George Zimmerman not guilty. Discuss

George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of second-degree murder in Trayvon Martin’s death by a jury in Sanford, Fla.

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder, but jurors could also have chosen manslaughter, in a high-profile case that garnered national attention.

Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self-defense.

The six-member, all-woman jury deliberated for more than 15 hours over two days.

For more information… http://www.politico.com

"Mr. Zimmerman, a 29-year-old former neighborhood-watch volunteer who is Hispanic, fatally shot the 17-year-old, who was unarmed and black, in a gated community here last year. The defendant faced a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, and the lesser charge of manslaughter, which carries a maximum 30-year sentence." WSJ.

Do we expect riots, like those we did not have after the OJ acquittal.

Posted by Christine & John at July 14, 2013 12:25 AM
Comments
Comment #368116

This has to be one of the ugliest decisions by a jury I have ever seen. A black kid walks down the street, doing nothing wrong, and ends up shot dead by a total stranger. The guy who killed him followed the kid through the neighborhood, initiated a face-to-face confrontation, and when the fight went against him, he claimed self-defense??? The claim of self-defense went out the door the minute Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. That was murder, pure and simple.

Will there be riots? I doubt it. But does anyone seriously doubt the decision would be the same if a 27 year old black man chased an unarmed 16 year old white kid, picked a fight, and shot him dead?

What a horrible, horrible decision. It is now ok to shoot unarmed black people walking down the street. Just awful.

Posted by: phx8 at July 14, 2013 12:53 AM
Comment #368117

There won’t be riots. Just a bunch of idiots crying on Facebook and Twitter that were invested in a guilty verdict based on their emotions rather than the facts of the case. These idiots had their minds made up before Zimmerman was arrested. These idiots had their minds made up before the facts were made public.

There was little evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. The police at the scene did not arrest him and believed Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. The prosecution helped the defense with inconsistent testimony from eye witnesses that themselves introduced probable cause. Nevertheless, race agitators like Al Sharpton succeeded in a show trail that made a mockery of the law and our justice system. Zimmerman should never of had to face a jury because there was not enough evidence for an arrest. It’s very likely that Zimmerman would not have been arrested if Florida law was followed. Angela Corey should be disbarred for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder under political pressure.

Our own President made an ass out of himself before Zimmerman was arrested and before the facts of the case were made public. There are rumors that Eric Holder’s Justice Department funded protests. I’ll believe anything that comes from Eric Holder’s Justice” Department and I wouldn’t be surprised if those rumors are true.

Zimmerman has filed a lawsuit against MSNBC for airing an edited 911 tape to make him sound like he was racist. He will likely win that lawsuit.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 1:03 AM
Comment #368118
A black kid walks down the street, doing nothing wrong, and ends up shot dead by a total stranger.

You’re right. Martin, being the angelic 5 year old that we see in the pictures from MSNBC, was trying to stop Zimmerman from beating his own head into the concrete. After Zimmerman finished beating himself up, he pulled Martin on top of him and shot him.

Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 1:15 AM
Comment #368119
The prosecution helped the defense with inconsistent testimony from eye witnesses that themselves introduced probable cause.

What I meant to say was that the prosecution helped the defense with inconsistent testimony from their witnesses that introduced reasonable doubt.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 1:19 AM
Comment #368120
What a horrible, horrible decision. It is now ok to shoot unarmed black people walking down the street. Just awful.

It’s ok in Chicago where blacks kill blacks everyday and the Democrats who are in control of Chicago don’t seem to give a damn. Just ban guns. That will make the problem go away. Typical pseudoliberal solution to a problem.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 1:21 AM
Comment #368121

When innocent, unarmed people walking down the street doing nothing wrong are shot dead by complete strangers, then there needs to be a trial.

Posted by: phx8 at July 14, 2013 1:36 AM
Comment #368123
When innocent, unarmed people walking down the street doing nothing wrong are shot dead by complete strangers, then there needs to be a trial.

In case you missed it:

You’re right. Martin, being the angelic 5 year old that we see in the pictures from MSNBC, was trying to stop Zimmerman from beating his own head into the concrete. After Zimmerman finished beating himself up, he pulled Martin on top of him and shot him.

Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 1:47 AM
Comment #368124

The victim may or may not have been angelic. In any case, he was doing nothing wrong. Nothing. He was walking down the street. Despite a specific warning from the 911 dispatcher, and despite the policy of Neighborhood Watch programs, Zimmerman pursued and confronted the victim, armed with a loaded weapon. At that point, Zimmerman was culpable. Did Martin get the better of Zimmerman in a physical confrontation? Perhaps. We’ll never know for sure. Martin is dead, and we only have the testimony of Zimmerman. In any case, settling a confrontation by killing is not acceptable.

When innocent, unarmed people walking down the street doing nothing wrong are shot dead by complete strangers, then there needs to be a trial. When the unarmed person is shot dead that qualifies as murder… The murder may be Manslaughter, as opposed to 2nd degree murder, but nevertheless, it is murder, the most terrible crime a person can commit.

Posted by: phx8 at July 14, 2013 2:49 AM
Comment #368125

phx8,

There are several things wrong with your outrage that I would like to point out…

1) “At that point, Zimmerman was culpable”. Of what? At that point he has done nothing illegal. He confronted someone. Arguing with someone on the street is not illegal the last time I checked. The fact that he legally had a loaded weapon on him is also not illegal. The point where the confrontation got ‘illegal’ was when physical violence was initiated. That doesn’t mean he was right or wrong in confronting him, but he wasn’t doing anything illegal at that point.

2) “We only have the testimony of Zimmerman”. No, we have several eye witnesses, including a witness that the prosecution introduced who stated clearly that it was Zimmerman who was on the bottom of the altercation being beaten MMA style by Martin. In addition, we have the physical evidence that was presented to the jury.

3) “When the unarmed person is shot dead, that qualifies as murder”. That is not what the law says. Not in Florida or anywhere else. When someone is in fear for their life, even when they are not being physical beaten by another person, they have a right to defend themselves. The defense must be appropriate in response. Shooting someone who is physically stronger than you is an appropriate response. If Zimmerman had been female, would you be upset? Is the problem that he was male? Or that he was hispanic? He was clearly not physically able to stop the beating he was getting.

Was the event a terrible thing? Yes. Was Zimmerman wrong for confronting Martin? Perhaps. Was Martin wrong for initiating physical violence? Yes. Was Martin or Zimmerman 100% innocent of making bad decisions? No, they were both guilty of that. But legally, Zimmerman was defending himself against physical violence and was clearly in fear for his life, had the beating continued it is very likely that he would have been dead. Whether you think that the initial confrontation was his fault is irrelevant, until the point where it got physical there was nothing illegal about the actions and nothing that made it right for Martin to continue beating Zimmerman once he had the upper hand in the ‘fight’. Why didn’t Martin just walk away once it was clear that he had bested Zimmerman?

Would Zimmerman’s death have been ok to you? Zimmerman dead because he confronted a person he felt was suspicious and then beating to death because of it? Would that give you a warm feeling in your gut had he not had the ability to defend himself, as it seems you are want to have happen?

And, you avoided the obvious question, there are lots of innocent black ‘children’ being killed every day in the streets of this country, but they are being killed by other black men. Are they not worthy of the same outrage that we have seen against Zimmerman? Apparently, there are many who don’t think so. That’s a shame.

So, in answer to your question, the decision was the right decision, based on the law and based on the evidence provided by the prosecution. If the evidence as it was brought against Zimmerman was not enough to convict, the issue should be against either a) The prosecution who brought the case and presented it or b) your own understanding of the evidence and law, both of which you appear to be lacking in.

BTW, I don’t understand why this is a ‘political’ issue and being discussed on a political blog, but apparently there is some reason for this…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 3:27 AM
Comment #368126

This is similar to the case with OJ Simpson:
When guilty men occasionally go free, we know that our justice system is working.

In my opinion, the preponderance of evidence demonstrated that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation with Martin, but there was no way to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nonetheless, I believe that the decision to go to trial and get the acquittal was the right one. The Sanford police had no right to rob Martin of a chance at justice simply based on a few whims.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2013 7:48 AM
Comment #368128

phx8

The jury looked carefully at the facts.

It is a tragedy that this young man was killed. It seems like there was profound misunderstanding on both sides. Zimmerman was overzealous. It looks like Martin reacted violently to the “creepy cracker” asking questions.

The question is “it is murder?”

Re “27 year old black man chased an unarmed 16 year old white kid…” Zimmerman is Hispanic.

RE “When innocent, unarmed people walking down the street doing nothing wrong are shot dead by complete strangers, then there needs to be a trial.” - there WAS a trial.

We tend to stack the trial in favor of defense. As you know, my son was attacked at random by six black kids. He was beaten into unconsciousness. I don’t know if they wanted to kill him, but they certainly wanted to hurt him very badly. They kicked him in the head and stomped on his body. This was a white kid, minding his own business, not even approached by the black gang before they started hitting him. All the black kids got off, on the basis that SOME of them had participated but they all keep silent and nobody could tell which.

So, we have a case where a gang of blacks attacks a lone white youth and tries to hurt him badly, yet they all get off. This is your example.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 8:01 AM
Comment #368129

Good job Florida, once again it is about the skin color that does the shooting.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

Posted by: j2t2 at July 14, 2013 8:13 AM
Comment #368130

Rhinhold

It is political because the racial establishment made it so. Our president weighed in to comment about a local case and helped make it national.

A jury trial indeed should not be political. But you can bet Democrats will use it in campaign ads next year to try to undermine confidence in our institutions and play the race card.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 8:15 AM
Comment #368132

Isn’t it curious how the wack jobs on the left can only see the legal justice system through the prism of politics and race. They are so quick to declare guilt and injustice even when it is obvious that the prosecution failed to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. But screw the rule of law, hang the SOB anyway because he must be a racist and deserved to get his head slammed into the pavement.

But its perfectly okay for americans to be assasinated by the POTUS using drones and without ANY due process as long as its their guy doing the killing.

It perfectly fine for the attorney general and the head of national security to lie under oath at a congressional hearing. They can keep their job and we trust them to tell us the truth next time….right.

No problem with millions of people breaking the law to illegaly enter the country and fraudulently claim gov’t benefits. Lets just make them all citizens so that those that immigrated through the proper channels and paid thousands of dollars in legals fees will get that warm and fuzzy feeling you get after your realize you just got the royal shaft. What a glorious way to breed harmony.

Its a great idea to give military grade weapons to the drug cartel in Mexico so they can continue to poisen our kids and shoot citizens and law enforcement people it their home towns. A great way to sponsor tourism.

Its a great idea to use the IRS to intimidate and harass political opposition and even better if those responsible and on the gov’t payroll can refuse to answer questions about it and still get paid for sitting at home and watching Oprah. It helps the economy because Lois can now spend more time shopping on QVC.

And screw that pesky 4th amendment so we can use that good old terrorism excuse to data mine for our next political campaign. A great way to get to know your demographic.

Oh and lets not forget to criminalize, demonize and spew hatred for those millions of gun toting rednecks that never broke a single law. If we could just confiscate their private property the world would be crime free.

And lets overlook the thugs dressed in military garb and carrying billy-clubs outside your local voting precinct because they only there to protect you from making a poor choice when you cast your vote. How considerate of them.

How about all you liberal ass armchair jury members start screaming about the other crimes that are being committed against our entire society before you ask out courts to convict someone without sufficient evidence. If it were your wife or son or daughter having their head beaten into the ground you probably would have shot the kid yourself.

Posted by: JWL at July 14, 2013 8:39 AM
Comment #368133

Rhinehold I am surprised at your analysis of the Martin murder. It seems the rights of Zimmerman to stalk, accost and ultimately shoot Martin supersedes the rights of Martin to walk home from the store unarmed and unaccosted by the local armed quasi-authority. These action seems to be so pro conservative, so anti libertarian. What has happened to you?

The use of deadly force by this self appointed lawman should tear at the heart of any Libertarian shouldn’t it? Martin committed no crime other than to defend himself from a stalker with a gun. Zimmerman wasn’t defending his property he was using force to coerce an unarmed youngster into a fight based upon his own misguided fears. He was advised against doing so by the legal authorities yet did so anyway. That goes against the libertarian principles you hold so close doesn’t it?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 14, 2013 9:15 AM
Comment #368135

j2t2…

“Martin committed no crime other than to defend himself from a stalker with a gun.”

Neither did Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a right and a duty as a community watch member to keep an eye on Martin. Especially in an area that has been subjected to an increase in crime. Zimmerman, just like anyone else has every right to approach someone and ask them a question. They are not entitled to an answer, but there is no law keeping you or Zimmerman from approaching a stranger. To call Zimmerman a stalker is completely inaccurate. Any crime that may have been committed started when the two started fighting. Nothing either one did prior to the exchange of blows constitutes a crime in any jusidiction. Since there are no witnesses that can testify to who actually started the physical altercation, it comes down to whether or not the prosecution can PROVE that Zimmerman provoked the fight with the intention to commit murder. There was absolutley no evidence to PROVE that. The burden was on the prosecution to PROVE that Zimmerman did not have any justifiable reason to believe that he risked great bodily harm or death from having his head bashed in. Thats a hard nut to swallow in any circumstance and the prosecution presented no evidence that could have PROVEN otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way Zimmerman could have been rightfully convicted in this case is if the burden of proof rested on the defense and it still would have been very difficult. This case was hyped by the likes of race baiting Sharpton and Jackson and they should be convicted of a crime if anyone gets killed because of their incitement of violence.

Posted by: JWL at July 14, 2013 9:47 AM
Comment #368137
Neither did Zimmerman.

When did it become legal for armed men to stalk unarmed teenagers?

a right and a duty as a community watch member
Community watch members aren’t armed. By choosing to arm himself, Zimmerman stopped being a community watch member.
To call Zimmerman a stalker is completely inaccurate.

Huh? Following someone as Zimmerman did is exactly what stalking is! This isn’t a case where the two simply met as they crossed paths on the sidewalk. Zimmerman diverted himself from his errands to follow Martin in his vehicle. When Martin could no longer be followed by truck, Zimmerman left the vehicle to follow Martin on foot. If this isn’t stalking, then what is?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2013 10:39 AM
Comment #368140

Zimmerman was judge jury and executioner. He convicted Martin without any evidence and executed him when Martin did not kneel to the self appointed authority that Zimmerman believed he had.

Zimmerman’s duty was to notify the local police, which he did. He violated the civil rights of Martin, which as conservatives will tell us is alright because Martin was black and wore a hoody while walking down the streets of a gated community. As all conservatives know 2nd amendment rights and the property rights of those in the gated community are superior rights to the civil rights of a black youngster walking down the street.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 14, 2013 11:20 AM
Comment #368141

Warren & J2t2

There is no doubt Zimmerman acted stupidly. It looks like Martin also reacted violently to the “creepy cracker”. President Obama famously said that Martin could have been his son. He could have been mine too, a proud teenager reacting to being bothered. I might have acted that way myself when I was younger, although I doubt I would have physically attacked the guy.

I can also have some sympathy for Zimmerman. He wanted to protect his home and he probably wanted to be a hero. Look at the guy. He is a pudgy little guy. I don’t want to profile Zimmerman, but guys like him tend to get no respect so they want to push the envelope a little. He probably got no respect from Martin for the same reason. Martin may have thought that this little fat guy had no right to bother him. He was right.

So there were plenty of stupid choices. The question is whether or not we call it murder. The jury didn’t think so. I trust our system.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 11:28 AM
Comment #368143

C&J,

As I said before, I believe that an occasional acquittal of a guilty man or woman is a symptom of a healthy justice system.

I personally think the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that Zimmerman’s life was never endangered (the head injuries he sustained weren’t that serious), but the prosecution failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2013 12:01 PM
Comment #368144

Porter

There is a very distinct difference between survailence and stalking. Stalking comes with an intent to commit a crime. I do not beleive, and it was certainly not proven, that Zimmerman had any intent to commit a crime but rather to prevent one from occuring. The fact that he was armed does not change anything. He has a right to be armed and that does not make him by default something other than a community watch member. Your inferrence does hold any legal value. It is pure emotion and has no business in deciding the facts of a murder trial.

Posted by: JWL at July 14, 2013 12:07 PM
Comment #368145

j2t2,

I had a pretty long response originally, but figured it wouldn’t get read so I am condensing down a bit…

I’m going to give you a scenario, you tell me from that scenario what the outcome should be.

A woman thinks her husband might be cheating. She has little evidence to that fact, but in her mind he has been acting suspicious. So she confronts him, he is indignant and responds poorly to the confrontation and calls her some pretty awful names (the C word comes to mind). She slaps him in the face a couple of times. His response is to overpower her, get on top of her and start beating her in the face.

As she is being beaten in the face, she pulls out a revolver and shoots him with it.

Should she be in jail for murder 2 or voluntary manslaughter? She confronted him, she slapped him initially, yet she was in fear for her life because of the actions of the husband.

What is your response to this scenario?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 12:16 PM
Comment #368146

j2t2

It appears that you can only see things through the prism of race. That facts do not matter or the rule of law and evidence should be disgarded for the benefit of your emotions. The case should have never been brought. There was never enough evidence to convict on 2nd degree murder. The race of the participants is totally irrelevant. You have fallen into the race baiting trap of the Sharpton Gang that use race baiting to promote their own personal agenda and wealth creation.

Please tell me how the evidence would have been enough to convict if GZ was (insert your race preference here) and TM was (insert your race preference here).

