90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

With Jane Clayson in for Tom Ashbrook.

George Zimmerman found not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter. We look at the legal decision and the reaction from the court of public opinion.

George Zimmerman leaves court with his family after Zimmerman's not guilty verdict was read in Seminole Circuit Court in Sanford, Fla. on Saturday, July 13, 2013. Jurors found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. (AP)

George Zimmerman leaves court with his family after Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict was read in Seminole Circuit Court in Sanford, Fla. on Saturday, July 13, 2013. Jurors found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. (AP)

George Zimmerman is a free man.  Not guilty was the verdict reached Saturday night by the jury after 16 hours of deliberation. Not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter.

His family is relieved. Trayvon Martin’s is heartbroken. And the nation is divided over whether justice was served.  From the beginning the case sparked intense debate about racism, guns, self-defense. Everyone seems to have an opinion of how this case should have been decided. And that debate continues.

This hour, On Point: listening to the Zimmerman verdict

Guests

Yamiche Alcindor, national correspondent for USA Today. (@Yamiche)

Jelani Cobb, contributor to the New Yorker.com. Associate Professor of history and Director of the Institute for American Studies at the University of Connecticut. (@jelani9)

Stacey Cole Ibara, attorney at the Gunster law firm and former Florida state-wide prosecutor and Assistant State Attorney.

David Folkenflik, media correspondent for NPR. (@davidfolkenflik)

From The Reading List

The Tampa Tribune: Verdict emotional for black community — “As the verdict came in late Saturday night that George Zimmerman was not guilty of killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the reaction in the black community was a mix of despair, anger and caution. Families with young male teenagers particularly felt pained by the verdict.”

Miami Herald: State never proved its case, legal analysts say — “After five weeks of trial and 56 witnesses, few legal observers believed prosecutors came close to proving Sanford neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012.”

The New Yorker: George Zimmerman, Not Guilty: Blood on the Leaves – “The not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial came down moments after I left a screening of ‘Fruitvale Station,’ a film about the police-shooting death of Oscar Grant four years ago in Oakland. Much of the audience sat quietly sobbing as the closing credits rolled, moved by the narrative of a young black man, unarmed and senselessly gone. Words were not needed to express a common understanding: to Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, the seventeen-year-old he shot, fit the description; for black America, the circumstances of his death did.”

 

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

    If someone was really hateful of a person or race they could create a scenario where they harassed their intended victim so much that the victim became an aggressor. When that happened the perpetrator could reach for his gun, kill his victim and say he was standing his ground.I hope the Stand Your Ground law has provisions that minimize the possibility of this from happening.

    • Wm_James_from_Missouri

      Open carry is the answer to that.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        Not carrying guns is the answer to that.

        • Wm_James_from_Missouri

          A world filled with love is the ultimate answer.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            A world filled with security cameras everywhere is the practical answer.

          • Wm_James_from_Missouri

            The NSA is on it.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            The NSA will save us all!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            no they will just save our communications information.

          • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

            1984-Telescreens, most prominently featured in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four as well as all film adaptations of the novel, aretelevision and security camera-like devices used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah those work great. that’s why that soldier in London was not hacked to death in front of a police cc camera. fool

          • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

            From ”
            The Ministry of Love.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yes then Zimmerman may have just been beaten to death and made page 5 in the local paper and we would never have heard about it.

    • John_in_Amherst

      keep hoping.  The ways the Florida laws are written regarding Stand Your Ground, second degree murder or manslaughter, Zimmerman WAS not guilty.  This does not speak to his innocence, but to the depraved nature of the way those laws are written.  It is impossible to imagine this verdict if the races of the victim and shooter were reversed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        stand your ground law was not cited in the Zimmerman case and was not a factor at all.  if travon could afford a lawyer and the evidence was the same there is no reason to believe he would have been convicted. no evidence is no evidence

        • Prairie_W

          Thanks to the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman didn’t have to take the stand.

          NYTimes:

          “From the start, prosecutors faced a difficult case — weak on evidence
          and long on outrage. Mr. Zimmerman had the power of self-defense laws on
          his side, and was helped by a spotty police investigation and
          prosecutorial missteps. The initial investigation foundered when the
          local prosecutor balked at bringing charges, convinced that overcoming
          the self-defense claims would prove impossible.”

          “The only version of events came from Mr. Zimmerman, who did not take the
          stand, denying prosecutors a chance to cross-examine him. His
          statements to the police spoke for him at the trial.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            100% wrong. the stand your ground law was not used by the defense. all criminal defendants have a 5th amendment right not to testify and no defense lawyer in his right mind would ever put their client on the stand. you can credit the police or poor prosecution (who went as far as breaking the law themselves withholding evidence exculpatory to Zimmerman) but can you consider the possibility they did not get a conviction because he did nothing criminal? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      an aggressor is not a victim by definition. it does not matter what someone says to you you do not ever have a right to physically attack them. its a crime

  • Larry McAwful

    Great.  Now we’re going to see more pistol-packing yahoos with homemade tin badges heading out looking for more people with too much melanin in their skin.  We’re certainly not going to see riots over this, but it’s a great day for pistol-packing yahoos.  And George Zimmerman is their patron saint.

    • Wm_James_from_Missouri

      What sane mind would want to go through was Zimmerman has or what Trayvon Martin did ?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      is that what happened?

  • Coastghost

    (I am SO glad not to be watching television these days, listening to NPR coverage is ordeal enough.)
    My concern is that grief being expressed by black America to the Zimmerman verdict is at least somewhat disproportionate. I understand black Americans’ sensitivity to white-on-black violence (I claim equally to understand white Americans’ sensitivity to black-on-white violence): but I fail completely to understand black Americans’ insensitivity to black-on-black violence (or is NPR simply not reporting it?).
    The (Federal) Bureau of Justice Statistics has compiled data for the 1976 to 2005 period (Google “black-on-black murders” for links) which have been reported in the past year in both WaPo and WSJ articles (the WaPo article conflates CDC data, I think, for the period 2000 to 2010). As reported: some 85% of white male homicide victims are killed by other white males, while between 93% and 94% of black male homicide victims are killed by other black males. I’m no statistician, but these figures tell me that a black male being murdered has a better than 9 out of 10 chance of being killed by another black male and a less than 1 in 10 chance (almost a 1 in 20 chance) of being killed by a white male.
    So again, my question: is the grief being expressed by black America over the Zimmerman verdict proportionate to what these data show? What explains the seeming insensitivity of black Americans to the blight or plague of black-on-black murders? (I don’t hear these questions being asked or answered by NPR.)

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577496501048197464.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/trayvon-martin-one-year-later-when-will-black-on-black-murders-get-the-attention-they-deserve/2013/02/26/f3c1fa4a-7fa1-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      Nonsense. The media reports what it reports. People react to it. To act like their is too much grief expressed to a reported news story and too little to a new story not reported makes no sense. That is like saying, why is there all this grief expressed at the four killed in the Boston Marathon bombing and aftermath and little expressed at the more than four killed in automobile accidents that day? Stories that never received national news attention. 

      • Coastghost

        I invite you to expand your consciousness a tad further to observe that I’m citing “reported” (and compiled) data and sources that have reported the data (including NPR’s go-to source WaPo): the data may’ve been under-reported, but don’t blame me. Why would responsible black leaders not be acquainted with these data and/or why would they fail in the exercise of their leadership to acquaint all of us (black and white) with these data? Surely they are not interested in diverting attention or distracting anyone from the problem cited?

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          You are jumping from national news stories, to public grief, to statistical data charts, to public leaders, to public policy, and in the process making no point at all. To act like there is public grief to a national news story, and therefore less crime reduction programs in urban areas is just wrong. It is not an either/or proposition. There is no utilitarian calculation here. 

        • StilllHere

          A full examination of this issue might negatively impact rap song sales.

      • Wm_James_from_Missouri

        I’ll call your nonsense and raise you one !
        The media reports what they think will sell. They are in business to sell news. I would be willing to place a side bet that there was other news that day, that will impact society more in the long run but was not in saleable vogue !

        • John Cedar

          You are not paying attention to Nielsen ratings vs media content, if you believe what you are saying.

    • HonestDebate1

      If Obama had a son, he would look like a murderer. As a (half) black man that would seem to be a fact he could sell, a point he could make, that would be timely and relevant. I would prefer he not. I would rather he take race out of the equation and focus on gangs. There seems to be an acceptance born out of low expectations for certain demographics. That’s very upsetting to me.

      Also regarding low expectations, I expected the black community to react to the verdict without violence but many did not. IMO the PSA was highly insulting. When people have low expectations of others it can only mean they have low opinions of them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        I think that if travon had been a white kid with the tweets and subject matter on his phone there would be a lot of “where were the parents?” type hand wringing. as it is I have not heard any of that in the media

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002355053321 Ping Eye Hacker

    So you’ve got this failed security guard/wannabee cop who uses hostile,
    hateful profiling language in his 911 call, clearly looking for a
    confrontation. Gets out of his vehicle after being told not to, then
    when Martin gets the best of him, he “stands his ground” and kills the
    boy.

    Based on how I understand manslaughter, what really counts is that
    Zimmerman was armed and he used that firearm to kill an unarmed person in a confrontation that he – Zimmerman – initiated.
    If the jury understood this, does that not make this jury nullification?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how did he initiate the assault?

  • Michiganjf

    Zimmerman may have been acquitted,

    but he followed a kid against a police dispatcher’s request, shot the kid for no good reason, and he’s likely screwed the rest of his life up for it.

    Like Zimmerman’s brother says (paraphrased), “now he has a REAL reason to be paranoid for his life…”

    That’s right… now he can live in fear of being recognized and facing retribution of one kind or another.

    Whether the threat is real or not, he’ll live a paranoid life, and there will always be a sizeable portion of the populace who looks on him as human trash.

    Had I been on the jury, I would have found it hard to get past the fact that he followed the kid for no good reason, against the dispatcher’s request, and wholly created the incident through his own bigoted zeal to be a “tough guy” and put a black kid “in his place.”

    What an idiot… enjoy the “life” you’ve created for yourself.

    BTW, I’m all for gun rights and a “stand your ground” type law when it comes to home defense, but chasing an innocent kid around and initiating an incident is a whole other matter, and something should be done about Republican legislators turning half this country into their version of “the wild west.”

    • http://profiles.google.com/barry.kort Barry Kort

      Zimmerman now has to live with the Mark of Cain.

      • 1Brett1

        Great, more personal blog pimping.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I think “chasing” and “no good reason” are innacurate descriptions at best. if some one is smashing your head into the  ground then that’s a good reason to defend yourself

      • Michiganjf

        Oh, I didn’t realize he started “chasing for no good reason” AFTER he says he had his head “smashed ” against the cement… gee, great point.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i am not sure what you are talking about. this is the first time i have heard someone allege there was a chase. someone smashing your head into the ground is a good reason to defend yourself

          • sickofthechit

             At 2:06 on the tape You can hear Zimmerman beginning to run in pursuit of Trayvon if you listen to the 911 tape.  The audio difference is definite and within about 10 seconds the dispatcher realizes from the change in audio that Zimmerman is running and then asks him if he is following the person, when Zimmerman says “yes” the dispatcher then tells him “We don’t need you to do that”.  Zimmerman continues running for a bit, but by this time he has lost track of Trayvon.  Then the next minute or so is Zimmerman sounding like a lost person trying to give directions, and he refuses to tell the dispatcher where he will be to meet the police and instead says “can’t they just call me when they get here”.  I would speculate his intent was to find Trayvon again.  Maybe visions of a heroic citizen’s arrest danced in his head….

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            that’s a nice bit of speculation. since he was 500 yards from home and Zimmerman had “lost track” of travon why did he not make it home? unless he circled back he should have been “home free” as it were. 
            is your theory that Zimmerman, like a cheetah, chased the younger fitter man down and then somehow got in front of him and pulled him on top of him and then shot him in the chest?

          • John_in_Amherst

             Is it not plausible that when Martin heard he was being pursued, he chose to NOT let trouble follow him to his doorstep and endanger his family?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            fine, then stay put and call the police. or ask the person why he is following you or tell them to eff off. you cant just attack people and if you do you get what you get

          • John_in_Amherst

            right.  And if your pursuer is intent on robbing or harming you, I’m sure a curse word or polite “Excuse me, why are you following me?” will protect you from harm, or at least persuade them to wait for the police to arrive and intervene in any ensuing assault…

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            in what case does it make sense to circle back around and attack the person following you after they have lost track of you?

  • 1Brett1

    Oh, yeah, what a fun forum this will be…and I see the program is hosted by our very own Jayne Clayson; she’ll be a barrel of laughs, as always….to paraphrase Mr. Ashbrook: the fun never stops at On Point!

  • hennorama

    As I wrote in the Week In The News forum, having not seen the entirety of the evidence, I shan’t express an opinion as to the Zimmerman ‘not guilty’ verdict.

    As I have also expressed in the WITN forum, Mr. Zimmerman is no doubt breathing the biggest sigh of relief he ever has in his life.

    One hopes that he appreciates that he is indeed still breathing, and that he has at least some modicum of regret for having ended any opportunity for one young man to breathe ever again.

    One wishes too that all involved have the Five F’s to fall back upon – family, faith, friends, fortitude and forgiveness of self and others.

  • Yar

    Living in gated communities, gerrymandered and polarized legislative districts, unable to pass immigration reform or a farm bill. We need lessons on being neighborly. Did you hear a sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan yesterday?  It was this Sunday’s lectionary passage.  Why are people afraid?  This is the crisis facing our country right now. Who is your neighbor? More importantly who have you decided isn’t? Why was the institutional church afraid of Jesus? We are sill afraid of the message he preached!

    • donniethebrasco

       If you follow me in your neighborhood, I will beat the crap out of you.

      You better not be carrying a gun or else you will be guilty of murder.

      • hennorama

        Yet another example of the wisdom of the use of the little [Collapse thread] minus sign whenever donnietheboob’s name appears in the gray box, above.

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    I find that what’s being said (“We are all Trayvon” as an example) is not as
    interesting as what isn’t being said. According to the media the majority of our
    country is “outraged” by this acquittal and believes GZ is guilty. I submit for
    your consideration that there is a significant percentage of our population who
    doesn’t feel this way, that they agree with the verdict, but remain silent
    because to express their opinion would label them racists. The media will
    continue to focus on this “outrage” because no-one wants to state publicly a
    contrary view and be thus labeled. Open and frank discussion on this topic? I’m
    still waiting to hear it.

  • Wahoo_wa

    There will never be a balanced examination of this news item on On Point.

    • John_in_Amherst

       because?

      • Wahoo_wa

        The story was race baited from the beginning and the full facts of the case will be ignored in favor of a politically motivated and tragically biased narrative. 

        • HonestDebate1

          Dadgum, it took me a weekend of blogging to say what you just did in one sentence. Well said.

          • dust truck

            I had to look up what Dadgum means on Urbandictionary.com

            “Rednecks frequently use this word when Nascar gets replaced by Iraq war Coverage. ”

            Mhmm…

          • Wahoo_wa

            The reference you use says more about you than it does about others.

          • sickofthechit

             Actually Dadgum is simply that.  Your Dad’s gum.

          • 1Brett1

            Don’t sell yourself short; you showed us liberals up with a thing or two this weekend…who knows, today you might just give us a real good piece a’ yur mind like ya did to them dadgum liberals on that radio show, back in aught 3, up there in Raleigh or Durham or wherever t’was. 

        • dust truck

          “Full facts of the case will be ignored”  What, like the facts you choose to ignore?  
          Oh wait, don’t bother replying: I know the Republican response… “I’m not racist!  YOU’RE racist for SAYING I’m racist.”

          • Wahoo_wa

            We have a winner folks!!!!  First really ignorant reply…congratulations!  You’ve won a lifetime of delusion!

          • dust truck

            Delusion?  Who’s ignoring facts here? Tell me, when you look out the window, what color is the sky?  (hint: whatever Rush Limbaugh tells you it is.)

        • 1Brett1

          Race was not brought up in the trial, well except for something Trayvon Martin supposedly said and he’s now dead. Plus, Zimmerman WAS found not guilty. When you bring up “facts of the case…ignored” in favor of race baiting, you’re not talking about the trial. 

          I suppose he should never have been arrested in the first place?

          • Wahoo_wa

            I didn’t say I was talking about the trial.  What I stated was “There will never be a balanced examination of this news item on On Point.”  I then followed that up with the reason why.  Try to keep up.

          • 1Brett1

            And I was clarifying your statement. Was the trial itself important to this “story” or not?

          • Wahoo_wa

            I think I can speak for myself thank you.  My comment needs no clarification.  On Point has slanted the story from the beginning, as have several other news outlets on both the left and the right.  That was my original point and it stands as stated.

          • 1Brett1

            Slanted the story how? Have they not presented it in the way your narrative would like the story to go? 

  • John_in_Amherst

    In
    the wake of the Trayvon Martin murder trial, Florida has just declared a
    people-hunting season. All you have to do for a license is harass
    someone until they hit you, at which point it is apparently OK to blow
    them away. It is VERY hard to imagine the verdict going this way if the races of those involved were reversed
     

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “harassed until you feel it necessary to take aggressive action”
      you don’t have a right to hit anyone unless they hit you first. end of story. do you really think its legal or ok to attack someone because you think they are following you?
      should we really be concerned with protecting people who go around hitting others? 

      • dust truck

        waving a gun in someones face is agressive action.  Or, wait, I’m sorry, is that like telling someone “I love you?”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          there is no account of the incident that I have heard where George Zimmerman waves a gun in Travon’s face. that’s a complete fabrication. its clear this kid was stupid but do you really think he was so stupid he attacked someone with a pistol drawn on him?

          • John_in_Amherst

             The time line, based on the phone records, indicate this event played out over several minutes while Zimmerman stalked Martin.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “stalked” that’s a funny word. can you describe what you mean by that?

          • John_in_Amherst

            Stalk:
            1.) to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
            Martin observed he was being stalked, and in so doing could well have seen a gun, either in Zimerrman’s pants, or in his hand.  Do YOU know the inside details of whether Zimmerrman was holding his gun, or not?  Again, if you were being stalked, and saw the stalker was armed, what would your reaction be??

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well clearly if he was stealthy then martin could not have got the jump on him so by your definition he was not stalking anyone.
            I can use my brain to figure this one out easy. if I am in a situation where someone is pointing a gun at me and I cannot run away or talk my out of the situation then I will focus my efforts on gaining control of the firearm I would never try to punch a man in with a gun in the face or try to tackle them. would it make sense if someone was pointing a gun at you to hit them in the face or tackle them? if you were the one with the gun and it was out would you wait until you were on the ground and having your head smashed to fire it? use logic. look at the physical evidence. this is not a difficult mystery to crack

          • John_in_Amherst

             attempting stealth and avoiding detection are 2 different things

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            then he was attempting to stalk not actually stalking according to your definition. was he in the wrong to want to observe a stranger in his neighborhood? is your theory that he was going to murder travon in cold blood and travon knew this but due to his lack of stealth travon got the drop on him? but that would mean travon would have to be pretty stealthy to get the drop on him and since he found zimerman and zim did not find him then he must have pursued Zimmerman. so travon was stealthy pursuing Zimmerman. sounds more like travon was the one who did the stalking

      • John_in_Amherst

        Next time you are out for a stroll at night and someone of another race, with a gun tucked in their pants, is stealthily following you for a while, let me know if you are tempted to hit first & ask questions later.  Zimmerman was not a cop and had no right to demand ID or to stop Martin, and was told NOT to by the police dispatcher.  Further, he had a history of this stuff.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          well I am not a racist so I don’t care if its a person of another race. if there is a gun in their pants how would I know that?  i would never hit first and ask questions later. that’s illegal and also stupid as this case demonstrates. the best thing to do in that case would be to run away and or call the police. the worst thing to do would be to circle around and assault the guy.
           demand id? where did you come up with that idea? that’s a funny fabrication you get points for creativity.
          “a history of this stuff” oh is there a pile of dead black teens in his yard? what “stuff” does he have a history of? 

          • John_in_Amherst

             Well, in case you missed it, there is a history of racism in the South.  Zimmerman had 6 other instances of calling in reports on “suspicious lack youths”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes, half Peruvian southerners have been oppressing travons people for generations. the guy must be a racist because he lives in the south? I wonder how paula dean never got found out sooner if that’s true.
            so are you saying he called the police on the youths because they were black and not because they were suspicious? if only he lived closer to a trailer park he might have had an opportunity to call in some suspicious white youths. tragic
            note also, you said this :
            “Zimmerman was not a cop and had no right to demand ID .”
            private citizens have a right to talk to whomever they wish in public, what the heck are you talking about?
            also what evidence is there that Zimmerman stopped or interrogated Travon?

          • John_in_Amherst

             Right to Talk, yes – I never said he had no right to talk.  Stalk, well, technically I suppose that’s legal as well.  But had he demanded ID or interrogated Martin, Martin did not have a responsibility to answer, and would have been within his right to tell Zimmerman to F off.  But then we will never know Martin’s side of the story because Zimmerman killed him.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            actually he has a right to tell him to eff off or say nothing in any case. as long as we agree that Zimmerman did not do anything illegal or that justified being physically attacked

          • John_in_Amherst

             stalking, then chasing at a run are reasons to assume mal-intent in my book, and according to FL law, if someone has reason to believe they are being threatened, they are justified in using non-lethal force..

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you really think Zimmerman could catch martin in a foot chase? how do you think he was able to catch him after he lost track of him? sprinting? do you agree that martin came back after zim lost track of him?

      • John_in_Amherst

        OK, scratch “take aggressive action” and substitute “defend yourself”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          of course you should defend yourself. i am not sure what exactly you mean by harass. perhaps you could provide an example of that that would justify a physical assault. if someone is saying hurtful things you should say “that’s not true”  or “I am rubber you are glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”or even feel free to say hurtful things back if that’s your thing. you are not allowed to physically assault other people. its a crime. this is a simple concept even children can understand. whomever hits the other first is at fault

          • John_in_Amherst

             Reason to fight?  how’s being pursued by an unknown assailant whom you notice is armed?  See Newton the Whale, above

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            how can you know if a person with a concealed weapon is armed?  your scenario sounds like one in which the best tactic is to keep running away, not to circle around once you are out of sight of the person and the go back and jump them. If I am walking up the street minding my own business I don’t know why I would start running in the first place for there to even be a pursuit.

          • John_in_Amherst

             depends on how well -or if – the weapon is concealed.
            Right.  People only get mugged or robbed or randomly attacked if they aren’t “minding their own business”.   
            If you are walking home and someone starts following you, first at a distance, then at a run as you attempt to evade them, do you assume it is for a friendly chat?  Especially if you happened to notice the handle of a gun protruding from their pants?  And would you choose to lead them to the doorstep of your family, where they could then involve your whole family in violence, or to preempt their attack?  To repeat, you are relying on Zimmerman’s story, not facts.  And Martin’s story died with him.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            why would I attempt to evade anyone? perhaps I dropped my wallet and they are trying to return it to me? maybe they want to know if I have seen their lost puppy?

            zims gun was in a conceal carry holster, not in his waistband. anyway how am I going to see their pants if I am running away? what facts (physical evidence or other evidence) are there that disprove zims story? what alternative story would produce the same evidence? in what case is my most logical choice, after by all accounts I had gotten away, to circle around and jump on the person who had been chasing me?
            did you really just claim that citizens have an individual right to preemptive violence?

          • John_in_Amherst

            Concealed carry holsters are not invisible.

             You notice someone furtively following you at night and you assume the best?  Good luck with that, especially  when they don’t call out to say “oh here’s your wallet, puppy, etc? or identify themselves?  right.

            Alternative story: Martin steps into a shadow to evade his stalker, and reemerges to ask “Why are you following me?”, whereupon Zimmerman draws his weapon and points it at Martin, who lunges at him to get it away, or just escape.  In the ensuing scuffle, the men fall to the ground, punching and wrestling each other until the gun goes off and Martin dies.   Zimmerman concocts a storyline , and since Martin is dead, no one can dispute it.  How convenient for Zimmerman.  Had Zimmerman followed the direction of the dispatcher to not follow Martin, to wait until the police arrived to do their job, Martin would be alive.  But No, he wanted to play cop.  And he chose a gun – not a camera or taser or pepper spray, or other non-lethal means of aiding the police in their job.  Your apologies for this jerk are weak at best.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            they are designed to be. that’s the point of them. can you spot one if you know what to look for? sometimes.
            can you do it at night while fleeing a racist murderer? doubtful.
            I can’t think of any case where I would start running from someone in the situation you describe. I am not a teenager and unless its someone who is a lot older or less fit than me I doubt I could out run them.  I can’t imagine any case where I would beat down the person apropos of any other hostile actions. I was actually in a situation like that once a guy came up to me and my buddy in an alley in a very aggressive manner. both my friend and I were alarmed and prepared to defend ourselves. turned out the guy was just drunk and was actually lost and just wanted directions.
            in you scenario Zimmerman must be a genius if he can come up with a story that perfectly comports with all the physical evidence and he did so on the fly and keeps it so straight for 6 hours of interrogation that the police let him go without charges and even held up in a very public murder trial that occurs only because of media and political pressure.
            also if there was a struggle for the gun why so many blows to zimmermans head and face and not his wrist or arm?
            had any of a million things been different that night this may not have happened. had travon had his pot for the day he might not have been so ready to pop off.  this is just like every other tragedy that is so preventable in hindsight.
             cameras and tasers and pepper spray are of limited use against meth heads,  crack addicts, and gun toting gangbangers. take a camera to a gun fight, let me know how that turns out. I have not apologized for anything.

