoritism between the 2. Madison is an idiot as an Attny. But Mays has said some despicable things for now I won't mention. Right before trial I half questioned the scapegoat theory on Malik, vs. both boys the youngest of crew, (no scholarships on the line, allowed to be recorded) as the fall guys of theory too. With the first one, I voided it upon seeing his 20/20 episode. Prior filmed, aired during trial. The comment of many re "she was hanging all over me, putting her hand on my chest and stuff," implicating her flirting = open invitation! Likely she was only trying to stay on her feet! This among the many lies & admitting to. Pathetic was his version of infamous pic being staged as joke, she agreed to taking!!?!
Mays who is also rumored to be part of Apr alleged rape, was beyond guilty. He or maybe both, of even more heinous acts. Clenched was at his review on sex offender registry. After the judge referenced his evaluation by the juvenile center, that Mays was not remorseful over the rape. His idiot attorney actually argues, "but he didn't know he was being evaluated!" Omg! And I think he gave some lame ass apology to judge, that you'd think the $ in fees would have bought better coaching. Kid's a sociopath.
Off subject but Saltsman appears to be a narcissist. Hence the "shame" of being dumped, would trigger a pure hatred for & a vendetta. The only viable motive in an obvious premeditated crime.

Aug. 10 2013 06:50 PM
Bob

correction: "Multiple accounts at the second house were that she was far more intoxicated at the second house than Richmond (not Mays) claimed she was at the third where his own friends said she was unconscious and unresponsive."

Aug. 10 2013 01:31 PM
Bob

The claims that she gave them the pass to her cellphone are not credible. Firstly, her ex was present and could have known it. Second, their texts indicate that the phone was lost before they arrived at the third house. "lost in the street" or something to that effect was what was recovered from their phones.

Multiple accounts at the second house were that she was far more intoxicated at the second house than Mays claimed she was at the third where his own friends said she was unconscious and unresponsive. Richmond said in the ABC interview that if he thought someone was being victimized he'd step in but the pictures alone prove this was completely false, let alone the text messages of Mays and the testimony of his friends.

Did he really think a girl would be okay with being stripped naked and molested while others took pictures and video? A girl who was described as being unable to walk, vomiting, and became unresponsive and unaware of what was being done to her when Mays lifted her shirt for another to record (by his own admission) in the car to the third house let alone described as being so unresponsive that she appeared dead.

Did he really think this was an okay thing to do? His admission in court seemed to indicate that he did not but we know see he was weeping for himself and not his victim. His lying and despicable public statements that he would not make in court are a callous attack against his victim and indicate that Mays may actually get out of detention before he does and the world is seeing what kind of remorseless narcissist he truly is.

Aug. 10 2013 01:29 PM

I'd like to correct my previous post. After listening again, I saw that I didn't understand correctly the comment about why the case is "complicated". It didn't imply that the lines were blurred between consent and crime in this case, but pointed out the need to change the mentality regarding the attitude to women.
I'd also want to add that I disagree with the way Richmond's case is presented in the article. The author has chosen to keep the vulgar comments of Richmond and his lawyer in the article. This makes sense, because it shows their exact attitude, but without much of a critical comment, it is like just giving them the floor to say whatever they like and to victimize the girl again. The author doesn't point out the contradictions between their statements and the facts of the trial and in this way they seem more like a valid version of the events. There was plenty of evidence that the girl was unadequate, "dead", not only in the testimony of the 3 witnesses, but in the texts and the Nodianos video,which was made based on the comments by the 3 witnesses, who then went back to the 2nd house, where the video was made, and on the photos and videos Nodianos saw. Richmond's statement and Madison's defense in the article contradict this evidence. Richmond was stupid enough to do that in this statement, as well as in the ABC news interview, where he said that the girl was OK at the 3rd house, not slurring and stumbling. It seems that Richmond contradicted himself, when he spoke to A. Levy, because he said the girl was adequate, when he did what he did with her, but he didn't object, that she was unconscious, when he talked about what Mays did. The tone and arrogance of Richmond's statement in the article is at 180 degrees from his tearful remorse at the courtroom. The only conscious acts of the girl at the 3rd house, on which the defense was built, were that she could indicate that she wanted to vomit and that she gave them the pass for her cell. The pass for her cell was just pressing space. The defendants didn't take the stand to testify and the 3 witnesses didn't testify about a single word or reaction of the girl during the "consensual" sex. The statement of B. FitzSimmons is valid. It's obvious that no one knows what exactly happened, because the 2 boys didn't testify and plead guilty, but taken as a whole and analyzed critically, the evidence shows the picture beyond reasonable doubt, and Richmond doesn't help his case by lying about proven facts publicly. I wonder why his lawyer allowed this, something which Mays didn't do.