In a court of law where you are presummed innocent until PROVEN guilty, only the facts matter and they must prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. That was impossible is this case. Like it or not.

If you would like to change the system to convict people in the court of public opinion, well then that is your choice and I hope you never find yourself at the mercy of the ratings starved and driven media.

Posted by: JWL at July 14, 2013 12:18 PM
Comment #368147
I personally think the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that Zimmerman’s life was never endangered (the head injuries he sustained weren’t that serious), but the prosecution failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, the laws on self defense are not that your life is in danger, they are that you reasonably THINK your life is in danger. If you were held to the ground, unable to respond, and someone was beating you ‘MMA style’ and slamming your head into the concrete, do you *THINK* that your life might be in danger? Is it reasonable to believe that you may be killed?

Or should self-defendants wait until they are unconscious or on the brink of death to defend themselves?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 12:20 PM
Comment #368148

A good explanation from a former lawyer and local Indianapolis radio personality:

http://www.indypolitics.org/post/55428011586

I have seen people on both sides of this issue make some of the most asinine statements regarding Martin and Zimmerman. When an Indiana Congressman posts on his Facebook page “No Justice, No Peace” something is fundamentally wrong. When someone who does not live in an urban environment and the only black people they see is when they are flipping the cable channels says they are anticipating riots to break out, that person needs to have their head examined.

I am sure there are a lot of lessons that can come out of the Martin-Zimmerman case, but the biggest one is that most Americans have absolutely no idea how the criminal justice system works. And if cameras in the courtroom are supposed to address that issue, I doubt if they really do. Trials are complicated enough, but I have to ask does it serve a purpose when most people just consume 5-10 minutes of testimony and then decide to play Perry Mason?

And even the layman who watches wall-to-wall coverage still isn’t an attorney. They are not in the courtroom. They are not observing the jury. They are not paying attention to witness testimony in pain staking detail, observing both verbal and non-verbal cues. They don’t know the rules of civil and criminal procedure. They just end up having more knowledge to offer a more uninformed opinion. And that is what I think is the real tragedy out of this case. So many people are offering opinions about something they don’t understand.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 12:24 PM
Comment #368149

After reinterpreting the law, the left has clearly demonstrated that Zimmerman must wait until after he is dead before using deadly force. Therefor, he is guilty and the jury was racist. Zimmerman is white because he looks white.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 12:37 PM
Comment #368150

Rhinehold,
Apparently that attorney doesn’t know anything about how the legal system works. Lawyers and judges want everyone to think it is all about them, but it is not. In a trial before one’s peers, the decision made by the jury can be made upon any basis the jury desires. The jury does not have to obey the instructions of the judge or even observe the law in question, as long as it doesn’t constitute a reason for the juror to be kicked off- taking a bribe and that sort of thing. We all hope our peers will take the law and its courtroom representatives seriously- but as for the decision, that is made behind closed doors, and depends on the whims of the jury.

Posted by: phx8 at July 14, 2013 12:45 PM
Comment #368151
Stalking comes with an intent to commit a crime.

Stalking in of itself is a crime. I once had a male co-worker who got into trouble because he followed a female co-worker to her house.

The fact that he was armed does not change anything

It is not a crime for an unarmed beggar to ask me for money. It is a crime for an armed mugger to ask me for money. Do you understand how the gun radically changes the context of the situation? The mugger may have the legal right to own his weapon, but by exercising that right he forfeits the right to legally request money from strangers.

Should she be in jail for murder 2 or voluntary manslaughter? She confronted him, she slapped him initially, yet she was in fear for her life because of the actions of the husband.

What is your response to this scenario?


Last year when charges were originally filed, I said that I thought manslaughter was a more appropriate charge than murder and I stand by my opinion. Do you think it would have been appropriate for the police to not file any charges whatsoever?
Actually, the laws on self defense are not that your life is in danger, they are that you reasonably THINK your life is in danger.
True, but I don’t think I would’ve thought I was in danger if I were Zimmerman. After all, the police had already been called and Zimmerman’s training in MMA would have informed him that being positioned underneath Martin was not life-threatening. Nonetheless, this line of reasoning doesn’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why Zimmerman was acquitted. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2013 1:01 PM
Comment #368152

“So there were plenty of stupid choices. The question is whether or not we call it murder. The jury didn’t think so. I trust our system.”

The case in a nutshell.

The stupidest decision was for Zimmerman to be carrying a concealed weapon and then aggressively tracking Martin, a person he thought to acting suspiciously and “on drugs or something” after he was told to let the police take it from there. There is a practical reason that patrol officers wear highly identifiable uniforms, carry their weapons openly and announce their authority in similar situations. It is to avoid any ambiguity and to clearly indicate the presence of lawful force in the event of confrontation.


Posted by: Rich at July 14, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #368153
He wanted to protect his home and he probably wanted to be a hero. Look at the guy. He is a pudgy little guy.

C&J I would think this may be the case it it still doesn’t mean he can kill the youngster for walking down the street. In his function as a community watch volunteer he was supposed to let the police deal with this. He didn’t he stalked, provoked and shot. The youngster died. This kind of stupid choice is manslaughter.

It appears that you can only see things through the prism of race. That facts do not matter or the rule of law and evidence should be disgarded for the benefit of your emotions. The case should have never been brought.

The fact is JWL that race was a factor in the case. Zimmerman profiled Martin incorrectly and cost the youngster his life. Had he simply did his job as a community watch volunteer Martin would not have been killed. Instead armed with a weapon he stalked the youngster insisting that Martin submit to his will. Martin refused and defended himself. He just didn’t have any hidden weapons to defend himself as Zimmerman did.


While conservatives try to convince us this is about self defense and the right to bear arms it remains a sad day for the state of Florida. To think that youngsters will need to arm themselves to walk to the store in a gated community, it is only a matter of time before the shoe is on the other foot. All this not guilty verdict did was lower the bar on a civilized nation. It will lead to more deaths for those brandishing the gun as well as for those they stalk while volunteering.


There was never enough evidence to convict on 2nd degree murder.

But enough for manslaughter.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 14, 2013 1:47 PM
Comment #368154

j2t2

“I would think this may be the case it it still doesn’t mean he can kill the youngster for walking down the street.” The jury determined that he did not go out there with the intent to kill anybody. The prosecutors did not initially bring manslaughter charges. Maybe they should have, but they were afraid of the racist lobby. In any case, the jury also rejected that.

You and I were not on the jury. We can speculate but I have confidence in our system.

RE “Zimmerman profiled Martin incorrectly and cost the youngster his life.” - the jury did not believe Zimmerman profiled.

Martin also profiled, evidently calling Zimmerman a creepy cracker. In fact, Zimmerman is Hispanic and not what the racist term “cracker” generally means, but that is what Martin thought.

Re use of the word “youngster” - that implies a little kid. In fact, Martin was bigger than Zimmerman and, according the witnesses and evidence, was in the process of kicking the shit out of Zimmerman when the shots were fired.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 2:44 PM
Comment #368156

Martin was 5 years old. Did you see the pictures on the news?

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 3:17 PM
Comment #368157

Possibly explained better than I can…

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/11/prosecutor-tells-jurors-george-zimmerman

“A teenager is dead,” prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda declared today at the beginning of his closing argument in George Zimmerman’s murder trial. “He is dead through no fault of his own. He is dead because another man made assumptions.”

Of those three statements, the first is inarguably true, the third is pretty clearly true in at least some sense, and the second is the central matter of dispute in this case. If Trayvon Martin did nothing to justify Zimmerman’s use of deadly force, Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at least. But if, as Zimmerman claims, Martin started the fight that ended in his death by knocking Zimmerman down with a punch to the face and then repeatedly smacked his head against the pavement, it is plausible that Zimmerman reasonably believed lethal force was necessary to prevent serious injury or death, whether or not Martin actually tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun.

Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence depends on the specific details of the fight, not the circumstances that led up to it. Yet de la Rionda urged the jury to look beyond the fight and focus on Zimmerman’s assumptions about Martin’s criminal propensities, which led the neighborhood watch organizer to follow the teenager and call the police to report a suspicious person. If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, de la Rionda said, Martin would still be alive. That much is true, but it does not make Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, let alone second-degree murder. As de la Rionda conceded, everything Zimmerman did up to the moment of his violent encounter with Martin was perfectly legal. It may not have been prudent or fair, but it was legal. If Martin responded to Zimmerman’s legal but unnerving actions by assaulting him, then it is not true that he is dead through no fault of his own. Even if Zimmerman was a nosy, overeager wannabe cop, as de la Rionda portrayed him, Martin’s initiation of violence would not be justified. And if the fight proceeded as Zimmerman claims, his use of force was justified.

De la Rionda, by citing inconsistencies and exaggerations in Zimmerman’s various statements to police, succeeded in raising reasonable doubts about the veracity of his account. But that is not enough for the prosecution to prevail—not by a long shot. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense when he shot Martin. To concede, as de la Rionda repeatedly did, that certain crucial details of the fight remain unclear is tantamount to conceding that the prosecution has failed to make its case. The jury is not supposed to look at disputed facts and ask which version is more likely, then convict Zimmerman based on a preponderance of the evidence. It is supposed to convict Zimmerman only if the evidence presented by the prosecution is so strong that to imagine he acted in self-defense would be highly implausible, if not utterly fanciful. The prosecution has not come close to meeting that test.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 3:55 PM
Comment #368158
Apparently that attorney doesn’t know anything about how the legal system works.

No, the one who doesn’t understand is you, unfortunately.

In a trial before one’s peers, the decision made by the jury can be made upon any basis the jury desires.

Actually, it can’t. If it does render a verdict that is outside of the bounds of the Florida state law, it would be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. This information is found in the Florida Supreme Court documentation located here:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

The evidence which has been admitted to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts allegedly committed by the defendant will be considered by you only as that evidence relates to proof of [motive] [opportunity] [intent] [preparation] [plan] [knowledge] [identity] [the absence of mistake or accident] on the part of the defendant.

The defendant cannot be convicted for a crime, wrong, or act that is not included in the [information] [indictment].

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 4:07 PM
Comment #368159

What we didn’t hear during the trial:

A woman with close ties to George Zimmerman and his family told investigators that members of Zimmerman’s family were boastfully proud racists and that for more than a decade Zimmerman sexually molested her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html#next_slideshow

NAACP has a petition up to get DOJ to file civil rights charges (racial profiling) against Zimmerman, but so many people were signing it, they crashed the site. If anyone (I assume on the left only) is interested in signing the petition however, they can now also do so here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/open-a-civil-rights-case

I’m thinking that maybe Zimmerman’s cousin who was victimized by him and aware of the racist attitudes he holds could be used as a witness by the DOJ in a federal civil rights trial — if they agree to take it up, that is.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 14, 2013 4:26 PM
Comment #368160


“It is not a crime for an unarmed beggar to ask me for money. It is a crime for an armed mugger to ask me for money. Do you understand how the gun radically changes the context of the situation? The mugger may have the legal right to own his weapon, but by exercising that right he forfeits the right to legally request money from strangers.”

This has to be the dumbest comment yet. It has been testified to over and over again that GM pulled the gun when TM was already on top of him. Your example has nothing to do with the situation at hand. GM did not approach TM with gun in hand.

I more than understand how the gun changes the context when someone that is bigger and stronger than you is holding you down and beating the crap out of you. The gun kills the punk that thinks he can beat the shit out of someone thats questions why he is where he doesn’t belong.

Your comparison of GZ as an armed mugger is totally clueless.

Stick to the facts and don’t make crap up so you make your point. That only works on fools and liberals. Ooops…same thing.


Posted by: JWL at July 14, 2013 5:36 PM
Comment #368161

“The gun kills the punk that thinks he can beat the shit out of someone thats questions why he is where he doesn’t belong.”

JWL,

This is the type of comment and attitude that fuels black resentment of the killing and supports calls for a civil rights prosecution. Calling Martin a “punk” and justifying Zimmerman’s questioning on the grounds that Martin was “where he doesn’t belong” is racially charged profiling. The fact of the matter is that Martin didn’t do anything wrong up to the point of the confrontation and did belong in the multi-racial community as a visitor of a resident.

Posted by: Rich at July 14, 2013 6:15 PM
Comment #368162

Rich…

If true, I stand corrected. I did not watch every second of the trial as I really didn’t think it was worthy of the coverage to begin with. However, nothing changes that fact that there was not enough evidence to convict ANYONE of second degree murder regardless of their race. I really don’t know if GZ killed the guy on purpose or not. The fact is only GZ knows that for sure. The only thing I can be assured of is that the prosecution did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ purposely and with intent, killed TM with malice. Not guilty is the only verdict possible under our criminal justice system. Period.

Posted by: JWL at July 14, 2013 6:28 PM
Comment #368163

All

This is really persecution.

“The Department of Justice said Sunday it would review the Travyon Martin-George Zimmerman case to determine if it should consider prosecuting Zimmerman, who was acquitted Friday in a Florida court, in the shooting case. “Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction, and whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the Department’s policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial,” the DOJ said.”

In other words, DOJ didn’t like the verdict so they going to look for ways to get at the guy.

Adrienne

Welcome back.

re Zimmerman family being racist - it would not be admissible in court for good reason. The only thing that matters to guild or innocent is what happened at the scene.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #368164

JWL,

I also agree with the jury’s decision of not guilty. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation but Martin physically escalated it. There is no clear forensic or eyewitness evidence as to what actually happened in the final few seconds prior to the shooting. The State could not rebut the claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by: Rich at July 14, 2013 7:25 PM
Comment #368167

Come on C&J, the DOJ statement is loaded with caveats about bringing a federal action, e.g., “limited federal criminal rights statutes…., policy governing successive federal prosecution following state trial.”

What I hear is that DOJ will honor the request of certain civil rights groups to review a possible federal action but that it is highly unlikely. Last year, Holder cautioned against expecting a federal action citing the extremely high burden the government would have to meet under the criminal civil rights statutes.

There might also be a clue in Obama’s statement this evening that the “jury has spoken.”

Posted by: Rich at July 14, 2013 7:40 PM
Comment #368169

Rich

They should never even say such things and make threats. It is time they had the courage to stand up to the racist civil right establishment.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 8:11 PM
Comment #368171

America was founded upon the concept of “rule of law”. When the law is selectively enforced; when resources fail enforcement of the law; when laws are designed to favor the few while harming many, the rule of law can no longer command the respect of the people. Our legislative and executive branches of government are the lawmakers and enforcers. In a democracy, it is the duty of the people to remove from office those who fail the rule of law, lest the people and those they care about, suffer the unjust consequences.

Posted by: David R Remer at July 14, 2013 8:23 PM
Comment #368172

David

Welcome back too.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 8:38 PM
Comment #368173
This is really persecution.

Of a racist murderer. Good.

Maybe it will feel as bad when as Martin’s mother had to try to identify her dead son’s screams on a police recording in court.

In other words, DOJ didn’t like the verdict so they going to look for ways to get at the guy
Oh, I hope so, because decent people tend to hate it when murderous “fucking punks” like Zimmerman, “these assholes, they always get away.” Oh wait — those are the things that wanna be cop George Zimmerman was saying as he began stalking (even though the police told him not to follow) and trying to corner a seventeen year old boy for a confrontation, while he was packing a loaded gun. A boy who was in reality doing nothing more sinister than coming back from a snack run on a rainy night and ended up dead because a racist wanna be cop with a long history of violent, aggressive behavior wanted to be a big tough guy by taking on a kid who he was racially profiling as a criminal who didn’t belong.

Part of the comments made by Ben Jealous of NAACP after posting the petition:

“When you look at his comments and when you look at comments made by young black men who lived in that neighbourhood about how they felt especially targeted by him, there is reason to be concerned that race was a factor in why he targeted young Trayvon.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 14, 2013 9:06 PM
Comment #368174

Right Wingers Post Fake Race Riot Video After Zimmerman Verdict
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. — Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963
Posted by: Adrienne at July 14, 2013 9:21 PM
Comment #368175

C&J,

“In fact, Martin was bigger than Zimmerman and, according the witnesses and evidence, was in the process of kicking the shit out of Zimmerman when the shots were fired.”

No one here is talking about the “Stand your Ground” law that is at the heart of this trial.

IMHO, any law that allows anyone to enter into a possibly dangerous situation, use deadly force, and them claim self defence, is patently absurd.

Zimmerman put himself into this situation, and did so even after being told to stand down.

That he was getting his ass kicked is beside the point. He should have waited for the police.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 14, 2013 9:26 PM
Comment #368176

Adrienne, what’s needed is a law that says it is illegal for citizens to stalk, confront, and then harm or kill a person not engaged in an illegal activity. I.E., there is no self defense when one perpetrates a confrontation with a person minding their own legal business.

Of course, such a law is just too damned common sensical for most Floridian lawmakers with a priority on justifying guns under any circumstances.

Posted by: David R Remer at July 14, 2013 9:27 PM
Comment #368177
No one here is talking about the “Stand your Ground” law that is at the heart of this trial.

Actually, the Stand Your Ground law had NOTHING to do with this trial.

That he was getting his ass kicked is beside the point. He should have waited for the police.

And you would feel the same way if the roles were reversed and Zimmerman was beating the crap out of Martin? That he should just wait and not try to defend himself?

Or if the person getting beaten up was a woman?

There is some definite racism going on here, but it isn’t where you seem to think it is…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 9:29 PM
Comment #368178
Adrienne, what’s needed is a law that says it is illegal for citizens to stalk, confront, and then harm or kill a person not engaged in an illegal activity. I.E., there is no self defense when one perpetrates a confrontation with a person minding their own legal business.