          • John_in_Amherst

            “Neighborhood watch” program is not the same as neighborhood armed vigilante program.  Zimmerman was a self-styled vigilante, he was not just watching the neighborhood, he was out for action.    And he was shielded from responsibility by the FL statutes  regarding SYG and manslaughter

      • NewtonWhale

        You are, quite simply, wrong when you say “you don’t have a right to hit anyone unless they hit you first.”

        Florida law permitted Martin to strike Zimmerman if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to defend himself:

        “776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”

        http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

        Your disagreement is not so much with John in Amherst as with Florida.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          did you read what you pasted?
           against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”
          see how it does not say, “against creepy ass crackers who are eyeballing you.”
          what imminent threat  of unlawful force did Zimmerman pose to travon before travon started beating him?
          an imminent threat is a person swinging a bat at you, you have to be able to prove your reasonable belief you were in danger. I also notice it says “except deadly force” yet martin engaged a deadly weapon(the ground) in his attempt to take zimmermans life. furthermore this not a case in which travon is the defendant so its irrelevant. if he were in court charged with something it would be relevant

          • NewtonWhale

            Yes, I read it. Do you remember what you wrote? Let me remind you:

            “you don’t have a right to hit anyone unless they hit you first. end of story”

            As the Florida statute makes clear, your statement is NOT accurate, and is NOT the end of the story.

            Sweeping statements like yours, made by persons who are ignorant of the law, are worse than useless.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I was keeping it simple and making the point that you cannot respond to a person following you or asking you a question or insulting you in some way with violence and call it self defense.  the exception is very narrow  does not apply in this case and hard to prove unless its a very clear threat. can you shoot someone who pulls a gun or a knife on you? sure. can you jump a crazy ass cracker who was following you? no

          • NewtonWhale

            You do not know that Martin jumped Zimmerman without provocation. 

            You do not know whether Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn. If he did, the Florida statute would have entitled Martin to use force to disarm Zimmerman.The reason you don’t know is because Martin is dead and Zimmerman did not testify. The many, varied, and conflicting reports he gave out of court were never subjected to cross examination.What we know for certain is that Martin was doing nothing wrong, had a right to be where he was and would not have been shot dead if Zimmerman had kept himself and his gun in his vehicle.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            provocation is not justification. how could Zimmerman have “provoked” him in such a way as to justify martin jumping Zimmerman?
            so you think he approached with gun drawn then what happened? did travon then jump him, ignore the gun, and concentrate on pounding his face and smashing his head?
            or do you think he approached with a gun drawn then put it back and pulled if from his holster again during the fight as the evidence shows? if you have a gun drawn on someone how are they going to be able to inflict so much damage on you before they you a shot off? if you are clearly winning a fight with a man with a gun in his hand(despite the unlikeliness of that), and for some reason he has not shot you why would you not disarm him?
            how do we know for certain that martin did nothing wrong? he was not exactly a choir boy, he was a kid spiraling dangerously out of control

          • NewtonWhale

            You seem heavily invested in demonizing a 17 year old black kid who had done nothing wrong and had every right to be where he was.
            Why is that?

  • Jon

    Stand you ground law is a classic rule of the jungle – an inherent product of democracy. Whoever survives at the end of a fight is the winner, the might and the ‘good’ guy with ‘justice’.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      was the stand your ground law a factor in the Zimmerman case?

      • Jon

        if not, what else?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          it was specifically not a defense used in this case and therefor 100% irrelevant. the defense in this case was just plain old self defense because that’s what it was.

  • Markus6

    This could be a good case for determining who’s ignorant of the law and who’s not. Almost all the legal experts I heard said there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. I think it’s obvious there wasn’t enough, though I do think he was guilty. This doesn’t mean Zimmerman’s innocent, just that he couldn’t be convicted.

    So, if you hear someone saying he should be in jail, they’re probably in that same group that can’t find the mid-east on a map, or if it’s a pundit, they’re part of the industry that lives off people’s interest to think of themselves as victims. And I am no longer surprised by how many people interpret bad things happening to them as someone’s out to get them. 

    Finally, it seems inherently unfair for groups to bury someone in litigation after they’re found not guilty. Zimmerman may be a creep, but to ruin the rest of his life by dragging him into civil suits seems wrong. Lance Armstrong did this to those who accused him of doping. He had the money for a legal team who could ruin someone’s life who he didn’t like, simply by requiring them to bankrupt themselves as they attempted to defend themselves. And yes, I understand the burden of proof is different, but once someone’s found not guilty, seems like double jeopardy to have to defend yourself endlessly against what are close to the same charges. I’d say the same thing about OJ Simpson. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lucky for him in Florida the self defense law gives you immunity from civil suits. knowing the law does help

      • dust truck

        civil suits related to wrongful death… not a hate-crimes suit.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          that’s a stretch

          • jefe68

            You should read up. Trayvon Martin’s parents have settled a wrongful death claim with the homeowners association of the Retreat at Twin Lakes.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and what do you read into that? sounds meaningless to me

  • HonestDebate1

    Why does Angela Corey still have a job?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      hopefully she will go  to jail for trying to cover up her crime of withholding exculpatory evidence

    • Jon

      why didn’t she opt for manslaughter charge which could’ve won? could be a conspiracy?

      • donniethebrasco

         She did try for the manslaughter charge too.

        Face facts, George Zimmerman was defending himself.

        • Jon

          yeah that was the day before the jury delivery.

        • Jon

          yeah right, harassing and pissing off people then kill them way to go

          • donniethebrasco

            You support the argument that following someone is “showing disrespect” and justifies getting your ass beat?

          • Jon

            therefore, everybody should arm themselves – fair and square see who is fast to draw. how is that?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I bet everyone would be a lot more polite, even teenagers might think twice before assaulting  strangers.  those who did so would not make that mistake more than once.  it sounds like paradise

          • Jon

            godspeed

          • jefe68

            That’s not the kind of world I want to live in.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            where people are polite and teens do not attack strangers? really that does not sound good to you?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            pissing people off is not a crime and does not justify them assaulting you

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah what kind of a world is it when you can’t beat someone to death for pissing you off?

          • Jon

            jungle world

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            is that some sort of racist aspersion?

          • Jon

            no, it’s your dream world.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I thought it was New Hampshire

          • Jon

            How did you like Django Unchained?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I have not seen it yet is it good?

          • Jon

            sure it’s your archetypal world.

        • HonestDebate1

          She had to ask for the option, against the objection of the defense, after it became clear 2nd degree murder was an unprovable charge.

    • jefe68

      Good question. She’s one of the worst prosecutors I’ve ever seen.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        most are bad but she takes the cake for bowing to media and political pressure and then having the audacity to try to hide exculpatory evidence and then firing the guy who blew the whistle on her for that. seems like every time the national spotlight is focused on a Florida official the glare has a negative effect on their heavy makeup

    • hennorama

      HeDebatesNot – Angela Corey is an elected official –Florida State Attorney, 4th Judicial Circuit.

      She was first elected in 2008 after getting 65% of the votes in the Republican primary. Since there was no Democratic candidate, this meant the Republican primary was the ultimate election.

      Sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey#cite_note-9

      http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=8/26/2008&DATAMODE=

      http://florida-issues.blogspot.com/2008/08/candidate-profiles-4th-judicial-circuit.html

      • HonestDebate1

        She should be disbarred… and I don’t debate sNot, I debate liberals, quit bashing them.

  • jefe68

    I wonder how many people are aware that Trayvon Martin’s parents have settled a wrongful death claim with the homeowners association of the Retreat at Twin Lakes. 

    • Jon

      this is bogus argument by questioning plaintiffs personal character instead of focusing on the issue.

      • jefe68

        How so? It’s a fact. It might have baring any future civil litigation on Zimmerman. 

        • Jon

          An ad hominem (“against the person”) argument is one that attacks the opponent as a person, rather than his or her arguments.

          an example: “The Republicans say we should shrink the
          deficit and cut down on government spending. But these are the same people who cranked up the deficit by getting us into two wars simultaneously. These are the same people who cranked up the deficit by passing tax breaks for the rich. These are the people who gave us the Bush years of spending more massive than any preceding administration of either party.”

          • jefe68

            So now you use a false equivalency about something that is off subject.

            I’m talking about a civil case against Zimmerman. You, for some reason think this is an ad hominem attack against you? Someone else? Zimmerman? 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          that sounds revealing but does it have any bearing?

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    were any details released?

  • donniethebrasco

    This will be a show about how to make sure that Zimmerman gets put in jail no matter what.

    If someone is following you, you have a right to confront them, beat them up, and expect that they won’t defend themselves.

    Especially if they are white and you are black.

  • apaddler

    If you are walking through your own community, and someone is following you, then confronts you, do you have a right to stand your ground?

    If that person has a gun and the only weapons you have with which to defend yourself are your hands, do you have a right to stand your ground?

    • donniethebrasco

      That is the motorcycle vs 18 wheeler question – You may have the right of way, but if you are a motorcycle, you will be the dead one.

      Now, the 18 wheeler may be charged with violating a traffic rule, but the motorcycle should drive defensively.

      If you are armed with your hands, don’t be the aggressor.

      If Trayvon was shot before he beat the crap out of George Zimmerman, I’d agree with his prosecution.  But beating anyone up without knowing whether or not they have a gun is a mistake.

      Zimmerman didn’t pull out the gun until he was on the ground and Trayvon was beating him up.

      • apaddler

        Oh!  You were there, then. I thought only two people knew what happened there.  Trayvon and Zimmerman.

        • donniethebrasco

          No, if I am driving a motorcycle, I drive defensively around a 18 wheeler.

          If I planned to kill Trayvon Martin, I pull out the gun before he kicks my ass.

          • apaddler

             So Zimmerman DID plan to kill Martin.

          • donniethebrasco

            The gun came out while George was getting the crap beaten out of him.

            Not before.

          • apaddler

             So you WERE there!

            Poor planning on Zimmerman’s part.

            At least it was loaded and cocked.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            a stand your ground defense was not used in this case. if Zimmerman was beating travon and he had a gun he could defend himself with it. I think we would have had an different out come in this case if travon was armed then the story would be: local man gunned down, page 5.

            good thing that travon did not have the gun he was holding in that picture on his phone or else instead of beating Zimmerman he probably would have just shot him 

          • apaddler

            From what I understand you are right — “stand your ground” was not used as a defense.  It was just said he was defending himself.  And so was Martin.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            martin was only defending himself if he was being physically harmed first by Zimmerman.  citizens do not have a right to preemptively attack one another. the rule of the best defense is a good offense does not apply in a legal sense. it is not defending yourself to hit someone first

          • apaddler

            I suppose you could wait until you are staring down a pistol barrel.  And maybe he was.

            Seems the wise thing to do is SHOOT FIRST!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            no evidence of that.
            as to your second point that is bad advice

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          there are also the eye witness accounts and physical evidence that all points to the  same conclusion

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, some eyewitness accounts conflicted with each other; they didn’t “all” point “to the same conclusion.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            there was no alternative conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence jentels testimony notwithstanding

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      by “stand your ground” do you mean jump them and beat their head into the ground? I think its pretty clear that you have neither a legal or moral right to do that.
      I need to know more about what you mean exactly by “confront”
      if you are still using the above definition and the question is can you beat a man just because he has a gun? the answer to that question is no.
      I answered your questions will you answer mine? if there is a sketchy stranger wandering around your neighborhood is there any thing wrong with keeping an eye on them? is there anything wrong with asking someone on the street “how’s it going?” do any of these things justify a beating or nullify ones right to defend oneself?

      • apaddler

         A lot of people living in my neighborhood are “sketchy”.  If you want to know the definition of “confront”, get a dictionary.
        If the guy who’s asking “how’s it going” has been following me, I might be prepared to “stand my ground”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I hope you keep an eye on them.  I was hoping for more of a specific definition to this case. what exactly do you believe that Zimmerman did to Travon when you say he confronted him?
          by “stand my ground” do you mean that in that situation you would physically attack the person and pummel them into the ground? would that be the right thing to do? would it be a smart thing to do?
          if you mean what to stand one’s ground actually means and you would not run away from them then that’s fine why should you have to run from a curious stranger?

  • donniethebrasco

    It is so unfortunate that black men are attacking white women to support the prejudice that blacks are violent.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/millburn-home-invasion-video_n_3495317.html

  • donniethebrasco

    They didn’t even charge Zimmerman with assault.

    Self-defense is self-defense.

  • Beyond_The_Political_Spectrum

    These comments and the verdict reflect the reality of the “Two Americas” were often here so much about….one based on two histories, one black, and one white.

    “The Zimmerman Verdict And Our Dueling Perspectives”

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what about Hispanics like Zimmerman which America are they in? which of the two are Asian, Native American or pacific islander?

  • Bluejay2fly

    Trayvon would still be alive had he just kept walking and did not get physical with GZ. Trayvon should have used his words and his thoughts to counter GZ’s paranoid stalking and not employed fists or fury. We excuse children for lashing out with violence because we can exert some control over them ,but once they become young adults the situation changes drastically, especially when they become armed. On any given day there are thousands of people running around the streets of America that if when you disrespect them will stab you, shoot you, or beat you half to death. If this “pride” value system is what you embrace then you are destined for the prison yard or cemetery. Trayvon looked and acted like a street thug and is dead. He therefore should take personal responsibility for his own death. While these are harsh sentiments for TM most feel even more disdain for Zimmerman who comes across as a coward, loser, wannabe, racist that laid the groundwork for this tragedy.

  • NrthOfTheBorder

    Are we now a society so fragmented, the disenfranchised so violent, that “stand your ground” and this jury nullification are yet another descent into the jungle where it’s every for himself, or it’s kill or be killed?

    • donniethebrasco

      This was not jury nullification.  They believed that George was defending himself.

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        I don’t doubt that.  But in the totality of this story, what does it say about the society we have become?   

        • donniethebrasco

          Where someone beats the crap out of you because you are following him?

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Merely following him down the walkway – minding his own business?  But, don’t get me wrong – Mr Martin obviously had no better idea how to avoid trouble than Mr. Zimmerman. 

      • 1Brett1

        Nope, they didn’t have enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt he committed murder or self defense. We don’t know what the jurors “believed.”

    • OnPointComments

      “Stand Your Ground” was not asserted in this case.  The vast majority of experts agree that the State did not prove its case, and that ‘not guilty’ was the correct verdict.  It would have been jury nullification if the jury had succumbed to the politically-pressured lynching, and the media’s hype, hysteria, and race-baiting, and convicted Zimmerman.

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        Forgive me I served on a jury in a case centering around the issue of self defense – and what was all that about self-defense being measured (and justified) as defending yourself with equal force as far as, and only as far as, to protect yourself from further injury?  I don’t get it – Mr Zimmerman had a gun and he used it.

  • 1Brett1

    Conservatives seem convinced that the trial proved Zimmerman acted in self defense, Martin started the fight, beat Zimmerman to within an inch of his life and Zimmerman only shot and killed Martin to save his own life/prevent severe bodily injury. Then they turn around and criticize liberals for offering other explanations of what happened for not knowing what happened. You can’t have it both ways. We don’t know what happened. The verdict was NOT GUILTY of murder or manslaughter; the state did not prove its case for murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all we know about the case/tragedy/sequence of events the night of the shooting. 

    • donniethebrasco

      But, the known facts fit both narratives.

      Some thing we know:

      1. George Zimmerman didn’t pull out his gun until there was a physical confrontation with Trayvon.

      If I were Zimmerman, I would not have started a physical confrontation with Martin; with or without a gun.

      • 1Brett1

        “If I were Zimmerman, I would not have started a physical confrontation with Martin; with or without a gun.”

        On that we can agree. However, I can’t agree with your statement: “George Zimmerman didn’t pull out his gun until there was a physical confrontation with Trayvon.” We don’t know that for sure, Zimmerman could have pulled out his gun before there was a physical confrontation. I wouldn’t put that in the realm of a “fact.”

        • donniethebrasco

          If Zimmerman pulled out the gun before the physical confrontation, there would have been only one injury.

          It would have been a gun shot from over 5 feet.

    • HonestDebate1

      It’s bad enough that the race-hustlers made it a black and white thing, why on earth are you making it a partisan thing? That’s weird.

      • 1Brett1

        Nope, not weird at all. The split of opinions seems to be divided between conservatives and liberals. 

    • sickofthechit

       Beat him “…within an inch of his life”?  Exactly how many months, weeks, days, hours,  or minutes did it take for him to recover from being beaten “…to within an inch of his life”?   Charles A. Bowsher

      • 1Brett1

        Exactly.

  • NrthOfTheBorder

    This jury nullification reminds me of the OJ Simpson acquittal in an inverted sort of way. 

    • donniethebrasco

      Found not guilty because of acting in self-defense.

      Don’t mischaracterize the finding of the jury because you disagree with it.

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        Nullification is too strong a word, perhaps.  But sometimes something is just what it appears to be – but social conditions, cultural bias, influence changes in direction, that in a another time, another place would have rendered an opposite verdict in both these trials. 

        • donniethebrasco

          I believe that you use the term “cultural bias” to refer to Trayvon Martin’s justification for jumping George Zimmerman.

          It is not white cultural norms to beat up people for following them, but blacks should not be held to the same standard.

          Tell me I misunderstood your code.

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            … never mind. 

      • 1Brett1

        Nope, he was found not guilty of murder or manslaughter. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/gloria.doan Gloria Doan

    Trayvon was standing his ground but that doesn’t count. Travis Smiley made a comment similar to this and it certainly makes sense to me.

    • donniethebrasco

      Trayvon is guilty of starting a fistfight at a gun fight.

  • NrthOfTheBorder

    Is is reasonable to assume that in a society where the well-to-do and the well connected rarely get punished for their crimes, then juries are more apt to sympathize with offenders?

    • donniethebrasco

      Trayvon Martin was not on trial.

  • margbi

    I’d like to see some clarification of just what a Neighborhood Watch person does or is supposed to do.  When the police dispatcher told GZ “they didn’t need him to do that” i.e., get out of the car, why did he disregard that?
    Also, I wonder why the police did not survey the murder scene and test all involved until so long after the incident it didn’t make any difference?  Just asking.

    • Wahoo_wa

      Zimmerman was out of the car and already pursuing Martin at the point he was told to stop.  He did stop, lost track of Martin and was later jumped by the young man.  This part of the testimony is conveniently ignored by some media outlets in order to promote their own slanted version of the story.

      • 1Brett1

        “Zimmerman was out of the car and already pursuing Martin…”

        Zimmerman said he was NOT pursuing Martin just trying to find a street sign to see what street he was on (even though there are only three streets in his neighborhood and the street he was on was adjacent to his street–and the same street where he called in a large pothole to police six months earlier. But, hey, whatever argument works in the moment, that can always change later.

        • Wahoo_wa

          Not accurate at all.  In the 911 tape at the 2:11 mark Zimmerman gets out of the car.  At the 2:22 mark he is asked “are you following him?” to which he replies “yeah”.  The officer responds “OK we don’t need you to do that.”  He runs for a bit and then stops at the 2:50 mark.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

          • 1Brett1

            So when Zimmerman later said to police, and in his friend’s book, that he did not get out of his car to follow Martin but to get a street name and address, this is yet another discrepancy in his story? That was my point, do we believe the transcript of the call (which was the non-emergency number and NOT 9-1-1, by the way), or do we believe Zimmerman’s later spin on the incident? 

            Zimmerman also later said the dispatcher had asked him to follow Martin to see where he went so that police could know where to go to stop Martin, which was also another discrepancy.

      • margbi

         How do you know that Zimmerman was “already pursuing Martin” when he was told to stop? We don’t have any witnesses to these events except Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, who is now dead.

        • Wahoo_wa

          It is clear from the testimony and the 911 call.  

      • donniethebrasco

         So, if Zimmerman was jumped, how is the case not self defense?

        • Wahoo_wa

          I believe it is a case of self defense.

    • HonestDebate1

      I’d like to see some clarification of just what a dispatcher does or is supposed to do. I don’t believe they have any authority at all. 

      • Wahoo_wa

        Sanford, Florida is a small community.  Like many small communities 911 is answered by the police department directly and not a call center.  Zimmerman’s call was answered by a police officer who had sufficient authority to command Zimmerman to stop his pursuit.  A command that Zimmerman followed.  The 911 call, as with the entirety of the case, is available unedited on Youtube.

        • donniethebrasco

          I would have told Trayvon to stay away from that “crazy ass cracker.”

        • HonestDebate1

          Assuming you are correct and it was not a call center, I still maintain they had no authority at all. This is evidenced by the phrasing, “We don’t need you to do that”. That is not a command. The police cannot tell you what to do over the phone. I would even take it to the ridiculous and posit the police couldn’t have even told Zimmerman not to shoot.

          I wish Zimmerman had heeded the advice but that is a separate issue.

          • Wahoo_wa

            Point taken regarding “that is not a command.”  My dad was a state trooper…I tend to obey police officers even if a command is only a suggestion…LOL

          • HonestDebate1

            I do too. I was shaken down one time (long story) in a parking lot for pot. I did not know, until consulting a lawyer the next day, that they had no authority to search my person without a warrant. I am protected by the 4th amendment. The cop phrased it this way, “I’m going to ask you to empty your pockets”. I dutifully complied. That wasn’t a command either and he knew that, hence the wording as with the dispatcher. So while I agree it was good advice, I still say they had no authority.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        That’s a pathetic gambit.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what does it matter what the neighborhood watch guidelines are to this case?
      the police did survey the self defense scene

  • John Cedar

    No, not reasonable.
    In our society, the better behaved you are, the more that is expected of you and the more you are held accountable.

    • donniethebrasco

      I have higher expectations for all people.  I do not have racially based
      expectations.  I believe in the principles of Martin Luther King and
      Malcolm X (who I believe was killed on orders from Elijah Muhammad).

      I do not agree with these statements, but I believe that it is the beliefs of the people who want (not believe) George Zimmerman to be found guilty:

      Expectations for Whites – high expectations – do not shoot the guy who is kicking your a$$.

      Expectations for Blacks – low expectations – cannot feed themselves without government support.  If someone is following them, they cannot react any other way than to attack.

      • John Cedar

        I don’t know much about MLK or Malcolm X but from the what little I do know, it sounds like their “principles” are in stark contrast to one anthers

  • donniethebrasco

    Where are the #FreeJahar people?  There is no proof that he did anything wrong.

    These brothers are persecuted because the government needs a patsy for their false flag.

  • toc1234

    if the name George Garcia came across the news wire i/o George Zimmerman, no one in the media would have ever picked this story up in the first place.

    • Wahoo_wa

      Or more accurately Jorge Carpintero since “zimmermann” is Germanic for carpenter. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I learn something new every day.

        I thought “schmidt” (“smith”, maker) was on the end of all those Germanic words.

        • Wahoo_wa

          Nope.  Additionally I don’t think Schmidt or Smith has anything to do with wood but rather metals.  A Wright on the other is related to wood but I digress…

    • 1Brett1

      Wha?!

  • John Cedar

    I would have convicted him, if for no other reason than for being a cop wannabe. Nothing is worse than wanting to be a cop. What kind of despicable person would want that???

    • donniethebrasco

      Nothing about listening to the facts?

      Typical low information citizen.

  • donniethebrasco
    • 1Brett1

      Talk about race baiting.

  • donniethebrasco
  • HonestDebate1

    I saw a few comments on lefty sites saying Martin’s parents should appeal the decision to the Supreme court. Hilarious.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      When a right-winger stoops to saying things about “a few comments on lefty sites”…

      Don’t go down that road. It will not reflect well on your wing.

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s just an observation, but you have a point. More than once I’ve seen commenters here using comment from news story sites to pass judgements and project from there. I hate that. It’s just funny, that’s all.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Alan Dershowitz calls for the disbarment of the prosecutor for misconduct.  He also claims that that the only one in this case who’s civil rights were violated was George Zimmerman.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.html

    • J__o__h__n

      Zimmerman is as innocent as his client OJ.  

  • OnpointListener

    Is there Florida case law or a Florida statute that precludes the defense of “self defense” in cases where the perpetrator instigated the confrontation?  

    If not, it is time to enact such a statute.

    • donniethebrasco

      I think that Zimmerman would have no injuries if he “started it.”

      There would have been just a gun shot.  No screaming, no fight.

      • jefe68

        You don’t know that. It’s Zimmerman’s word against a dead person’s.

      • sickofthechit

         He “started it” by following Trayvon.

  • toc1234

    what was sadder day in the MSNBC newsroom last year?  when they got their annual ratings?  or when they learned that Zimmerman was Hispanic?

    • John Cedar

       When they got caught editing the 911 tape.

  • Jon

    America was not created on philosophy. America was built on history of slavery and it will haunt Americans for good.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The NAACP  and race-baiters like Al Sharpton are disappointed with the verdict and are now calling for Federal civil rights charges despite the clear lack of evidence during the trial and a year-long FBI investigation.  Do they understand that double jeopardy is outlawed by the Constitution?

    My view is their actions are setting back race relations in a big way; akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.  My cynical conclusion is they only interested in fomenting the racial divide for their personal self interests.  If they were truly interested in improving things there are many constructive areas to focus on.

    Personally I am saddened by their reaction and I hope they are called out on it by more level headed leaders.

  • MarkVII88

    Zimmerman may be free, but he’ll always be guilty in the broader court of public opinion.  Does anyone think he’ll be able to continue living in Florida?  Who’s going to hire him to work?  I think, despite his be acquitted in criminal court, his life is going to be essentially ruined. And that’s in the absence of any other legal/civil decisions in the case that may come in the future.