Aug. 10 2013 08:51 AM
SMR

I'd like to correct my previous comment. After I listened again, I see that I had not understood the comment about female sexuality correctly. It doesn't imply that the lines between consent and crime are blurred in this case, but points out the need to change the mentality regarding the attitude to women and female sexuality.

Aug. 10 2013 07:27 AM
Bob

The fact that she was interested in Mays makes this all the more horrific. He went out of his way to cultivate her trust and there are allegations that her ex-boyfriend may have helped facilitate that out of a desire for revenge. His post after she broke up with him was a direct threat to ruin her and he was present that night. His texts to both her and Mays clearly show the remorse he tried to show after the fact was a complete sham.

They took advantage of her trust and that she felt safe with him and he let at least one other (Richmond) join in abusing her. While the drug test was inconclusive, The judge also commented in court that while there was no evidence that she was drugged, there was nothing to prove that she wasn't. This is beside the point as her former friend stated in court (as a witness for the defense, no less) that the victim was known to be impossible to wake when passed out and this is something her ex certainly knew and quite possibly passed on to Mays. The descriptions of her state by those present and in the disgusting Nodianos video that she was indeed in such a state.

Even if she wasn't drugged or even fed drinks intentionally to bring about such a state the expert witness stated that she could have easily reached such a state with the amount she was believed to have drunk. The defense expert witness had contested this but she was an academic and not someone who worked directly with criminal cases of intoxication and sex assault. The defenses expert witness had also not been shown the photographs that had been taken and when the prosecution showed it to her, her shock showed that she was not so certain about her claims that there was any degree of consent involved.

Aug. 10 2013 01:37 AM
justiceday

Wow this shows how ignorant the media really is about rape and this story! This "writer" has so many facts wrong! She wasn't at trial and she clearly took bits and pieces to fit what she believed is the truth. And what happened to that girl there wasn't enough punishment or convictions! And she doesn't understand the impact of what Anonymous did for this case and for rape victims!

Shame on the New Yorker for sloppy journalism!

Aug. 10 2013 01:16 AM
Bob

She was unconscious when they molested and photographed her according to their own friends. The records of Mays text messages clearly show what his and the others mindset was that night. Mays lifted her shirt for pictures/video for his friends when she was unresponsive.

According to testimony of Mays friends, she was stripped of her clothing almost immediately after arriving at the third house after being carried in like a piece of meat. They were on here, pawing and assaulting her right away. She could have had alcohol poisoning but did they worry about that? No, their first thought was to take advantage of her. The also did more than they were convicted of as was indicated by Mays own texts that he raped her orally.

These facts are all on the record. Also on the record is Richmond's very emotional ADMISSION of what he did. It was hard to make out and not really covered in the media, but he sad twice he knew he ruined her life. It came to late, of course, but it is there. He knew what they did was wrong and that they were guilty of what they were convicted of.

Aug. 09 2013 10:10 PM
Reality check from Somewhere, US

Crap! Part 5 final----
Maybe As a survivor, seen as empowering in all the positive it has led to. And paving the way, as well as encouragement for other silent victims, to take back the power from rapists. The fact, as in the Pott & Parsons case, the subsequent actions by many involved, could have had a far more sinister ending. Suffering the same persecution by peers & adults upon the criminals who broadcast it. In Jane Doe's case, she had the international backing of countless supporters. Ensuring authorities could not ignore, or pretend, or half-ass address. Had they really investigated, far more would have been charged on various crimes. Long before the immunity circus, or need for a grand jury. Way back in the beginning.
I find it a shame, with the unusual access of those interviewed, the failure to ask the right questions. It could have made for a really great article. A Missed opportunity.
This story is far from over. Justice has yet to be served in its entirety. As it should be.
***The above information is said from my opinion. Based upon research, evidence, trial, hearing, interviews, personal accounts, articles, discussions etc. Take the time to validate the facts.