Of course, such a law is just too damned common sensical for most Floridian lawmakers with a priority on justifying guns under any circumstances.

If this law were to exist, you would also have to do away with all ‘did not assist’ laws, you can’t expect citizens to be scared of prosecution for trying to protect their neighborhoods (which were getting robbed on a regular basis the days leading up to this incident). Or helping a woman who is getting beaten by a mugger (he may be innocent and just defending himself, do you want to take that chance), bullying, harassment, etc.

Basically, we would become more of what we hate, people living isolated lives and never helping their neighbors or trying to protect their own neighbors from harm because of possible prosecution if something happens.

Everything Zimmerman did was legal, according to the prosecutor in this case, until violence ensued, and the evidence either supports Zimmerman (and the eye-witnesses) view of Martin starting it or at the very least cannot prove that Zimmerman started it.

Talk about ‘common sense’, there is a lot of it lacking here in the ‘get the hispanic bastard’ view that people are taking. I simply do NOT get it.

Please, someone who is on that side, please explain to me how doing something legal that ends up with you being beaten to death and you defending yourself makes that person guilty of murder? If he wanted to murder him, why not just walk up to him and shoot him in the back of the head?

The emotive responses are astounding…

BTW, glad the ‘I believe everything I read that backs up my POV no matter how ludicrous it sounds’ contingent has weighed in, thanks for that Adrienne.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2013 9:38 PM
Comment #368179

Adrienne

I believe in our jury system.

You may recall, my son was attacked at random and badly beaten by six black youths, who kicked him in the head and stomped him into the hospital. None of them was convicted of anything. The reason was that there were about ten of them in the group and only six had participated in the attack. Witnesses could not be sure which. They knew which had done it, but they all kept silent, so each had reasonable doubt.

I don’t know if their intention was to try to kill my son, but they certainly wanted to hurt him badly and they succeeded. Witnesses said that they were calling him a cracker as they kicked him.

It was almost certainly racially motivated. They did not speak to my son before one of them broke a bottle over his head and the others started to kick and stomp. They did not rob him. The simply were hunting for people to beat up. The group attacked other lone white kids, but none were hurt as much as my son.

This attack received only local coverage. Now imagine the other way. What if a group of 20 year-old white kids had gone on the hunt and attacked random blacks? Al Sharpton would have been on the prowl for sure. It would have been national news.

I was annoyed at the outcome. During a break in the hearings, all the perps went to a bathroom. I went in and tried my best to disrespect them by staring at them. They hate that and I could see the anger in their eyes. I was hoping that they would attack, and this time they would be caught but they were too smart to do it in the courthouse.

I did not like the outcome, but I know that our court system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. This is what happened in the Zimmerman case too.

Zimmerman acted stupidly. Martin reacted aggressively. It is tragic that this young man was killed. The question that the jury needed to decide was whether or not it constituted murder. They decided it did not.

Posted by: CJ at July 14, 2013 9:41 PM
Comment #368180
America was founded upon the concept of “rule of law”. When the law is selectively enforced; when resources fail enforcement of the law; when laws are designed to favor the few while harming many, the rule of law can no longer command the respect of the people. Our legislative and executive branches of government are the lawmakers and enforcers. In a democracy, it is the duty of the people to remove from office those who fail the rule of law, lest the people and those they care about, suffer the unjust consequences.

Let’s apply this to the current administration and start impeachment proceedings immediately.

Posted by: Joseph at July 14, 2013 10:34 PM
Comment #368181
The emotive responses are astounding…

Yeah, it’s amazing isn’t it? That the injustice of the Sanford police not even arresting Zimmerman immediately after Trayvon Martin’s murder would make people get emotional? Of their getting even more emotional as they waited for forty-five days to arrest the man who shot an unarmed teenager in the heart at point-blank range, and only after that murder received an avalanche of national attention? That people would react to the injustice of idiotic “stand your ground laws” where a race profiling murderer who stalked a kid with a loaded gun gets completely away with “standing his ground” against a teenager armed with skittles and an iced tea?

What we should all be doing is acting as though racism doesn’t exist any longer, or doesn’t matter at all.

Jack, sorry that your son was racially profiled and brutalized. That must have been terribly traumatic and awful for your son and your family. Yet, you’re a lot luckier than the Martin family, since none of those kids pulled out a loaded gun and shot your kid directly in the heart and murdered him the way Zimmerman did Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman acted stupidly. Martin reacted aggressively.

No. Zimmerman was the one who acted both stupidly and aggressively. If Trayvon Martin acted at all, it was in self defense. (Although, since there was absolutely no forensic proof of Zimmerman’s skin or blood on Martin’s hands or found under his fingernails according to the medical examiner, and no cuts or bruises, “the beating” of Zimmerman seems highly questionable) In fact, it was Martin who would have been “standing his ground” against a complete stranger who (ignoring what the police told him, which was not follow or confront) he realized was stalking him in the dark and then confronting him while packing a loaded gun — which he was obviously willing to use.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 14, 2013 11:02 PM
Comment #368182

I read many of the comments that were written. I find it astounding that every single liberal on WB has mirrored the comments of the liberal press and the Travon Marin supporters in Florida. If there is one thing that can be counted on, it is that liberals look at everything through the eye of emotion.

Even Warren Porter has been fooled into judging through emotion.

George Zimmerman did nothing illegal; he was legal to patrol his neighborhood, he was legal to carry a gun, he was legal to ignore the 911 operator who said to not follow Martin (if that’ what he really did), and he was legal to use deadly force if he thought his life was in danger. He had marks on him from the fight, but if their had been no marks, he would have still been legal to use deadly force if he thought his life was in danger.

All the left on WB, the liberal media, the president of the United States, and the DOJ all jumped on the bandwagon of emotion and not the law.

Every single comment by every single liberal on WB has based their comments about Zimmerman on emotion and not on the law of Florida. Zimmerman’s lawyers didn’t even use the “Stand Your Ground” defense, which they could have under Florida’s conceal carry laws; they used the standard “self defense laws”.

Even your president Obama, who is supposed to be a Constitutional law professor, stuck his nose in a local case, which he had no right to do. Is he now going to stick his nose in every murder case in America. If he is, he can just stay in Chicago, where hundreds of black children are murdered every year. Obama created a race case out of Martin’s death, Obama’s DOJ under Holder, was more than happy to promote racism, the leftist media was more than happy to pursue a racist agenda, and the Florida prosecutor’s were more than happy to make this case about emotion.

If the judge had allowed it, the prosecutors would have been more than willing to drop the charges from murder 2 then manslaughter, to murder 3, child endangerment, child molesting, and so on. They knew they had lost the case and they wanted any kind of conviction.

Lastly, I will say, you guys on the left are absolutely disgusting. You are racist of the highest degree. And you hate the laws of the land. Everyone was corrupt; the defense lawyers, the police, the prosecutors, the witnesses, and above all, let’s not forget to smear the 5 white women and 1 Hispanic woman on the jury.

The left talks about whether there is protests or not, but the truth is, you would love to see riots, burning buildings, lootings, and it upsets you that it’s not happening.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 14, 2013 11:45 PM
Comment #368183

Here is a post by Stephen Daugherty on March, 25, 2012:

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/007919.html

There are dozens of comments by those on the left and after 16 months of investigations, of evidence, and of a trial; the same commenter’s on the left make the same arguments. They heard none of the evidence presented in the trial…or they ignored the of the evidence…or they don’t believe any of the evidence. I find it absolutely deranged to believe the comments that 6 jurors were corrupt. It takes a sick mind to believe that the only people who could have brought a proper verdict would be liberal whites, blacks, of Hispanics.

Do you people understand how sick minded you sound?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 12:17 AM
Comment #368184

Political Hostage — way to make up a bunch of crap as if you know what you’re talking about, claim everyone on the left is crazy-emotional, while getting all crazy-emotional as you heap on the hyperbolic insults!
Hahaha! Awesome.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 12:20 AM
Comment #368185

Hey guess what? As I write this, over 555,000 Americans have now signed the NAACP petition since last night!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 12:26 AM
Comment #368186

Anytime the unrev.Je$$ie Jack$son and Al Dullton (who is about as sharp as diarhea) get involved one must question their intention.

A passing remark. Mr. Martin said he was going to kill Mr. Zimmerman that night. Then while Mr Zimmerman is getting his head banged on the concrete, I believe Mr. Martin’s threat of death revisited Mr. Zimmerman.

I pack heat and had to show it on a number of occasions. The charging party backed off every time.

The liberal, left is over the top and gone airborne. Their argument contains no sense.

The politics of the justice system down there is as bad as anything Obama could throw down on.

The prosecution had no case, period.

Posted by: tom humes at July 15, 2013 12:40 AM
Comment #368187
Hey guess what? As I write this, over 555,000 Americans have now signed the NAACP petition since last night!

And?

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 1:05 AM
Comment #368188
Lastly, I will say, you guys on the left are absolutely disgusting. You are racist of the highest degree. And you hate the laws of the land. Everyone was corrupt; the defense lawyers, the police, the prosecutors, the witnesses, and above all, let’s not forget to smear the 5 white women and 1 Hispanic woman on the jury.

To be fair, the police didn’t arrest Zimmerman and believed he was acting in self-defense.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 1:08 AM
Comment #368189

Pseudoliberals don’t believe in self-defense. Pseudoliberals don’t believe in individual rights, thus, no right to self-defense.

If you don’t understand why Adrienne, phx8, et al. say nonsensical things, consider their perspective. If you believe in collective rights, rather than individual rights, what they say starts to make sense.

Pseudoliberals don’t give a damn about Trayvon Martin. They are vehemently against gun ownership and Stand Your Ground. This case isn’t about racism. This was a show trail by pseudoliberals to use as an attack against the individual rights of all Americans.

And they lost. Again.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 1:19 AM
Comment #368190

The words “racist” and “racism” are thrown around so much that they have no meaning. Whenever someone cries “racism” it’s hard to take that person seriously.

With that said, Adrienne and phx8 are clearly racist.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 1:24 AM
Comment #368191


It is absolutely amazing to me, the lynch mob mentaliity of the left. To hell with the rule of law, to hell with the jury that heard all the evidence, to hell with Zimmermans right to defend himself. Put on your white robes and funny hats and go throw a rope around Zimmermans neck and hang him from the highest tree. And all because this was a seventeen year old unarmed black kid, killed by a latino man trying to protect his neighborhood.

Hey lefties, where the $#&% is your damn outrage when innocent kids die everyday in Chicago? I guess is doesn’t matter to you because its black on black crime. Just like it okay to call someone a “nigger” if your black. But insert someone other than black and automatically we have a racism issue. Bullcrap! It is people like you that are racist, that shield their eyes from the evidence and promote racial division. It is people like you that use the disgrace of slavery 150 years ago to excuse and justify criminal behavior today. The are many ethnic minorities in this country that have been held in slavery, discriminated against, persecuted and even made the target of ethnic cleansing, but our prisons are not filled with Irish, Chinese and Native Americans. They are overwhelmingly filled with black males. When does the black community have to take responsibility for itself? When do its leaders have to actually do something to curb the violence and poverty rather than lining their own pockets by exploiting their own people? The almighty Obama in the White House has done little or nothing to help his own people despite getting 95% of their vote and they still love this incompetent boob and would vote for him again and again. How the hell do we fix a problem when everyone is content on ignoring the real issues and then exploit and divide the masses with a case like Martin/Zimmerman.

Whay does the black community continue to allow the likes of Jackson, Sharpton and Farakahn to lead them when they have done so very little to actually help their people? Jesse Jackson Jr is not going to jail for bending the rules to help the impoverished people of his district, he going to jail for lining his own pockets and remodeling his home with campaign money given by the poor he promised to help. Farakahn spews hatred for Jews and whites everytime he opens his mouth and everyone lets him get away with it. But Paula Dean has to be shunned and disgraced for using a word 20 years ago that black people calls themselves everyday. And everyone knows Sharton is just and money lusting fraud, but they still love him and put him on TV everyday. C’mon wake up!

Rich implied my earlier comments we racist. They were not. My comments were and are based on observations and facts. From what I have heard, Martin was using a cut-thru to get back to his place returning from the store. If that puts him in a gated subdivision where he doesn’t belong, to point that out is not racist, it is an observation. If Martin uses terminology like “creepy ass cracker”, then that puts him a catagory of a punk. Just like it makes Don Imus a loudmouth moron and a punk when he called that girl a “nappy headed ho”. Same standard applys for all.

As far as profiling goes, anyone that will be honest would have to admit that they would likely have had the same concerns that Zimmerman had. It is perfectly natural to be suspiscious of a stanger walking around in your neighborhood that has been plauged by an increase in robberies. It does not matter what race they are. The kid could have looked like Justin Beiber and most of us would still be suspicious of him. Zimmerman has every right to survail, approach, and question Martin. As I said before, he has no right to an answer or to detain Martin, but no laws were broken or rights violated until the fighting began and the only one thats knows what really happened at that point is Zimmerman.

Zimmerman could be guilty as hell, but there is not enough evidence to support his conviction. That is our system. It does not give those that disagree with the verdict the right to riot or threaten violence on Zimmerman or anyone else. The internet is full with hate speech and death threats. Where is the DOJ and what are they doing to arrest those making the threats? Making death threaths is a crime. Why isn’t our lovely law abiding NSA not using its spying capabilities to identify these a-holes? No, instead they are making political calculations to appease and pander to the black vote by trying to drum up some charges against Zimmerman to make themselves look like they care. They don’t care. They don’t give a damn about Martin or any other dead black kid, they only care about themselves, the votes and the money as evidenced by the Chicago murder rate.

The whole matter is just a media driven circus being spun for political points. Only the families really care about the victims. The rest is just for show and ratings.

Posted by: JWL at July 15, 2013 6:31 AM
Comment #368192

RE 550,000 signature on an NAACP petition - it means nothing except that some people don’t believe in the rule of law.


I am frankly appalled at the behavior of the NAACP leadership. They are playing a dangerous, racist game and should be ashamed of themselves.

In America, we believe in the rule of law. Times when rule of law has lapsed, it has often been minorities and blacks who paid the greatest price. I would remind the NAACP of their own, formerly proud history an ask them to defend their ideals rather than seek political expediency.

Posted by: CJ at July 15, 2013 6:37 AM
Comment #368193

The outcome of this case may be a bitter pill for the supporters of Treyvon Martin to swallow but they need to recognize that the State of Florida vigorously prosecuted the case, even perhaps overcharging the case. Sure, Zimmerman started the whole sequence of events by targeting Martin as suspicious, calling the police and tracking him. They may have been stupid and inappropriate actions, as C&J points out, but they they were not illegal.

The key issues in this case relate to the physical altercation and eventual shooting. Was the claim of self defense justified? Who started the physical altercation? Did Zimmerman attempt to hold Martin against his will? Did Martin attack Zimmerman out of anger for being followed? Did Zimmerman get the upper hand with the gun and fail to retreat using disproportionate force to defend himself? The evidence on these issues is unclear. It was dark and there were no close eyewitnesses. The forensic evidence on the range of the gunshot was inconclusive. Nobody can even identify the voice crying for help with certainty.

The State could not meet its burden of negating self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a just verdict however unsatisfying to the Martin family and their supporters. The Martin family succeeded in getting their day in court. In my opinion, they should now turn to addressing some of the underlying issues that initiated the sequence of events, i.e., racial profiling, community watchdog procedures, concealed weapons regulations, etc.


Posted by: Rich at July 15, 2013 9:42 AM
Comment #368194

Special Prosecutor Angela Corey chose not to go to a grand jury with the Zimmerman case.

The question is WHY? Because she didn’t have the evidence to charge Zimmerman. If Corey had followed standard procedure, this case would never have gone to trial. The prosecution deceived the Martin family, as well as the public by trying to make them think they had the evidence for a case.

The arrogant leftist of WB try to impress us with their pseudo-knowledge of the law and yet come on here with no evidence and basing their whole prosecution of the case on emotion.

I would expect that from someone like Adrienne, who brags of having 555,000 signatures. For what purpose??? To overturn a court case? To use Holder’s DOJ to go after Zimmerman with a civil rights violation? To go after Zimmerman in a civil lawsuit?

The prosecution failed to prove their case. Zimmerman was found justified to use lethal force as self defense. The “Stand Your Ground” law also has within the law an exemption from civil law suits. Re/civil rights violation; the DOJ does not have a case; Zimmerman’s life has shown he is anything but a racist. It was Martin who called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”. I don’t think he was referring to Zimmerman as a saltine.

Perhaps the left could put aside their emotional responses and give us some real evidence of where Zimmerman broke the law?

In the meantime, Obama and now Harry Reid continue to stick their noses into areas that do not concern them. They always have an ulterior motive. They are now pushing for changing the stand your ground law. First of all, Harry Reid is ignorant about the case because the defense did not base their case on the stand your ground law and secondly he is ignorant because he doesn’t even know the laws of his own state:

In 1871, brawls were not uncommon in Pioche, then a violent silver mining town that sprang up almost overnight in eastern Nevada.

So the circumstances of the fight between John Keeland and James D. Kennedy have been lost to time. Keeland beat Kennedy, and when bystanders pried him off the beaten man, Keeland asked for a pistol and declared that he would shoot Kennedy on sight the next time the two met.

That meeting occurred only minutes later, when Keeland rushed at Kennedy, who happened to be armed. Kennedy shot him dead.

What happened next would influence more than a century of Nevada law, culminating in a “stand your ground” statute nearly 140 years later.