    • donniethebrasco

      Let’s find Zimmerman with our pitchforks and torches and string him up.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    You stalk a guy, the police ask you not to, you’re armed and he’s not, he ends up shot dead and it’s…..self-defense? Really? Anyone really swallowing that? It’s almost as bizarre as swallowing the lies about Saddam being a threat to the USA.

    • Wahoo_wa

      That is not the whole story but only a heavily biased, cherry picked retelling of the events.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Did you watch the trial?  All the evidence presented?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Watch the trial? I work.

        What I’m saying is that, in the big picture, it looks pretty bizarre.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           We can agree that it is a tragedy that a young man died.  I only commented because you mis-characterized the facts and evidence presented at trial.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            I said “You stalk a guy, the police ask you not to, you’re armed and he’s not, he ends up shot dead” Enlighten me. Worried.  Please, tell me which part of my characterization was wrong. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            We can quibble over the term ‘stalk’ vs. follow or observe.  He notified the police because he was concerned about suspicious activity.  Sounds responsible, right?

            The truth is we don’t really know if Zimmerman obeyed the police request to not follow Martin.  Zimmerman claims he didn’t continue to follow.

            It is possible (there is no evidence to the contrary) that Zimmerman’s story that Martin came up behind him and then threw the first blow — breaking his nose — is true.

            There was a 4 minute gap from the time when Martin started running away until the altercation and Martin was only 300 feet from his house.
            There are  many ‘what ifs’ in this case — on both sides.  One of the what ifs is why didn’t Martin just go home if he truly feared someone stalking him.

            My big question for Zimmerman is why didn’t he identify himself as ‘neighborhood watch’.  Simply making that identification could have diffused the situation.

          • sickofthechit

             Listen to the 911 tape. Beginning just after 2 minutes Trayvon starts running away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman starts running after Trayvon, the dispatcher recognizes by the difference in the sound that Zimmerman is running after Trayvon and then asks zimmerman if he is following the person and when Zimmerman says yes and is told not to, he continues to run after him until he realizes he has “lost him”.  Chasing someone is not “standing your ground”.

            The prosecutor’s were deficient.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            I dunno, Worried, sounds like some pretty far fetched ‘splainin away to me, where you get to the opposite of the straightforward conclusion.

    • William

       You forgot the racial slur used by Martin directed at Mr. Zimmerman prior to his assault on Mr. Zimmerman. Life is full of things that are difficult to explain away….Fast and Furious gun running that resulted in Mexican police and political officials being killed with those guns, attacking Libya without Congressional approval, IRS targeting Americans based on their political beliefs, NSA spying on all Americans….such difficult times we live in now.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Please provide evidence for thing you “know” about (just for example) the IRS. Or keep JAQing it, William.

        • William

           The IRS IG report dated May 14, 2013, reference number 2013-10-053.

  • Wahoo_wa

    It is clear from many comments below that a good portion of those commenting did not listen to the trial but only listened to the reporting of the trial from either a left leaning or right leaning news outlet. 

  • rvl1

    I don’t think he was guilty of murder but he should have got *something* for instigating the incident.  Maybe  a lesser manslaughter charge.

    Wasn’t Trayvon within HIS rights to defend himself from the perceived threat of Zimmerman who was stalking him for no other reason than he was black?

    Unfortunately Trayvon’s voice cannot be heard.

    • donniethebrasco

      Trayvon Martin kicked George Zimmerman’s butt.

      • brettearle

        You absolutely do NOT know that.

        • jefe68

          This guys a troll. Try to ignore him.

          • brettearle

            I agree.

            But this guy was, generally, poisoning the electronic air waves, with his distortion.

            Basically, his Pollution contributes to Global Warming.

            So I wanted to do my part for a Greener America.

    • brettearle

      It is the ACTUAL physical confrontation that determines the degree of guilt.

      No one knows what happened–except for the survivor.

      You can’t convict on that.

      Seems to me the forensics would have to be compelling, that the technical evidence would have to point to an overwhelming victimization, by Zimmerman, during the ACTUAL scuffle and BEFORE the shot.

      I think Zimmerman’s likely guilty.  But as a Juror, based on the evidence and what the rule of law is, I would likely have found him, Not Guilty.

      But NOT innocent.

      • 1Brett1

        Finally, a reasonable comment. Thanks, brettearle.

        • brettearle

          Thanks….

          And, if you don’t mind me adding….that your own comments, for this case, have been especially edifying….

          I’m not saying that, simply because you praised my comment.

          I am, instead, saying it–because it’s true….regardless of whether you want recognition for it or not.  

  • OnPointComments

    Much of the media wanted this story to be about race.  Why?  Because the media’s hype, hysteria, and race-baiting would get higher ratings, sell more papers, and get more website hits.  The media even went as far as falsifying facts to support its false narrative.  As pointed out in thie following article, the race-baiting shouldn’t be surprising, because the media has done it before:
     
    “Column: Media got Zimmerman story wrong from start” 
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/ 
     
    Excerpt:
     A healthy dose of skepticism should always be part of the journalism process. 
     
    Back in 2006, the nation’s media gave huge play to a saga in which three Duke University lacrosse players were charged with raping a stripper at a team party. But the case collapsed, the prosecutor was disbarred and many news organizations looked seriously foolish.
     
    Asked what had gone wrong…, Daniel Okrent, a former New York Times public editor, responded: “It was too delicious a story.”
     
    Sound familiar?
     
    Let’s hope we see much, much more of that [A healthy dose of skepticism] the next time the news media encounter a story that’s “too delicious.”

    • brettearle

      Media have every right (maybe unfortunately) to discuss the `facts’ as they know them.

      Not all broadcasters report unfairly.

      • OnPointComments

        I agree that not all broadcasters report unfairly, but many do.  As has been said before, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.  Zimmerman is Hispanic, and is no more a “White Hispanic” than President Obama is a “Black Caucasian.”  NBC edited the 911 tape.  ABC said that Zimmerman had no injuries.  CNN said that Zimmerman used a racial epithet when it didn’t happen.  There is an abundance of evidence that Zimmerman is not racist which the media ignored.

        • brettearle

          President Obama IS mixed race.

          So IS Zimmerman.

          Your comment presupposes that based on your version of the facts–or the facts, themselves, as supposedly distorted by the networks–suggest that Zimmerman was NOT a racist.

          Regardless of what you claim, or what you object to and regardless of what Media changed or got wrong,

          Zimmerman COULD STILL BE RACIST…. based on other things that have either never been reported or never been observed by those who might be in a position to make them public. 

    • John_in_Amherst

       Zimmerman had a history of stalking and reporting blacks.  Had a white been stalked in a black neighborhood, then accosted his stalker and gotten shot, how do you think the jury would have ruled.  Then there is the jury of your peers thing…..

  • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

    Gee it’s magic. No one is guilty so no one died. Must have been “God’s will” to raise a black man from the dead.

    • donniethebrasco

      You sound like a moron.

  • donniethebrasco

    The prosecution witnesses sounded like defense witnesses.  This was clearly a political prosecution for a un-tryable case.

  • donniethebrasco

    Not even Barack Obama could overcome the facts of the case and get George Zimmerman prosecuted.

    Thankfully no looting and no violent protests.

    Maybe post-trial violence will stop influencing jurors.

    • OnPointComments

      I cannot fathom a reason why President Obama has seen a need to inject himself into this case.

  • http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/ Mokita Syzygy

    Dr. StrangeLaw

    [The Attorney General calls Trayvon Martin's father, Tracy Martin]
    http://youtu.be/qjN9yK4lhxU

    Attorney General Eric Holder: [to Tracy Martin] Hello?… Uh… Hello Tr- uh hello Tracy? Listen uh uh I can’t hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the crying and wailing down just a little?… Oh-ho, that’s much better… yeah… huh… yes… Fine, I can hear you now, Tracy… Clear and plain and coming through fine… I’m coming through fine, too, eh?… Good, then… well, then, as you say, we’re both coming through fine… Good… Well, it’s good that you’re fine and… and I’m fine… I agree with you, it’s great to be fine… a-ha-ha-ha-ha… Now then, Tracy, you know how we’ve always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Law… The *Law*, Tracy… The *Rule* of Law!… Well now, what happened is… ahm… one of our vigilante assistants, he had a sort of… well, he went a little funny in the head… you know… just a little… funny. And, ah… he went and did a silly thing… Well, I’ll tell you what he did. He allowed his defense lawyer… to attack your dead son… Ah… Well, let me finish, Tracy… Let me finish, Tracy… Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?… Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Tracy?… Why do you think I’m calling you? Just to say hello?… *Of course* I like to speak to you!… *Of course* I like to say hello!… Not now, but anytime, Tracy. I’m just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened… It’s a *friendly* call. Of course it’s a friendly call… Listen, if it wasn’t friendly… you probably wouldn’t have even got it… They will *not* express remorse for at least another generation… I am… I am positive, Tracy… Listen, I’ve been all over this with your psychologist. It is not a trick… Well, I’ll tell you. We’d like to give your spiritual staff a complete run-down on the hangups, the narratives, and the ego defense systems of the police culture… Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we’re unable to instill remorse, then… I’d say that, ah… well, ah… we’re just gonna have to help you forgive them, Tracy… I know they’re our vigilantes… All right, well listen now. Who should we call?… *Who* should we call, Tracy? The… wha-whe, the People… you, sorry, you faded away there… The People’s Central Spiritual Epiphany Headquarters… Where is that, Tracy?… In the Noosphere… Right… Yes… Oh, you’ll call them first, will you?… Uh-huh… Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Tracy?… Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Noosphere Information… Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm… I’m sorry, too, Tracy… I’m very sorry… *All right*, you’re sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well… I am as sorry as you are, Tracy! Don’t say that you’re more sorry than I am, because I’m capable of being just as sorry as you are… So we’re both sorry, all right?… All right.

  • MarkVII88

    Does anyone else think the prosecutors’ jobs are now in jeopardy?

  • sickofthechit

    I believe George Zimmerman gave up his “Stand your ground defense” with his first footstep in following Trayvon.  You can’t run up on somebody and then “stand your ground”.  I am disinclined to visit my friends in Florida now especially since one lives in Sanford.  Charles A. Bowsher

    • donniethebrasco

      It was self-defense, not stand your ground.

    • Wahoo_wa

      Merely pursuing someone does not invalidate the stand your ground provision.  The evidence shows that Zimmerman pursued Martin, stopped when told to, lost track of Martin and was then jumped by Martin causing a threat of bodily harm. 

      • 1Brett1

        The evidence didn’t show any of that stuff…

        • Wahoo_wa

          Clearly you did not listen or view the trial.

  • donniethebrasco

    The judge should have never let this case go to trial.

    The feds will now take a shot at Zimmerman as will Trayvon’s parents.

    Maybe Zimmerman will be able to have a counter-claim against Mr. Martin and Ms. Fulton when they sue him.

    Zimmerman and Trayvon’s parents have collected lots of money and may blow it all chasing each other in courts.

  • J__o__h__n

    Manslaughter was an option for the jury too so it wasn’t prosecutorial overreach.  Please vary the guest hosts.  

    • brettearle

      I think that could be a good point.

      But didn’t the jury realize that this option had been added, at the last minute?

  • toc1234

    stay on point, Jelani…

  • ChicagoMichael

    I am dissapointed in the verdict, but I also know this is not the first, nor the last verdict I believe is unjust. Did race have anything to do with the verdict? Of course, but unfortunately race still has too much to do with most things in our society. If you volunteer for a neighborhood WATCH and see someone you suspect of no good, for what ever reason, you call the police. If the cops tell you not to follow, you don’t. The only thing neighborhood watch should be shooting are cameras. I also completely support Trayvon Martin’s actions. If was a teenager and some guy approached me, regardless if he says he is with neighborhood  watch, I tell him to go tell a cop. Pedophiles are very clever and Martin would not know if a neighborhood watch was really a predator in disquise; I would fight for my life and saftey just as Martin did. George Zimmerman should be in jail because he should never had needed to defend himself. He never should have chased or approached Martin.

  • donniethebrasco

    We gonna get you sucker.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002355053321 Ping Eye Hacker

    My guess is that gun of GZ’s will end up getting him into some trouble that he won’t be able lawyer himself out of.

    • donniethebrasco

      We gonna get you sucker, George Zimmerman.

      Where he at.  Let’s make him shoot us too.

      • 1Brett1

        More race baiting.

    • notafeminista

      You can always hope.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      that’s how our system works. we let 1000 guilty men go to avoid punishing an innocent man. the idea is that if those people are really criminals we can just get them next time

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    I don’t know that I care how Zimmerman himself feels about a gun.

    I almost haven’t changed the slightest opinion of anything before the trial to now. I figure this tragedy was preordained to happen when a would-be untrained block-watcher with a concealed gun felt he had to “do something”.

    I want to know what the “next” George Zimmerman will do.

    Gov. Rick Scott, we await your wisdom.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      while he was being beaten what should he have done differently?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Yeah, troll better, please. Start your own threads if you need to say something, anything, out of desperation.

        Zimmerman sounds like a coward  with a gun, disobeying orders from a police dispatcher and getting in over his head.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          that’s not an answer to the question

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I wish you would take your own advice

  • donniethebrasco

    If you are black, there are lower expectations.

    If you are being followed, you are allowed to attack the person that is following you. (If you are black)

    Whites are civilized, so they are expected to run away.

    • JIm

      your prejudices are really showing.

  • jimino

    This was just a modern variation on the standard story from the days of the “wild west” in which the bad-guy gunman provoked the yokel who, when he reacted as expected, would then be gunned down and killed.  But in the original version, the gunman wouldn’t be exonerated unless the intended victim at least “drew first”.  Obviously no longer true.

    • donniethebrasco

      Are you saying that blacks are crazy and beat the crap out of people who seem to be following him?

  • sickofthechit

    George Z. was following Trayvon, that is not “standing your ground” by any stretch of the imagination.  Period.  Charles A. Bowsher

    • donniethebrasco

      George Zimmerman was defending himself from a violent attacker.

      • adks12020

        I don’t understand how anyone can consider this self defense. In any textbook assault case the person that instigates the incident is the one charged with assault. Zimmerman instigated the situation and then when it got away from him he shot the kid. Maybe if the chubby wannabe cop realized his limitations rather than getting unrealistic confidence from his gun none of this would’ve happened.

      • John_in_Amherst

         After he stalked the guy for several minutes.  Martin was defending himself against an unknown assailant with a gun in his pants.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the stand your ground law was not cited by the defense. following someone is not a crime

  • donniethebrasco

    Trayvon was not killed because he got snacks.

    He was killed because he decided to beat up a pudgy guy following him.

    • JIm

      But we don’t know how that confrontation actually took place – only the ending part where Trayvon got the upper hand and had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating him. Maybe Trayvon initially was standing his ground and defended himself. We only have Zimmerman’s word for it – and what else would you expect him to say.

      • donniethebrasco

        If Zimmerman had a gun, why would he try to beat up Martin?

  • Thought_Id_Share

    I am sorry for Treyvon, the verdict, and agree that there is a problem here with race and the law in Florida. That said, the comment from one person just read on air who said that a white’s life is more important than a black’s has a short memory. Remember Nicole Simpson. I believe she was white and OJ wasn’t. 

    • donniethebrasco

      OJ’s blood was found at the scene and Nicole’s blood was found in OJ’s car, but he was still found innocent because the jury was afraid of riots.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Celebrities are different than ordinary people.

      And if I were part of the family of a crime victim, I’d pray that I didn’t have the “help” of a cop like Mark Furman.

    • Thought_Id_Share

      My point is made. Let’s stop blanket statements about race, it just gets in the way of a better society; like trying to put out a fire by blowing more hot air on it. Details and particular circumstances ALWAYS matter.

    • papayamaya5

      You can compare OJ Simpson to George Zimmerman when you show me generations of Black men killing White women getting away with it.

  • Wahoo_wa

    If there were several crimes in a small neighborhood committed by redheaded people, and a redheaded stranger acting suspiciously was observed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, it seems reasonable to investigate.  That investigation says nothing about racism.  The race baiting after the fact is deplorable.

    • OnPointComments

      Excerpt from a Reuters news story:
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425 
       
      A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR
       By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins.  At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.
       
      Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
       
      “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Didn’t Zimmerman call 911 so often that the local police were sick of taking his calls?

        • donniethebrasco

          Trayvon’s teachers got so sick of his activities they suspended him from school.

          • 1Brett1

            He was suspended from school for marijuana possession wasn’t he?

          • HonestDebate1

            When Martin’s parents began to get worried that he hadn’t returned, they didn’t call 911, they didn’t go look of him, they called juvenile hall to see if he was up to no good.

        • 1Brett1

          And, every one of his calls about “suspicious” people were about black males.

          (He even called the police about a pothole in the street six months before the killing, a pothole on the very street that he told police he didn’t know the name of on the night of the shooting.

          • Wahoo_wa

            Probably because in recent break-ins all of the suspects were black?

          • 1Brett1

            The very definition of racism. Profiling anyone?

          • OnPointComments

            Let’s say there’s a murderer on the loose.  Police have identified the suspect as a 5’8″ white male, about 200 lbs.  You’re at home alone and hear a sound.  You look out the window and see two people on the street:  an elderly Asian woman, and a 5’8″ white male, about 200 lbs.  Which one are you going to watch?

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, but there was no “murderer on the loose,” there was no criminal at large in the community for Zimmerman to keep an eye out for. 

            Because there had been a crime committed by a black male in the past doesn’t mean a black male, by virtue of being a black male, should have been “watched.”

            Nope, that is racial profiling. Zimmerman had no reason to be on the look-out for a “suspect” as he called Martin to the dispatcher (and later to police in interviews). 

          • Wahoo_wa

            You use that word “racism” but I don’t think you know what it means.

            “The very definition of racism”….um….no.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            man how is a black pot hole supposed to get any justice in america

        • Wahoo_wa

          Is that important for some reason?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            If a self-appointed gun-toting peace-keeper were doing that in my subdivision, I’d worry about his judgment.

  • donniethebrasco

    George Zimmerman didn’t know that Trayvon was going to start punching him.

     

  • emdonpoint

    Zimmerman was told by the police NOT to get out of his car.  He disobeyed orders of law enforcement.  He got himself into trouble and then said he was the victim. 

    • Wahoo_wa

      Zimmerman was NEVER told by the police not to get out of his car.  You are mistaken.

      • JIm

        he was told “you do not need to do that”

        • Wahoo_wa

          But here’s the conundrum…and I really don’t mean to insult emdonpoint so please don’t think that.  The incorrect premise that he was told not to get out of his car versus stating you don’t need to do that, i.e. pursue Martin, paints two VERY different pictures.  When this is combined with the race baiting, and slanted, or edited media accounts, the result is where we find ourselves now.

          • JIm

            What we have in this very unfortunate affair is that Zimmerman got out of his car even though he was advised that he did not need to do that. Martin apparently confronted Zimmerman rather than going (according to Zimmerman’s account) and the confrontation proceeded to its end. But we really don’t know how the confrontation started and proceeded, we only have Zimmerman’s word. And under these circumstances that’s what the jury has to base its decision on. 

            If the persons involved were of a different social stature, a modern day Shakespeare could write a tragedy about it.

          • Wahoo_wa

            I will stop you at your fist sentence.  Zimmerman was already out of his car when it was suggested that he not pursue Martin.

          • JIm

            whatever- he was advised “you do not need to do that.”

          • Wahoo_wa

            “whatever” is not an effective argument.

          • JIm

            What is your effective argument?

      • emdonpoint

         Thank you for correcting me.  I checked that out.  I still don’t see any way to view this than that Zimmerman was the perpetrator.

  • NewtonWhale

    Zimmerman’s lawter had the nerve to say that if the shooter had been black, he never would have been arrested. Really?

    Marissa Alexander begs to differ:

    TAMPA, Fla. — Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, knew it was coming. She had claimed self-defense, tried to invoke Florida’s “stand your ground” law and rejected plea deals that could have gotten her a much shorter sentence. A jury found her guilty as charged: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because she fired a gun while committing a felony, Florida’s mandatory-minimum gun law dictated the 20-year sentence.Her case in Jacksonville has drawn a fresh round of criticism aimed at mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. The local NAACP chapter and the district’s African-American congresswoman say blacks more often are incarcerated for long periods because of overzealous prosecutors and judges bound by the wrong-headed statute. Alexander is black.It also has added fuel to the controversy over Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which the judge would not allow Alexander to invoke. 
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      two wrongs don’t make a right

      • NewtonWhale

        What does that even mean?

        I give you a recent example of a black defendant that directly contradicts the charge made by Zimmerman’s lawyer and you respond with a fortune cookie?

        To prove you are a real person, and that your comment was not produced by a spam generator, please type what you see below.

    • William

       That is an interesting case but the prosecutor said she was not running away but ran and got her gun out of her car in the garage, ran back inside and shot at her husband who was standing next to his two sons. She was charged with assault against the two children too. So stand your ground law does not apply in this case. Simple assault with a gun against 3 people. Twenty years seems a bit harsh but the public have demanded longer prison terms if guns are involved in a crime.

      • NewtonWhale

        Zimmerman basically did the same thing. He left the safety of his vehicle, after being told not to, brought a loaded gun with him and confronted Martin.

        The difference is that Martin had a lawful reason to be there, unlike Alexander’s husband, who was in violation of a restraining order when he entered her home without her consent.

        • William

           There is no crime in following someone that you think might be up to no good. Perhaps not a wise move, but not illegal. At some point Martin used a racial slur and then attacked Zimmerman. Why? Who knows other than people do dumb things. At what point is Zimmerman allowed to defend himself and to what degree with or without a gun? The jury felt he was within his rights to defend himself.
          Alexander went beyond the stand your ground law since she left the room and then came back with a gun to shoot her husband. She is not the law and can’t enforce a restraining order.
          Both are just more reasons why I don’t own a gun.

          • NewtonWhale

            1) Stalking is a crime in Florida:

            “A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree”

            http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/criminal-stalking-laws-by-state/florida#48

            2) Whether you consider “cracker” to be a racial slur or not, it was not uttered in Zimmerman’s hearing.

            3) You are crediting Zimmerman’s out of court account, even though he did not testify and so was not cross examined. We do not know who instigated the fight. It could have been Zimmerman approaching Martin with his gun drawn in which case Martin would have been entitled to defend himself with his fists under the stand your ground law.

            4) Neither is Zimmerman the law. He had no probable cause to stop Martin. If he had not left his vehicle, both would be alive and well today.

          • William

             He was not stalking.

            Martin’s GF revealed the racial slur during the trial.

            Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman he would be alive today.

  • donniethebrasco
  • Jon

    the last caller Joe (?) made the best comments regarding to reexamining the stand your ground law

  • donniethebrasco

    Do you believe that Trayvon Revenge beatings are justified?

    Like for no.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “His ground”, Zimmerman’s ground, includes common space in a gated community? (Female guest, :37mins.)

    Wow. I didn’t know that. (I have not gorged on coverage of the trial like some.)

    Please, let’s hear more about the settlement that Martin’s family had with the gated community before the trial. A great number (if not majority) of new homes built in this country over the last ~20 years are in subdivisions with covenants, HOAs, and such. Will this affect anything?

  • Wahoo_wa

    “Did the media inform or influence this case?”  Was that a real question Jane?  LOL

  • Phil Kaufman

    There were 6 on the jury…..1/6th of which was a black woman….!!!!!

    • OnPointComments

      So what?  What’s your point?  Are you saying that women aren’t competent to be on a jury, or black women aren’t competent to be on a jury, or only black women should be on a jury?

      • Phil Kaufman

        None of the above…the point being, the black woman juror must have voted for not guilty. If she had voted guilty there would have been a 
         hung jury…..I disagree with the verdict
        but the jury info has not been discussed…

  • Jonathan Cusick

    It seems to me like the problem is really with the Stand Your Ground law. From my understanding, Zimmerman was within his rights as a Florida citizen? But to be clear,

    If I was in FL, I could go out of my way to follow or even harass someone, essentially instigating a conflict. Then, if at any time where I  felt unsafe or in danger, I could use (lethal) force to injure the person I was originally going out of my way to follow?

    Very frustrated and confused…

    • donniethebrasco

      If you want to instigate a “white ass cracker” break into his house.

      If you want to instigate a black teen, walk behind him on a sidewalk.

      • John_in_Amherst

         Blacks in the South have, for 150 years, had reason to worry about being followed by whites with guns.

        • notafeminista

          So Mr. Martin was profiling?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Every time you say that is funnier than the next.

          • John_in_Amherst

             We ALL profile, all the time – it is human nature.  Question is, do we act on our initial instincts or see them for what they are: a inappropriate vestige of our tribal past.

  • adks12020

    The bashing the head off the sidewalk thing is such a crock. I’ve hit my head off a sidewalk and I was knocked out in one shot…and that was with a bike helmet on.  How does Zimmerman get his head “smashed” into a sidewalk 25 times by someone Martin’s size and manage to have the wherewithal to pull a gun and shoot someone? Totally bogus argument.

  • toc1234

    if the name George Mesa (his mother’s maiden name) came across the news wire i/o George Zimmerman, no one in the media would have ever picked this story up in the first place.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.molla.75 Michael Molla

    In response to the quote I just heard on the show.  I have to stay off of the sidewalk to be unarmed?  Just by walking out of my house, I’m armed?  That’s bullshit.

    • donniethebrasco

      When you are slamming someone’s head into it, a sidewalk is a weapon.

  • donniethebrasco

    Not only the press, but Obama tried to influence the jury on this trial.

    • OnPointComments

      Imagine the outrage that would have been voiced if Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had said “If I had a son, he would look like George Zimmerman.”

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I’m having a hard time imagining a sitting SC Justice saying something about a pending case.