Aug. 09 2013 09:00 PM
Reality check from Somewhere, US

Part 4----
8. Last point, although I could go on for days- given the article seemingly had the overall intent as a fluff piece of Jane Hanlin, and defaming of Alexandria Goddard/Prinnie. I'd seriously question the journalistic integrity of a writer who discloses in confidence, off the record details. And only to further some oddly personal agenda.
If the corruption interests anyone, Do look for the online mapping of direct connections of a very small # of elite to further understand it. But a good start is here: http://austinisafecker.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-steubenville-rape-crew-and-steubenvilles-incestuous-legal-community/#comments and follow the trail from, to another site. Where a particularly brilliant commenter, with extensive legal background, has done extensive, thorough historical research on the subject. Of which is jaw dropping in revelations.
Finally, if not for the actions of supporters (including majority of locals), this case wouldn't have even made it to phase 1. And never would there have been a grand jury convened. So many lies have been told, on so many levels. May it finally bring justice also to the April alleged rape victim-14. And perhaps the other 2 girls unidentified images, similarly posed unconscious & undressed, in the basement of MC's home? As well as the many negligent parents, coaches, admins, by-standing accomplices, and those as accessory to. Perhaps even more perpetrators.
There simply would not be the ongoing international dialogue on rape culture. The actions by supporters is appreciated by those that matter. It's a question of perception. I see only in, the despicable actions of several inhumane degenerates. A brave & bright young lady that was victimized, and continues to be in some places- might just choose to see the bigger picture. Not allow the intent of her original violators on varying levels, to shame her further by having documented a heinous crime. Yet seems that the author & Hanlin do?

Aug. 09 2013 08:56 PM
Reality check from Somewhere, US

Part 3---
Plenty of probable cause to have had medical common Sense to have done the above, if not by law or policy also. Potentially as a minor, moreso.
4. A curious question is, why were the authorities not notified by the hospital? The parents went to the station to file the report. Trial testimony by an officer, stated on request he burned a cd of collected digital evidence off the moms cellphone. Then erased it on her phone as asked for obvious reasons. Where is that cd?? Per PC hearing of Ofc Rendon, were adamant JD had been urinated on. (Transcript of details p.183 is blank.) 2 yet to be mentioned by name boys, (yet 1 of cell was seized?) were eluding to credit of for months. One was a close pal of CS who enjoyed this boasting charade of too.
5. 16-Uncooperative adult & kid witnesses. Ongoing refusal. Per Rendon on record statement, after promotion to BCI- struggled to find any witness to come forward or comply. Felt there was "a fear of police." There is a reason "little Chicago's" SPD is the 2nd only to have to sign a consent decree with the DoJ, for excessive civil rights violations. In population perspective, as compared to big cities, says plenty.
6. Contrary to claims by officials that social media is not real evidence. Or said to be deleted (professionally?) irretrievable. Yet sites like Twitter, record all in a master database. Cases all across the country of subpoenas issued to in crimes of lewd photos of minors being dispersed among peers.
7. There was obvious probable cause of criminal misconduct, for the AG grand jury to have obtained and served warrants on SHS, school board offices, field house, and Vestige.
Consider the medical records, absent of proper testing. Would have been handed over upon filing charges by family. Or obtained by investigators immediately in first days of, as evidence to corroborate the allegations. And in warranting probable cause for an arrest. Note those records included the patients account of the crime, what very minimal she could remember. That included the statement of "Charlie Keenan" being present at some point. That at minimum, he was a witness on some level. So then, why didn't JH recuse herself immediately?? Exactly! Instead she dug into. Instead she gave misleading accounts of his whereabouts. That changed over time at least 3. And in her "mentor," FB's unethical choice, having been a part to early case meetings (per Rendon testimony) as an assistant DA, to voice off all over the Internet regarding the case. Active in several failing attempts of deflection campaigns.----