Local authorities charged Kennedy with murder, and during the trial, jurors were instructed that the killing could only be legally justified if Kennedy “retreated as far as he safely could at the time.” Kennedy had made no effort to back away from Keeland, and he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor at the state prison.

But he appealed his case to the Nevada Supreme Court. In 1872, the justices ruled in his favor: If the facts of the case were true, then Kennedy didn’t have an obligation to retreat, and jurors should never have been told as such.

Last year, Nevada legislators took the roots of the Kennedy decision — and others like it — and wrote it into law, clarifying the right of citizens to use deadly force in self-defense of their life without first retreating or backing down.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/nevadas-stand-your-ground-law-goes-back-140-years

Then we have the case of liberal media presenting Marin as a child, the prosecution referring to Martin as a child, and the president referring to Marin as a child. Here is a picture of the child that the press did not want anyone to see. Please tell me, which of you manly liberals would want to be confronted by this person in a dark alley?

In 513 Days Between Trayvon Dying and the Zimmerman Trial Verdict, 11,106 Blacks Have Been Murdered by OTHER BLACKS

Please show us where Obama, Holder, Jackson, or Sharpton has commented on these murders; 95% of them committed black of black.


Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 11:04 AM
Comment #368195

I kept up with the trial by listening to Rev. Al’s panel every evening on the way home, and all I can say was the verdict was extremely predictable to anyone who looked at it through a legal lens. Certainly his panel, full of people who really would have loved a conviction, knew the State had no case. And that was the issue; the whole prosecution was political and not based on law. They went for murder 2 because murder 2 brought in the “Zimmerman is a racist” narrative that so many vocal civil leaders were intimating (if not stating openly) without evidence to support it.

Had this case not been politicized it would have been brought as a manslaughter case. My understanding is the manslaughter charge is the usual lessor charge to murder 2 so the prosecution could have fed the political army with murder 2 and yet prepared a case based on getting a manslaughter conviction. But if the prosecution was really presenting a manslaughter case why would they concede the defense’s theory that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating his head into the ground? Why didn’t they present a different theory? Instead they try to get murder 3 (child abuse) thrown in? Marcia Clarke and company on Rev. Al’s show were left scratching their heads.

Posted by: George in SC at July 15, 2013 11:30 AM
Comment #368196

“A black kid walks down the street, doing nothing wrong, and ends up shot dead by a total stranger.”

A 17 year old whose actions warranted a call to 911.

“The guy who killed him followed the kid through the neighborhood”

It’s called observe and report, a very effective tool for areas that have become the target of criminals.

“initiated a face-to-face confrontation”

There is no evidence showing who initiated the confrontation.
You can say Zimmerman did by continuing to observe and report on Martin, others can say Martin did by not simply going home.

“The claim of self-defense went out the door the minute Zimmerman initiated the confrontation”

But, again, we don’t know who initiated the confrontation. We do know, however, that a witness testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the fight.

“Will there be riots? I doubt it.”

There already has been.

“But does anyone seriously doubt the decision would be the same if a 27 year old black man chased an unarmed 16 year old white kid, picked a fight, and shot him dead?”

The jury decision would be the same, but those trying to crucify Zimmerman would be supporting the 27 year old black man instead of the 17 year old “kid.”

“What a horrible, horrible decision. It is now ok to shoot unarmed black people walking down the street. Just awful.”

Stooping to fear mongering now? Pitiful.
There will be no surge of us evil white people driving down the streets shooting at black people who are doing nothing.

If anything, people will be even more apt to ‘look the other way’ when they are around black people who think they are some kind of “gangsta” and that the evil whitey owes them.

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2013 12:26 PM
Comment #368198

The history of Travon Martin was NOT allowed to be brought out; it appears Martin had a history of violence, of instigating fights, of being expelled from school for throwing a punch at the bus driver, of being a small time drug dealer, of having a twitter @NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. This guy was a punk and I have no doubt the 4 minutes allowed Martin to set up a confrontation with the “creepy ass cracker”, (cracker meaning white guy).

The real problem here was stated by Rush Limbaugh today; the left, who has managed to get their way for the past 5 years under Obama, are simply beside themselves for not getting their way in the Zimmerman case.

The asshole Eric Holder got up today and has continued to push the race issue by leading the low information crowd into believing they are looking for proof of the civil rights violations of Martin. Eric Holder even made the statement, never let a crisis go to waste, in so many words. Holder is lying for the purpose of stirring up race problems in America. They would love nothing more than to see race riots.

Holder’s problem, “FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist”:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeM9mT7DVoY#storylink=cpy

But that doesn’t stop Holder or Obama from stirring the pot of unrest.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 1:52 PM
Comment #368199

I’ve written a post with my analysis on this, but let me just say here:

I think the jury botched it. Reasonable doubt means reasonable. Doubt alone isn’t enough, it’s got to be a doubt supported by the facts.

Did Zimmerman follow the advice of nearly everybody, from the Neighborhood Watch down to the police dispatcher, that could have kept him out of this situation? No. He ignored practically everybody who told him to stop the pursuit, or not to initiate it in the first place. Some might say it was his duty to keep an eye on Trayvon, but the rules of the watch don’t advise pursuit, just observe and report.

He deliberately overstepped the bounds of his organization, or else didn’t bother to read any of those rules or recommendations in the first place.

He wouldn’t have been there, much less there with a gun, if he had done what he was told to do.

He took the law into his own hands, and whether or not Trayvon started the fight, Zimmerman, after minimal injury, decided to defend himself with greater force than his opponent had in the first place.

There was no crime committed, no evidence of criminal behavior on Trayvon. There was no evidence of a number of claims that Zimmerman made, and considerable evidence that the prosecution’s story was true.

Reasonable doubt? I think there was little doubt that Zimmerman got in over his head in a confrontation his eagerness to catch a crook caused, and with minimal injuries, decided to defend himself with much more overwhelming force than his attacker merited.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 1:54 PM
Comment #368200

Oh, and whoever’s saying, oh, why are you not outraged about folks being killed in Chicago?

This isn’t simply about a killing, which is the primary connection you hope to draw.

This is about the fact that these folks had to be cattle-prodded off their dead asses to deal with this as a controversy when they had an armed man kill an unarmed teenager with the police investigators voicing strong doubts as to the armed man’s story. Whatever verdict you thought was appropriate, the real outrage here is that a man who shot an unarmed teenager almost wasn’t tried.

That’s what makes all this “Zimmerman did nothing wrong” rhetoric all the more galling. Can we at least agree that this kind of killing should NEVER simply be swept under the rug?

I have no objections to murder cases being pursued when some black kid gets shot by another black kid, and I hope the person who committed that murder gets punished.

What I have an objection to is an armed man putting a teenager in the morgue who broke no laws in front of this man, who had no evidence of illegal behavior on him, without somebody putting him on trial for what he did. I am at least satisfied that a trial occurred, but you should understand that folks on Trayvon Martin’s side had to practically pull teeth to get it done, in no small part because of a law that irresponsibly encourages people to take the law into their own hands.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 2:02 PM
Comment #368202

Once again Mr. Daugherty fails to offer any crime committed by George Zimmerman, but he does offer “feel good” on in this case “feel bad” emotional responses.

By the way, how do you observe and report, if your not observing?

If Mr. Daugherty thinks the evidence was there for Murder 2, perhaps he could explain why the prosecutors, at the last moment, went after manslaughter, murder 3, and child abuse. I’m not a prosecutor, but it appears they didn’t have the evidence.

I am at least satisfied that a trial occurred, but you should understand that folks on Trayvon Martin’s side had to practically pull teeth to get it done, in no small part because of a law that irresponsibly encourages people to take the law into their own hands.

Never mind the original police chief and prosecutor had not finished their investigation and at the time they were fired, under political pressure, and they did not have the evidence to prosecute.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 2:21 PM
Comment #368204

Well Stephen, now you are sure to be termed “a racist” along with phx8 and myself!

The history of Travon Martin was NOT allowed to be brought out

Yeah right, like that wasn’t the Trayvon Martin trial we just saw, rather than a trial about the fact that George Zimmerman stalked and murdered an unarmed kid coming back from a before-the-game snack run.

But since Trayvon and his past is what you Zimmerman lovers are so keen to assassinate now that he’s dead and can no longer speak for himself, allow me to lay out what we know about George Zimmerman’s history of violence.

His actions prior to killing Martin show that George Zimmerman was an aggressive, violent, racist, asshole, wanna-be-cop, and that it was only a matter of time before he was going to murder someone with his conceal-carry loaded guns.
We know he was fired from his job for being too aggressive and for picking up a woman and slamming her down on the ground. We know that he beat up his girlfriend and that she filed a restraining order against him. We know he wanted to be a cop but ruined his chances of that in 2005 after assaulting a cop and being arrested for “resisting officer with violence” but had the charge reduced by going into an alcohol education program. We know that when his cop chances were ruined due to that arrest he joined the neighborhood watch — during which he made at least 46 calls to the Sanford Police Department reporting “suspicious activity” that specifically involved black males.
And now after the trial, we also now know because his cousin has stepped forward, that the entire Zimmerman family has always been loud and proud about their racism, and that Zimmerman had been sexually assaulting her from the age of six until she was nineteen years old.

What decent people have also come to understand is that the only reason that some people keep trying to attack Trayvon Martin and defend this violent rat bastard who committed murder is because they’re just like George Zimmerman.

Btw, now that the trial is over, I’m sure all the gun nuts will be surely be pleased to hear that they’ve given this crazy, violent, racist asshole back the weapon that he used to murder Trayvon Martin with — no doubt so he can find some more trouble while on his next night time fantasy patrols and no doubt stalk and kill some more people walking by his house who he finds “suspicious” and “threatening” enough to “stand his ground” against.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 2:55 PM
Comment #368205

Political Hostage-
I was paying attention when they talked about the lesser included charges during the indictment. They had the evidence to prosecute, and the Police wanted a prosecution. If the police detectives on the scene had gotten their way, this would have never had reached such a level of public notoriety.

It only got that way because somebody looked at a black kid on a slab, and decided that, despite the fact he committed no crime before being pursued, that he was unarmed when he was shot, that this wasn’t going to get tried in the courts.

It’s a ridiculous outcome, and people shouldn’t feel right with it, because it’s fundamentally unjust. At the very least, that man should have to stand trial, even if he doesn’t get convicted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 2:57 PM
Comment #368206

Stephen, the reason there was not going to be a trial was because there was no evidence to bring charges, which the trial, after we saw the ‘evidence’, showed.

It is unfortunate that you don’t have a decent understanding of the law before making your decision, and sticking by it despite the evidence, but it is a common denominator with your unwillingness to objectively view issues and come to a conclusion that may be in opposition with your political beliefs.

The law of self-defense says that one doesn’t have to be physically being harmed in order to claim self-defense, only that a reasonable fear of life needed to exist. Being held on the ground and your head beaten on the pavement is, to most people, reasonable fear for your life. There was no indication that the attacker was about to stop. Your willingness to blow that off to make a political point is bothersome.

There is a difference in saying that Zimmerman was ‘right’ and saying that what he did was ‘legal’. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t wish that the outcome of the situation hadn’t been different, but it was not just Zimmerman who acted in a way that wasn’t perfect. Martin shouldn’t have initiated and escalated the violence against Zimmerman. Unfortunately, humans aren’t perfect.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 2:57 PM
Comment #368207

“during which he made at least 46 calls to the Sanford Police Department reporting “suspicious activity” that specifically involved black males”

All 46 calls specifically mentioned “black males,” Adrienne?

And I wonder where he would get the idea that black males were responsible for the majority of recent crimes in his neighborhood?

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2013 3:08 PM
Comment #368208
It only got that way because somebody looked at a black kid on a slab, and decided that, despite the fact he committed no crime before being pursued, that he was unarmed when he was shot, that this wasn’t going to get tried in the courts.

Indeed — and this is why the DOJ should put the Sanford Police on trial with civil rights charges, right beside George Zimmerman. Aside from the clear fact that they were doing everything they could to sweep this murder under the rug, did you also hear how they only tested Trayvon Martin for drugs in his body, and didn’t bother to test Zimmerman for drugs?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 3:15 PM
Comment #368209
All 46 calls specifically mentioned “black males,” Adrienne?

Yes — specifically. And many of the young black males in the gated community have said that Zimmerman was always harassing and targeting them.

And I wonder where he would get the idea that black males were responsible for the majority of recent crimes in his neighborhood?

I have to assume because he’s a racist who was always assuming the worst about any young black man he saw? Hence all those pointless 911 calls.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 3:25 PM
Comment #368212

“Yes — specifically.”

Interesting. I remember reading Mother Jones and them saying 5 or so of those calls specifically mentiioned black males and the rest were calls that seemed to cover mundanities like potholes, bikes, music etc…

I have to ask though, IF he is the racist you somehow claim him to be and the 46 911 calls really did show he targeted black males, why would he wait 11 or 12 years to start “stalking and killing” them?

“I have to assume because he’s a racist who was always assuming the worst about any young black man he saw? Hence all those pointless 911 calls.”

Or, because young black males were responsible for most of the crimes? You should base your assumptions on what is true, not what you want to be true.

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #368213

Adrienne
Your charges would be laughable if this were not a serious situation. The common report is that 4 calls of late from the shooting incident had mention of black in them. Those transcripts are not available. So your stretch of 46 is considered by me to be a smear job on Mr.Zimmerman.

Much of your other comments are so racist that there is no need to comment on them.

As an example, you and others, refer to Mr Zimmerman as white, hispanic, and other references. Why does Mr. Martin get refered to as Afro-American? Why don’t you refer to either party without the ethnic qualifictions?

SD
You are ignorant. Six women deliberated and came to justice. Your claim of six women being in error is so rotten to the core it probably has others puking for your lack of credability and gross negligence in common sense thinking. Check in with Angela Corey to see how you can help her with her upcoming defense.

Posted by: tom humes at July 15, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #368214

George, thanks for the list that shows that Zimmerman wasn’t just calling in to 911 for ‘black males’. Of course, this doesn’t show the transcripts of the calls, like the one that MSNBC edited to make it appear that he was the one offering up the race of the suspect, only volunteering the race when asked. Not that it will change the mind of those incapable of doing so, but for those of us who actually read and understand the facts it is a help.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 4:06 PM
Comment #368216
and this is why the DOJ should put the Sanford Police on trial with civil rights charges, right beside George Zimmerman.

Should they include the FBI as well?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeRYMY3VD_c

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

The Duval County State Attorney released another collection of evidence in the Zimmerman murder case Thursday, including reports from FBI agents who investigated whether any racial bias was involved in Trayvon’s Feb. 26 killing.

The evidence includes bank surveillance videos from the day of the killing, crime scene photos and memos from prosecutors.

Among the documents is a note from the prosecutor who said one of the witnesses said her son, a minor, had felt pressured by investigators to say the injured man he saw was wearing a red top. The boy’s testimony had been considered key, because it backed up Zimmerman’s allegation that he — wearing red — was being pummeled.

Federal agents interviewed Zimmerman’s neighbors and co-workers, but none said Zimmerman had expressed racial animus at any time prior to the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin, a black teen, in a confrontation at a Sanford housing complex. As Sanford police investigated the circumstances of Martin’s death, the FBI opened a parallel probe to determine if Martin’s civil rights had been violated.

Several co-workers said they had never seen Zimmerman display any prejudice or racial bias.

Two co-workers told agents they spoke with Zimmerman the day after the shooting, and both said they noticed injuries to Zimmerman’s nose and the back of his head. One person said Zimmerman was “absolutely devastated.”

Zimmerman told both colleagues that he followed Martin — whom Zimmerman described as a “suspicious person” — so he could tell police where the teen went, but was then “jumped” by Martin. Zimmerman told both that Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun before Zimmerman shot Martin.

In all, the FBI interviewed 35 people about Zimmerman, from current and former co-workers to neighbors and an ex-girlfriend.

But hey, evidence is only evidence if it re-enforces your point of view, right Adrienne?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 4:18 PM
Comment #368218

BTW, the description of Zimmerman as having a ‘hero complex’ most accurately describes him. Anyone suggesting racism is simply too myopic and has no interest in actually understanding either the situation or the people involved. That is the feeling I had always gotten from everything I had heard or read about the case.

Martin could have been a blue tail-like creature from Pandora for all it mattered to him, what it was about was someone acting in a way that he thought was suspicious (a subjective thing) in HIS neighborhood, the one he was trying to save.

The only thing missing was Zimmerman wearing a cape while patrolling the streets…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 4:23 PM
Comment #368222

Continuing to go after Zimmerman after a Florida jury ruled not guilty makes the left look petulant. You didn’t have evidence then and you certainly don’t have any more evidence now.

I really hope voters are paying attention to Obama, Holder, Reid, et al. disrespecting the rule of law and accusing a man AFTER HIS NOT GUILTY TRAIL that he’s guilty.

There was no racism. The people calling it racism are the racists. That would include Obama and Holder. Reid is brain dead.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 4:41 PM
Comment #368224

I’m happy to see that info, since I had not seen that before. And, I will gladly amend my post (or I would, if we could actually edit our comments). I had read something elsewhere that claimed Zimmerman had made 46 calls to 911 that they had specifically mentioned black males, but now I see that I was wrong about that.

So, let’s amend that to say that after 2011, George Zimmerman’s 911 calls were obviously increasingly focused on people he considered “suspicious” who were walking around his neighborhood — and that these were reported to be young black males.