        • donniethebrasco

          What about a President?

        • OnPointComments

          Can you imagine a sitting President saying something about a pending case?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I’ll give a crap about that when Ginny Thomas stops working against HC reform or Clarence Thomas learns the meaning of the word “recuse”.

            Or when the Kochs stop getting Scalia and Thomas from showing up at their retreats.

          • notafeminista

            In other words, when the aforementioned behave to suit you.

            Just wow.

        • notafeminista

          The case wasn’t pending for the Supremes.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Uh, point to where I said that, trollmaster.

          • notafeminista

            You have difficulty with discernment.

          • StilllHere

            and nuance, and facts. total tool

  • Arthur_game

    If the roles were reversed, the result would have been the same.  Prof. Cobb omits the fact that GZ had been beaten, while straddled, for 40 seconds, had his nose broken, etc., and that TM had zero signs of suffering any blows. 

    • donniethebrasco

      That’s what happens.

      When white people are followed by black people, they decided to beat the crap out of them.

      Happens all the time.

      Whites don’t run away.  They don’t just go home.  They don’t call the cops.

  • OnPointComments

    This was a case about two individuals in Sanford, Florida.  It wasn’t about America’s history, or race relations, or society in general, or stand your ground, or gun control laws.  It evolved into a politically-pressured high-tech lynching by those who wanted a predetermined outcome.

    • Wahoo_wa

      Very interesting point.

    • Renee Engine-Bangger

      Sorry but it is naive to think that this wasn’t about all of the reasons you cite. Many people (white, mostly Republican) want to believe that the US is in some  “post racial” period but nothing could be further from the truth.

      • donniethebrasco

        Two things to be aware of:

        1. Public officials fired for testimony given in Zimmerman trial.
        2. Trayvon revenge beatings.

      • notafeminista

        Not profiling are you?

      • Wahoo_wa

        On the other hand I think there are far too many instances where racism is claimed when there is no evidence to that fact.  Imagining the demon of racism around every corner is just as bad as racism itself.  In this particular case there is no evidence of racism.

        • papayamaya5

          Because institutions in the US can’t be inherently racist or unjust?. Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, was killed and George Zimmerman pulled the trigger yet he was not found guilty of any crime. Clearly justice was not served.

          • Wahoo_wa

            In a simplified world your narrative would be an effective arguement however in the real world it is not.

      • OnPointComments

        When it comes to judging George Zimmerman in a trial, America’s history, or race relations, or society in general, or stand your ground, or gun control laws has absolutely nothing to do with it.

        • John_in_Amherst

           because this whole thing happened separate and apart from history, race, gun laws?  Your comment is delusional. 

          • OnPointComments

            If you lived in Florida and had been selected for the jury, would you have ignored the evidence and found Zimmerman guilty because you thought slavery was an abomination?  Or because you wanted to make a statement about gun laws?  Or because you thought your guilty vote without considering the evidence would improve race relations?  
             
            Or would you have listened to the case, and judged the case on the evidence that was presented?

          • John_in_Amherst

             As I mention elsewhere, I do not think Zimmerman violated the letter of the law as written in Florida.  And this incident is what makes it abundantly clear these laws need rewritten.  When a self-styled vigilante can kill an unarmed kid after stalking him and thereby provoking an attack, and there is no penalty or accountability the law is FUBAR.

          • OnPointComments

            So, if you were on the jury, would you have listened to the case, and judged the case on the evidence that was presented?

          • John_in_Amherst

             Like I said, he was innocent under the letter of the law.  And the law is FUBAR

      • StilllHere

        What a racist thing to say!

    • papayamaya5

      But you can’t disentangle race from this. You can’t simply forget the very complex relationship our country has with race and racism, as much as you would like to separate the two. A black teenager is dead because of the deeply entrenched racism inherent in our society. George Zimmerman and White patriarchy are responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin.

      • OnPointComments

        Not only can race be disentangled from this, but when judging Zimmerman in a fair and impartial trial in which the accused person is presumed to be innocent, race MUST be disentangled from this.  This case was about an incident that occurred between two individuals.
         
        You say that it is the White patriarchy that is responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin.  I say that it is the disintegration of the black family, the hip hop wannabe thug culture that demands black youths attack creepy ass crackers, among other reasons, that are responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin.

        • papayamaya5

          What do the black family and hip hop have to do with this? Trayvon was an unarmed black teen being followed by an armed adult, who had the benefit of white privilege. It doesn’t matter if Trayvon listened to hip hop or didn’t have a strong family structure; Trayvon was pursued by an armed man and that racial profiling led to his murder. When does Trayvon get to stand his ground and defend himself? 

          This case is just one point on a spectrum of violence against black and brown bodies. It wasn’t just a White/Latino male and a Black teenager because there is a very specific history in the US in regards to race so power dynamics are ALWAYS at play, you just have the benefit of not being burdened by these issues.
          White apologist, don’t look now but your ignorance and white privilege is showing.

          • OnPointComments

            If I’m following you on a public thoroughfare, you do not have the right to punch me in the face, knock me to the ground, and pound my face with your fists.

          • papayamaya5

            You do not have the right to follow me with a gun.

          • papayamaya5

            As Zimmerman was not following Trayvon in any official capacity so he had no right to go after him – that unwanted accostment is called harassment and the resulting death is called murder.

          • papayamaya5

            You do not have the right to follow me with a gun.

          • papayamaya5

            As Zimmerman was not following Trayvon in any official capacity so he had no right to go after him – that unwanted accostment is called harassment and the resulting death is called murder.

          • OnPointComments

            If I’m following you on a public thoroughfare, in no official capacity,  you do not have the right to punch me in the face, knock me to the ground, and pound my face with your fists.

    • John_in_Amherst

       It IS a part of America’s history, it is inextricably tied to race issues, and it is a sad example of how society at large has chosen to deal with guns, crime and the law.  Zimmerman was technically not guilty under Florida’s statutes of SYG , 2nd degree murder and even manslaughter.  Rather than a “politically pressured high tech lynching”, it looks more like the reactions of a public frustrated by poorly written laws that tip the balance of justice to encourage vigilante extremism.

  • Futureboy68

    Leave race out of the argument for a moment. Also leave out any and all wild west, 19the century-style Floridian laws. Instead, simply use common sense and not any legalize BS. One grown man shot an unarmed teenager dead. The former is a free man. The latter is dead. Just another indication of how “justice” in the states isn’t applicable to all. 

    • donniethebrasco

      If race is not in this case, the case never goes to trial.

      Two white people, nothing happens.  They both call the cops.

      Two black people, they talk it out.

      Next situation like this, the black kid talks to the white person at a safe distance.

    • notafeminista

      Well there ya go.  We’re only a nation of laws when it suits us eh?

    • William

       Compare this to NYC “stop and frisk” policy which targets mostly Blacks and Hispanics which area has 19th century style laws?

  • davide58

    If it is legal in Florida to hunt people down and shoot them then my family won’t be going to Florida until they change the stand your ground law.

  • DeJay79

    So it is now open season in Florida now, “Annie get your gun”

    I guess this is exactly what the stand your ground law was meant to do. Make every feel like they need a gun in order to be safe.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       This was not a ‘stand your ground’ case. It was a self defense case.

      • emdonpoint

         ” Dennis Baxley, a Republican state representative and co-author of the
        2005 self-defense law, said Zimmerman negated his ability to claim
        immunity under the law by chasing Martin.

        “This law is for innocent, law-abiding citizens who are under attack
        by a perpetrator,” Baxley told The Huffington Post. “Anyone who is out
        pursuing and confronting people is not protected by this statute.” ”
        quoted from
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          That was as written, eight years ago.

          I’m white, and therefore grateful, that I’ll probably never find out firsthand how it’s used by police, and interpreted by judges, down in FL.

      • DeJay79

         either way. even without “stand your ground”, the self defense is lose enough in Florida that in order to not be killed you need a gun other wise the other guy will be allowed to kill you.

  • donniethebrasco

    Armed when you slam someone’s head into the concrete sidewalk.

  • donniethebrasco

    That’s what happens.

    When white people are followed by black people, they decided to beat the crap out of them.

    Happens all the time.

    Whites don’t run away.  They don’t just go home.  They don’t call the cops.
     

  • JBSpurr

     

    “Stand your ground” informed this
    crime, the trial, and the trial’s outcome. 
    This wretched law is implicitly if not explicitly biased in favor of the
    majoritarian culture at the expense of minority youth such as Trayvon martin.  In fact, the only person with the right
    to self-defense in this case was Trayvon Martin, who was minding his own
    business when pursued in the dark of night by a threatening character who
    happened to be a reckless, obsessed, gun-toting vigilante, and who was counseled
    by the dispatcher not to pursue, but did, setting this tragedy in motion.  If this wasn’t a case of guilty for
    being Black, I don’t know what it is.  Fewer guns, fewer vigilantes, fewer unnecessary deaths.  No more “Stand Your Ground,”
    which emboldens dangerous, foolish people such as George Zimmerman.

    • donniethebrasco

      Self defense.

      9 times out of 10, George Zimmerman ends up in worse shape than Trayvon Martin.

      • sickofthechit

         But he doesn’t wind up dead.

  • donniethebrasco

    The NAACP should give George Zimmerman a job.

  • ElliFrank

    I continue to be stunned — though I shouldn’t — by the extent to which white privilege continues to function as an excuse for callers to rationalize and excuse the killing of Trayvon Martin. Thank you for having Jelani Cobb on the panel so there is at least one person speaking truth to the power of racism, which continues to fester at the core of U.S. life. As a transracial, multicultural family, we will continue to advocate against racism, and in the meantime, will no longer vacation in Florida.   

    • donniethebrasco

      Zimmerman’s family is also transracial and multicultural.

      • dust truck

        hardly.  Zimmerman’s father and Brother have both publish highly racist screeds claiming that black people are violent etc.

        You yourself have been posting all sorts of bigoted paranoia all morning, I’m amazed you haven’t been banned yet.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Yeah, I’ve read about Z’s father’s schtick.
          Perhaps the next step is for someone to claim that is part of our “post-racial” society, because we’re past that racism thing.

        • donniethebrasco

          I guess that the Trayvon Revenge Beatings support your claim.

        • donniethebrasco

           Jesse Jackson, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to
          walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
          robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved….
          After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own
          streets, how humiliating.”

          Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993).
          Quoted in “Crime: New Frontier – Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights
          Issue” by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original).

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           George Zimmerman has a history of mentoring disadvantaged black youth.  Sounds like a racist, right?

          • papayamaya5

            because you have black friends or mentor black youth does NOT mean that you automatically don’t harbor racist notions. Zimmerman can mentor black kids all day long but when he racially profiled Trayvon Martin that night, he perceived an unarmed young black male as a threat and that mindset ultimately led to Trayvon Martin’s death. A person doesn’t need to be outwardly racist all day long to hold those thoughts.

          • notafeminista

            Fair point.  Explains the “crazy ass cracker” comment.

          • John_in_Amherst

             He also had a history of calling the police to report suspicious black youths.
            It is human nature for people to fear and distrust people who do not look like us.  This is a deeply programed instinct.  We ALL make snap judgements based on race, and lots of other variables of appearance.  SOME of us recognize this, and rethink what we are doing.  Some of us chase down kids who look different and end up shooting them.

        • jefe68

          One wonders. Offensive does not begin to describe the troll.

        • donniethebrasco

          There is a cultural problem in the US.

          It is partially related to race, but I would call it “dirtbag” culture.  It is glorified in rap music and redneck ideas, partially sarcastically.  But not everyone is “in” on the joke.  Some people believe it.

        • notafeminista

          One is not exclusive of the other. 

      • papayamaya5

        but George Zimmerman passed as a white male and therefore enjoyed white privilege, regardless of his background.

        • Wahoo_wa

          A more effective response would have been:
          Latinos are by definition white.  There is no “passing as white”.  He is mixed race and his mother is considered white of hispanic or latin descent.

          • papayamaya5

            Zimmerman is a White Latino (White father, Peruvian mother) but since he does not outwardly present as a brown male, he was able to enjoy white privilege and therefore pass as a White citizen. To say that Latinos are by definition White is inaccurate and whitewashes history.

    • Wahoo_wa

      White privilege in contemporary society is a myth…it’s the unicorn of our age.

  • donniethebrasco

    Two things to be aware of:

    1. Public officials fired for testimony given in Zimmerman trial.
    2. Trayvon revenge beatings.

    • John Cedar

      Not only was he responding to a question, but listening to the inflections of his voice, it sounds like he was not all that sure of his answer.

  • gqlewis

    How is that a black woman in Florida fires a warning shot and gets sentenced to 20 years for not shooting anyone, and Zimmerman gets nothing for killing an unarmed black minor. System failure to the max.

    • William

       Her actions did not qualify under the stand your ground law. She went into the garage, got her gun out of her car, came back into the house, fired a shot at her husband who was standing next to his sons. He was leaving the house according to the 9-11 tapes and she responded “i have something for you”. Poor judgement in a heated domestic argument.

    • dust truck

      “Stand your ground” doesn’t apply to the Zimmerman case because that defense was never invoked.

      • nj_v2

        ^ Completely wrong and ignorant comment.

    • brettearle

      The woman, that you are referring to, was cheated miserably by the Law.

      But she did NOT have to fire that shot–at least according to the Judge.

      The woman had AMPLE opportunity to retreat from the threat.

      She apparently left the house to retrieve the gun, in the car.

      She did NOT have to return to the house–if she felt threatened.

      • notafeminista

        She had what CBS news referred to as a “protective order” so she must have felt threatened at some point.

        • brettearle

          I am referring to–and the Judge is referring to–the ACTUAL altercation.

          The Judge apparently did not see sufficient evidence, in the background story, to consider anything OTHER than the fact that the Defendant could have STAYED away from the actual conflict.

          The point is that, at that moment, `She Knew’ or `She Should Have Known’ that to go back to the house–with or without the gun–could increase the chances for danger and a possible violation of the law.

          The actual crime may not all be related to a man treating a woman badly.

          When Feminists see cases like this and blame the circumstances on the guy, it can do a serious disservice to those crimes where male defendants are vicious, cruel, and violent….but jurors turn a blind eye because they think that some are being falsely accused.

          Stick to the reality of each crime, individually, and you will help to more effectively preserve the Laws to protect women.

          • notafeminista

            Interestingly I was thinking the Judge and jury in this case did exactly right. 

            We carry on about the perils of our so-called gun culture and yet not a peep about this woman firing a weapon in the presence of and possibly in the direction of (according to his statement [however dubious or not it may be]) two 11 year old children.   Instead she was “cheated”.

            Gawd.

    • papayamaya5

      and where is the NRA trying to protect this woman’s right to keep and bear arms? They are silent for Black America!

  • sickofthechit

    Zimmerman ‘created’ the situation that led to his “perceiving” he was in danger when he did not immediately turn around and return to his vehicle when he told the dispatcher he was following Trayvon and the dispatcher told him “…ok, we don’t need you to do that”.  Period!  Charles A. Bowsher

    • Wahoo_wa

      That’s like saying a rape victim deserved it because she dressed provocatively.

      • John Cedar

        That’s like saying someone falsely accused of rape deserves it because they approached someone dressed provocatively.

      • sickofthechit

         The law is called “Stand your Ground”  It is not some sort of Red light/Green light game from childhood where you can advance as far as possible and yet still “Stand your ground”.

        As for your rape comparison.  It is almost to crude to address.  First problem is you you even used it. The second problem is, you have turned the analogy inside out.  In this case it is George who is alleging “rape” and wants the “protection” of the law even though he personally made efforts (following in the first place) and an invitation so to speak (not returning to the protection of his vehicle when told to do so).   I think use of the term rape as a comparative reference in debate should be confined to those who have actually been the victim of rape.  Just as the “n” word should only be used by those who have actually experienced the prejudice engendered by it.  charles a. bowsher

    • brettearle

      That may be true.

      But pursuit and profiling–fortunately or unfortunately–have NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL physical altercation.

      It is THIS physical fight that, in this case, would determine guilt or degree of guilt.

      • papayamaya5

        Those factors have EVERYTHING to do with this case…George Zimmerman’s embedded racism led to racial profiling which led to the pursuit of Trayvon Martin which led to a physical altercation which led to Trayvon Martin’s death. There is a clear trajectory that you are failing to acknowledge.

        • brettearle

          NO.

          IT’S NOT ME.

          IT’S THE LAW THAT REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.

          You, like so many other people who need to indict the other side, confuse a comment that represents FACT.

          THAT WAS ALL I WAS DOING.

          I was reiterating fact.

          I happen to believe that Zimmerman was LIKELY GUILTY.

          I am on YOUR SIDE of the argument–yet you chose to jump to the wrong conclusion, simply because of your passions about the case.

          To react like that drives you close to as being as bad as the other side on this issue.

          If you were a juror you would have found guilt where the law said that there was none.

          IT IS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND NOT PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

          The LAW only had to do with SELF-DEFENSE, without the possibility of retreat…..NOT with what happened before the actual physical confrontation.

          If you don’t like the Law–and I don’t either–then move to Florida and petition the State Legislature.

          Otherwise, stop throwing blame around where it doesn’t exist.

        • Bluejay2fly

          That was what Zimmerman wanted to do. His goal was to harass every black person in his neighborhood and make them feel unwanted. This was born out of frustration from crime committed by black people in his neighborhood. What he did was not useful and very helpful. However, Trayvon committed an assault which caused his own death! BOTH sides should have had more respect for the law but GZ is only guilty of harassment not murder. As long as we ignore poverty and unemployment in America this will be a common story.

          • papayamaya5

            What does this case have to do with poverty and unemployment? Besides giving you a chance to shift the blame onto what you see as problems in the black community. Oh, because only blacks commit crime? Your stereotypes about black communities are absurd. And the right way to deal with white frustration towards black crime is to follow an unarmed teen and shoot him?

            Trayvon Martin was being followed by an armed man which led to his death and Zimmerman was behind that gun. The systematic devaluation of the lives of black and brown people disgusts me.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       And another ‘what if’ is this would have been avoided if Trayvon had simply gone home the 300 feet during the 4 minutes after he ran away from Zimmerman’s car.

      Another ‘what if’ is if Martin hadn’t thrown the first punch and broken Zimmerman’s nose this could have been avoided.

      Another ‘what if’ if Martin had gotten off of Zimmerman when the neighbor came out to respond to the cries for help then this could have been avoided.

      • John_in_Amherst

         while you are prescribing actions that could have prevented this, how about if Zimmerman had ceased his pursuit when the cops told him to?

        • notafeminista

          The cops didn’t tell him anything.

          • John_in_Amherst

             “We don’t need you to do that, sir”, I believe is the transcription of the dispatcher’s comment

          • notafeminista

            Spoken by a civilian.  I reiterate, the cops didn’t tell him anything.

          • 1Brett1

            So, I wonder how that would have played out in court?

            Dispatcher: “we don’t need you to do that, sir.”

            Zimmerman: “you’re not a cop; I don’t have to listen to you! I’m gonna do what I want to do!”

          • notafeminista

            Would have looked bad.  Would also have been true.

            Civilian. Not cop.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree but it doesn’t matter. If it was a cop, they can’t tell you what to do over the phone if you are breaking no laws.

          • John_in_Amherst

            an employee of the police, speaking for the police on the 911 line, advising him to wait for officers to arrive.  When you call 911, do you assume the person on the end of the line is a cop, or at least speaking with the authority of the police?

          • notafeminista

            Probably not an employee of the police (although specfic to Sanford PD I cannot say)but more likely an employee of the county or municipality.

            People always make the assumption you describe and it always erroneous.  Dispatchers do not speak for the police.  In fact, dispatchers are cautioned from day one of their employment they are not law enforcement officers and are not to give legal advice.  Dispatchers send police where people ask for police.  Hence the word “dispatch(er)”

            Some agencies do utilize sworn personnel in their communcations centers, however Sanford does not appear to be one of them.

          • John_in_Amherst

            So do dispatchers preface their responses to 911 calls with “You are talking to someone who is not actually representing the police”?

          • notafeminista

            See up top.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Yep. It’s an End User License Agreement betweent the caller and the 911 responsder, methinks.

          • John_in_Amherst

             In my town 911 calls are fielded at the police station by a dispatcher who is on the force.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You’re getting pathetic about this.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          sickofchit already posited that ‘what if’.  I was simply offering others as well.

          Here is another, what if Zimmerman had identified himself as a neighborhood watch captain as soon as they met the situation might have been diffused.

          btw – Zimmerman claims he was not in pursuit of Martin at the time of the altercation.

          • John_in_Amherst

            And since he shot the only other witness, we have no reason to doubt his story, do we?
            Next time you are being stalked by someone in plain clothes and they tell you to do something, let me know if you do it.  I’m sure muggers will be down with that.  THIS is why police have uniforms and badges – so we know they are the law, and not just criminals trying to order or coerce us into doing what they want.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I would have gone the 300 feet home and called the police.

            Martin had a phone on his person. Did he call 911?

          • John_in_Amherst

            He was on the phone with someone else, and events unfolded quickly.  He was a scared kid, soon to be a dead kid.  Lacking the time and/or presence of mind to hang up and redial 911 is not unreasonable, is it?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Actually, there were 4 minutes between Martin running away and the altercation — this was pointed out dramatically during the defense closing with 4 minutes of silence.

          • John_in_Amherst

             4 minutes in which Martin was presumably in hiding, wondering if his stalker was gone or armed or still a threat, and what he should do.  He reemerged, and we do not know what happened until he was shot dead.  Which would not have happened if Zimmerman wasn’t playing cowboy.

  • Kalaimugilan

    Just sad…I am worried for myself and my children.  And, I am tempted to buy guns; falling prey to the intentions of the law.  Sigh!!!

    • donniethebrasco

      I just bought a gun.

      • JIm

        I hope you don’t live in my area

        • donniethebrasco

          Next door.

          • jimino

            In grandma’s basement.  His mom kicked him out.

        • donniethebrasco

          I also bought some fireworks.

          • StilllHere

            and some cigs and fossil fuel derivatives?

      • JobExperience

         Before that you were walking around with a sidewalk in your waistband.

    • brettearle

      Falling prey to the intentions of the Law??

      A trial does not always–if often–reflect the actual reality of what happened.

  • Wahoo_wa

    As an aside, I do have to say that I like this show MUCH better without Tom Ashbrook.  It’s at least a scoche more balanced. 

    • brettearle

      You’ve got blinders on….

      • Wahoo_wa

        LOL…I said a “scoche” not “a lot”!

        • brettearle

          I was referring, generally, to your comment about Ashbrook’s bias.

          My comment had nothing to do with comparing Ashbrook to Clayson….

          And, in order to give you a fighting chance, for the future, in the General School of Debate, you meant, `scooch’ not `scoche’. 

          • Wahoo_wa

            “scoche” works just fine thank you.  http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/scoche

          • brettearle

            YOU WIN!

            YOU WIN!

            YOU WIN!

            Ladies and Gentlemen! 

            HE WINS!

  • sickofthechit

    At 2:06 on the tape You can hear Zimmerman beginning to run in pursuit of Trayvon if you listen to the 911 tape.  The audio difference is definite and within about 10 seconds the dispatcher realizes from the change in audio that Zimmerman is running and then asks him if he is following the person, when Zimmerman says “yes” the dispatcher then tells him “We don’t need you to do that”.  Zimmerman continues running for a bit, but by this time he has lost track of Trayvon.  Then the next minute or so is Zimmerman sounding like a lost person trying to give directions, and he refuses to tell the dispatcher where he will be to meet the police and instead says “can’t they just call me when they get here”.  I would speculate his intent was to find Trayvon again.  Maybe visions of a heroic citizen’s arrest danced in his head….  Charles A. Bowsher

    • notafeminista

      Speculation isn’t admissible.

      • Wahoo_wa

        ..or relevant.

    • John Cedar

      The idea that it is not okay for a neighborhood watch person to keep track of a suspicious acting person, is not something both sides agree on. As a shopkeeper, I used to protect my shop by approaching suspicious acting customers and asking if I could help them find something, while giving them the look that I knew what they were up to. The left can and has held shopkeepers accountable to the tune of millions for such actions, but I live in an area where the party of know is still alive and well, so i could take the risk.

      Advising Zimmerman that follow Martin was unnecessary should be taken as safety advise, not as an order.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You are the keeper of your shop. I don’t know that you’ve have someone with a concealed weapon on your property doing the “watching” for you without your direct order to do so.

        Did Zimmerman hold any particular title of “neighborhood watch”? All I’ve heard is “self-apponted”.

        • brettearle

          I believe that he was self-appointed.

          The property managers should have waved him off, days or weeks or months ago– from assuming a dangerous role, where he was not formally trained and where was neither hired or appointed.

          They are partially to blame here, indirectly.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            But that’s where all-conquering God’sGunLaw comes into play: Does the HOA have the right to do anything to keep someone like Zimmerman from putting himself in the situation?

            Or is FL’s AG, ALEC, and the NRA gonna sue them for “violating gun rights”?

        • John Cedar

           I don’t know what title he held but if he was not officially part of an organized neighborhood watch then it is pretty sad that they settled with the family with a big check.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Yeah, I don’t share that “sadness” if  the HOA let some self-appointed goon run around with a gun.

            If you let some self-appointed goon with a gun “manage security” in your parking lot…

        • HonestDebate1

          He wasn’t self appointed. It was a homeowners association decision. Zimmerman was in charge recruiting block captains and was also part of a group to enforce parking rules.

      • brettearle

        When a police dispatcher tells you NOT to get involved in a potential crime in the making, or with a crime in progress, you ABSOLUTELY heed the warning.