Aug. 09 2013 08:51 PM
Reality check from Somewhere, US

Sorry this is long...
---- 2. The victim having been drugged was > inconclusive per testing. Why? Having listened intently to both expert witnesses in trial. The defense expert made more a case for the affirmative. Having testified that her approximation of alcohol consumed by JD, would not have been enough to render her passing out/unconscious. And At most, a blackout state, claiming those in could still make consensual choices.? Regardless she was never given the photos or numerous accounts of, as proven fully incapacitated by unconsciousness.
The ER, and later investigative team, failed to accurately test for. The labs used only detected long acting amphetamines. But not the fast acting types, like Rohypnol, and similar "rape drugs." Then neither bothered to order a hair follicle test that would indicate the presence of up to 4-6 weeks. Based upon the patient symptoms, strong indications of assault, clarifying she had "set her drink down, and walked away from." several times at the Belleardines. Per federal & state set medical protocols in potential sexual assault cases, some becoming mandatory when patient is a minor. Were unequivocally not followed. So the bottom line Fact on was she drugged is: "INCONCLUSIVE." There was sufficient probable cause to have done these tests.
Could investigators not have sought advisement from Hanlin's hubby, SPD lead narc detective?
3. Additionally, Referencing the above case ER procedures, factoring the "President's DNA Initiative," which led to the inclusion of many provisions of as federal law- "Justice For All Act" of 2004. In addition to state protocols, and hospital policies set forth. The hospitals failure to perform a rape kit was an injustice in preserving critical physical evidence. Worse a nurse and doctor encourage her not to submit to one.
Yet a common misconception regarding, reality is that vaginal DNA evidence can be recovered to *90-120 hours post incident. Anal 24-36 hours. Majority of sexual assaults cannot be verified by only physical examination either. Rape kit Testing is free by state. Programs are in place to allow kits done anonymously and stored by numbers. ensuring victims can pursue cases later, within state statutes. There are also strict preservation techniques, until retrieved by law enforcement.

Aug. 09 2013 08:33 PM
Reality check from Somewhere, US

So much for impartiality in journalism. Having spent 8 months researching & following, to actual gather the facts in this case. Someone missed the mark by a mile!
The biased & tainted tone was blatant from page 1. One only has to read the intro of the rapists vs. the victim, to see how the article is skewed. And from someone proclaiming to be a feminist? Wow. Thank you for exemplifying the rape culture. a dark shadow of slut shaming & victim blaming, there between the lines. And also for condoning the injustice by a town full of corruption and cronyism, illegal gambling operations, double-dipping state employees, and with a heavily enforced local omertà.
Compare the interviews of JD supporters, to those against- and were from the start. The inability to present those (#2) behind her, without depicting personal opinions of in a negative light.
Further there was quite a few inaccuracies, or out of context references. Far too many to waste my time nitpicking on all, to counter a "writer," that has some vested interest in demeaning a rape victim and her supporters. But I will address a few big issues in the case, that clarifies & necessitated the cause for outside intervention.
1. Anonymous as collectively referred to, was not responsible for the BR site "hacking." In fact it was an individual DOD employee named Noah McHugh, aka. Justbatcat. Who solely took full public credit for. And it was more a case of guessing a answer on security questions (*Big Red), to reset & gain access. As well as site admin, Jim Parks email. We mustn't shoot the messenger. He had no affiliation to Anons.----

Aug. 09 2013 08:22 PM
Uttermad from Manhattan

I read the article in the NYer very carefully, and I don't see a case for rape. It was a bunch of drunken, unsupervised teenagers. They all consented to become pigs with every drink. As a feminist, I find it strange that the young woman is apparently too weak oe female or whatever to be held accountable for her actions. Did no one see The Central Park Five? In the Steubenville case, one of the boys will be identified as a sexual offender for 20 years. That seems entirely unreasonable. If I were that girl, my parents would have been on the phone & driving around once I wasn't home by curfew. Once the hangover had passed, The yellingwould start. I'd be grounded, & we'd be talking about the incident until they were sure I understood that being that drunk makes me a unable to protect myself. My parents weren't betterorwose,but they did do their job. That've taught their daughter nothing.