The rest however, still stands as the history of George Zimmerman’s demonstrations of violence, aggression, and run ins with the law — prior to his stalking and murdering of Trayvon Martin.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 4:45 PM
Comment #368229

You should also amend your posts to remove the ‘murdering’ part, since that is a legal definition that doesn’t apply in this case. It would be like me saying you were calling into the website and not posting on the site, using words incorrectly causes a lot more damage to any kind of civil conversation than many seem to think…

You can be accurate and attempt to persuade people with facts and logic, or you can be inaccurate and try to stir people up with emotive rhetoric. I think we can see very well which choice you choose to make time and time again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:00 PM
Comment #368232

You mean Adrienne is emotional? Noooo. Say it ain’t so.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:10 PM
Comment #368241

Rhinehold,
George Zimmerman’s fantasy wanna-be-cop playing made him believe he had a right to wrongfully and against the order of the police dispatcher (who he replied “Okay” to), stalk seventeen year old Trayvon Martin with a loaded gun just for being in his neighborhood, confront, scuffle with, and then shoot him in the heart.
That’s murder.

Zimmerman should have gone to jail for manslaughter at the very least, but he won’t. His violence, aggressive ass is free to roam around carrying his loaded gun everywhere with him as he resume his rich fantasy life.
And Trayvon Martin is dead and gone — for no reason at all.

These are the a sad facts. I’m not saying them to be emotive, and I will not amend or apologize for them.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 5:39 PM
Comment #368244
And Trayvon Martin is dead and gone — for no reason at all.

Other than jumping someone and beating them, punching them in the face and smashing their head to the pavement…

You say that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his gun drawn? Except there is no evidence to suggest that. You say that he ‘scuffled’ with Martin? Again, the evidence suggests that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and Martin jumped him unawares.

The violent one appears to be Martin here, he is the one who initiated violence. There were no evidence of any bodily harm coming to Martin in the way of bruising, punches, etc. It appears, from the physical evidence that it occurred just the way Zimmerman said it did, he lost sight of Martin and was then jumped, beaten and the assailant reaching for his gun.

If you have other evidence, you should have shared it with the prosecutors and they could have presented it at trial. They didn’t do that, because they didn’t have that evidence, therefore Zimmerman was found not guilty.

Anything else in your fantasy of what happened is your opinion based on your preconceived notions and political views, not based on the facts and evidence.

I’m not saying them to be emotive, and I will not amend or apologize for them.

The fact is that Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder, continuing to say he ‘murdered’ Martin is not factual at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:56 PM
Comment #368246

The definition of murder (a legal term) is:

“crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law”

Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of murder, therefore continuing to use that term is done so for emotive reasons, not factual ones.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:59 PM
Comment #368248

I will ignore Adrienne because she (I’m assuming a she) does not have enough sense to conduct a conversation. The information she thought was correct probably came from one of her usual shrill leftist sites. I am assuming Adrienne is black; and as a black conservative man myself, I want to apologize to those on WB. Not all blacks are shrill haters of America.

I considered Mr. Daugherty to be on a level higher than Adrienne, but I’m not so sure. Rhinehold said you didn’t have a decent understanding of the law. I go further to say it’s a shame you don’t have the decency to look this case through the eye of the law instead of emotion.

Political Hostage- I was paying attention when they talked about the lesser included charges during the indictment. They had the evidence to prosecute, and the Police wanted a prosecution. If the police detectives on the scene had gotten their way, this would have never had reached such a level of public notoriety.

It only got that way because somebody looked at a black kid on a slab, and decided that, despite the fact he committed no crime before being pursued, that he was unarmed when he was shot, that this wasn’t going to get tried in the courts.

It’s a ridiculous outcome, and people shouldn’t feel right with it, because it’s fundamentally unjust. At the very least, that man should have to stand trial, even if he doesn’t get convicted.

Mr. Daugherty, I asked you to provide some evidence that Zimmerman broke the law and you still haven’t. “It’s a ridiculous outcome, because it’s fundamentally unjust”; these are emotional responses and not based on the law. Your talking about your feelings and feelings don’t count.

The law of self-defense says that one doesn’t have to be physically being harmed in order to claim self-defense, only that a reasonable fear of life needed to exist.

Rhinehold is absolutely correct; perhaps instead of parroting the liberal media and the racist instigators Jackson and Sharpton, Mr. Daugherty should read the Florida law on self defense instead of looking foolish. The media, Jackson, Sharpton, Obama, and Holder don’t have to worry about looking foolish; they will always have their followers. But you, Mr. Daugherty are not trying to convince the uneducated masses; your trying to convince a higher educated portion of the population, and your not doing very well.

You are appearing to be nothing more than a race baiter.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 6:02 PM
Comment #368249

BTW, if Zimmerman had not shot Martin, had laid there and ‘taken his beating like a good spick’ as those defending Martin seem to think he should have, Martin would have been guilty of aggravated assault. Possibly attempted murder or actual murder, depending on whether or not Zimmerman had survived.

If Martin had stopped beating Zimmerman just before the shot and walked away from him, he would STILL have been guilty of aggravated assault and possibly attempted murder.

There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, only to be able to point him out to the police to question him when they arrived, as the 911 call demonstrates.

Those are the facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #368250
Other than jumping someone and beating them, punching them in the face and smashing their head to the pavement…

You say that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his gun drawn? Except there is no evidence to suggest that. You say that he ‘scuffled’ with Martin? Again, the evidence suggests that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and Martin jumped him unawares.

I don’t believe for a moment that Martin was the aggressor — I believe that he struggled with Zimmerman who came after him aggressively.
The medical examiner said there was none of George Zimmerman’s DNA on Trayvon Martin’s hands or fingernails. There were no cuts or bruises suggesting that Martin was beating the sh*t of Zimmerman either.
People like you seem to want to believe that George Zimmerman was being a dedicated neighborhood watchman following Martin in order to look out for his neighbors in one minute and then in the blink of an eye — in those few minutes of gap in our knowledge of events in which the only witnesses are a dead kid who can’t talk and his killer who refused to take the stand and talk — that Zimmerman went from being the tough guy chasing this “thug” kid (who was actually minding his own business and fleeing from the creeper who was following him), to being this guy who completely gave up the pursuit and was pounced upon with no provocation by the same kid that was so itching for a fight that he was trying to flea from him just moments before.

It’s completely illogical, and I’m tired of hearing that Martin was continuously battering Zimmerman. Even the eyewitnesses admitted that they didn’t actually see anything like that, and there is no possible way that Martin’s totally clean, undamaged hands were pummeling and smashing Zimmerman’s head into the pavement.

As for the gun — I didn’t say he had it out. Although he might have. No one knows that for sure but George Zimmerman, and Trayvon Martin who can no longer tell us anything about what happened. What we do know is that Zimmerman, in defiance of the police’s orders, went after Martin carrying a loaded gun, and ended up murdering Martin by shooting him directly in the heart with it.

The violent one appears to be Martin here, he is the one who initiated violence.

Bullsh*t and Lies. It is glaringly obvious that Zimmerman was both the pursuer and the aggressor here — from start to finish. Otherwise, Martin’s hands would have told a different tale.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 6:28 PM
Comment #368252

Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of murder, therefore continuing to use that term is done so for emotive reasons, not factual ones.

Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam were also found not guilty of murder. Several months later though, and protected against double jeopardy, they freely admitted to the killing of Emmet Till.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 6:42 PM
Comment #368253

Adrienne, you need to read the transcript of the witnesses. You seem to have gotten a lot of information wrong. Perhaps you should read it for yourself instead of getting your sound bites off liberal sites. The man who testified of seeing Martin on top told of Martin using martial arts moves on Zimmerman, and there was no evidence of Zimmerman having his gun out.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 15, 2013 6:48 PM
Comment #368254

I consider forensics far more reliable than witness testimony.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 6:54 PM
Comment #368255

Reading some of the comments on this thread has convinced me that “racism” is alive and well in the United States and being practiced religiously by the “brain-fevered” left wing.

Every citizen has the right to expect a fair trial if accused of a crime; one free from politicization or racist prejudice.

Those who believe justice was not done in the Zimmerman case should tell us why the jury wrongly decided the way they did and how their judgement was faulty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 15, 2013 7:00 PM
Comment #368257

Rhinehold,

I basically agree with the decision in the case. However, I am not so sure about swallowing Zimmerman’s story completely. The lead detective certainly didn’t. It is not so clear as to who actually initiated the physical altercation and whether Martin ambushed Zimmerman or simply wheeled to confront his pursuer. It is also not very clear as to the exact sequence of events just prior to the shooting.

Yes, we know Zimmerman’s story from the police reports, but he never actually testified and there were no clear eyewitness accounts of the entire episode. The problem with the prosecution case was that it could not present sufficient evidence to rebut the self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense never proved Zimmerman’s version. It didn’t really attempt to. It simply rested on the grounds that the State didn’t disprove the self defense claim and prove the elements of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

What is clear about this case is that without Zimmerman’s overzealous “hero complex” and possible racially tainted suspicions, Trayvon Martin would be alive.

Posted by: Rich at July 15, 2013 7:06 PM
Comment #368260
I don’t believe for a moment that Martin was the aggressor — I believe that he struggled with Zimmerman who came after him aggressively.

And you base this on what evidence?

The medical examiner said there was none of George Zimmerman’s DNA on Trayvon Martin’s hands or fingernails. There were no cuts or bruises suggesting that Martin was beating the sh*t of Zimmerman either.

Interesting, according to the first officer on the scene “Smith observed that Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.” Zimmerman was treated and released by paramedics while still at the scene of the incident.

The images can be seen here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg/170px-George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg/220px-George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg

I’m guessing he did that to himself before the police arrived?

That would have to ignore the PROSECUTION’s witness who stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him ‘MMA Style’.

I’m still curious what you are basing your belief on, would you please provide the evidence you have that counteracts what I have shown?

People like you seem to want to believe that George Zimmerman was being a dedicated neighborhood watchman following Martin in order to look out for his neighbors in one minute and then in the blink of an eye — in those few minutes of gap in our knowledge of events in which the only witnesses are a dead kid who can’t talk and his killer who refused to take the stand and talk — that Zimmerman went from being the tough guy chasing this “thug” kid (who was actually minding his own business and fleeing from the creeper who was following him)

Heresay

to being this guy who completely gave up the pursuit and was pounced upon with no provocation by the same kid that was so itching for a fight that he was trying to flea from him just moments before.

No, people ‘like me’ look at the evidence and discuss the evidence. What I have laid out is what we know.

He is on tape on the 911 call saying that he lost sight of him. I never once said that he called off the pursuit to find out where he had gone, I don’t know if he did or not. It is also irrelevant, following someone to point them out to the police is not a criminal activity or anything that people should be afraid to do.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman, at any time, was doing anything other than following Martin so that he could report his location to the police, the 911 call states quite clearly that that was his intent. At no time is there ANY indication that Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin. In addition, there is no indication that Martin wanted to harm Zimmerman.

I have never once suggested that I know what happened during that small window of time, other than what Zimmerman said happened and the evidence does not dispute his claim of what happened. So without any other evidence to suggest he was lying (he was given a lie detector test the night of the event) it is REASONABLE to believe that is what happened.

What *IS* illogical is to think that Zimmerman wanted to cause Martin harm and called the police to get himself involved in the situation to begin with. If he wanted to harm Martin, he would never have called the police and he would have never have let Martin get close enough to harm him. So your ‘view’ of events is even more preposterous than the one you seem to think I believe.

BTW, one valid reason that Martin may have initially fled was he may have thought that Zimmerman was a plain clothes policeman. He fled when Zimmerman was still in his car. Once Zimmerman left his vehicle, perhaps it was clear to Martin that he was alone and not the danger he felt he was originally? Or perhaps he was fleeing for a totally different reason. We don’t know. And unlike some, I have no interest in trying to GUESS at that information. It is not evidence or factual, so it is not something I can consider.

Bullsh*t and Lies. It is glaringly obvious that Zimmerman was both the pursuer and the aggressor here — from start to finish. Otherwise, Martin’s hands would have told a different tale.

You do realize that a lack of DNA evidence does not mean that he didn’t do something, right? It is probable that while you are punching someone while on top of them, the blood doesn’t HAVE to get on your hands, right? This is called PHYSICS… Gravity, angles of impact, etc. If Martin punched Zimmerman once in the nose, but did not strike him there again, there is way for the blood to get on his hands. He could have then grabbed the sides of his head and pounded it onto the pavement, causing the damage and blood on the back of Zimmerman’s head, again there is no way that that blood would have made it to Martin’s hands.

SOMEHOW Zimmerman was bloodied on the face and the back of the head. Eye witnesses that the PROSECUTION called confirmed that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Those are not ‘bullshit and lies’, those are the facts. That you don’t know them is because you aren’t interested in facts and only look for information from biased sites that agree with your predisposed point of view.

Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam were also found not guilty of murder. Several months later though, and protected against double jeopardy, they freely admitted to the killing of Emmet Till.

Right, you see the difference in terminology that you used?

I consider forensics far more reliable than witness testimony.

Perhaps you should understand forensics if you are going to rely upon it so much.

Had there been blood on Martin’s hands, it would have proved that he did have his hands on Zimmerman. Not having blood on his hands does NOT PROVE that he DIDN’T.

Do you have an alternate explanation for Zimmerman’s injuries?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 7:29 PM
Comment #368261

I go with rule of law. It doesn’t mean Zimmerman is morally clean; it means that by the law he did not commit murder.

It certainly is not the “old south”. Zimmerman is Hispanic. It kind of messes up the narrative.

Are we now going to see the conflict framed as blacks versus Hispanics?

Posted by: CJ at July 15, 2013 7:31 PM
Comment #368262
However, I am not so sure about swallowing Zimmerman’s story completely. The lead detective certainly didn’t. It is not so clear as to who actually initiated the physical altercation and whether Martin ambushed Zimmerman or simply wheeled to confront his pursuer. It is also not very clear as to the exact sequence of events just prior to the shooting.

Rich, I agree completely, we don’t know. We have Zimmerman’s side of the story and the evidence we have doesn’t disprove it, nor does it prove it.

What is clear about this case is that without Zimmerman’s overzealous “hero complex” and possible racially tainted suspicions, Trayvon Martin would be alive.

That is probable. If there were no other people in the world, it is likely that I would never have to worry about being murdered at all either. I also stated early on in this thread that I don’t think Zimmerman acted perfectly correctly in this case, I don’t know anyone who thinks that. But there is literally no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman ‘murdered’ Martin. There is also no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin in self defense. Anyone suggesting anything else is going on supposition, prejudice and faith. No facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 7:34 PM
Comment #368269
But there is literally no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman ‘murdered’ Martin. There is also no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin in self defense. Anyone suggesting anything else is going on supposition, prejudice and faith. No facts.

That Zimmerman changed his story so many times about the details of that night was considered suspicious enough for Corey to file the second degree murder charge. He literally couldn’t keep his story straight — which suggests that he lied about what actually happened.
And excuse me, but forensics are FACTS. And those facts show that Martin was not the aggressor. Because it’s impossible for Martin to have beaten the sh*t out of Zimmerman as he claims Martin did but not have any cuts or bruises on his hand, and carry not a single trace of Zimmerman’s DNA on his hands. Totally Impossible.

Zimmerman is a liar. And the reason has to be because not only did he pursue Martin, but he also started the physical altercation (which he must have been losing) before pulling his gun and shooting Martin in the chest.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 8:18 PM
Comment #368270
Zimmerman is a liar. And the reason has to be because not only did he pursue Martin, but he also started the physical altercation (which he must have been losing) before pulling his gun and shooting Martin in the chest.

Your evidence?

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 8:26 PM
Comment #368272

And let me be clear what I mean when I say physical altercation:
It would be more plausible if Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin — and that the two wrestled and struggled and rolled around on the ground. I think that’s how it would actually be possible for Zimmerman to have gotten his nose broken and his head scraped on the pavement, without Martin having any cuts or scrapes on his hands, and without having any of Zimmerman’s DNA on them either. This would also make it more plausible to explain how Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, in the moment before Zimmerman used his gun.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2013 8:33 PM
Comment #368273

Adrienne, what stories did Zimmerman change? Why didn’t Corey call for a grand jury, isn’t that standard procedure? Corey chose to charge Zimmerman based on pressure from the WH and DOJ.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 15, 2013 8:40 PM
Comment #368279
And let me be clear what I mean when I say physical altercation: It would be more plausible if Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin — and that the two wrestled and struggled and rolled around on the ground. I think that’s how it would actually be possible for Zimmerman to have gotten his nose broken and his head scraped on the pavement, without Martin having any cuts or scrapes on his hands, and without having any of Zimmerman’s DNA on them either. This would also make it more plausible to explain how Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, in the moment before Zimmerman used his gun.

What’s even more likely is that the 12 year old angelic Martin noticed that George Zimmerman was beating his own head into the concrete and, given Martin’s long history of humanitarianism, tried to stop that crazy ass cracker from self-mutilation. Unfortunately, because Martin was only 12 years old, Zimmerman overpowered Martin, pulled Martin on top of him and shot him.

Clearly this wasn’t self-defense. In order for self-defense to be valid, you have to be dead before using deadly force. Zimmerman obviously was not yet dead before he used deadly force. And besides, I’m 110% sure that Martin was merely trying to stop that crazy ass cracker from self-mutilation.