        Unless there is a Life-or-Death crisis going on.

        Your comment’s a twisting of the story to confirm your perception.

        • John Cedar

          You are twisting the story by rephrasing the dispatcher’s words and giving her a new job title as well. I don’t need you to do that.

          • brettearle

             Twist, again.

  • donniethebrasco

    Maybe Zimmerman and Paula Deen can find a safe place to live.

    • 1Brett1

      And engorge themselves on pork-rind cracklins fried in lard and dipped in melted chocolate then drenched in butter…now that’s good eatin’ y’all!

  • donniethebrasco

    Where is Jack Beatty to insert his lunacy?

    • Wahoo_wa

      That’s kinda funny!  You can tell how much Jack gets under Tom’s skin when he’s on…LOL

  • 1Brett1

    Nope, the evidence showed that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he had scratches on the back of his head and one witness said Martin was on top hitting Zimmerman (of course, another witness said Zimmerman was on top). The evidence did not prove anything that Martin did or did not do. The evidence did not adequately show Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter; that’s all that can be gleaned from the trial’s evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • simeonfreston

    I admit a lack of familiarity with Florida Law, but I was taught that self-defense is a “positive” defense, meaning that in order to use it, the facts of the crime are first stipulated, then it becomes the defendant’s burden to prove that the crime was necessary in light of facts and circumstances. There are many types of extremis defenses (I broke into the house to stop from freezing to death, I stole the medicine to save my child’s life).  In any case such as this, the defendant admits to committing the crime, then attempts to prove that any reasonable person would have committed the same crime given the same circumstances, in order to prevent an outcome that would be much worse if the crime were not committed.

     In cases of self defense or defense of another, this generally means that the defendant must prove that any reasonable person in the same circumstances would be led to believe that a) the defendant or some other person was in danger of the victim’s imminent use of force and b) that given the facts and circumstances the only likely way to prevent the imminent use of force was the preemptive use of force.  In cases involving deadly force, it is generally required that the defendant prove that the imminent danger was itself a danger of the use of deadly force. 

    There should never be a “reasonable doubt” as to whether a killing was in self defense or not.  There may be a reasonable doubt as to whether the crime was committed, but whether the commission of the crime was justified is a matter that must be proved.  In this case, with Zimmerman following Martin, then approaching him not far from his vehicle, with Martin unarmed, it is difficult to believe that Zimmerman was ever in danger of Martin’s imminent use of deadly force, or that shooting Mr. Martin was in fact the only likely way to avoid Martin’s use of deadly force against him.  The fact that Zimmerman could have gotten back into his car and driven away and called for police assistance without shooting or being shot by Mr. Martin, in and of itself, would be sufficient to dismiss a self-defense claim in most jurisdictions.

    If we remove the requirements of imminence and last resort from self defense cases we left with a wild west paradigm, in which anyone who shoots another armed person (or even just a scary looking one) can aptly claim self defense.  Since most killings involve some degree of direct conflict as the person being killed attempts to resist dying, this would give most killers the ability to claim self defense.  Unless we want to live in a world where gunfighters settle their differences openly in our streets, we should revisit the legal tests we used to come to this decision.

    • OnPointComments

      From the jury instructions:  Zimmerman is presumed innocent, and the presumption stays with Zimmerman unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.  Zimmerman isn’t required to prove anything; it is up to the State to prove Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.  The State claims that Zimmerman murdered Martin.  Are there reasonable facts that provide an alternate explanation?  Has the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty?

    • John Cedar

      I’m not sure about your burden of proof you outline.
      Is it “any reasonable person” or simply “a reasonable person” ? How about at least half the reasonable people? Or a reasonable percentage of the reasonable people?

      To make a judgment such as yours, it has to be determined if Zimmerman had a right to keep an eye on Martin and or approach him and or speak to him. Or if he broke a law in doing so???

      • simeonfreston

        I believe you are right that the court uses “a reasonable person” as the ruler.  It is however irrelevant whether Zimmerman was breaking the law approaching Martin–Zimmerman broke the law when he shot and Killed Martin clearly.  The question then becomes, was shooting Martin Zimmerman’s only reasonable recourse to prevent the imminent use of deadly force against himself or another–and for this question the burden of proof lies on the defendant.  That so many people are saying that “it could have been self-defense” equals “a reasonable doubt” is a misapplication of the law.  There is no doubt that a crime was committed.  The question is was Zimmerman justified by self-defense.  In this matter, the burden of proof lies on Zimmerman.  I have not read the court’s instructions to the jury, but from listening to the closing remarks, the defense did a much better job of purposefully muddying this principle by implying that the mere possibility of self defense constituted a reasonable doubt than the prosecution did of clarifying these two distinct questions that the jury was supposed to decide. 

    • DeJay79

       YES YES YES, thank you for stating what I have been feeling all along. It takes two to tango and the one left standing does not get to “be right” just because he shot the other person.

      • OnPointComments

        The one left standing, if he claims self defense, is presumed to “be right” unless the State can prove otherwise.

  • JobExperience

    Put them in your pants and run through a fire. That’d show more common sense than George Zimmerman.
    * intended as reply to donniebrasco who recently bought a new gun and some fireworks
    He should meet Futo Buddy in a dark Florida alley.

    • donniethebrasco

      What about you?

      Are you a short pudgy Latino?

  • HonestDebate1

    Have they given Zimmerman his gun back yet?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       yes, as soon as he was acquitted.

  • Radical___Moderate

    This was the right verdict. People should have a right to protect themselves and own guns. If a person attacks someone as it appears the jury realized that Trayvon Martin did, George Zimmerman has the right to protect himself.
    The weak, shallow, sophomoric marxist media got it all wrong again. Law and order should prevail.
    The worst racism out there that is never spoken about in the statist liberal college-like media is the anti-white racism of many blacks and minorities. This “professor” strikes me as the typical pseudo-intellectual, paper-intellectual light-weight who is really little more than a malcontent.
     AT THE END OF THE DAY…neither George nor Trayvon “turned the other cheek.” It is a tragedy. Nonetheless, this was a hispanic man shooting a black young man. PROPORTIONALLY AND PERCENTAGE WISE, the minorities are committing the lion’s share of the violent crimes on each other. Go ahead and compare the stats on minority-on-minority violence with those of white on minority…. It is undeniable.
    Therefore, to black men across America, my respectful advice would be: “Fix your own houses” before blaming others, raise your own children instead of abandoning them to gangs and urban hell. Treat your women with more respect. Stop killing one another. Stay in school. Work hard. And thrive.”
    Many complain about the USA….but it sure beats Africa.

    • papayamaya5

      Black on black violence or violence amongst minorities has NOTHING to do with this. This was about an armed White/Latino male (who benefitted from white privilege) killing an unarmed black teenager. How is this not racially charged? Trayvon was killed because of the tone of his skin and the perceived danger associated with young black men. TO EXIST, WE ARE A THREAT. 

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Is it possible that Trayvon was killed because he was pounding Zimmerman head into concrete and didn’t stop even when the neighbor confronted them?

        Was race involved?  I don’t see it.  Was race involved when Martin struck the first blow — breaking Zimmerman’s nose?  He broke the ‘creepy -ss cracker’s’ nose.

        • papayamaya5

          Is it possible that this whole event would have never happened if George Zimmerman didn’t racially profile, follow Trayvon with a gun, and then shoot him? Absolutely. 

          Of course you wouldn’t see how race is involved because that’s how white privilege works – you aren’t “burdened” by seeing how race affects and complicates your everyday life. So because Trayvon called Zimmerman those words, his death is somehow justified? I am truly disgusted by your sentiments.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             First, you have zero clue about my race or history so please don’t make assumptions.

            “So because Trayvon called Zimmerman those words, his death is somehow justified?”
            I never said that, implied that or thought that.  I would also be disgusted by that sentiment.

            I think this is a terrible tragedy and the message we should all take is that physical confrontations should be avoided because they can escalate with unanticipated and dire consequences.

            I am also saddened because I believe the false injection of race in this tragedy is setting back true race injustices — injustices that should never be tolerated.

          • papayamaya5

            Your comments shed enough light on your racist and bigoted point of view. But please, shed some light on what you see as “true race injustices” 

            PS: Your username “WorriedfortheCountry” clued me into your politics – I bet you also chant “take back the White House” at your social conservative rallies. I’m not surprised at how you can’t see where race fits into the picture, just take a look at your rhetoric because it speaks volumes to your character.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            So you are now profiling….  I see.

            So sad you don’t see the bigotry and prejudice in your own comments.

          • HonestDebate1

            What basis do you have to claim Martin was racially profiled? Is calling someone a creep-assed cracker racially profiling? 

          • papayamaya5

            Trayvon Martin was doing NOTHING wrong but because he was a young black male, he was wrongly perceived as a danger or threat. This case is the very definition of racial profiling.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Was Martin doing anything wrong when he sucker punched Zimmerman and broke his nose?

          • nj_v2

            An unarmed, 17-year-old kid, doing nothing wrong, is stalked and followed, with Zimmerman running after him after being advised by the police not to.

            But you go ahead and keep on spinning it however you want.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             We an agree that Martin was doing nothing wrong (based on the evidence) UNTIL he punched Zimmerman.

            That isn’t spin.  I’ve always said this was a tragedy and I also believe we are taking the wrong message.  This is a clear case on why we should all be avoiding physical altercations.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s sick.

          • jefe68

            By what basis do you claim he was not?

          • HonestDebate1

            Whatever, sticks and stones…

            A word is a word. I do not think blacks are so inferior and fragile that a word (used often by Trayvon BTW) reduces them to tears. I have more respect for my fellow man than that. You don’t have to.

      • notafeminista

        Apparently Chris Rock agrees. 

      • OnPointComments

        Papayamaya5′s comments remind me of a bit I heard from a black comedian.  He said that his father finds racism in every single aspect of life.  Everything, everything, is racist.  Walking down the aisle of the grocery store, his father says “Would you look at this!  Black olives in a can!  The green olives get to be in a jar, but they put the black olives in can!  The Man always keeping the black olives down!”

        • papayamaya5

          Is there where you talk about how you have black friends?

          • jefe68

            Stay tuned, it’s going to get worse.

      • HonestDebate1

        White/Latino? That’s like calling the privileged Obama a black/white.

        • papayamaya5

          Oops, I forgot about the one drop rule of the 19th & 20th century. As a brown man in America, President Obama does not have white privilege, as you very well know. You and your antiquated views on race can take a seat. 

          • HonestDebate1

            He lived a privileged life and went to ivy league schools.

  • 1Brett1

    Welp, I guess if Zimmerman was justified/defending himself/Martin was up to no good because Martin was walking on a sidewalk and wearing a hoodie, we should view a young black male, wearing a hoodie and walking on a sidewalk with suspicion, especially if some other black male had recently committed a crime in the general vicinity of our neighborhood. Just to make sure this guy, this a**hole, this f**king punk doesn’t get away, we should follow him, but better bring a gun, just in case you might feel threatened. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       So you take issue with Zimmerman calling the police?

      • 1Brett1

        If he had just called police and nothing more, this whole thing would not have happened…my point wasn’t about Zimmerman calling police. I was making a point about profiling people and having pre-conceived notions about people based on how they look and our own perceptions based on our own experiences; we need to be careful about that. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Yes, we all need to be careful.

            I wish the message people would take from this terrible tragedy is to avoid physical altercations because escalations can have unpredictable and dire consequences.

          • 1Brett1

            I’ll agree with you, there, Worried; that is sensible and reasonable advice for all. 

          • brettearle

             Ditto

          • HonestDebate1

            4th try:

            The moderator got me again but it was short so I’ll try again. I have no idea why.

            First, thanks for the clarification but who cares about the number? It doesn’t affect my point. What basis do you have to say Worried For The Country didn’t endorse my interpretation? Are you mind reading again? You agreed with her (or him) and I agree with you. It was sensible and reasonable advice. Why would she (or he) “like” my comment if that is not what WFTC meant?

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree. Zimmerman made the right choice in calling 911 instead of confronting Martin.

          • 1Brett1

            This is an example of your dishonest crap. That’s not what Worried was saying. First, he did not call 911, he called the non-emergency number; others called 911 not he. Second, we don’t know whether he confronted Martin or if Martin confronted him. Somebody confronted somebody; that’s all we know. If he had stayed in his car, that would have been a clear non-confrontation on Zimmerman’s part.

        • donniethebrasco

          If I were Martin, I would have gone home.

          • 1Brett1

            He was dead; it’s hard to go home when you’re dead.

    • HonestDebate1

      “…Martin was up to no good because Martin was walking on a sidewalk and wearing a hoodie…”

      You made that up. Zimmerman said Martinlooked like he was up to no good. He did not say it was because of a hoodie. That’s a bizarre recasting of events. Why do you fell like you must do that? He did say Martin looked like he was on drugs and he was right.

      • 1Brett1

        First of all, you know what having only trace amounts of marijuana in your system is about. Martin wasn’t high on drugs. It is shameful that you would emphasize that to cast Martin in a certain light at all…shameful. 

        Second, Zimmerman said Martin was “…up to no good,” that he was an “a**hole,” and that he was a “f**king punk.” Now, perhaps I don’t know exactly why Zimmerman thought Martin looked like he was all of these things, true, Zimmerman had to make these observations based on something, so what was it? Walking home in the rain? Talking on the phone? Wearing a hoodie? Holding Skittles and an ice tea? Being black? 

        • HonestDebate1

          He was on drugs as Zimmerman said. It’s undeniable and validates Zimmerman’s opinion. If you want to use Zimmerman’s words against him then consider everything he said and where he was right. It’s not a matter of emphasis, it’s rebuttal to your comment. 

          Zimmerman offered no opinion about the hoodie, he was asked what the suspect was wearing. 

          You don’t have to make up reasons Zimmerman was suspicious, this is what he said:

          “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

          This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.”

          Zimmerman did not call Trayvon an Ahole or effing punk, he was referring to the numerous break ins and those who were not prosecuted. There is a difference.

          • jefe68

            How would Zimmerman know he was on drugs? 

            You and Zimmerman have something in common, you’re both lacking in the common sense department.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Wait, it turns out Zimmerman was correct; he was on drugs. You refuse to give Zimmerman any credit.

          • HonestDebate1

            He didn’t know, he didn’t claim to know.

          • 1Brett1

            It had to have been days, even weeks, since Martin had smoked reefer for there to only be “trace amounts in his system; you know that.  

            Zimmerman said he was [EITHER] up to no good OR on drugs. He was walking in the rain and that made him a “suspect”? He was “on drugs” and that made him a robber of some kind? Zimmerman was including Martin in the a**hole and f**king punk realm, along with others whom he considered to be the same. He considered Martin to be just like those others who broke into homes and robbed them. Why did Zimmerman consider Martin to be the same as those a**holes and f**king punks? Did Zimmerman say those things but stipulate that Martin was NOT like those other a**holes or f**king punks? Why did Zimmerman say that? For something colorful to say? 

            All I have done is ask a series of questions about Zimmerman, I haven’t made up any reasons for Zimmerman to be suspicious of Martin. His saying Martin was “up to no good” or “on drugs” are not observations; they are opinions. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I will never understand how you reach these bizarre conclusions. Zimmeman didn’t say “either”. “Or” is not a mutually exclusive word especially when followed with “or something”. He was hardly making a specific accusation. 

            If I see someone in my neighborhood walking next to houses “looking about” after dark in the rain then I’m suspicious that he’s “up to no good”. That is completely reasonable opinion in a context where there have been numerous break-ins. What is so hard to understand about that?

            And yes, you did make up reasons and you interjected race:

            “Welp, I guess if Zimmerman was justified/defending himself/Martin was up to no good because Martin was walking on a sidewalk and wearing a hoodie, we should view a young black male, wearing a hoodie and walking on a sidewalk with suspicion, especially if some other black male had recently committed a crime in the general vicinity of our neighborhood. Just to make sure this guy, this a**hole, this f**king punk doesn’t get away, we should follow him, but better bring a gun, just in case you might feel threatened.” 

            Now go ahead and say you were kidding or being satirical or whatever. You wrote what you wrote.

  • 1Brett1

    Zimmerman has lowered expectations for how concealed gun owners should behave. 

    It seems having a concealed gun requires a certain responsibility not to take the law into your own hands. A concealed gun carrier should err on the side of leaving an area of potential trouble and letting the police take care of things. Zimmerman didn’t seem to want to leave it up to: 1) calling police 2) leaving the area and letting them handle it. 

    I think most concealed gun carriers are more responsible than Zimmerman, at least I hope they are. 

    • HonestDebate1

      All we have is the testimony, circumstantial evidence and the verdict. It was judged there was not enough reasonable doubt to say Zimmerman did not feel his life was in danger. I understand you disagree but on what basis do you completely dismiss the notion Zimmerman was acting responsibly to save his life after being ambushed? 

      • jefe68

        Ambushed? Were you there? How do you know this? Are you a big an idiot as Zimmerman?

        • HonestDebate1

          I know it insofar as much as anyone can decern from the testimony, circumstantial evidence and verdict.

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, you are misreading the verdict.

      • 1Brett1

        Every aspect of your comment is wrong as a reply to what I wrote.

        “It was judged there was not enough reasonable doubt to say Zimmerman did not feel his life was in danger.”

        First of all, the verdict: that there WAS enough reasonable doubt that he committed murder not to convict him of murder/manslaughter. It was NOT “not enough reasonable doubt to say Zimmerman did NOT feel his life was in danger.” If you stand by your statement, you are missing a very subtle and important distinction.

        Secondly, your statement, “I understand you disagree…” is presumptuous and misleading (to put it the most respectful way I can). I do not disagree with the verdict, just to be clear, the jury was only able to (as you list) work from “the testimony and circumstantial evidence” presented, and the verdict was appropriately based on those factors. 

        My comment was not about whether Zimmerman used self defense, or whether or not the evidence was adequately explored, or about the trial itself, or Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence; it was about Zimmerman’s responsibility while carrying a concealed weapon (and even something I didn’t mention: being a Neighborhood Watch captain). 

        He knew that he had a responsibility to avoid putting himself in danger, putting himself in a situation where he might have had to use his gun for either self defense or to potentially scare someone. His actions should have been (to repeat): 1) report to police and 2) leave the area and let police handle it. As a concealed gun carrier AND as a Neighborhood Watch captain, he decided to involve himself in the pursuit of Trayvon Martin beyond what he should have. If he had had the good sense to see it that way, he wouldn’t have put himself in the position of having to defend himself (if he did actually defend himself). 

        I am not completely dismissing Zimmerman’s need to defend himself. We don’t know if he was or wasn’t defending himself, just that according to the verdict he was NOT committing murder/manslaughter. And, to finish, we don’t know that Zimmerman was “ambush[ed],” that is your absolute belief in something that in reality may or may not be true.

         

        • HonestDebate1

          You disagree that Zimmerman felt his life was in imminent danger, you’ve made that clear over and over. Am I wrong about that? I didn’t say you disagreed with the verdict. 

          You dismiss the notion Zimmerman could have been acting responsibly to save his life. You dismiss the notion that one of them was going to die no matter what. I am asserting neither but your comment rules both out completely.

          A concealed carry permit carries no responsibility not to take the law into your own hands. Self defense is just that. 

          • 1Brett1

            Yep, wrong, I don’t know whether Zimmerman either a) thought he was imminent danger (whether real or paranoid) or b) he was actually in imminent danger. I haven’t said  over and over that I disagree that Zimmerman felt his life was in danger; I don’t know. I don’t believe it was, but believing and knowing are two different thing. You are rolling predictably. Obtuse in understanding my comments; evasive and manipulative about your own opinions…typical. 

            I am not dismissing anything just pointing out what the verdict reveals.

            Yeah, considering Zimmerman was “on duty” as a neighborhood watch guy, he should have left his gun at home or decided not to put himself into a position of having to use it.

  • Mattyster

    Apparently in Florida it’s legal for an armed white man to follow, confront, shoot and kill an unarmed black man as long as he feels ‘threatened’.  But if an unarmed black man (or boy) is followed and confronted by a white man, he better not defend himself because it’s OK for him to be shot.  There is no question that Martin is dead because Zimmerman shot him.  There is no question that Zimmerman brought the gun and Zimmerman created the confrontation.  I’m sure he didn’t set out to kill someone, but to say he is blameless because he was afraid, after he created the situation, is unacceptable.

    • OnPointComments

      Apparently in Florida it’s still legal to defend yourself if someone attacks you.  Thank God.

      • jefe68

        Thank God? You’re thanking God that this idiot made some awful choices and the result was that Trayvon Martin is dead. You make me sick.

      • HonestDebate1

        Hallelujah. 

        • jefe68

          That’s one low life response.
          Celebrating the death of a 17 year old.

          • HonestDebate1

            Listen here, if you want to debate then debate honestly. Don’t make sick, stupid lies as replies. I was replying to what OPC wrote. Read it.  

      • 1Brett1

        Except, you don’t know that Martin “attacked” Zimmerman; he may have just been defending himself.

    • http://www.facebook.com/russell.ludwick Russell Ludwick

      It’s all good, shove a gun in someones ribs and if they fight back just kill them and claim self defense and claim he was armed with a sidewalk, fists, cellphone, fingernails and his fluffy stuffed animal in his backpack.  What a croc 

  • Bruce94

    Two high-profile court cases in the past three weeks that should disabuse anyone of the notion that we live in a post-racial era or in a society without institutional racism.  First, SCOTUS declaring that the key provision of the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed and, now, the Sanford jury declaring Zimmerman not guilty of at least manslaughter.  True, we’ve progressed beyond the days of lynchings and firebombings only now to have self-appointed, armed “Neighborhood Watch” vigilantes with arrest records of their own free to profile anyone they encounter as a “suspect,” pursue them, provoke a fight and ultimately shoot an unarmed “suspect” with impunity–an impunity derived from a state statute or arcane legalism that tells the vigilante it’s okay to hunt someone you mistakenly view as the bad guy so long as you claim after the fact that you reasonably believed lethal force was necessary to avoid imminent death or great bodily injury in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. 

    Like one of the guest pointed out, the defense attorneys would have us believe that any African-American in a hoody standing on a sidewalk should be viewed as armed and dangerous–a patently absurd assertion that would appeal only to those who have bought into the paranoia that set into motion Zimmerman’s despicable act in the first place. 

    • HonestDebate1

      You’ve lost me, the SCOTUS decision confirmed we ARE past race. I think it’s racist to assume blacks need special help to vote. It’s insulting.

      And the defense would have is believe nothing of the sort. The case was not about race.

      • Bruce94

        The SCOTUS decision unleashed the floodgates of Voter ID and other suppression laws that will undoubtedly dilute the vote of and create undue hardships for ethnic and racial minorities.  I think the ACLU has filed lawsuits against several states that have enacted such laws.

        • HonestDebate1

          Why do you assume blacks are incapable of obtaining ID?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            That pathetic feint doesn’t fly here.

            Voter-scrubbing laws intended to keep blacks from voting are the feature, not the “verification”.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s sick. 

          • jefe68

            No your racist tinged remarks are what’s sick.

          • jimino

            You mean like military veterans are apparently incapable of finding a job without government-mandated assistance?  Or do you find assistance for them in that area offensive to your view of the world too? 

          • HonestDebate1

            No, I mean obtaining a valid ID (aka not being a felon). Voting is not rocket science. You seem to think I’m against government assistance, I’m not. I’m against assuming blacks are so inferior they can’t vote without it.

      • jefe68

        The case was about an idiot with a gun.

      • Bruce94

        As my original post indicated, we have progressed beyond the days of violence and intimidation against racial and ethnic minorities.  However, the poll taxes and literacy tests of a bygone era have now been replaced by different tactics like the following: requiring photo or hardcopy ID’s that make it more difficult for not only minorities but also college students and seniors to cast their vote; relocating polling sites to areas that require blacks, Hispanics, the elderly as well as the disabled to travel farther in order to vote; redrawing voting precincts to dilute minority votes; reducing the window for registration and voting; reducing the number of polling places in order to create excessive waiting times.

        Southern Republicans are employing these tactics and others because these practices create obstacles that impede historically Democratic voting blocs including blacks and Latinos disproportionately.  While a few states outside the South have tried to implement similar practices, the real power of Hispanics and blacks lies in the South and states like TX and AR where the rising numbers of minority voters and overall demographic trends are causing the GOP apoplexy and resulting in a frenzy to adopt these mean-spirited, draconian measures in order to suppress the vote.

        • HonestDebate1

          I just don’t see how those things disproportionately affect blacks, and this is key, because they are black. Assumptions about the color of skin must be made to hold that view. I live in a State in the South (NC) that was gerrymandered out the yin yang to the advantage of Democrats. 

    • kbainard

      Is it not possible in your mind  that Trayvon Martin provoked this confrontation?  I think it is possible and I find Geoge Zimmerman to be credible.  I have heard black parents ask “what do we tell our sons so they can be safe”.  I have a 24 year old son so I know what it is like to parent a teenager.  I would advise my son, especially in a state which has so many concealed weapons, to NOT attack someone in the neighborhood no matter what the provocation.  Dead is dead.  kgb         

      • Bruce94

         Not likely that Trayvon provoked Zimmerman since he was the one being stalked.  The physical evidence including only minor injuries, Zimmerman’s contradictory statements and lies, and common sense (the low probability even given Zimmerman’s account that Trayvon could have seen or reached for the gun or that Zimmerman could have pulled it out lying on his back) are just a few factors that IMO damage Zimmerman’s credibility.  I too have adult children and can identify with your experience raising teens, and agree with your admonition to young and old alike not to respond to provocations with force. 

  • StilllHere

    Only racists see racism at play here.