Aug. 08 2013 07:33 PM

I am appalled, that in reply to "there was no female sexuality, she was unconscious", A.Levy said the case is complicated, because the girl and Trent Mays were texting, flirting, and most likely there would have been consensual sex, if Trent Mays would have waited and behaved. I don't understand how she could think and say that. How does this make the case "complicated"? Actually it makes things worse, because Mays abused the girl's trust and feelings and hurt her even more, her crush and trust made her an easy victim. It is like a first date, when a girl ends up raped by her boyfriend and his friend. Saying that a crush and flirting somehow blur the lines is rape culture in action. What this boils to is that though consent was not given, it could be implied. I've seen many people write similar comments about the Steubenville case. I like very much a comment I read somewhere about what the consent would have to be like in this case: "Yeah, I agree that later, when I start vomiting and pass out, you can strip me and violate me in front of 5 boys, take pics and videotape me, and pass me to your friend." It's outrageous to imply a consent and the boys didn't need to know the Ohio definition of rape to know that they were assaulting the girl and ruining her by sending those photos.
Regarding Richmond, that guy openly lied in his ABC news interview that the girl was not slurring and stumbling - this was at the time Mays was texting about how dead she was. Also his lawyer said in an interview that Richmond did send one text from the house. I couldn't find it anywhere published. It would be interesting to know what he texted.
Finally, there is one important issue, which was not covered in the article and the interview - the investigation didn't answer the question if the girl was drugged and the testimony during the trial did not show convincingly how much she drank and if her drinking could explain the state she was in. The witnesses testified about different amounts of alcohol. The defense argued that the amount was not enough for her to be passed out. The girl went late to the hospital for the routine date rape drug tests to be done, and the police didn't do other more elaborate tests, though it could (this was in the detective's testimony) and though the girl believed she was drugged. Speaking of a cover up, we can ask why was that.

Aug. 08 2013 12:05 PM
CParis from New Jersey

Wow! The guest doesn't seem to understand that "flirting" is not consent to sexual contact. And that sexually assaulting someone while she is unconscious is rape...and speculation that the girl would have consented if she was conscious is ridiculous. The author is reinforcing rape culture - assuming that if a guy is "nice and romantic" a woman must consent!

Aug. 07 2013 05:27 PM
John A

Something of a relief from old guest Quinn Norton's rose colored glasses view of Anonymous, though.

Aug. 07 2013 12:40 PM
Amy from Manhattan

Actually, more men than women are sexually assaulted in the military, but that's mostly because there are so many more men than women in the military overall.

Aug. 07 2013 12:35 PM
RJ from prospect hts

When Leonard just asked something to the effect that the girl was a victim, I was astonished to hear the author respond (approximately), "Wellllllll--there's no question that if [the name of the perpetrator] had just waited until she was conscious and not done this terrible thing that there would have been consensual sex . . . ."

She reinforced the idea that this woman "wanted it." She can't possibly *know* whether there would have been consensual sex unless she has a crystal ball. Flirting does *not* automatically mean consensual sex *absolutely* follows, and for her to say this is criminal.

I wish Leonard would challenge her on this.

Aug. 07 2013 12:34 PM
John A

Online world needs laws very badly. THX for this document. Author does seem unaware of bad behavior online by females, though. Shared responsibility.

Aug. 07 2013 12:32 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

Twitter is simply mob rule, not democracy. Our Founding Fathers were too wise to allow mob rule, and therefore chose a representative Republic over unfettered Democracy which they believed would be a "mobocracy." Regarding the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin tragedy, the trial ended as it had before it began, acquitting Martin on the claim of self-defense. So the mob got their trial, but some are still not satisfied with the result. The mob wanted blood for blood, but we have a system of laws that allow for reasonable self-defense.

Aug. 07 2013 12:24 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.