Because facts and evidence don’t matter for the left, we should use my theory for all future talking points and award Martin the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his courage in stopping that crazy ass cracker from self-mutilation.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 11:07 PM
Comment #368289
Police reports state Zimmerman “appeared to have a broken and a bloody nose and swelling of his face.” Zimmerman was offered three chances to be taken to the hospital, but Zimmerman declined each time, according to police reports released by the prosecution. ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.

On June 26, 2012, the prosecution released the results of a voice stress test performed on George Zimmerman the day after the shooting. A voice stress test is a type of test used to measure deceptive or psychological stress in the human voice in response to questions. Zimmerman was asked, “Did you confront the guy you shot?”, to which Zimmerman answered, “No.” Zimmerman was asked, “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?”, to which Zimmerman answered, “Yes.” The examiner concluded that Zimmerman “told substantially the complete truth” in the examination, and Zimmerman was classified as “No Deception Indicated (NDI)” according to the report.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 11:42 PM
Comment #368305

Adrienne:

It would be more plausible if Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin — and that the two wrestled and struggled and rolled around on the ground. I think that’s how it would actually be possible for Zimmerman to have gotten his nose broken and his head scraped on the pavement, without Martin having any cuts or scrapes on his hands, and without having any of Zimmerman’s DNA on them either. This would also make it more plausible to explain how Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, in the moment before Zimmerman used his gun.

Vs. Juror Juror B37:

“I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn’t going to let him scare him … and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him,” she said.

and this important statement

“I think all of us thought race did not play a role,” the juror said . “We never had that discussion.”

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Wow, they went for second degree murder based on racial profiling yet the jury never discussed race. If I was someone who thought that race was the most important issue that statement alone would re-focus my anger.

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 7:55 AM
Comment #368307

Rhinehold-
It’s unfortunate you’re being so condescending.

Any time an unarmed man gets killed by an armed one, there ought to be a very good reason for letting the killer go free, because that violates a fundamental principle of Self Defense: that it was YOUR life in danger. If I have a handgun and you do, common sense says that in a fight, I am more of a threat to you than your are to me.

Reasonable fear for your life: who had it? Was Trayvon beating on him as an aggressor, or as a person defending himself from somebody who jumped him? If the prosecution screwed up, I think it screwed up worse by not emphasizing that there were all kinds of possible ways that we got to Trayvon’s death, not merely Trayvon beating on him.

We only have Zimmerman’s word that Trayvon started it, and he’s the one who shot him. Think about that. What else would he say? I got into an argument with Trayvon, and started pushing him, after which Trayvon responded by throwing me on the ground and punching me, which I responded to by shooting him?

No, in Zimmerman’s story, it’s repeated punches, repeated knocks of the head, and that’s why he’s scared he’ll die. And, of course, Trayvon starts it.

I think things were at least ambiguous enough to merit that the case be tried, not simply never adjudicated.

I would think you would want to discourage not only people, but governments from adopting a standard of suspicion as grounds for detainment and search. As a libertarian, you should support a stricter, more constitutional interpretation that would say that Government has to have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and if they aren’t right there, a warrant to search or arrest.

Political hostage-
It’s not physical harm, it’s whether his belief that he’s going to die is reasonable. If it’s a dozen head bashes, I could see somebody fearing for their life. One or two punches and head bashes? Not so much. Plus, he always knew he had the gun, and the autopsy reports indicate that he responded rather quickly in “self defense”. So, let’s put two and two together, and say that he was somewhat quick to conclude his life was in danger. Perhaps too quick. If he knew he could resort to shooting Trayvon, and did that quick, then there’s a question as to whether he ever really considered his other option, which was trying to beat Trayvon back. Or perhaps he could have just held the gun on him and said, stick em up! Or, he could have knocked him on the head with it.

Point is, he had other options which he didn’t take. And that is what convinces me that this trial needed to happen. If it’s that easy to conclude that if you’re a black kid, and you look scary to some people, then that means you have less of a right to defend yourself, less of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we’re not at that nice, magical place that so many conservatives claim we are, where racism is a thing of the past. It might not be overtly expressed, but if our underlying assumption is that a young black kid’s life is worth less than his counterparts in the majority, then we have problem, and it needs to be addressed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 8:33 AM
Comment #368310

Let’s take a look at Mr. Daugherty’s comments:

Any time an unarmed man gets killed by an armed one, there ought to be a very good reason for letting the killer go free, because that violates a fundamental principle of Self Defense: that it was YOUR life in danger. If I have a handgun and you do, common sense says that in a fight, I am more of a threat to you than your are to me.

This comment is not the law Stephen, it’s simply your perception of what is right or wrong. It won’t hold up in court and it certainly does not qualify as evidence. In my home state, if I am in my car and someone tries to break in my car and I am armed, I am within my rights to shoot. The law in Florida (my winter home state) is exactly the same. Stand your ground law is simply that; I do not have to give ground, in my house, in my car, or from my personal space on the street. Your fundamental principle of self defense doesn’t mean anything.

Reasonable fear for your life: who had it? Was Trayvon beating on him as an aggressor, or as a person defending himself from somebody who jumped him? If the prosecution screwed up, I think it screwed up worse by not emphasizing that there were all kinds of possible ways that we got to Trayvon’s death, not merely Trayvon beating on him.

We only have Zimmerman’s word that Trayvon started it, and he’s the one who shot him. Think about that. What else would he say? I got into an argument with Trayvon, and started pushing him, after which Trayvon responded by throwing me on the ground and punching me, which I responded to by shooting him?

No, in Zimmerman’s story, it’s repeated punches, repeated knocks of the head, and that’s why he’s scared he’ll die. And, of course, Trayvon starts it.

Tell me Stephen; at what point, when your head is being beat against the concrete, do you start to black out? Can you tell us for certainty that Zimmerman was not starting to go unconscious? If your head was being beat against the concrete, and you were starting to go unconscious, would you be concerned about being killed with you own gun after you blacked out? We already know his head was being hit against the concrete, that’s a fact. We only have Zimmerman’s word because he was the only one who knew what happened. Unless the prosecution could provide another witness, Zimmerman’s word stands. It’s the law. You just can’t seem to get your mind wrapped around the law, can you? The law states that if Zimmerman felt that he was in danger of being killed, he had a right to defend himself. It’s the law. You may not like the law, but it’s the law in many of the 50 conceal carry states. The stress test that Zimmerman was subjected to on the night of the shooting upheld that he shot Martin in self defense…he thought he was in danger of being killed.

Political hostage- It’s not physical harm, it’s whether his belief that he’s going to die is reasonable. If it’s a dozen head bashes, I could see somebody fearing for their life. One or two punches and head bashes? Not so much. Plus, he always knew he had the gun, and the autopsy reports indicate that he responded rather quickly in “self defense”. So, let’s put two and two together, and say that he was somewhat quick to conclude his life was in danger. Perhaps too quick. If he knew he could resort to shooting Trayvon, and did that quick, then there’s a question as to whether he ever really considered his other option, which was trying to beat Trayvon back. Or perhaps he could have just held the gun on him and said, stick em up! Or, he could have knocked him on the head with it.

I already answered this scenario. You make two points that are false, then you try to draw a conclusion from false statements. The law does not require any physical injuries; the law only requires that Zimmerman felt in danger of being killed and the time span of how soon he pulled his gun does not matter. Whether he pulled it right away, or whether he waited does not make any difference, according to the law. Zimmerman said Martin was trying to get the gun; whether he was or not doesn’t matter because Zimmerman said he was, and there is no evidence to prove Martin wasn’t. You have no knowledge of weapons and you do not have a conceal carry permit… I do. Almost all states use the same training material when qualifying to have a CCW. The police are trained in the same basic way as CCW holders; but police are trained even more. NRA instructors train police departments as well as private citizens and everyone who has taken the training will tell you that they were taught to NEVER pull your weapon unless you are prepared to use it. In close quarters, as Martin and Zimmerman were, to pull the gun and say “stick um up”, you would be inviting your own possible death by gunshot. If the one who is attacking you knows you have a gun, they will go for the gun. Zimmerman did exactly what he was trained to do; and this is why the police and prosecutor had no charges against him. You have been watching too many movies. When your on the ground, having your head beat on the concrete, with the possible loss of consciousness, there is no way you are going to be able to knock him unconscious with your weapon.

Point is, he had other options which he didn’t take. And that is what convinces me that this trial needed to happen. If it’s that easy to conclude that if you’re a black kid, and you look scary to some people, then that means you have less of a right to defend yourself, less of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we’re not at that nice, magical place that so many conservatives claim we are, where racism is a thing of the past. It might not be overtly expressed, but if our underlying assumption is that a young black kid’s life is worth less than his counterparts in the majority, then we have problem, and it needs to be addressed.

These comments are ridiculous; your still trying to make a race case out of this, and there none. To say he had other options and this is the reason for a charge and trial is not logical. It didn’t matter what his other options were, what he did was to protect himself according to the law. The prosecutors never had a case. I will say again, why wasn’t a grand jury convened? A grand jury is standard procedure and I submit the prosecutor knew she could not get charges through a grand jury.

Stephen, you have failed to present your case. Everything you have said is based upon conjecture, feelings, or emotion. Again I will ask, what proof do you have that Zimmerman violated the law? People are not tried on feelings, they are tried on evidence. What is your evidence.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 9:26 AM
Comment #368313

Thomas Sowell nails the politics vs. law.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/07/16/is-this-still-america-n1640987

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 10:14 AM
Comment #368316
Adrienne, what stories did Zimmerman change?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-27/news/os-george-zimmerman-inconsistencies-20120626_1_shooting-dispatcher-police

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 11:52 AM
Comment #368319

Why didn’t Corey call for a grand jury, isn’t that standard procedure?

Corey is a conservative Republican who appears to be totally crappy at her job. This is what she had to say about that:

“We don’t charge based on what the verdict is going to be,” Corey said. “We charged what we think we can prove under the law.”

In another interview with ABC News, she defended the decision to charge Zimmerman without going to a grand jury.

“Everything went to trial and everything was public,” Corey said. “Shame on those who are bashing us for the sake of getting on TV.”

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-15/story/state-attorney-corey-scrutinized-nationally-over-handling-trayvon

A person quoted in that article claims that Corey is well known in Florida for overcharging all the time and that this has frequently lead to the prosecution failing to convict people who might ordinarily go to jail.
Maybe it’s the case that Corey was biased, and decided to overcharge Zimmerman because she knew a jury would fail to convict him? Who knows?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 12:14 PM
Comment #368320
Wow, they went for second degree murder based on racial profiling yet the jury never discussed race.

I did not say that. I said that Corey claimed she added the second degree murder charge based on the fact that Zimmerman could not keep his story straight.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 12:17 PM
Comment #368322

Adrienne, never said you said that.

To get to murder 2 you have to prove it was done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent. There was precedint in Fla courts: In Hooker v. State Hooker killed a man while “looking for Mexicans to run out of town”. The appellate court said his racially motivated actions “fell squarely within the statutory definition of second degree murder, … evincing a depraved mind.“

That’s what they had to prove to make the charge, and yet here is a juror saying that during deliberations they never considered race as having a role and never had a discussion on race. Zimmerman was clearly not guilty of murder 2 because he didn’t have a depraved mind. If the standard of reasonable doubt is 90% certainty I’d say, based on B37’s statement, the prosecution proved a depraved mind at about 0% certainty.

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 1:35 PM
Comment #368327

Adrienne, your comments make no sense at all. It doesn’t matter if Corey is a Republican or a Democrat, the governor of the state of Florida is a Republican and he ordered her to take the case. The left was all in favor of her prosecuting, even though she didn’t have the evidence. Now, you are bashing her as being a “crappy” prosecutor because she overcharged Zimmerman and went for Murder 2. Never mind the fact that the prosecution got the judge to let the jury consider manslaughter as well. Some people are never satisfied.

I will add this to the story, which just happened last night:

Rush pointed out on his show today that in last night’s interview with Piers Morgan and Rachel Jeantel, she admitted that she told Trayvon Martin to run because she thought George Zimmerman was a gay rapist and it freaked Trayvon out. But Trayvon didn’t run and instead attacked Zimmerman which means he was a homophobe or gay basher.

It’s a shame that neither prosecution nor the defense were able to understand Jeantel when she was on the witness stand; it may have been brought out in court that Martin attacked Zimmerman because he thought Zimmerman was gay and not as the left has said, that he was a white White/Hispanic.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 3:03 PM
Comment #368328
here is a juror saying that during deliberations they never considered race as having a role and never had a discussion on race.

And they should have had that discussion, because Zimmerman did racially profile Trayvon Martin. He called 911 on him and then followed him in his car, and then got out and stalked him while carrying his loaded gun. Zimmmerman did all this despite the fact that Martin wasn’t doing anything other than walk down the street holding skittles and an iced tea, on his way back from the minimarket, intending to watch a ball game with his little brother in that apartment complex. Every one of Zimmerman’s 911 calls leading up to his murder of Martin show that he was focused solely on young black males — and this is why he called the police, and why he decided to follow, stalk him.
The idea that these jurors would never once talk about the race of the seventeen year old kid who was killed that night is in fact RIDICULOUS. It was an important factor to discuss, since young black men were all that this “neighborhood watchman” seemed suspicious of in that neighborhood leading up to his shooting Martin.

Zimmerman was clearly not guilty of murder 2 because he didn’t have a depraved mind.

Bullsh*t. A man who slams women down on the ground, and beats up their girlfriend, and sexually molests their cousin for many years is definitely a person with a depraved mind. A man who violently assaults anyone, including police officers is a person who definitely has a depraved mind. And a person who would racially profile, and in the dark suspiciously stalk a kid who isn’t doing anything wrong because they like to playact as a cop, and who then shoots that kid in the heart and kills them is definitely a person who has a depraved mind.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 3:07 PM
Comment #368330

“Every one of Zimmerman’s 911 calls leading up to his murder of Martin show that he was focused solely on young black males”

That is still not true Adrienne.

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2013 3:19 PM
Comment #368332

This is comical; Adrienne has attacked the prosecuting attorney for being a “crappy prosecutor” and now she is attacking the jury for being “all white”. Perhaps one of those race baiting incompetent lawyers representing the Martin family should have prosecuted Zimmerman.

I have come to the conclusion that Adrienne has no concept of evidence and no idea how a trial operates. The next thing will be for her to attack the judge as being an incompetent old white woman. Like I said, some people are never satisfied.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 3:25 PM
Comment #368337
That is still not true Adrienne.

Yes, it is true. Look at the call log. All of the last 911 calls Zimmerman made about “suspicious activity” were listed as black males. Including Trayvon Martin.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 3:54 PM
Comment #368339

I have come to the conclusion that Politcal Hostage is a stupid rightwing troll, so they can kiss my ass. I don’t feed trolls.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 4:06 PM
Comment #368341

Sigh, word games now Adrienne?

I have looked at the call log, I was the one who corrected you the first time you got it wrong, remember? But now, in order to avoid the truth, you say “every one” of his 911 calls but only mean the last 4 calls, not every one?

Let’s just accept the facts for what they are.

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2013 4:29 PM
Comment #368342

Every one of Zimmerman’s LAST 911 calls prior to murdering Martin that had to do with suspicious activity were about black males.
This shows a pattern of behavior that points directly to Zimmerman engaging in racial profiling. He called 911 on a young black man who was doing nothing but walking home, and because he was suspicious he stalked and eventually killed him.
The jury should definitely have discussed race as a factor in this case.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 4:37 PM
Comment #368343

Adrienne, why do you continue make $h1*t up when the facts have been presented to you? From the call list:

10. June 24, 2007 – 12:48 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “By the pool”, two Hispanic males and one white male with “slim jim”

I guess the white part of Zimmerman is a racist agsinst hispanics too…

Oh and that’s only one example of many “susicious activity” calls that had nothing to do with black males on the call list. Of course you knew that already.

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #368354

I believe Adrienne is the troll. Wouldn’t someone who ignores the facts and continues to make the same idiotic claims, be considered a troll.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 5:30 PM
Comment #368355

“The jury should definitely have discussed race as a factor in this case.”

Of course, the default position of the left is always race and discrimination.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 5:31 PM
Comment #368358

Every one of Zimmerman’s LAST 911 calls prior to murdering Martin that had to do with suspicious activity were about black males.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #368359
Of course, the default position of the left is always race and discrimination.

We don’t ignore it like the right does, or tries to. We’re willing acknowledge it whenever it clearly applies. And in this case, it does.
It is more than obvious that Zimmerman wouldn’t have stalked, confronted, fought with, and shot Trayvon Martin if he wasn’t black.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 5:52 PM
Comment #368363

George in SC,

I don’t get why you think that racial profiling would be required for a 2nd degree murder conviction in this or any other case. There is no such requirement in Fl. It is an unpremeditated act evidencing a depraved mind without regard to human life resulting in death.

In this case, if Zimmerman had gotten the drop on Martin during the altercation and Martin had ceased his fighting but Zimmerman fired anyway, it could be 2nd degree murder. Remember, Zimmerman said that Martin said “you got me” after he pulled the gun and fired. If he had actually said that prior to firing there would be reason to charge 2nd degree murder. I also assume that the prosecution had reason to believe that it was Martin who let out the very loud scream just prior to the gunshot.

In any case, there were no close eyewitnesses to the actual shooting who could clarify the final exact sequence. In addition, the forensic evidence on the distance of the gunshot could have supported either theory.


Posted by: Rich at July 16, 2013 5:59 PM
Comment #368376

It was proven fact that Zimmerman shot Marin when Martin was on top of him. In fact he was leaning over Zimmerman because there was a gap between his shirt and his chest. It meant that Zimmerman shot Martin when he was on top of him. If Zimmerman had pulled the gun and Martin had seen it (with fear of being shot), Martin would have been backing off when Zimmerman shot as you claim.