    • jefe68

      Only a troll would make comment like this.

      • OnPointComments

        Since you said “comment like this,” and not “comment like yours,” I assume you’re referring to your own comment.  I agree with you, you troll.

        • jefe68

          No the troll still here. 
          By the way, bugger off.

    • Bruce94

      I never called Zimmerman a racist.  I referred to this case as an example of “institutional racism.”  For example, how could it have taken 40 days(?) for them to arrest Zimmerman, who evidently was not even held very long after the incident?  Also, given how the defense injected race into their argument, I think race was both implicitly and explicitly used to conjure up a menacing image of the victim.

      • StilllHere

        Sounds like the police rightly perceived him to be innocent, but political pressure from racists clamored for an arrest.  

        • Bruce94

          Maybe innocent of 2d degree murder, but what about lesser charges?  BTW, this case hits home.  As an active member of my own neighborhood watch program, I’ve gotten into my car to follow persons of varying  racial and ethnic backgrounds (i.e. white and non-white) after they were on my property or canvassing the neighborhood.  My purpose was merely to collect info (e.g. description of the person, car or license plate no.) and report to the non-emergency police dispatcher.  I’ve never ever considered getting out of my vehicle precisely because I viewed the person or his behavior as suspicious.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            was “never get out of your car” a specific rule for your group?

          • jefe68

            It’s a rule that the National Neighborhood Association advises. 

            Our Participants Handbook states, “Always remember that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police/sheriff.

            “Neighborhood Watch participants act as additional eyes and ears for law enforcement. 
            They do not take the law into their own hands. 

            Mr. Zimmerman clearly did not heed this advise.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            at what point did he try to arrest anyone or take the law into his own hands?

        • John Cedar

           I would think a district attorney should have a say in such matters. And a grand jury too.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            why? the police knew they had no case. do you think they waste grand juries when they have no evidence or reasonable conjecture to show them?

          • John Cedar

            They had a dead guy and a guy that admitted shooting him. Yes, they often waste grand juries on those type of cases.  It would have been a great way to CYA.
            And if the police were competent, they could have had much more evidence than they had.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh they should have fabricated some the old fashioned way? cops usually do err on the side of arresting people. I think its very telling that in this case they did not. if cops have ” a dead guy and a guy that admitted shooting him” if they can come up with anything they are going to arrest the guy. they spent 6 hours interrogating the guy trying to come up with anything. they could not so they cut him lose. that should have been the end of the story. seems simple enough until someone invented the term “white Hispanic” then it became a political and media frenzy and only then was he arrested and charged.

      • notafeminista

        Most often one cannot be held for more than 72 hours without being charged.  If the DA didn’t have enough evidence of a chargeable offense within that time frame, the in custody person must be released.  It is understood he may be re-arrested at any time.

        It seems safe to assume you would not have preferred the State to have given Mr. Zimmerman an unlawful detention option.

        • Bruce94

          That sounds plausible.  But why was the recommendation of the lead investigator with umpteen years of experience ignored or overridden.  As I recall, and I didn’t follow this too closely before the trial, he recommended that Zimmerman be arrested and charged with manslaughter or some other lesser offense?  Also, why did the lead investigator quit (or was he removed?) and accept reassignment to some low profile job?  And, why did he seemingly flip for the defense in some of his testimony?  Do you think it’s possible that if there is a civil suit and it goes to trial, some dirty laundry might be exposed there?

          • notafeminista

            Is that a rhetorical question?

          • Bruce94

             No.  I’m obviously no lawyer. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the interviewed him for 6 hours and looked at the evidence they had and they could not make a case. one possibility is that it was in fact a case of self defense as it seemed after the initial investigation

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what do you think the answer to your question is?

    • Mattyster

       Does anyone honestly believe that if Martin’s & Zimmerman’s race had been reversed, and all the other facts were the same, that the outcome would have been the same?  You really think the white jury would have acquitted the armed black guy who followed, shot and killed the unarmed white kid?  Give me a break.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        can he still afford the same lawyers in your hypothetical? OJ got off. evidence is evidence and you need some to convict someone of murder. I think in your hypothetical when people found out about the guns, violence and drugs that white travon was into there would be a lot of “where were the parents?” type discussion by the talking heads. would there be hooded marches in support of the punk white kid who jumped the older African American neighbor and beat him mercilessly
         until the neighbor managed to get a shot off  to save his life?

  • donniethebrasco

    Only in American can a Hispanic man kill a black young man, be acquitted by an all-female jury, and white men are still blamed.

    • StilllHere

      Amen.  I blame the racists.

    • Wahoo_wa

      Only hispanics are considered white….and Zimmerman was mixed race (if we’re being technical…LOL) But I do understand your point.

      • papayamaya5

        Hispanics are NOT considered White, unless they are White Hispanic or White Latino. Why is being accurate considered being technical? 

        • OnPointComments

          Because the media started using “White Hispanic” after they had been stoking racial divisiveness by calling Zimmerman “White.”  The media wanted this story to be as sensational as possible, and keeping the story sensational demanded that Zimmerman be described as white, one way or the other.  Perhaps to counter my argument you’ll provide us with links to all of the news stories that described Sonia Sotomayor as a “White Hispanic” when she was nominated to the Supreme Court.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            or perhaps anyone, ever being described by any media as a “white Hispanic” besides this sap

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I don’t care who you are that’s funny right there

  • donniethebrasco

    If Zimmerman was planning to kill Martin, he would have never called the police.

    • 1Brett1

      1st degree, premeditated murder was never on the table for prosecution. 

  • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

    Donniethebraso! You hoo!! (Conspiratorial whisper) “No one is responding to you.” 
    You are irrelevant. [That's a BIG word, look it up]

    • notafeminista

      By the by…its “yoo hoo”. 

      • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

        I prefer “by the way”. I thought “You hoo” was more clear for a person whose mind is clogged with rage, but thank you for playing.

        • notafeminista

          Not only less clear, but incorrect.  Context and usage are important.  You’re welcome.

          • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

            …IYVHO. Don’t mention it honey.

          • hennorama

            disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd – my brain has a sort of autoreverse linguistic feature, and at first glance I read “oy vey”.

            Second glance yielded “IVY HO.”

            The third time was indeed the charm.

          • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

            Oh. Disqus strikes again, with a case of hiccups.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          good idea to distract them with thoughts of delicious sweet chocolaty Yoo-hoo.

      • 1Brett1

        Wasn’t “yoo hoo” covered in Strunk and White? 

        Why, you harken back to those crisp fall days at Oxford, around the old red oak tree, where young pedants had heated discussions over the proper use of “yoo hoo.” Those were the days…

        • hennorama

          Nominee for Word Of The Day:

          pedant.

          Had to look it up.

          TY 1Brett1 for prompting this expansion of my vocabulary.

          • 1Brett1

            Doesn’t “kine” have to do with a group of cows or something? I remember seeing that in some old novel…”Pedant” is, of course, the root of “pedantic.”

            Thanks for the link.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – Ding ding ding! Give the man a seegah!

            And yes, I of course now realize that I should have known “pedant” (hanging head in shame).

            However, now I DO know “pedant” and I thank you, the catalyst.

          • 1Brett1

            I was guessing on the “kline”…it was either that or a “little group of cows’ music,” the nocturne by Mozart!

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – based on a recent exchange related to “synapse,” any discussion of Mozart’s heretofore undiscovered work “Ein Licht Kuhherde Musik” is best stopped while we’re ahead.

            Unless of course one wishes to discuss the coincidentally recently discovered work, now affectionately known as “The Sea Cows Suite” – Eine kleine kine Yachtmusik.

          • 1Brett1

            “‘The Sea Cows Suite’” – Eine kleine kine Yachtmusik.’ 

            I actually DID ‘laugh-out-loud’ on that! 

          • hennorama

            Yeah … that one was a “self-crackerupper” too.

            I considered “The Non-sire Of The Manatees” but that was too far out there.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – did you notice the musical audience photo in yesterday’s forum?

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/16/americas-organic-food-shortage

            They were listening to ‘Ein Licht Kuhherde Musik’ and anticipating ‘Eine kleine kine Yachtmusik’.

            Apparently Mozart’s music increases bovine output, as the chart in the link below shows. Notice the spike beginning in 2009, shortly after the two works above were discovered.

            http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Milk_Production_and_Milk_Cows/cowrates.asp

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – a corollary comment, if I may – yanno, just FYI and just between us, OK?

            Shortly after the recent discovery of the sheet music of ‘Eine kleine kine Yachtmusik,’ akaa (also known affectionately as) “The Sea Cows Suite,” there were rumors flying around that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were trying to buy it, so they could re-dub the South Park episode “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride.”

            Apparently, the rumor goes that they thought “The Sea Cows Suite” would be appropriate theme music for a South Park episode involving both the South Park Cows football team and “Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride.”

            I’m not sure I agree. Personally I think that maybe they just had money to burn after the success of ‘The Book of Mormon.’

            The thing is though … no one has actually seen the original Mozart sheet music since Oxfam withdrew it from a Sotheby’s auction 2 years ago.

            See:
            http://www.foyles.co.uk/news/original-mozart-sheet-music-found-in-charity-shop

            Whether that is in any way related to the rumors of a sequel to ‘The Book of Mormon’ remains to be seen.

            However, the working title is rumored to be “The Book of Brangus,” and the plot somehow involves crossbred Angus-Brahman cattle floating on a barge on the Erie Canal outside Palmyra, NY and across from Hill Cumorah, that somehow wind up on the Great Salt Lake.

            Those South Park guys are “Trey” loco, no?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you win todays ironic post award

          • hennorama

            FB – at the rate this topic is garnering comments, it’s far too early to give out any awards, wouldn’t you agree?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I cant imagine topping that unless wotan shows up and says he just learned the meaning of condescention

      • hennorama

        notafeminista – actually, in using the customary “You hoo!!” greeting, disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd was merely acknowledging the well-known fact that donnietheboob is a graduate of The Hundred of Hoo Academy.

        Those in the know always shorten the Old English term for HOHA students: Hoo Tieam Persandt Heb Lowfsh.

        “Hoo” just rolls off the tongue much more easily.

  • hypocracy1

     Rule number one of self defense:  Don’t approach strange black guys and ask what they are doing in this neighborhood.. 

    • notafeminista

      What are you implying?

      • hypocracy1

         Don’t place yourself in potentially dangerous situations

        • notafeminista

          Guess I’ll not be leaving the house then.

          I thought right wingers were the fear mongers.

  • tbphkm33

    In relation to Florida law, I do not know how much the prosecutors hands were tied as far as what to charge Zimmerman with.  Overall, it does make you wonder if they overstepped what the evidence would support.  Maybe they should have presented a lesser charge that would be easier to get a conviction on.  Who knows.  Zimmerman did bring the weapon and did follow Martin.  Conceptually akin to causing an accident by willfully running a red light.  Someone dies, the driver can be charged through his/her negligence. 

    • OnPointComments

      The prosecutors threw every charge they could possibly conceive at Zimmerman.  At the last minute, they even alleged child abuse.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        they even went so far as to violate the law and zimmermans rights by hiding exculpatory evidence

    • John Cedar

      Running a red light, willfully or not, is against the law.

      Zimmerman following Martin and asking him what he was doing was not against the law either.
      Zimmerman carrying a weapon while he was doing so, was not against the law.

  • hypocracy1

    I guess Martin found out the hard way… As a Black man you must at all times try to present yourself in the most non-threatening manner imaginable to avoid being profiled as someone about to commit a felony.

    As a Black you are obligated to answer all inquiries in a satisfactory non-threatening manner from whoever approaches as you walk down the street.

    • OnPointComments

      “The most non-threatening manner imaginable” definitely includes not punching someone in the face, knocking him to the ground, and pounding on his head.

      • hypocracy1

         Yes, Martin should of complied with Zimmerman’s questioning of is presence in the neighborhood until Zimmerman was satisfied enough to allow Martin to leave. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          he could have said or done whatever he wanted short of attacking the person for merely asking questions. if there were ever even any questions asked before the attack

          • 1Brett1

            “attack” what? was this Martin a shark?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh humans never attack one another? you are becoming boring again

          • 1Brett1

            I’ll take that as a compliment; you actually thought I was NOT boring for a brief period of time…aww, shucks, thanks, FB!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            even stopped clock…. I was thinking you might have been a stopped digital clock for a while 

      • papayamaya5

        it also includes not following someone with a gun. wait, that was Zimmerman.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      if he was white, would attacking an armed stranger have had a good outcome?

      • JIm

        If Martin was white, would Zimmerman have followed him should be the question?

        • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

          Maybe, maybe not, but that’s irrelevant to Zimmerman’s fear for his own life and the subsequent justification for self-defense. FWIW, I could see a conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (notwithstanding the dearth of physical evidence). But once Martin got on top of him and started pounding his head into the pavement, self-defense was justified.

          • JIm

            I realize it is irrelevant, especially to the trial. But it is a point to ponder. Not only for what would Zimmerman have done but to look at our society and consider its thoughts and reactions to similar situations.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          but why wont you answer my question? I don’t see any reason why he would not of been suspicious of a white kid in the same situation.  like white kids never commit crimes. who thinks that way?

          • JIm

            but Zimmerman made some comments that indicated that Martin’s race was an issue.

      • jimino

        Why do you claim to know who started the physical confrontation?  What facts lead you to the conclusion it was the kid?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          besides the gun shot travons only other injury was a cut on his knuckles. zims knuckles were fine but his face and head were a mess. what conclusion do you draw from those facts?

          • jimino

            That the wimp was losing the fight he started.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so you are saying he had a gun but started a fist fight? then he decided to pull his gun after he lost the fist fight? yet no harm to his knuckles. and no injuries to martin besides one gun shot wound and knuckle injury? 
             I suppose you think that he planned it all out that way which is why its murder right? maybe he smashed his own face and head too right? he is an evil homicidal racist so that’s really the  reason why he masterminded a murder of a little helpless African American boy. and the cops are in on it too which is why they did not find the magical evidence that would prove his crime. it was the skittles that drove him over the edge, he hated how all the colors were in one bag, all together

          • jimino

            No, I’m saying the wimp confronted the kid and the kid fought back and the wimp was losing the fight he started.  Don’t you understand plain English?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            its clear you have a very active imagination

          • 1Brett1

            “besides the gunshot”? Seem like a pretty significant injury that would trump many other injuries to me. That notwithstanding, the person with the most injuries is always the guilty one? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            brett “trump”? its not a contest. we are trying to discuss the  physical evidence and see what conclusions it supports. this may be too nuanced for your type of  absolutist thinking

          • 1Brett1

            You are the one saying the number and types of injuries prove who was the aggressor, not I. A bloody nose is no match for a gunshot wound to the heart… yeah, I’d say there is a hierarchy for wounds.

          • HonestDebate1

            There is also a chronology of events. Martin did not kick Zimmerman’s ass after he was shot. 

          • 1Brett1

            Gregg: “Martin was dead after Zimmerman shot him, therefore Martin started the fight.” Yeah, sure, whatever.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s not what I said, where do you get this stuff?

          • 1Brett1

            the thread was about FB saying one could tell who started the fight by what each person’s injuries were; I disagreed. You injected the bit about chronology and how Martin didn’t kick Zimmerman’s ass after he was shot, which was either a non sequitur or an agreement with FB’s point of view. Either way, your comment was absurd and didn’t make any sense. Do you think Martin getting shot proves he started a fight with Zimmerman? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what did Lincoln say about arguing with a fool?

          • 1Brett1

            Did you reada book, at least one bookabout that?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “no match for”, you are still not getting it. I can’t say I am surprised.

          • 1Brett1

            Would you rather get punched in the nose or shot and killed?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            that’s not a logical question. would you rather be beaten to death or shot to death is a logical albeit stupid question.

          • 1Brett1

            logically stupid? Or stupidly logical?

    • OnPointComments

      “STEP BY STEP GUIDE ON HOW TO AVOID GETTING SHOT AND KILLED BY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN”

      http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/step-by-step-guide-on-how-to-avoid-getting-shot-and-killed-by-george-zimmerman/

      Step #1: Don’t pin George Zimmerman down on the ground.

      Step #2: Don’t break George Zimmerman’s nose.

      Step #3: Don’t give George Zimmerman two black eyes.

      Step #4: Don’t repeatedly slam George Zimmerman’s head on the pavement.

      That’s it. Just four simply, easy steps.

      • jefe68

        You forgot, if you’re George Zimmerman maybe you should heed the advice of a police dispatcher. Also you might be to dumb to own a firearm.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        from what I have heard now that Zim is on the loose and has his gun back African American  people cant even safely wear hoodies or drink iced tea anymore since its just a matter of time before he guns down another African American youth. I thought he would shoot you because you wore a hoodie or if you had skittles. that’s what I have heard

      • Lusitan75

        Thanks!  That’s some good advice right there.  All black parents should include this insightful advice in “the Talk” they have with their children about how evil white people are.

      • hypocracy1

         Step #5:  Don’t be black.

  • shrink01

    Is anyone but me outraged that Mr. Zimmerman, having just shot an innocent young man because of his own paranoia, is now once again handed this very handgun that has caused all this uproar.   Don’t we agree as a nation to keep guns out of the hands of people who might misuse them and hasn’t George Zimmerman just proved that he can’t be trusted to handle a gun with extreme caution?    We have clear evidence that he overreacted to seeing Travon Martin in his neighborhood – and now that he is afraid of being targetted isn’t he more likely to overreat with this same gun.    I’d like to know what idiot(s) allowed this murder weapon back in the hands of an unstable man.

    Joan Finkelstein MD  (I am a psychiatrist practicing in Mass)

    • notafeminista

      Can you imagine a circumstance in which a confiscated firearm might be returned?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        it happens all the time. probably less often here in the commonwealth where many peoples rights are violated without much recourse.

        • notafeminista

          Begs the question.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            which question?

    • brettearle

      Your self-righteousness is justified.

      However, you already know the answer to your question, that was at the end of your comment.  And you KNOW that you know the answer.

      Those `idiot(s)’ are the LAWS.

      He was found not guilty.

      The LAW therefore says, to all intents and purposes, that he was Innocent.

      Anyone Not Guilty, who has a license to carry a gun, can have it returned.

      What’s more, as a psychiatrist, you also know TOO WELL that this was not a trial on Mental Competence.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      perhaps you should file to have him committed if you really believe him to be a dangerous homicidal maniac. self defense is not misusing a gun, nor is it murder.
       tell me more about how the handgun caused all this uproar? how long have you felt that guns are living beings?

    • tbphkm33

      Good point.  You shoot someone, even by accident and it just grazes the person, it should be grounds to be banned from owning a gun.  Clearly shows that you are incapable of safely handling a weapon.  

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        However that isn’t applicable in this case is it?  There was no accidental discharge.

        Should we apply the same logic to automobile licenses.  If you are found liable for an an accident are you therefore FOREVER ‘incapable’ of handling an automobile?

        • jefe68

          Your premium goes up every time you have an accident. The false equivalency, you right wingers love em. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Now that you’re done, you can reply to tbphkm33 and point out his clear false equivalency.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        start with Cheney!
        usually they will try to pin something on you then they can take your gun away. they don’t really call them firearms accidents anymore they call them firearms incidents implying that there are no accidents if you are following the safe handling rules, someone is always responsible.

    • hennorama

      Dr. Finkelstein – is it ethically acceptable and appropriate for a practicing psychiatrist to offer what appear to be professional opinions about a specific individual, in a public setting such as this?

      You used the phrases

      “because of his own paranoia”
      “he can’t be trusted”
      “he overreacted”
      “he is afraid”
      “isn’t he more likely to overreat [sic]”
      “an unstable man”

      all related to Mr. Zimmerman, presumably without you having either spoken to or examined him in person, over the telephone, or via tele-psychiatry.

      Don’t you have a higher obligation to be more careful and responsible when it comes to such matters, especially in public forums?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        excellent point.

        • hennorama

          FB – Thank you for your kind words.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            that’s what I am best known for, de nada

          • hennorama

            HA! Don’t tempt me into changing my opinion of your passion now, FB.

      • HonestDebate1

        While I disagree with the good doctor, he can express his opinion just like anyone else. This is just a stupid blog, that’s what we do here. 

        • hennorama

          BoneheadTest – TYFYR. A few points:

          1. Dr. Finkelstein’s first name is Joan.

          2. Psychiatrists are expected to adhere to higher ethical standards than the general public.

          According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), “…there are special ethical problems in psychiatric prac­tice that differ in coloring and degree from ethical problems in other branches of medical practice…” and according to Section 7 of ‘The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry 2013 Edition’:

          “Psychiatrists may interpret and share with the public their expertise in the various psychosocial issues that may affect mental health and illness. Psychiatrists should always be mindful of their separate roles as dedicated citizens and as experts in psychological medicine.

          “On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

          See:
          http://www.psych.org/practice/ethics/resources-standards
          http://www.psych.org/File%20Library/Practice/Ethics%20Documents/principles2013–final.pdf

          3. Here’s the thing, Gregg – this isn’t a case of “There’s goes [hennorama] again, criticizing the commenter rather than discussing the topic.” When I noticed that Dr. Finkelstein identified herself as both “shrink01” and “Joan Finkelstein MD (I am a psychiatrist practicing in Mass)” it struck me as unusual for a psychiatrist to use such phrases, especially “because of his own paranoia,” about someone they presumably had not examined.

          So before commenting, I researched “ethics for psychiatrists.” Lo and behold, there it was in black and white – “In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination…“

          I recognize that Dr. Finkelstein had not necessarily “offer[ed] a professional opinion” about Mr. Zimmerman, but the use of the word “paranoia” by a psychiatrist carries considerable weight, and Dr. Finkelstein’s comments were not at all “about psychiatric issues in general” – they were specific to Mr. Zimmerman.

          This appeared to be in direct conflict with APA standards, which I tried to point out via my post.

          4. This “stupid blog” is from “WBUR Boston’s NPR News Station,” and Dr. Finkelstein practices in the Boston area. That makes her comments in this forum of more than passing interest to some, as one or more of her patients might actually read them. Dr. Finkelstein would be well-advised to be more careful in her public commentary.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yadda yadda, only a fool would confuse a harmless comment with a diagnosis. And I say that standing in total disagreement with the good doctor, lighten up.

          • hennorama

            1 BadStoneThee – yes, yes, please go on. Just lie on the very comfy divan over yonder, then continue …

            I believe you were searching for the iconic phrase “A Daddy Ad A day – Ya!” made famous in the 1930s by Dad’s Old Fashioned Root Beer founders Barney Berns and Ely Klapman.

            As to your comment – you may be familiar with the regional colloquialism “That’s about as useful as a trap door on a canoe.”

            TYFYR.

          • HonestDebate1

            A trap door in a cane can be very handy.

          • HonestDebate1

            You’re like a self-appointed neighborhood watchman but this isn’t your stupid blog. We don’t need you to do that.

          • hennorama

            1BadStoneThee –

            It’s understandable that a “person” who:

            - wrote the words “If you want to talk about race then be honest and confront the fact that black on white racism is a far worse problem today that the inverse.”

            and who then “honestly” quoted white separatist pseudo statistics, and

            - who claimed that in ‘Dreams From My Father,’ Barack Obama wrote “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”

            and when it was pointed out that Barack Obama didn’t wrote those words, replied -

            “If the one quote was made up, fine. It’s believable because of the others. It’s entirely plausible because of his history …”

            would squawk when the issue of ethics in the public square comes up.

            From the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic:

            [It's not about me.]

            Right you are, Gregg. It’s about ethics, a topic apparently completely unfamiliar to you, sir.

          • HonestDebate1

            You were the one who went to the White supremacist sites not me brother. I don’t go there. You admitted it.

            Obama wrote racist crap in his book, you won’t comment on the quotes that are real. He injected race in the Zimmerman case and the Cambridge incident. He blames everything on race. He harbors an animosity to his mother’s race. It’s plain.
            It’s a forrest thing you won’t get it.

            Your disingenuousness is amazing and if you want to talk ethics then look in the mirror. The doc was completely in line, did not talk about patients or make a diagnosis. you are unbelievable. I can’t believe you go on record like this, I love it.

          • hennorama

            1 BadStoneThee – TYFYR.

            Indeed, I “admitted” (what a hilarious mischaracterization – well done, sir!) that I read a number of white nationalist/separatist/supremacist links and publications, in an effort to understand the claim that YOU made, sir.

            I’m sure you “don’t go there” and were just quoting some completely reputable and reliable sources when you wrote the claim “Blacks are 39 times …”.

            I’m sure that you could find your sources for the “facts” you wrote about, and, because you are “honest,” would of course cite your source in this forum.

            I’m sure you’re proud of your sources, and not at all embarrassed to cite them, because your sources are reliable and reputable, and as you wrote, “If the one [“fact”] was made up, fine. It’s believable because of the others. It’s entirely plausible because of [your source's] history …”

            I’m sure that because of your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view, when you read those white separatist pseudo-statistics, you found them credible, and felt that you were being “honest” about “… the fact that black on white racism is a far worse problem today that the inverse” when you quoted those pseudo-statistics.

            I’m sure.

            I’m sure that because of your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view, when you read somewhere that in ‘Dreams From My Father,’ Barack Obama wrote “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race,” you found that credible too, and felt that you were being “honest” when you quoted that source. I’m sure you had checked the accuracy of the source, because as you wrote “I [Gregg Smith] don’t post anything without verifying,”

            I’m sure that when you wrote “If the one quote was made up, fine. It’s believable …”, you were just being “honest” and merely expressing your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view.

            I’m sure.