There was no proof of racial profiling or racism at all and there would not have to be racism to charge with Murder 2, but the prosecutors chose to introduce racism as a means of showing Zimmerman to be something he wasn’t…a racist.

Martin said, “you got me” as a result of realizing in the last moments of his life, I screwed with the wrong person.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 6:40 PM
Comment #368380

Remember, the whole case presented by the prosecution was one of emotion and not evidence. In the closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury to judge from the heart and implied, not by the evidence.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 6:44 PM
Comment #368381

Sooo, let me get this straight.

Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was black…

This is based on the fact that the last couple of calls, out of more than 40, were people who happened to be black?

Despite the fact that:

* The year before the incident Zimmerman was leading efforts to bring justice to a homeless black man who was beaten by a white man.

* Zimmerman has black family members.

* The FBI found zero evidence of any racism on the part of Zimmerman in this incident.

* All of Zimmerman’s neighbors found to be incapable of racist views or thought.

But, no, you have PROOF, because the last couple of 911 calls recording suspicious activity happened to be about people who were black.

Apparently this ‘racism’ was a newfound mindset of Zimmerman perhaps? He just became a racist over the past few weeks leading up to the event?

We don’t ignore it like the right does, or tries to. We’re willing acknowledge it whenever it clearly applies.

Yeah, right, pull the other one, Adrienne, it’s got bells on it.

*cough*Twana Brawley*cough*

The fact is, your own racism prevents you from seeing anything OTHER than race in any situation, no matter what the evidence or facts of the case are. It’s a problem that many progressives have, but facing it would send their worlds into a spin so there is no chance they will ever de-compartmentalize it and get the help that they need.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2013 6:46 PM
Comment #368384

As Thomas Sowell wrote:

“You don’t send people to prison on the basis of what other people imagine, or on the basis of media sound bites like “shooting an unarmed child,” when that “child” was beating him bloody.”

Posted by: CJ at July 16, 2013 6:54 PM
Comment #368391

Look at it this way; Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton now have relevance. They can now drag their moth eaten, dust covered media interview suits out of the closet. Times of heir relevance are farther and farther apart. In fact, the last time they were about to fight for the rights of blacks was when they were character witnesses for Jessie Jr, just before he went to the big house.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 7:11 PM
Comment #368394

Political Hostage, you have a wicked sense of humor…I love it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 7:16 PM
Comment #368397

Political Hostage,

Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was simply pointing out that racial profiling was not a necessary element for the charge of 2nd degree murder as a prior post suggested. In addition, the prosecution did not argue that racism or racial profiling was a component of the “depraved mind” of Zimmerman.

Posted by: Rich at July 16, 2013 7:23 PM
Comment #368398

Political Hostage,

Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was simply pointing out that racial profiling was not a necessary element for the charge of 2nd degree murder as a prior post suggested. In addition, the prosecution did not argue that racism or racial profiling was a component of the “depraved mind” of Zimmerman.

Posted by: Rich at July 16, 2013 7:25 PM
Comment #368409

Rich

Thank you for the thoughtful question! In order to prove murder 2 the State was required to show the act was done from ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent. Because Zimmerman and Martin didn’t know each other the best basis for the charge is a pre-determined hatred based on some characteristics. The case I quoted above, Hooker v State, gave the precedent that profiling based on race met the definition. This was the door that the State used to go for murder 2 but from the juror interview it’s clear that they did a lousy job of making the connection (race was not even discussed in deliberations).

The Florida jury instruction for a depraved mind under murder 2 says, “An act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

In almost all murder 2 cases, however, manslaughter is given as the alternate offense so they were almost certain to have that available here. That they tried to add murder 3, child abuse, signaled that they knew they knew the case was weak. From the interview, juror B37 stated that it was 3-3 on the first vote for manslaughter and that shows there strategy at least worked on some but not all of the jury.

This stuff was discussed on Rev. Al’s show every night during the trial. Lots of emotion on this board, but if you look at what the lawyers were saying during real time the verdict was never in doubt.

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 8:37 PM
Comment #368411

The jury had a question about the manslaughter charge, but I never knew the response from the judge. I do know that the manslaughter verdict would have been worse on Zimmerman. It carried a stiffer sentence since a gun was used and a minor was killed. It was a trick and the jurors saw through it.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 8:58 PM
Comment #368413

Geroge in SC,

With all due respect, the prosecution never raised racial profiling as an element of the “depraved mind” standard. The judge had ruled prior to trial that racial profiling could not be raised. But, it wasn’t necessary, although, I agree that it would be a powerful element if they could have proved it. Think about it, if you and I are in a fistfight and I get my gun out and you back off but I shoot to kill you anyway, that would qualify as acting with a depraved mind. I didn’t have to kill you. It would be acting with complete indifference to your life.

In any case, the prosecution didn’t disprove that Zimmerman killed Martin other than in self defense. We don’t get to the issue of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter until self defense is eliminated.


Posted by: Rich at July 16, 2013 9:20 PM
Comment #368414

Rich, here’s the case I cited:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/hooker-v-state-497-so-2d-982-fl-ct-app-1986/

“The depravity of mind required in second degree murder has been equated with malice in the commonly understood sense of ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent.”); Marasa v. State, 394 So.2d 544, 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)

Zimmerman did not know Martin. You can’t say that Zimmerman went into the situation with evil intent, because he called 911 prior to the incident. That leaves you with a pre-existing hatred for Martin without knowing him and that leads you to either he was a “punk that always gets away with it” or he was a “black man.” They didn’t do either (obviously) which led Jonathan Turley to write:

“However, the widespread protests and anger over the shooting seemed to have its greatest impact on Corey’s decision to charge the case as murder in the second degree. This was clearly a challenging case even for manslaughter and the decision to push second-degree murder (while satisfying to many in the public) was legally and tactically unwise. The facts simply did not support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with intent and a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” Had Corey charged manslaughter, the case might have been closer but would have still been a challenge.”

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 9:49 PM
Comment #368433

I thought the prosecution did a terrible job.
Many others have noticed this too — and some even think they threw the case:

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/07/did_george_zimmermans_prosecut.html

Posted by: Adrienne at July 17, 2013 1:04 PM
Comment #368441

“I thought the prosecution did a terrible job.”

It is difficult to do a good job when you lack evidence to convict. My question is: Did the jury and judge do their job?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2013 4:27 PM
Comment #368446

Adrienne

A Hispanic killed a black man and you think the white all female jury messed up so bad that justice could not be done?

This really messes up the PC world, doesn’t it? The whole problem with this trial is that those who want to make it look like the old south are confounded by the facts.

Posted by: CJ at July 17, 2013 5:09 PM
Comment #368457
This really messes up the PC world, doesn’t it? The whole problem with this trial is that those who want to make it look like the old south are confounded by the facts. Posted by: CJ at July 17, 2013 5:09 PM

CJ, the rocking of the PC world goes even further:

A half white president (who is called a black man) used the DOJ (led by a 100% black man) to finance two 100% black preachers (Sharpton and Jackson) to stir up race problems in Sanford, FL by using a mixed (white, black, and Hispanic) protestors to force a woman prosecutor to bring charges against a half Hispanic man (who was identified by the liberal media as a white man) for killing a 100% black man.

To top that, the left claims it was a racial killing, but claim the prosecutor never used the racial profiling charge because the woman judge would not allow it…..but right out of the box, the prosecutor used a series of racial comments, laced with profanity, said by Zimmerman while on the cell phone. In fact, they played the sound bites over and over and over. But, it was not meant to push racism.

And now we find that the judge was corrupt, the prosecutors were incompetent, and the all white women jury (save one Hispanic) were racist and ignorant. Nothing less than a pro-black judge chosen by the NAACP, a completely black prosecutor panel, and a jury made up of women chosen from NOW, could have conducted a fair trial. Sounds silly, but this is how they think.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 17, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #368465
A Hispanic killed a black man and you think the white all female jury messed up so bad that justice could not be done?

This really messes up the PC world, doesn’t it? The whole problem with this trial is that those who want to make it look like the old south are confounded by the facts.

Keep going conservatives/Republicans!!! Keep defending this racist-vigilante/woman beating-sexual abusing/ wanna-be-cop murderer!!!
Just keep knocking yourselves out.

And as you do, know this: because you do, Trayvon Martin will not have died in vain. Despite the terrible, heartbreaking grief of his parents, and all the suffering your NRAssh*le-Reichwing-Bagger-ALEC gun-nut laws have put them through as a result of this trial.

You think the vast majority of the American people don’t notice what you stand for? Don’t notice what horrors you defend? You think young people who see you raging with your antiquated racism and militarist police state mindset don’t see you for exactly what you are?
They notice, you despicable assh*les.
An entire country full of people can’t help but NOTICE. Big Time.

Buh-bye.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 17, 2013 11:48 PM
Comment #368467

Adrienne, you seem to have a real psychological problem. What warped mysteries that small brain of yours holds.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 12:08 AM
Comment #368469

Uh huh. That’s right, you guys are all so incredibly sane and rational, and everyone who says anything standing on the left is a radical who never makes any sense at all.

And this guy must be a senseless radical as well:

National Sheriff’s Association Releases Statement on Florida Neighborhood Watch Tragedy
NSA has no information indicating the community has ever even registered with the program.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2013 1:16 AM
Comment #368473

DSP2195

It’s a condition that I like to call ‘selective sociopath’. There are a lot of people lately who have been developing this trait, part of the echo chambers that people erect and put themselves into.

Basically it goes like this. Everyone that agrees with your point of view ‘gets it’ and is fighting for the cause. Anyone who disagrees is inhuman evil scum who shouldn’t be alive and aren’t worthy of respect/compassion/empathy. There is no middle ground, there are no alternative views, it’s simply us against them.

There are a fair number of people like that that I have seen on this, and other, blogs (and tv and radio talk shows). It’s us against them, the enemy must fall, etc. I recently saw Janeane Garofalo at the local comedy club, she’s a funny bright and for the most part engaging person who I have been a fan of for decades. However, she suffers from this affliction as well. It’s a shame because there really is a lot of common ground that we all could look to and work on, but instead so many are isolated in their strongly constructed shelters that they build up for themselves to protect themselves from their enemies while firing at them from that internal safety that they will go to any extreme to keep them on ‘the other side’ that they start to lose grip on any kind of sanity or reality.

Conservatives/Republicans do this with anyone they perceive as being ‘harmful’ to the society (homosexual, deviant, progressive, etc) and Progressives lock themselves into eternal fights/wars (Sharpton recently wrote that the war he is currently involved in will not falter) that they never can feel good about anything. How often have you heard this: “We have come a long way and made great strides, but the fight is not over and we have a long way to go before _____” Fill in the blank. If they ever admit, for once, that things are better than they were, that things were improving in any way, they lose their sense of self.

People suffering from this affliction are similar to bullies and racists, imo. Basically, they lack any real self-respect, usually quietly despising themselves without every really realizing it. To get by they have to see themselves as better than ‘those people’, usually with the people referring to people that they have dehumanized to the point that they aren’t people anymore. That is why racists/homophobes/sexists/etc single out someone who is different than they are. To feel better about themselves. The same with bullies, most bullies are self-loathing creatures that have horrible home lives and pick on weaker/different people to feel better about themselves. The selective sociopath that wades into politics is just the same but are using differences of opinions to be the differentiator, allowing them to feel better about themselves by lowering the target group to less than human status…

I have always felt a bit of pity for these individuals, but the problem is that you can’t help them until they want to be helped. Until they realize that the real problem lies within and they need to be healed before they can get past it and regain their ability to feel empathy towards others who they have targeted…

I have spent a huge part of my life mentoring others, mostly poor individuals who have finally decided to do something about their station in life. I help them realize that by blaming others they are giving them power over their own life that they don’t deserve. But until someone is at a point where they are ready to accept that, until they are ready to get out from behind their well constructed bunkers of hate and bile towards others, it’s the equivalent of beating your head against the wall. And it’s a hard, think wall that isn’t going to crack from any outside banging.

So, there are always going to be people like that until we start teaching children, early on, that they are responsible for their own lives, their own actions, their own behaviors and most importantly, their own results from those. We need to give them strong senses of worth so that they don’t lose their empathy for others, never develop this type of psychosis and see all humans for what they are.

Human Beings.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2013 5:29 AM
Comment #368481

So the conclusion is that an event like the Martin/Zimmerman case has once again given relevance to people like Sharpton and Jackson? And instead of people being held accountable for their actions, there are gangs of blacks now beating people up (in the name of Trayvon) as a result of Sharpton’s, Jackson’s, and even Obama’s and Holder’s comments. We have for the past 60 years moved away from personal responsibility and accountability. The excuse of every liberal for the wrongs committed by someone is that they are a victim. Liberalism is the religion of victimization for all the ills of society.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 11:27 AM
Comment #368487

Rhinehold,
Oh the irony — your rant is nothing but one big crock of pot, kettle, black.

DSP,

We have for the past 60 years moved away from personal responsibility and accountability.

No, the abandonment of both personal and collective responsibility and accountability goes back much farther than that. It actually goes all the way back to when the Trans-Atlantic slave trade first began and with everything that the white power structure failed to do following the end of the Civil War.

All the problems stem from the wealthy white power structure being unable to acknowledge the problem that slavery and institutional racism produced, along with the multitude of unfavorable conditions that existed for black people in America following the Civil War. The powerful moneyed class structure decided this simply wasn’t their problem to try to work out any solutions, and so the problems only grew.

Had that powerful moneyed class structure taken the idea of responsibility and accountability seriously they would have been able to acknowledge the problems, and been serious about trying to find solutions for them. They could have focused a national effort on correcting the many issues that have resulted from institutional racism and poverty which have only accrued due to being ignored. But that didn’t happen.

Some of these solutions are as simple as acknowledging that racism and racial profiling does occur all the time in this nation. As simple as not rising to defend a vigilante who chases a black kid who wasn’t doing anything wrong through the night with a loaded gun and killing him because he wrongly assumed he was suspicious and up to no good in his neighborhood. That really should be simple enough to do — but even that is too much for the conservative white status quo. Curing the mindset that considers such actions acceptable requires education and awareness — and they aren’t interested in either.

Because they’re irresponsible and don’t want to be held to account, they also aren’t interested in acknowledging that black slaves/low paid blacks (and poor people of all colors) built this country, and fought for it when they had little reason to do anything for it — and only get screwed over time and again by the wealthy status quo.

What has the conservative white power structure in America ever taken responsibility for? Nothing. How have they been held to account? They haven’t been. They won’t even acknowledge how their actions have created nothing but ill will, and poverty, and crime. Instead we see an across the board denial of responsibility — along with the sad fact that many amongst these elites make themselves richer by benefiting off of the marginalization and wrongs committed against blacks and poor people in general.

That’s why we see so much investment in the building of prisons that currently lock up one out of every three black men in America. This is considered money well spent in the eyes of the ruling class, but investing in low cost education and work training programs for all Americans is not. They prefer to abandon all responsibility towards solutions that would make an immediate and direct impact on poverty and crime by extension, all across this nation. The conservative status quo declares such things an unnecessary expense because at no time in America has it ever stopped being profitable to shackle blacks.

Institutional racism has far reaching consequences. Thanks to the irresponsibility and no-account attitude of the status quo white power structure who has always chosen to ignore it, there are an enormous number of issues that continue to need (all along have always needed), national attention to address.

But instead, denial is preferable. Irresponsibility is preferable. Lack of all accountability towards the culture of poverty they’ve created is preferable. It’s so much easier to harshly and self-righteously judge and criticize and demean, and strip away the humanity of poor people in America by telling them they aren’t taking enough personal responsibility. And for this reason, the lives of young black men like Tryvon Martin don’t matter and aren’t important. Such lives are so obviously considered disposable — while gun nut vigilantes like Zimmerman with a disgusting history of violence and aggression will be strenuously defended.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2013 3:32 PM
Comment #368490

Adrienne, if what you say is true, then the only thing we can say is, “damn those rich white democrats for supporting slavery in the United States”. Oh, wasn’t I supposed to say that? The same Democrats that fought against the north, that organized and supported the KKK, that fought against equal voting rights, that voted against civil rights; and thank God for the Republicans who fought to free the slaves, fought for the blacks to have voting rights, and that voted for civil rights.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 4:47 PM
Comment #368493
Oh the irony — your rant is nothing but one big crock of pot, kettle, black.

I know you WISH that were true, Adrienne, but it simply isn’t. Unlike others, I don’t actually hate anyone. I don’t dislike Obama or Bush, I simply disagree with them. I don’t wish anyone to die, like you and others have done. When Breitbart died, I was sad, just as I was sad when Ted Kennedy died. I disagreed with both of them, but I didn’t hate them or see them as some sort of ‘evil inhuman entity’.

You are the one who has displayed that characteristic, not me. I don’t hate/dislike you either, I just don’t understand your vitriol since I don’t share it myself. I’m sure it comes from something…

The only time I’ve ever gotten upset/frustrated with you is when you have tried to turn your dehumanization towards me. I reject and recoil from such things, it causes me to lose respect for someone, but I don’t dislike them or wish them ill will…

Again, you are trying to project your attitude/emotions onto others to feel better about having them yourself, but it isn’t based in fact.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2013 5:44 PM
Comment #368494

Yeah, the Democratic Party was once a foul cesspool full of slave-owners and despicable racists.
And at one time the Republicans were the anti-slavery party in America, even though they always made it their mission to also look after the interests of the wealthy elites.