            I’m sure that because of your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view, when you wrote “you [hennorama] won’t comment on the quotes that are real,” you believed that was true, despite the fact that I wrote the following, directly to YOU, sir:

            “Your request for context, from another post, is also satisfied on Politifact.com and factcheck.org, here:

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/10/dreams-my-father-quotes-require-context/
            http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/

            I’m sure you “verified” that “you [hennorama] won’t comment on the quotes that are real,” and you did indeed “verify” that I didn’t write the above, because as you wrote “I [Gregg Smith] don’t post anything without verifying”.

            I’m sure.

            To “verify” how I “won’t comment,” all you need to do is open this link:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-951297871

            I’m sure you can appreciate how one might think posting a link to two articles from 5 years ago, that both debunked the claims that you made would obviate further disputation of your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view.

            I’m sure.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ve never been to a White supremacist site in my life. NEVER. You have. And you have posted propaganda from terrorist that you believed because they said something about Bush that was denied but fit your pre-conceived notions so you didn’t verify.
            You made up an out and out lie about Obama saying he could not deport certain illegals and then doing it. I gave video evidence and you didn’t verify it, you lied. You are not condemning Obama race-baiting starting with his nasty book. You do not condemn a nation convinced blacks are targets for walking down the street with skittles and fail to see it the opposite is true. You write libraries to defend it. You’re disgusting. But that’s cool, waller in it.

          • hennorama

            1 BadStoneThee – TYFYR.

            You wrote “I’ve never been to a White supremacist site in my life. NEVER.”

            I have a couple of simple and direct questions for you.

            1. What was the source of your “Blacks are 39 times …” claim?

            2. How do you characterize this article on examiner.com, which you linked to in a post in this forum? I’ll quote you, and include a link to your post, for you convenience:

            You wrote, in part:

            “Some don’t believe my claims. That’s not unusual. What is unusual is the lack of curiosity.

            http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas

            “I am appalled but not so concerned about racist comments from anyone because I strongly believe thoughts are not a crime. If they are, we’re done as a free nation. What I am concerned about is violence. The epidemic of blacks forming mobs and spreading mayhem is troubling. I believe it is enabled by a lack of outrage rooted in white guilt making excuses. Blacks are not expected to be good citizen by liberals.”

            This is a link to your post:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/21/week-taliban-nsa-immigration#comment-939804758

            Just two simple questions. I look forward to your “honest” response.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why do you ask me the source and then post the source I gave you? The Examiner is not a white supremacist site. I also cited WND and Thomas Sowell. WND is not a white supremacist site and Dr. Sowell is not a white supremacist. I offered to lower it to twice and then just more likely, you dodged.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – TYAFYR.

            Could you please simply write straight, direct answers to the questions that were asked? Your response gave only implied answers to my questions rather than direct ones.

            TY.

          • HonestDebate1

            No. I don’t play by your rules. And you are never forthcoming with answers to my questions. The fact that you issue orders means nothing to me. I’m about honest debate not silly games. Make of it what you will, I don’t care.

      • 1Brett1

        I agree, henn. Dr. Finkelstein made a point about emphasizing his credentials, as if his opinion is of some higher, more professional (therefore, somehow more valid) quality because of his expertise and credentials, which is inappropriately unprofessional. Your last paragraph is spot on.

        • hennorama

          Pssst …. 1Brett1 – Dr. Finkelstein’s first name is Joan.

          TY for your kind words.

          • 1Brett1

            Oops…I was thinking “John”

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – no worries, but you’ll likely be displeased with the company you’re in – see directly below.

      • brettearle

        Henn–

        Totally agree.

        Even though I may likely agree with her, on many things, she is doing nothing but fulfilling a glaring self-righteous stereotype:

        A Shrink who has already Shrunk someone whom she hasn’t yet Shrinked.

        [And don't give me with the S-alliteration stuff, neither!

        S'nuff said....]

        • hennorama

          brettearle – TYFYR.

          I shall avoid completely any “S-alliteration stuff” and take the tack not taken.

          (Apologies in advance to Theodor Seuss Geisel, may he rest in peace, and his many fans)

          Dr. Finkelstein’s new books:

          ‘One Zimm two Zimm red jacket blue jeans’

          ‘Hunches in Bunches’ (the Seuss estate sued over this one)

          ‘How The Zimmch Stole Travon’s Life’

          ‘Ethics and Ham’

          ‘The Doc On The Block Talks Smack’

          “Did I Ever Tell You How Crazy Zimm Is?’

          ‘The Paranoia Paradox Told By A Pair O’ Docs’ (co-written with her own therapist)

          and

          Dr. Finkelstein’s own therapist’s new book -

          “Oh, the Shrinks You Can Shrink!”

          One must recommend this VERY fun site:

          http://www.seussville.com/#/books

          • brettearle

            You are an absolute friggin’ Hoot!

            “I mean what I said and I said what I meant,

            BrettEarle’s word 100%.”

          • brettearle

             I have to say, you ole’ son-of-a gun (with permit and not concealed),

            You really outdid yourself on that stuff above….

            Very good.

            I may have met my match.

            [Although I used the word, `may'.]

          • hennorama

            brettearle – I thank you for your very kind words and am glad you enjoyed a few of mine.

            BTW, I don’t know if you’d heard about an unsolicited manuscript that hit an editor’s desk recently:

            ‘Mozart Hears A Moo’

            -Profiling Prodigies-

            -Ein Licht Kuhherde Musik and The Sea Cows Suite Explained-

            by Dr. Joan Finkelstein, MD

            Thanks again for your kind words.

          • brettearle

            Pardon my French, but I am going to assume that you know that Amadeus was notorious for his Flatulence.

            One of the above-mentioned Shrink’s ancestors saw him in treatment [yes, it runs in the family and I don't mean The Runs]–which treatment, apparently, was primal
            harbinger methodology, to the modern rendition of psychoanalytic psychotherapy.

            Back then it was affectionately called “Fugue You Shrink” [don't ask].

            But original sourced material claims that the actual talking therapy was known as,

            “Lingua Schlect sponte Kopf”

            [piece it together and look it up, if necessary]

            In any rate, as Legend goes, just like Edgar Marsella (sp?) in “The Catcher”, Mozart, baby, let one rip.

            The ancestor wouldn’t let it go.  [If you catch her drift....Where are the smelling salts!]

            She ripped one off herself, by tearing her subject apart in an intellectual rag, the forerunner of “On-Point”:

            It reminded me of the Zimmerman disarming (so to speak)–especially because it was the first session with the Maestro…and all she could do is judge psychic stability according to the stench.

            What a way to go!

            A Sonata does not fall far from its Tree.

          • hennorama

            Very, very well done, sir.

            Ich Furz in Ihrer allgemeinen Richtung.

    • StilllHere

      I am not a doctor, I just play one on this blog.  You are nuts!

      • jefe68

        The little troll squeaks and squawks.  

  • OnPointComments

    Zimmerman’s attorney has said that his team plans to “start in earnest ASAP” on Zimmerman’s defamation lawsuit against NBC for doctoring audiotapes to make Zimmerman sound racist.
     
    The Washington Post wrote “NBC Universal Media responded to the Zimmerman complaint by noting that other media outlets played up the racial angle of Zimmerman’s deadly encounter with Trayvon Martin.”
     
    It’s rare that you see the oft-used “But Mom!  Everybody else is doing it!” excuse as a response in a lawsuit.

    • notafeminista

      ..snort!

  • notafeminista

    To John_in_Amherst below:   Dispatchers start by not identifying themselves as police officers.  The assumption is made by a mistaken public.

    However one needn’t take my word for it.  Contact your local county or municipality – it may even be on its website – assuming it has one.

    • 1Brett1

      notafeminista’s broken record: “the dispatcher was not a police officer, therefore Zimmerman is innocent!”

      • jefe68

        Zimmerman is now the new poster-guy for the regressive right.

        • 1Brett1

          It’s amazing…almost to a fault neocons have defended Zimmerman. And the reasons have been 1) he was defending himself (when we don’t know he was). 2) charges should NOT have been brought in the first place but were only because of a) political correctness b) white guilt c) liberals stirring up racial tension and pressuring the government to bring charges d) the media stirring up trouble by over-reporting/overemphasizing white-on-black crime but ignoring black-on-black crime, and black-on-white crime (then out of the other side of their mouths, they are saying race has nothing to do with the case…unbelievable!    

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s bizarre. I made a comment to  JonBoston the other day about the fallacy of assuming this blog represent the collective mindset of America. There are plenty of liberals who believe he was defending himself. There are plenty of liberals that are spitting mad these charges were brought.

          • 1Brett1

            “Plenty”? As in a cornucopia of liberals? 

            “Spitting mad”? At least you didn’t have to worry about spittle if you were just reading liberals’ opinions. 

            All of that notwithstanding, you used a key word “believe.” Like you “believe,” someone can “believe” Zimmerman was defending himself, but that doesn’t mean he was.Are there any neocons who feel Zimmerman was over zealous?

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes there are a neocons, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, blacks, whites and all three sexes who think Zimmerman was over zealous. I think he was overzealous. I haven’t seen anyone say he wasn’t. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            overzealous? off with his head!

    • StilllHere

      These jokers aren’t interested in facts.

  • apaddler

    It doesn’t matter who said what. If you are the last person standing and there are no witnesses, you are NOT GUILTY.

    So make sure you shoot all the witnesses too!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      they are going to have to take all those csi shows off the air since physical evidence is now meaningless

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-MC/69207889 Matt MC

    Wow, Stacey Cole is really, obviously racist. You disgust me, ma’am. 

  • HonestDebate1

    Please, can someone tell me why a 17 year old thug executing a helpless 13 month old baby is not as newsworthy as the Zimmerman saga? I posted it when it happened and all I got was crickets? Why? 

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-hunt-young-boys-baby-mom-shooting-article-1.1296312

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actually that seems irrelevant to this case. a better question is why should George Zimmerman be held to a higher standard than a FBI agent with a man in custody?

      • Lusitan75

        Good point.  But “FBI shoots and kills unarmed Caucasian man while interviewing him in his own home” is not the dog-whistle for the libtard race-baiters that a “white person kills black person” story is.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          justice for that guy justice for that guy. too bad none of us can think of his name. nothing to see there right?

    • Lusitan75

      Because it doesn’t fit the libtard media story of poor innocent blacks living in terror of evil white people.

      Little baby Antonio, shot by black thugs for no reason, could have been my son.

      Where is the Obama press conference on that one?

    • donniethebrasco

      Because the child was still in the 4th trimester.

  • OnPointComments

    I’ve wondered why the President injected himself into this case.  The reasons in this article are as good an explanation as any.
     
    “OBAMA’S MISTAKE ON TRAYVON MARTIN CASE”
     http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/opinion/thernstrom-trayvon-martin-obama/index.html?hpt=op_t1 
     
    Excerpt:
    Every American can make their own judgment about whether justice was served by the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial but one thing we should all recognize: President Obama’s interference in a local law enforcement matter was unprecedented and inappropriate, and he comes away from the case looking badly tarnished by his poor judgment.
     
    The president’s remarks created a clear impression that he was motivated by one of two factors, and we can only guess as to which…One possibility is that this is merely another manifestation of the president’s well-known narcissism: No matter what the situation may be, it’s all about him.  The other, more troubling possibility is that the president surrendered to his political instincts. He wants disadvantaged Americans to believe that he and his family are one of them — despite their life of unparalleled privilege — and he wanted the prosecutors, judge and jury to believe that this was a case about race where justice demanded a guilty verdict.

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      Thank you for posting this screed which came to you via Abigail Thernstrom, shill for the august, rightward-straining, American Enterprise Institute. Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy. Other luminaries associated with the institute: John Bolton-Lynne Cheney-Newt Gingrich-Paul Wolfowitz and my PERSONAL favorite, Richard Perle, aka.”The Prince of Darkness”. 
      You have been picking cherries of some pretty LOW hanging branches. 
      This is NOT journalism.
      So much for Obama’s “well-known narcissism”. Obama did not “inject himself”; he responded to a question— It’s called empathetic identification. For the love of God this tragedy has stirred up enough hatred. We don’t need more. 

      • OnPointComments

        I have absolutely no problem with President Obama consoling the Martin family — IN PRIVATE.  This was an occasion when his standard response (e.g., Fast & Furious, Benghazi, spying on reporters, IRS, to name a few), “We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation,” was the appropriate answer to the question.

        • jefe68

          Oh boy, how many right wing memes can we list in one inane comment.

        • HonestDebate1

          He only uses that line when it suits him. And remember, he’s inserted himself inappropriately before with the Cambridge police and Skip Gates.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    I keep thinking of fat zim and then seeing trim young travon and cant help but wonder what their relative testosterone levels were.   

    • 1Brett1

      “fat zim”? Are you saying it would have been pretty unrealistic to think he got knocked off his feet with one punch to the face?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        no I just think, in general, relative testosterone levels probably could be used to predict who behaves more aggressively in a conflict between two male mammals.  I was listening to npr and they were doing a story about a woman taking testosterone to become a man. then I thought about people who take steroids and get all violent and about how your testosterone levels peak when you are about 13 and then begins to decline after a while. its not really unheard of for 17 year old boys to start fights, not sure why so many people can’t imagine it and think its more likely he was hunted down by a racist murderer.

        • HonestDebate1

          “…think its more likely he was hunted down by a racist murderer.”

          Bingo, that’s what bothers me the most. Why is is so easy to believe for so many people?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            mass hypnosis?

  • OnPointComments

    I wonder why when I search the web for news articles about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, I can’t find a single one from a major news source that describes her as a “White Hispanic.”  Not from CNN, or the New York Times, or Reuters, or ABCNews, or NBCNews, all of which described Zimmerman as a “White Hispanic.”
     
    It’s a rhetorical question; I already know the answer.  When speaking of Sotomayor, “White Hispanic” didn’t fan the flames of a racial narrative that the media were intent on making into a raging fire.

    • StilllHere

      “George Zimmerman could have been her son.”
      Good stuff.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    it was the Skittles that drove him over the edge, he hated how all the colors were in one bag, all together

    • 1Brett1

      Wait, don’t tell me, you’ve “read at least one book on that”?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      I don’t care for iced tea, either.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yea, just sitting there all cool and stuff. it thinks its so sweet.

  • nj_v2

    Though i could have missed it, the program didn’t seem to mention the culpability of the homeowners’ association who put this guy in the position of Watch Captain, or whatever his toy-cop title was. Someone should sue the piss out of them. I’ll contribute if there’s a fund to defray legal costs.

    How was Zimmerman trained by the association? What were the associations’ guidelines for engaging “suspicious” people? What were the guidelines for considering the use of deadly force?

    Someone should pay, and pay big, for this.

    As for the mob of reactionary forum conservoclowns falling all over themselves to applaud this verdict, employing every little bit of cluelessness and ignorance they can muster, it’s no longer surprising, but still stunning to watch.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       It was reported over the weekend that the Martin family has already settled for a sum > $1M with the condo assoc.

      • StilllHere

        This troll misses everything, you should ignore.

        • nj_v2

          ^ Troll

  • http://www.facebook.com/crombiewhite David White

    Was there a different charge that would have been more appropriate?  I think about “wreckless endangerment leading to loss of life” or something.   Seems like Zimmerman is guilty of provoking the confrontation that led to his being pummeled and feeling at risk. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I don’t think being a jerk is a crime,yet

  • OnPointComments

    There’s an interesting interview on CNN right now with one of the jurors.  The initial jury poll was
    3-not guilty, 2-manslaughter, 1-2nd degree murder
    After reviewing the evidence, the 2nd degree murder vote changed to manslaughter.
    After reviewing all of the evidence multiple times, listening to the tapes & watching the videos multiple times, the jury reached the verdict of not guilty.  The jury attached little importance to Zimmerman getting out of his truck or observing Martin.

    • lannyp

      Thanks for this heads up.

    • OnPointComments

      Links to CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s interview with the juror:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cvlVEhhBDyY 
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BUaBERORb3Q 
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O6NjDocOZHs

      • OnPointComments

        The three parts of the interview may not be in the correct order in my comment.

  • susan

    This conversation was difficult to listen to, and quite frankly, I’m confused. To those callers and the guest who said that “creepy a$$ cracker” shouldn’t be considered a racial term anymore because it’s used without racial animosity:  Come on! There is a connotation that has been historically negative, and we’re going to make it acceptable because some teenagers have adopted it into their vernacular? Where are the adults? Did either the guest or the caller “who counsels troubled teens” also try to correct the teens and encourage them to drop the offensive language? You know, as part of polite society, the one that we ALL have to live in? Just because the b word is acceptable to you and the FCC doesn’t mean I think it’s acceptable in conversation. It’s very much a slur in my book. Also, I do hope that Ms. Jeantel learns the difference soon, because she won’t be able to file a wrongful termination suit after she calls her boss a CAC. 

    Second, to the point of profiling. If it is a fact that young black men have been breaking into a community and an unknown black man–who was an invited guest of his father’s fiance but is not a resident of the community–was walking through, how would it be “profiling of an entire people” to stop and ask TM some questions about his intentions? GZ didn’t finger some random young black men outside the community as thieves. He acted on a suspicion that a TM was 1. unknown to the community and 2. acting suspiciously. Would that not mean that a police sketch would be profiling, especially if no physical evidence exists? Would that not mean that eyewitness testimony of a person, again without evidence, would be profiling? What happened after with GZ is all on GZ, but I have a hard time with the current narrative of making this a civil rights case because of profiling.

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s a terrific comment Susan. I often get sucked in to debating arguments based on false premises, try as I might not to go there. You correctly and fearlessly do not accept the notion that profiling, even racial profiling, is always by default bad. It’s not, and so many debates begin with that premise accepted. Another accepted premise is that this case was about civil rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Well done.

    • OnPointComments

      I agree with everything you said.  Too often some people have decided that being civil, polite, not profane, and displaying proper manners, are all things that don’t matter.  It matters.  The words CAC and B are unacceptable, as well as f***ing punks and a**holes.  Proper behavior by everyone would make life better.
       
      The Retreat at Twin Lakes was a neighborhood that had been terrorized by dozens of break-ins, robberies, attempted robberies, and a home invasion.  Neighbors and the police had identified the people responsible for the crimes as teenage black boys.  The residents met with the police, and were told to be vigilant.  It would have been foolish for them to be vigilant yet ignore the description of the people who were committing the crimes.

  • lannyp

    Close to the half-hour mark: it is so frightening and devastating to hear the female prosecutor (Ibara), who is completely unaware of the offensive, racist rationale she’s speaking. It’s utterly devastating to listen. How can a person reach her position and understand so little about what racism is and how it’s enacted, making us all sick and our loved ones so endangered? Thank goodness Mr. Cobb is there and is so smart and won’t let her get away with her egregious and very ignorant and frightening statements. What a crisis this really is.

    (Oh dear, I just looked down at my screen and saw susan’s comment, #80, re. “creepy ass cracker.” Have you spent any time in Florida? T-shirt shops boast, jokingly, about white Floridians as “crackers.” Look at the many books on Amazon with the term “cracker” in the title–longtime white Floridians use the term with a quirky pride. Really, look at Amazon.)

    • jackiero

      I get what you’re saying about the colloquial use of the term, but it doesn’t make it any less insulting to the rest of the population who don’t derive its meaning out of quirky South Florida pride. My boss back in the ’90s used to call all of us newbies wetb@cks, meaning “wet behind the ears.” All it took was one person hearing that to understand that it’s not part of a polite society because of the racially charged element attached to it. Your justification, no matter how impassioned or mainstream, doesn’t make it right.

    • HonestDebate1

      Funny, I thought Mr. Cobb was the racist but I did appreciate the civility and balance of the show. Ms. Clayson was good in that she stayed out of the way unlike Mr. Ashbrook. IMO Ms. Ibara was the voice of reason.

  • Sandra Robinson

    There is no justice for people of color in the United States when a African American Woman, attacked in her home, who does not kill anyone goes to prison for 20 years and a caucasian man who refuses to follow the directions of the police, follows and traumatizes a unarmed child until he kills him and walks home.  When Michael Vick goes to jail for causing the death of dogs while this stalking murderer goes back to his life to repeat this act which he says he feels was not inappropriate.  In my opinion the connections Mr. Zimmerman had through his father resulted in the poor prosecutorial actions of the prosecutors and the free unattested defense for Mr. Zimmerman.  In America it is Just Us who get this type of disregard from the Justice System.

    • Lusitan75

      “a caucasian man who refuses to follow the directions of the police”

      Except that the police did not give Zimmerman any “direction” to follow; the 911 operator simply said “We don’t need you to do that” (i.e. get out of the car).  That’s not a police officer giving direction to anyone.  That’s an ambiguous statement from a 911 operator, who is, unlike a police officer, not authorized to direct anyone to do anything.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html

      • Art Toegemann

        There’s more to the exchange:
        dispatcher: Are you following him?
        GZ: yeh.
        dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      ” traumatizes a unarmed child until he kills him and walks home.”
      how exactly did Zimmerman traumatize travon?
      are you really saying Michal vick got unfair treatment?

  • jackiero

    @ Sandra Robinson: I hear you, but I must clarify one point. The woman who was convicted of attempted murder actually left the scene where she felt threatened and was safe elsewhere. She then returned to the scene (aka her home where she felt threatened) and confronted her husband by firing warning shots. We’re not reenacting the movie “Enough” here. Had she not left and come back with a gun, there would be no conviction. Once she left the scene, she was no longer in danger in the eyes of the law.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I had a feeling there was a little more to the story there

  • lannyp

    To the people leaving what they apparently take to be witty comments that really are vulgar and mean and only belittle themselves–why? Anonymity works here but not in your mirror. Please forgo such ugliness so that people who care and want dialogue can use this space meaningfully.

    • hennorama

      lannyp – speaking as one who regularly tries to push “wit freedom” to its limits, it seems clear that you would prefer “wit freedom” comments over what you seem to be describing – “wit-free, dumb” comments.

      If so, I agree wholeheartedly.

    • donniethebrasco

      I see you don’t like to be wrong.

  • HonestDebate1

    After hearing this show I must say, again, it is always more balanced than this blog.

    • donniethebrasco

      This is not a blog, it is a discussion group.

  • HonestDebate1

    Is the problem that Zimmerman was too quick to judge Trayvon Martin or is the problem Zimmerman exhibited a lack of judgment? I’m so confused.

  • Lusitan75

    So many people gloss over the key fact of whether it was Zimmerman or Martin to escalated the encounter to physical violence.  All evidence points to the fact that Martin chose to attack Zimmerman, in violation of Zimmerman’s rights.

    George Zimmerman had every right to walk on the same public property that Trayvon Martin was walking on.  He was completely within his rights to follow Trayvon Martin anywhere in public he chose to do so.  I can walk down the streets of NYC and follow behind anyone I chose.All evidence points to the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin to keep an eye on where he was, so that the police could stop him; he was not aiming to fight Martin.  If he was looking for a fight or to hurt someone, he would have just done it without calling the police.  I mean, really – why would Zimmerman call the police if his evil plan was to just attack Martin because he didn’t like black people?  It makes no sense.  What does make sense is that Martin attacked Zimmerman because he did not like this “cracker” following him, in public. Unfortunately, Martin escalated things to violence, and paid for his violent reaction with his life.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      alas it seems people have lost their minds

    • OnPointComments

      Interestingly, one of the jurors was interviewed on CNN tonight, and she said that after studying the evidence, the entire jury basically believed most of Zimmerman’s story.  They attached little significance to Zimmerman following Martin or getting out of his truck; I wasn’t surprised at this, after all, it was legal.  They believed that Martin provoked the fight and threw the first punch.

      • HonestDebate1

        OPC, you’ve been knocking it out of the park today and tonight, nice work but I’m going to bed. You have more stamina than I. Good night.

        LOL.

        • OnPointComments

          Thanks!

      • donniethebrasco

         I think Trayvon Martin not only threw (and landed) the first punch, the second punch, the third punch…., the last punch, the only punch.

        Zimmerman had Trayvon Martin over him when he pulled the trigger.

      • Art Toegemann

        A popular misconception, “Zimmerman following Martin was legal”. But, what Zimmerman did was follow Martin, kill Martin, and claim it was self defense. It is impossible to follow in self defense.

        • OnPointComments

          Zimmerman following Martin was legal.  I’m sure you’ll cite the law that shows that it isn’t.  Zimmerman was attacked by Martin; the evidence supports Zimmerman’s story, and there is zero evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.  The lesson to be learned is that if you feel you’ve been dissed by someone because that person is following you, then walk away, or call 911 is you feel threatened.  Never, ever assault someone, because the person you assault may have a gun and defend himself.

    • hypocracy1

      .

    • Art Toegemann

      Too many people gloss over the fact that GZ’s wounds were self inflicted after he murdered the only other witness, the real victim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    Two teenage boys chased a man in a car around a Pennsylvania neighborhood on their bicycles after recognizing a little girl inside who had been missing for two hours, according to police.
    The young girl’s family members told NBC’s Lancaster affiliate WGAL that a 5-year-old girl was playing in the front yard last week when she disappeared. Police arrived with K-9 units, blocked off the streets and described the girl to bystanders to determine if anyone had seen her.
    The teens saw a girl who matched the description in a car and began following the driver on their bicycles. One of the boys, Temar Boggs, 15, described the chase to WGAL, “Every time we would go down the street, he would turn back around, and we’d go back and follow him.”