But then the Democrats began taking on progressivism due to William Jennings Bryan and his allies — basically they took over from the Bourbon Democrats in 1896. That’s really when the Democrats first began pushing a strong populist agenda. When the Depression hit that’s when the progressive change was very much cemented. By the time the Black Civil Rights Movement began the Democrats had long been carrying the progressive banner — that is, all except for the conservative-racist wing of the party also known as the Dixiecrats. They were hold overs from the Civil War, and really had no place since they were very conservative in outlook. They left en mass after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and joined the Republican Party.

Today the Republican Party is still the political party championing the interests of the elites over the interests of the poor, and is full to brimming with racists.

However, ever since the election of Reagan in 1980, the Democratic party gradually began to move toward the right — away from populism and progressivism and toward concerning themselves much more with serving the interests of the moneyed elites, much like the Republicans always have. These people are known as Third Way, or Blue Dog Democrats. The Clinton’s and Obama are these kind of Democrats.

And this is why many politically progressive people these days increasingly feel that they don’t actually have a political party that truly represents progressive, populist interests.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2013 6:14 PM
Comment #368497

Adrienne, you should be an American History professor at Berkley. The little heads full of mush would be more than willing to except your version of history.

“By the time the Black Civil Rights Movement began the Democrats had long been carrying the progressive banner — that is, all except for the conservative-racist wing of the party also known as the Dixiecrats. They were hold overs from the Civil War, and really had no place since they were very conservative in outlook. They left en mass after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and joined the Republican Party.”

Since we KNOW that Republicans SUPPORTED LBJ’s Civil Rights Amendment, and since we know (by your own claim that Democrats did not support Civil Rights) could you explain why the Democrats (who did not support civil rights), would join the Republican Party (who did support civil rights). Your whole concept does not make one lick of sense. Does carrying the “Progressive Banner” mean they were still against civil rights?

In 1964 the House Democrats had 259 members to the 176 Republican members. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”

Here is a list of the history of Republicans and Democrats as it pertains to racism, read it and weep Adrienne. I know it don’t fit your narrative:

March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

May 30, 1854
Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

June 16, 1854
Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party

July 6, 1854
First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

February 11, 1856
Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet

February 22, 1856
First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

March 27, 1856
First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

May 22, 1856
For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

March 6, 1857
Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

June 26, 1857
Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

October 25, 1858
U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

June 4, 1860
Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

April 7, 1862
President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862
U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

August 19, 1862
Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation

August 25, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862
Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864
Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864
Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864
African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

March 3, 1865
Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

June 19, 1865
On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation

While researching Juneteenth, I found almost no mention of the troops under Union general Gordon Granger, who were sent to Galveston to ENFORCE the ban on slavery. History revisionists would have you believe that General Granger was a glorified messenger boy. But he was the Union general put in charge of Texas. When he read the Emancipation Proclamation in Galveston, he was also reading the riot act, and he rode ahead of enough troops to put down any resistance. The Emancipation Proclamation had gone into effect two-and-a -half years earlier and the Civil War had been over for two months. It is absolutely unbelievable that Texas slaveholders — or Texas slaves — would have been totally ignorant of this. I mean, Texas isn’t the name of another planet. They had telegraphs and newspapers and word of mouth. They didn’t need a Union general to inform them of world events. A messenger who was sent to Texas to inform people of emancipation was killed. It is thought the plantation owners wanted their slaves for one more harvest.Astoundingly, the Democrats seem to have hijacked this day as their own. What follows is a statement that was posted on a Juneteenth Web site a few years ago.

Washington, D.C. - Democratic National Committee (DNC)Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement in commemoration of Juneteenth.”This Saturday, Democrats across America will celebrate the anniversary of Juneteenth, the country’s longest-running observance of the abolition of slavery.”Juneteenth is a celebration of liberty, as we remember that day in 1865 when the news of emancipation finally reached the slaves of Galveston, Texas - two and a half years after President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. On that day, slavery was finally eradicated from our country’s shores and a new sense of hope had been achieved for the entire nation.”139 years after that historic day, the Democratic Party remains committed to fighting for equality in our schools, our workplaces, and in our neighborhoods to ensure an equal opportunity for all Americans.”
Scuse me?? The Democratic Party remains committed to fighting for equality? When the did this happen? Wasn’t it the Democratic Party that fought on the side of slavery? Wasn’t it the Democratic Party that fought against EVERY attempt to institute equality in our schools, our workplaces and our neighborhoods, right through the 1964 Civil Rights Act? At what point in our history did the Democratic party — the party of slavery, the party of segregation, the party of the Ku Klux Klan — become this nation’s champion of liberty?Talk about an Extreme Makeover! By the way, you won’t find a statement from the head of the RNC on that site. Apparently, the Republican party had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

December 6, 1865
Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

April 19, 1866
Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

July 16, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866
Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866
Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

May 20, 1868
Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors

September 3, 1868
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

September 28, 1868
Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

November 3, 1868
Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 19, 1870
African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

March 22, 1871
Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

September 20, 1876
Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

July 14, 1884
Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery

August 30, 1890
Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

June 7, 1892
In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

December 11, 1895
African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans

May 18, 1896
Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898
Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900
Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

October 16, 1901
President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

June 18, 1912
African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions

August 1, 1916
Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

April 18, 1920
Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

December 8, 1924
Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

October 20, 1942
60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries

April 3, 1944
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”


February 18, 1946
Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952
Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953
Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954
Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956
On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958
President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

February 4, 1959
President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

July 27, 1960
At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

June 1, 1963
Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

June 20, 1964
The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965
Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970
In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971
Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999
Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003
Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004
Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me”

http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 7:03 PM
Comment #368500
In 1964 the House Democrats had 259 members to the 176 Republican members. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support.

Right. And the vast majority of those nay votes came from racist Democrat hold overs from the Civil War aka Dixiecrats, who then left the party en mass and became Republicans. Ever heard of Nixon’s Southern Strategy?
I’m assuming you must have noticed that the south has been mostly red ever since the passage of that act?

The rest is a nice list of things that Republicans have done — truly. And some not so nice things that Democrats have done. So, in the interests of fairness why don’t you now make a list of the good things that Democrats have done? Go ahead, but I warn you it will be an extensive list, so it could take you quite a while to fully compile.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2013 7:31 PM
Comment #368506

You still haven’t explained to me why the dixiecrats, who opposed civil rights, would join the Republican Party who supported the very thing the dixiecrats opposed??? By your logic Robert Byrd of WV would have become a Republican. I don’t believe he did and even though he was a grand poopa of the KKK, the liberal Democrats of DC had a lovefest with him.

I will leave the list of Democrats who have supported blacks to you. I couldn’t find any.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 8:12 PM
Comment #368507

Adrienne

“who then left the party en mass and became Republicans.”

“en mass” implies most of them and being part of “Nixon’s strategy” implies before 1972.

Nixon in 1972, both Reagan victories, and the victory of George H. W. Bush in 1988 could have been won without carrying a single Southern state.

If you look at the electoral maps, you see that the south didn’t become reliably Republican until 1992. Nixon indeed carried the south, along with every other state except Mass. The South provided the Democratic margin of victory in 1976, as Democrats carried every state of the old confederacy except Virginia. In 1980 of the only three states carried by Democrats, the South was there. In 1984 Reagan won every state except Minnesota. In 1988, Republican won big. They carried the south, but also the west and most of the north.

Posted by: CJ at July 18, 2013 8:16 PM
Comment #368513
By your logic Robert Byrd of WV would have become a Republican.

Yes, he would have become a Republican with all the other Dixiecrats — if he didn’t instead choose to renounce his former racism, and work very hard to atone for once being a member of such a despicable racist organization. But he did do that, and so Democrats naturally embraced him — maybe loved him even more for doing so.
George Wallace did the same in Georgia — and ended up being loved and well respected by black people in the south. In the late 1970’s he totally renounced his racism, and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a racist and segregationist. He said at the time that he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness. He said: “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over.” And, he followed that up by making many black appointments to public positions in his state.

I will leave the list of Democrats who have supported blacks to you. I couldn’t find any.

LOL. You mean you refuse to look. And that’s because you know that list take a really long time to compile, and would put your previous list to shame.

“Nixon’s strategy” implies before 1972.

Nixon’s southern strategy acknowledged that racism could help Republicans win — and to this very day, it does help them.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2013 9:38 PM
Comment #368516

Adrienne

Nixon in 1972, both Reagan victories, and the victory of George H. W. Bush in 1988 could have been won without carrying a single Southern state.

In fact, it was not until 2000 that a Republican victory depended on the South. By that time Nixon was dead and none of those Dixiecrats who filibustered the civil right were still in office, except Democrat Robert Byrd.

My parents were Democrats. They died. My sister and I vote Republican. It has nothing to do with race or racism. I prefer economic liberty. This is the more logical explanation for party change. Circumstances change and so do people’s opinions.

It is true, however, that Democrats pander to the minority vote. Since I oppose many of the large government programs, I suppose it makes me against that.

Posted by: CJ at July 18, 2013 9:57 PM
Comment #368517

“Yes, he would have become a Republican with all the other Dixiecrats — if he didn’t instead choose to renounce his former racism”

Well Adrienne, how do you explain Byrd’s use of the N word in 2008? The head of the NAACP did not buy his apology:

“In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Byrd said he thinks race relations are “much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime…I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us. I think we try to have good will.”Then he reminisced that his mother had told him: “‘Robert you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word,” he said. Later, Byrd issued the following statement, which was read on-air: “I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today’s society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race.” NAACP President Kweisi Mfume called Byrd’s comment “both repulsive and revealing.” Mfume told a wire service he’s disturbed by the fact that Byrd felt comfortable enough to use such a word in describing any group.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/black-conservative-group-asks-wheres-liberal-outrage-over-byrds-remark

I guess you can take the boy out of the KKK meeting, but can’t take the KKK out of the boy.

Regarding George Wallace, I believe if you go back once again and read his apology, you will find that George Wallace, after being shot and paralyzed, had become a born-again Christian. The reason for his change of heart was because of his Christian beliefs. Of course you do know, the Bible belt runs through all those southern red states. Which means the beliefs of Wallace are typical of all those Christians in the south.

Don’t you just love the facts when they come out?

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 10:09 PM
Comment #368520

I love how folks dig up the Dixiecrats, a one shot segregationist movement for the 1948 election, and try to explain the shift in South from Democrat to Republican that happened in the 80’s.

It doesn’t explain Jimmy Carter carrying the all of the South except for Virginia in 1976. Clinton carried a bunch of Southern States including TN, GA, AR, and LA. SC Gov Dick Riley raised taxes in SC, had the consecutive terms law amended, and then ran unopposed in 1982. Fritz Hollings, the guy who put the confederate flag on top of the SC Statehouse, was a Democratic Senator until 2004.

Your theory must be it took those racist Dixiecrats 40 years to turn the Solid South since the Republicans didn’t take hold here until the late 80s. More likely it took a great Ronald Reagan 8 years coupled with huge population moves from the upper middle class North easterners to the Southern States in the early 90s (we call them Damn Yankees).

Posted by: George in SC at July 18, 2013 10:15 PM
Comment #368523

You Republicans spend so much time trying to claim you’re not the party of racism. But you are. Everything you do hurts poor and marginalized people, and as a result they don’t vote for you. Your party is a sea of overwhelmingly white, rich people and one glance at your party conventions is the proof of this.

If you were at interested in changing this, it would help you to stop being the party who so blatantly caters to the rich, and who hurts, and cheats, and punishes, and disparages, and harshly judges the poor and middle classes at every turn.

But you can’t help yourselves. You’re not interested in changing a thing — because your party is owned by the greediest of greedy and overwhelmingly white, status quo elites.
And so you will remain, until this nation’s demographics finally overwhelms you and renders you irrelevant.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2013 10:36 PM
Comment #368524

You are correct George in SC. Jimmy Carter won the Southern Baptist vote; which was the last time a lot of Baptist voted for a Democrat president.LOL

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 18, 2013 10:40 PM
Comment #368529

As I explained earlier, it is futile trying to debate facts and logic with Adrienne, she has formed her opinion inside of her echo chamber, reinforced it with dehumanization of those she disagrees with and assigns those dehumans motives that are the most nefarious. And she does so with total inclusion, it’s not possible in her mind that a Republican could be non-racist, ALL Republicans are racists because they don’t support giving minorities special rights/privledge to make up for centuries of mistreatment of other minorities that aren’t alive now…

In her mind it is impossible for Democrats to be racist. Nevermind the fact they support programs that do short term gain and long term harm to them, as long as they can buy their votes, they are the righteous ones. It’s a religion, and she is going by faith. And like discussing anything with anyone concerning religion, logic and facts are incompatible with faith. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called ‘faith’.

And her response to my explanation was?

“I’m rubber and you’re glue”.

*shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2013 12:35 AM
Comment #368534

George in SC,

Lets not try to rewrite history. The South turned on the issue of civil rights. Period. It wasn’t just the 1948 revolt of the Dixiecrats from the Democratic party but the leadership of JFK, LBJ and the Democratic leadership in Congress achieving passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not only did some prominent Southern Democrats switch parties (Strom Thurmond) but the democrats lost Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina had for the first time since Reconstruction in the landslide victory of LBJ in late 1964. That was followed by the Nixon “Southern Strategy” in 1968.

The idea that the South didn’t turn until the 80s is simply false.

Posted by: Rich at July 19, 2013 8:26 AM
Comment #368544

Rich, I’m not re-writing history. Adrienne’s premise is that the “Dixiecrats”, white Southern Democrats, left her wonderful party in mass after the civil rights era of LBJ thereby purging it of the evil and making her feel better about her party. It just didn’t happen.

Using the Presidential election the South voted mostly for Wallace (D) in 1968 with some states voting for Nixon (SC, FL, NC, etc). In ‘72 who didn’t vote for Nixon? Are you saying that in ‘72 the whole country was racist? In ‘76 the South went fully for Carter, and in 1980 and 1984 the entire country again (save probably GA) voted for Reagan after the disaster that was “I don’t know” Jimmy.

It’s even more clear if you use Governors or State Legislators as a key. They remained Democrat well into the 80’s. Jim Edwards (R) won SC in ‘78 by a fluke, but Dick Riley was one of the most popular Governors we ever had through 1987. I’m not saying that there were not white, racist voters opposed to LBJ’s civil rights movement, it’s just that they mostly stayed in the Democratic Party until Reagan. And why would they? As long as they controlled the Democratic Party they controlled the black vote and they controlled black politicians.

There were other changes in the South in the late 80s and early 90s. The plants that had come from the North started packing up and heading to China but the states did a great job of attracting new industries (automotive for one) to re-locate from union States. The South sold family values and quality of life, and we had a very big migration of retirees as well as young professionals.

I live near Charlotte, NC. Ever been there? I’ve got plenty of room so come on down and I’ll show you the sights. I’ll even buy you a beer…

Posted by: George in SC at July 19, 2013 1:17 PM
Comment #368569

I live near Charlotte, NC. Ever been there? I’ve got plenty of room so come on down and I’ll show you the sights. I’ll even buy you a beer…

George in SC,

Thanks, I might take you up on that offer some day. I have a number of friends in NC (Pinehurst area) and have traveled through Charlotte on a number of occasions from my home near Atlanta. Nice area. I have always enjoyed my visits to North Carolina. It is a very dynamic and diverse state.

I also recognize that there may be another interpretation for the transition from solid Democrat to Republican in the South other than simply racism. The following comment is from a respected liberal wonk offering an alternative view. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/08/why-did-the-south-turn-republican/45956/


Posted by: Rich at July 19, 2013 9:12 PM
Comment #368580

Rich

That is a very good article and makes much sense. For those who won’t bother to read it, it says that racism WAS a part of the shift, but in the opposite way. Southerners who would have been Republicans because of their views on economics and decentralization, where held for years in the Democratic party by the Democratic commitment to maintain white supremacy. When Democrats stopped finally doing that, these guys drifted away.

I was thinking about my own and my families generational shift from Democrat to Republican. In the 1960s, we were all Democrats. Now we are all Republicans. If fact, this was a general trend among the white working class. Why?

For me, the race politics of the 1970s made me distrust big government, which was new for people like me. We used to love government programs. My family supported every Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt. It seemed to me in the 1970s that government was not being fair to all the people. Every time I ran into affirmative action or had some politician try to lay a guilt on me, I figured that big government was not on my side.

So, if I am self-aware, I would say that race played a role in my change, but it was not racist. IMO, big government broke trust with people like me on this issue. The working poor, like us, were defined by government bureaucrats as privileged enemy. We were doubly hit, since we were more likely to be less educated an unsophisticated. Affirmative action was designed to harm us. The sons and daughters of the rich were already established. They got their places in top universities and good jobs the old fashioned way - with their influence and better backgrounds. We poor kids depended on test scores and unpolished intelligence. The civil rights movement devalued these things for us.

The perverse results, IMO, was that the rich kids still got into elite places in similar numbers. In fact, they were protected even more, since poor kids like me could beat them on standardized tests, but in a fight that used resumes to “judge the whole person” we were unarmed. Our summer jobs at McDonalds could not compete with internships at Goldman-Sacks.

Today affirmative action creates classes that include lots of rich kids, of all colors - Rich blacks are big beneficiaries of affirmative action - plus a few poor kids of color mostly. Poor kids of white have little chance. They are lumped in with the rich kids of white, who almost always have the advantages of better preparation and stellar resumes.

Posted by: CJ at July 20, 2013 7:17 AM
Post a comment