    Eventually, the driver let the little girl out of the car a half-mile away from her home and drove away.
    “It is possible that this individual saw the boys following him. So, it is possible he got nervous,” said Sgt. Jeff Jones of the Manheim Lancaster police department.
    On Monday, the Lancaster County district attorney identified a registered sex offender, Harold Herr, as a person of interest in a potential kidnapping case, according to WGAL.
    The girl’s family expressed immense gratitude for Boggs’ actions. “He’s our hero. I mean, there’s no words to say,” said the girl’s grandmother.
    When the girl was returned to family members, they said she was doing “well,” WGAL reported. 
    “I just feel like I did something very accomplishing today,” said Boggs in response to all of the attention

    so whats up? are these kids racist stalkers or what?

    • Lusitan75

      “are these kids racist stalkers or what?”

      To answer this question, we first need to ask:

      (1) Are the kids white?
      (2) Is the criminal they were following black?

      If the answer to both of the above is YES, then without question, these kids are racist stalkers.

      • donniethebrasco

        Why are you always bringing race into the situation?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what if the answers were no and not sure?

      • HonestDebate1

        So all that matters is the color of skin. What about the content of character?

        • Lusitan75

          Clearly the Martin/Zimmerman case has shown that content of character takes a distant backseat to skin color.  Sad, but true.

  • donniethebrasco

    Is anyone disappointed by the lack of riots and looting?

    Not me.

    • StilllHere
      • donniethebrasco

        So, protest the acquittal of a person who killed a Trayvon Martin by reenacting the behavior that got that Martin killed in the first place.

        Hypocrisy is not the right word, but the right idea.

    • OnPointComments

      AP News:  Protesters ran through Los Angeles streets, stopping traffic, breaking windows and at one point raiding a Wal-Mart store; about 100 people splintered off and began blocking traffic on nearby Crenshaw Boulevard, some of them jumping on cars and breaking windows.
       
      LA Times:  the rioters “stomped on cars, broke windows, set fires and attacked several people.”
       
      Baltimore Sun newspaper:  a black gang beating a Hispanic man while shouting “This is for Trayvon!”  One of the thugs had a gun. 
       
      Fox News:  A jogger in Senatobia, Mississippi was also attacked.  The alleged victim, who is white, was jogging Sunday night along Highway 51 when, he said, the suspects pulled over and ordered him to get inside their car.  “One of them asked, ‘Do you know who Trayvon Martin was?’” Holts quoted the man as saying.  At that point, the men in the vehicle allegedly attacked him.
       
      They raided a WalMart store?  Not surprising, because nothing assuages the faux outrage of manufactured racial injustice like a new flat-screen TV.

      • HonestDebate1

        What bugs me is it took days after the verdict. That tells me the race-hustlers and the press, not to mention Holder, ginned it up. Holder said he understood the frustration, that means it’s acceptable to vandalize and commit acts of violence. It’s despicable.

  • donniethebrasco

    Is Obama going to invite Zimmerman and Trayvon’s parents to the White House for some Drank?

    (http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=75112)

  • donniethebrasco

    I am stopping every black person I see and asking him/her what they think about the Trayvon case.

    Then I tell them I disagree with them.

    • hypocracy1

       Pretty sure you are legally obligated to stop, frisk, and question all blacks..  Just be wary of those armed with pavement.

  • hypocracy1

      How do we know Martin wasn’t afraid for his life?  Oh, that’s right.. we don’t know, because he is dead.

    • HonestDebate1

      Because he didn’t call for help, he started a fight instead.

      • hypocracy1

         So he doesn’t have the right to defend himself if he felt his life was in danger? Some creepy guy stalking him at night wasn’t enough for him to possibly think there might be a threat to his life?

        Or is it because he was black, and we all know black men are angry, that he had to be the aggressor?

        • donniethebrasco

          Trayvon Martin’s life was not in danger until he endangered someone else’s life.

          • hypocracy1

             I would think that being stalked while he walked home at night would constitute a reasonable belief of a threat giving him the right to stand his ground.

          • Lusitan75

            If you are out in public, I have the right to follow you down the street.  That’s not “stalking.”  

            All evidence points to Martin being responsible for turning the situation into a violent one.

          • hypocracy1

             All evidence points to Martin perceiving a threat to his life and defending himself. 

          • Lusitan75

            That’s possible.  

            But if so, Martin perceived a threat to his life because Zimmerman was following him in public (something that is legal to do).

            Zimmerman perceived a threat to his life because Martin was slamming his head against the concrete and punching him in the face (something that is illegal to do).

            Which one escalated the encounter to violence?

          • hypocracy1

             Possibly the one which followed someone around in a vehicle then getting out to pursue him on foot.  That child had a legitimate  reason to think the creepy guy was going to cause him harm.

          • OnPointComments

            No it doesn’t.  If you think that “being stalked while he walked home at night would constitute a reasonable belief of a threat,” ask yourself why the threatened Trayvon didn’t go the 500 feet to his home to escape the threat.  He certainly had the time.

          • Lusitan75

            The “child” (i.e. 17 year-old high school football player) had no right to attack the “cracker” regardless of where Zimmerman drove or walked in public.
            If he had concerns for his safety he could have called the police (like Zimmerman did) instead of using racial insults and initiating violence against someone who was not committing any crime.

          • jefe68

            Actually you don’t have the right to follow people down the street just because you want to. 

            All evidence points to your bias, that’s for sure.

          • Lusitan75

            Yes, you do have the right to walk down a public street following someone.  Thugs may think they own the street, but no one owns the street — it’s public.

            If someone is following you and you suspect that maybe they have bad intent, you take appropriate action such as calling the police. 

          • notafeminista

            Really?  Mr. Zimmerman is (as has been pointed out here in this very forum) “pudgy”, three inches shorter than Mr. Martin and 10 years older than the “young and trim” (again I quote this forum) Mr. Martin.  He did not seem to demonstrate fear while on the phone. 

            Stalked is an effective word though isn’t it?

        • HonestDebate1

          Sure he does but he was on offense not defense. What the color of his skin got to dpi with squat? That’s sick.

          • 1Brett1

            We don’t know if he threw a punch in offense or defense…so much for your careful impartiality or not taking sides.

          • HonestDebate1

            A sucker punch is offense. Defense is calling the cops or going home. I wish Trayvon had simply gone home.

          • 1Brett1

            Zimmerman’s story said it was a sucker punch (although I don’t remember if he used those exact words). That isn’t evidence.

            We don’t know if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin and that started the fight…

            As far as calling cops, you are making a judgment based on something Martin did not do that you think he should have done/that you would have done.

            I am saying we don’t know; you seem to be saying we do know, and we don’t. But, it reveals what you believe and that you think your belief is the truth…very telling.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s what you say when you have nothing…I like it, though; it reminds me of Ace Ventura, which is pretty much how one imagines you’d be in person  only much more bitter.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, that’s what I say when the conversation jumps the shark.

      • 1Brett1

        You are speculating that he started the fight, or, to use a phrase you throw around with facility: you made that up.

        • jefe68

          Funny how this guy does this a lot.

        • HonestDebate1

          I’m just going by the evidence and testimony. BTW, I didn’t make up either.

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, you are going by speculation. Zimmerman’s injuries do not prove Martin started the fight, nor does the police non-emergency call, nor do Martin’s injuries, nor do the witness accounts; those are the only pieces of “evidence.” Anything that the defense proposed as a possible conclusion from that evidence was speculation designed to create some form of reasonable doubt. So, no, no evidence “proves” Martin started the fight; you are making that up.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, the testimony and circumstantial evidence is technically speculation. There is no “proof”. Who used the word? Not me. why did you use quotes? It’s bizarre. Please don’t tell me what I think. The evidence and testimony is all we have, what do you have to buttress your speculation?

            I’m starting to think you’re just dumb. I’ve resisted but really..

          • 1Brett1

            Blah, blah, blah…you just  admitted you  made it up. Speculation is not proof, hence the quotes. There was lack of proof, the defense doesn’t have to prove anything , and they didn’t. You are the dumb one if you think anyone is going to buy your drivel.

          • HonestDebate1

            I did not make up the testimony and circumstantial evidence? What are you talking about?

    • Lusitan75

      He didn’t call police for help (like Zimmerman did).  The evidence shows that instead of calling for help, he used racial slurs against Zimmerman and then initiated the violence against Zimmerman, because he didn’t like the “cracker” following him down the street.  

      Martin doesn’t own the street or public spaces.

      • 1Brett1

        I thought Martin said that a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him to Ms. Jeantel not Zimmerman. Can you provide any substantiation to your thought that Martin said that to Zimmerman?

        • HonestDebate1

          Where do you get the stuff? I hate to butt in but Lusitan75 made no such implication. Martin used racial slurs against Zimmerman not to Zimmerman. You’re amazing.

          • 1Brett1

            Whatever, dude; he also said, “The evidence shows that instead of calling for help, he used racial slurs against Zimmerman and then initiated the violence against Zimmerman, because he didn’t like the “cracker” following him down the street.” This is completely made up BS. This Lusitan75 character also said to another commenter that Ms. Jeantel told Martin Zimmerman might have been a “gay rapist.” This commenter also suggested Martin might have been a “gay basher.”  

            …No, you don’t hate to “butt in.” Why the false premise for replying? It doesn’t matter; your butting in  doesn’t make you any less moral/ethical/improper/gentlemanly. if you get my drift. 

          • HonestDebate1

            What do you mean, “he also said..”? That was the comment I was referring to. No you just asked a stupid question, that’s all. Martin used racial slurs against Zimmerman.

            “Can you provide any substantiation to your thought that Martin said that to Zimmerman?”

            WTF?!

          • 1Brett1

            You now believe Rachel Jeantel?

          • HonestDebate1

            When have I ever said I didn’t believe her? What are you talking about?

          • 1Brett1

            Dude, go play with yourself; your nonsense is tiresome and stupid.

    • Ray from Harlem

      Exactly. Suppose Trayvon shot and killed Zimmerman out of self-defense and was aquitted. I guarantee you, revisions would be made to “Stand Your Ground Against Black People” law.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Stand your ground wasn’t used in this case.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Rachel Jentel told Piers Morgan last night that she convinced Martin that Zimmerman was possibly a gay rapist.  The next event was Martin beat up Zimmerman.

      Is it possible that Martin was a gay-basher?

      • hypocracy1

         I don’t know about you.. but the thought of getting gay raped is terrifying.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Sure, but Zimmerman wasn’t the one who started the physical violence.

          • Ray in VT

            As far as we will ever know, seeing as how only one of the two people involved survived.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             …with certainty since there were no eye witnesses to the commencement.  Yet, only one had fight wounds on his head and the other had wounds on his fist.  Sigh.

            I’ll say it again.  Poor choices all around.  I wish the kid had just gone home.

          • Ray in VT

            Exactly, with certainty, and while Trayvon may have thrown the first punch, we don’t know if he was accosted or provoked.  We’ll just never know with certainty.  My comment wasn’t meant to take a side, just to point out that we have only one side, and people can accept that side or doubt it.  I also wish that Trayvon had gone home, just as I wish that George had stayed in his car.  It’s all just so needless.

          • jefe68

            You keep going on about this as if you were a witness.

            You don’t know if Martin started it or Zimmerman.

        • 1Brett1

          Do think about being “gay raped” a lot?

  • Lusitan75

    “If it does not fit, you must acquit.”

    Don’t you just hate how it’s always white people who get away with everything?

    • 1Brett1

      What is you point? Two wrongs make a right?

      • Lusitan75

        My point is that just because one may disagree with the outcome of a particular case, griping about alleged racial bias and complaining about how unfair the justice system is to your particular group is weak.  

        There are many examples of situations like this that people of all races may disagree with.

        “No justice, no peace” — well, justice was carried out in this case.  Why are you still complaining?  What exactly are you protesting?  That you disagree with the jury verdict?  Are you protesting the jury system itself?  

        To that I say, “If it does not fit, you must acquit.”  Were you protesting when OJ walked because of reasonable doubt? 

        • 1Brett1

          Okay; thanks for clarifying. I do agree about how our justice system works. Yeah, OJ most likely killed his wife; yeah, Zimmerman should have acted more responsibly, especially as a concealed weapon carrier and Neighborhood Watch guy, etc. 

          A jury can not convict on what they feel most likely happened (although, I was disappointed in the juror’s interview, but that’s another comment/thread), just on evidence presented. And that evidence must be enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilty people can and do sometimes go free. I would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to prison.

  • notafeminista

    The left needs Zimmerman et. al to be racist.  It cultivates their narrative.  They don’t care if it’s true or not.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      its pretty crazy, I don’t get it.

  • andic_epipedon

    When I took a criminal justice class for general education it was made clear that chasing a person with a gun who hadn’t done anything was a crime.  I am astounded at the verdict.

    I lived in rural areas for several years where everyone was carrying a loaded weapon and no one I knew would ever do something so stupid as Zimmerman did.  I took martial arts classes and the instructor was clear that you did not chase someone who was running away from you.  Zimmerman has shown that he can not appropriately use force.  Why is he still running around with a gun?

  • andic_epipedon

    I feel like I need to carry a gun to protect myself against the Zimmerman’s of the world.

  • andic_epipedon

    If there were two people fighting on my property, I would be on my porch with a baseball bat asking what the heck was going on. Where was the property owner when this was going on?

  • andic_epipedon

    Why was the jury sequestered for 13 hours on Saturday?  That sounds like a recipe for overtiring people and have the jury make a mistake.

  • andic_epipedon

    Maybe Trayvon’s family will be able to get justice through the civil trial.

  • gslouch

    Self defense?  If some strange guy got out of his car while I was walking home from the store and started harassing me i’d be self- defending myself!  I’d try and beat the crap out of him for my own protection.  I didn’t hear anybody talk about self defense from Trayvon’s point of view.   Secondly,with all due respect to the juror who spoke out today, she said Zimmerman was guilty of making a bad decision.  A bad decision?  Are you kidding me?  Trayvon is dead!  That’s a little more than a bad decision.

    • Lusitan75

      There is no evidence that Zimmerman was “harassing” Martin in any way.  Zimmerman was free to walk down the street just the same as Martin was.

      If you beat the crap out of someone for following you down the street in public, you will, rightly, be guilty of a crime.  As Martin learned, you might also get shot, so be careful before you do anything like that.

  • OnPointComments

    As a commenter on another site suggested:
    TRAYVON MARTIN: – Hey, are you following me? 
    GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: – Ummm, yes.
    TRAYVON MARTIN: – May I ask why?
     GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: – Well, uh, we’ve had a number off robberies in this neighborhood lately, and I don’t recognize you…
     TRAYVON MARTIN: – Oh, well, I’m Travon Martin, I’m spending the summer at my uncle’s in unit 12. I expect you’ll see a lot of me this summer.
    GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: – OK, thanks, good to know. I’m George Zimmerman, by the way. 
      They shake hands.
    TRAYVON MARTIN: – No, thank you for keeping an eye out for your neighbors!

    • hypocracy1

      Then they both rode off on unicorns… 

      • Ray in VT

        I thought that the FSM and Jesus were besties.

      • OnPointComments

        A fantasy, to be sure, because it didn’t happen that way.  But it is no more fantastic than your belief that there was nothing this “child” Trayvon Martin could have done to avoid or defuse the situation.

    • HonestDebate1

      Awesome! 

    • 1Brett1

      Didn’t Martin ask Zimmerman, “why are following me?” I don’t think Zimmerman gave him an answer, at least not the answer in your fantasy.

      Why didn’t Martin say, “gosh, mister, my pa lives yonder; if you like I can walk with you to meet him. He’ll explain everything. You can even have a piece of Aunt Bee’s rhubarb pie. would ya like that mister?” 

      I guess it all started when Martin started wearing those pinch-back suits and peering into pool halls. He probably started hanging out with those thumb riggers and re-buckling his knickerbockers below the knee!!! 

      “…Ya got trouble, with a capital “T”; that rhymes with “P” and that stands for pool!”

      Maybe Martin never had the opportunity to join a boys’ brass band? 

  • Samy_2012

    That race is in the picture is just getting all the wrong people to mis use the situation. This is a 2nd Amendment & Florida’s Stand your Ground law issue. 20 years ago while on a visit to Washington DC, somewhere around one of the memorials, just after sunset I was suddenly held in a vice like grip by a teenaged boy. Another hit me on the head. I experienced absolute terror & was completely helpless as well as blank. A little over 5ft, a foreigner, it was a terrifying nightmare. A girl friend with me had gone to find a phone, we were sort of lost. Then just like that, they left. 20 years later, both (I presume he/they are) we are alive. Can’t say WHAT would have happened had I chosen to bear arms. Is it race/bias that they chose me (foreign 5 ft young woman)? or race that they did what they did? 

    • Lusitan75

      Were either of them carrying skittles or ice tea?

      Unfortunately, your experience is not unique — it’s commonplace.  I know quite a few people who were jumped by groups of “children” like Martin, clearly attacked because of their race.  In most cases, there wasn’t even any other motive or reason, it was just the “children” having a bit of “fun” by beating someone down.  

      One older hispanic guy in my town was minding his own business sitting on a park bench a couple of years ago after finishing his work shift (as a dishwasher in a local restaurant), when a couple 17 year-old “children” like Trayvon Martin attacked him, just for fun, and killed him; with nothing more than their fists. And they recorded it on their cell phones because it was “funny”:

      http://summit.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/williams-clark-released-on-bail

      That sort of stuff is rarely discussed, because it’s not politically correct.  And it’s clear evidence of the legitimate fear for his life that Zimmerman would have felt while this “child” (aka 17 year-old high school football player) beat the crap out of him.

      But the media repeatedly shows us photos of Trayvon Martin from when he was 9 years old, and hear all this BS about how poor little Trayvon was just walking home with skittles and iced tea.  (But let’s ignore the fact that he was beating Zimmerman’s head against the concrete and pummeling him in the face.)

  • Vic Volpe

    I was surprised that the jury took only two days to decide a trial of this import.  They should have been in there for a week.  Makes you wonder if they would have taken more time if the jury was more diverse.

    • brettearle

      I don’t think that’s fair.

      Although you could be right.

      The fact is the prosecution did not put on a strong enough case for prolonged deliberation.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      The OJ jury took 4 hours after 10 months of trial.
      This jury took 16+ hours after 5 weeks of trial and evidence to review.

      • 1Brett1

        I agree. For this jury to take two days and a little over 16 hours isn’t unusual and doesn’t in and of itself mean anything untoward happened. 

      • Vic Volpe

        I don’t think the OJ Jury or the Simi Valley Jury are worth holding up to a ‘standard’ for juryies — and I live right here in S. Calif.  The behavior of Civil Rights leaders in the LA area was reprehensible and several Simi Valley jurors moved to other states after the Rodney King Trial.  A jury is suppose to represent a community standard in upholding the law.  This jury knew that a nation of 300 million was following the trial and should have taken the time to look at a variety of viewpoints, whether they held those viewpoints or not.  I’ve served on juryies and I have been back in a jury room.

  • pete18

    For those who think things would necessarily be different if the roles were reversed (“Black Man with gun permit shoots white teen and is acquitted”):  http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

    • OnPointComments

      There’s an interesting discussion going on about a picture created by a Charleston, SC woman that has gone viral.  17 year old Marley Lion, sleeping in his car, was shot & killed by a 30 year old black man.  Do you remember reading about it?  I’m sure you never saw it.  It’s not the kind of story the national media likes.  The NAACP said the protests over Trayvon Martin were different, and were because of the delay in charging Zimmerman.  Really?  Then why the protests now?  Zimmerman was charged, went to trial, and was found not guilty.
       
      http://www.ibtimes.com/marley-lion-shooting-trayvon-martin-story-unarmed-teen-killed-video-draws-comparisons-internet

      • Lusitan75

        crickets

    • Lusitan75

      crickets

  • 1Brett1

    The one juror in the Zimmerman trial (interviewed on CNN) sure seemed to have done a terrible job as a juror. She never mentioned that there was not the evidence to properly convict Zimmerman of murder, but she did say 1) that Martin played a role in his own death (that is pure speculation; she doesn’t know exactly what happened 2) that she believed Zimmerman’s version of events (again, there was not the evidence to prove exactly what happened) 3) that she, as well as all of the jurors, used the ‘stand-your-ground’ law as a tool to reach a conclusion (the defense never once invoked that as part of their defense strategy) 4) that her and the other jurors’ approach to the one juror who wanted to vote for a conviction seemed like they were pressuring the one juror to change her vote (she mentioned how the other jurors’ pleas to the one juror were that the trial had gone on long enough and the jurors had come a long way, etc.) rather than create a mistrial, which is not proper at all. 

    The interviewed juror didn’t seem to understand what her job was.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “seemed like they were pressuring the one juror to change her vote”

      You just accused the juror of engaging in pure speculation.  Now you are engaging in pure speculation.

        AC stated that the ‘hold out’ was thinking of quitting for personal  child care reasons.

      btw — logic tells you that Martin plays a role in his own death IF Zimmerman has to engage in self defense against Martin’s actions. Also, you state she doesn’t know ‘exactly’ what happened. That isn’t the standard for the juror to evaluate the evidence. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense wasn’t justified. The burden is on the State and they didn’t meet it.

      Alternate jurors are weighing in tonight and they also would have acquitted based on the evidence presented.

      • 1Brett1

        I didn’t hear the “child care” thing; however, I was speculating. But you see, Worried, I wasn’t on the jury and bound by certain rules. That’s a big difference. 

        The child care deal sounds bad too. She didn’t go to the judge and explain her predicament; I call BS. Who’s AC? Why call the one juror a “hold out”?

        I noticed the interviewed juror (who was exploring a book deal) today modified her interview statements quite a bit and said she does not now have a book deal, that this fell through. She also said she was not doing any more interviews. I think she realized she screwed up big time. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Anderson Cooper.

          One of the panelists called her a ‘hold out’ and Anderson stepped in and corrected the record. Sorry for the confusion.

          • 1Brett1

            Thanks for the clarification. I should have figured out who AC was but thanks. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Several of the legal experts on the CNN panel right after the interview said you have to take these jury interviews with a grain of salt because once they’ve declared a verdict they go into a ‘defense of their decision’ mode which colors their comments.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I heard she dropped the book deal because of the negative public reaction.

          • 1Brett1

            She sounds like a real piece of work. Did she think she was going to get positive public reaction only? Did she think writing a book and going on tour to promote it was going to be a walk in the park? …Sorry, Worried, as you know these are rhetorical; I’m not asking you to answer for her. She does sound like a dolt, though. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           As an aside, Piers Morgan had some OJ jurors on last night to critique the Zimmerman jurors.  I didn’t catch the whole thing but I did catch this nugget:

          One of the OJ jurors stated that the initial vote was 10-2 to convict and yet the converted that to an acquittal after 4 hours.  His claim was the jury was so burned out after 10 months of trial that they just gave up and switched to get out of there.  Incredible.

          • 1Brett1

            Man! I am reminded of the “Twelve Angry Men” movie…I’d like to think that juries will take their responsibilities seriously, even if they are tired and burned out. BY the same token humans have breaking points/ stress points, but, really!! 

  • Pingback: A Verdict Of Our Times — And On Our Times, Too: What Zimmerman’s Jury Said To Me | Cognoscenti

  • Art Toegemann

    Imagine an all black court, jury, judge, prosecution and defense attorneys, prosecuting George Zimmerman. Imagine that verdict.The crime may have been racist. The trial was racist.

    Probable cause for racism is established at the court failing this fact: you cannot follow in self defense, it is impossible. How did the court fail this simple fact? Racism.

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s sick.

      • Art Toegemann

        Here is something I posted as a reply to a post by Lusitan75:

        You underestimate the police dispatcher. The exchange is not at all ambiguous. There’s more to the exchange than you posted. The recording is easily found at several points on the internet.
        dispatcher: Are you following him?
        GZ: yeh.
        dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.

        Why was murder in the first degree never a verdict option? That’s what this crime was.

        • HonestDebate1

          I called 911 and the guy told me to stand on my head and sing dixie. I told him to go fly a kite.

          If you want to make the case that murder 1 was the correct charge then I suppose that’s cool but if the state had gone for something they could have proven then Zimmerman would have been convicted. Murder 2 was ridiculous so they got zip. That’s a different argument than your injecting race with the assumption the color of skin is the only thing that matters. It’s insulting to blacks.

          • Art Toegemann

            Blacks can speak for themselves.
            How do I know you’re white?

          • Art Toegemann

            “The guy” is a frequently underestimated member of the police force. I will pass your comment on to the 911 dispatcher where you live.
            What we know convicts GZ. Why was he not convicted? There is racial profiling in the 911 call. An all white court, judge, jury, prosecution and defense essentially convicted and executed, justified homicide, a killed black.

          • HonestDebate1

            The underestimated member of the police force can not order me around over the phone. Where is the racial profiling from Zimmerman in the 911 call?

          • Art Toegemann

            The dispatcher asks GZ if TM is white, black or Hispanic.
            That’s GZ’s call to the dispatcher; so, he called but acted contrary to the advice. That convicts, in a competent court.
            Looks like GZ shot TM in the back.

        • Lusitan75

          LOL — yeah, the prosecution couldn’t even make manslaughter or second-degree murder stick, but you are complaining that they didn’t charge first-degree murder.

          “If it does not fit, you must acquit.”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infLrZjJpNc

          • Art Toegemann

            Rhymes; wrong trial.

          • Lusitan75

            Oh, of course.  That trial was a black man getting off scott-free for murdering a white man and a white woman.  So cute little rhymes and blacks celebrating in the streets are, ya know, just totally OK.  I know you don’t like to be reminded of it, but boy do I love saying it:

            “If it does not fit, you must acquit.”Gotta love the hypocrisy from the black race-baiters. 

          • Art Toegemann

            That and you tampered with the evidence again. The detective, white, caught planting evidence thus acquitting OJ. You lose.

          • Art Toegemann

            format shrinking; take this up top too

          • Art Toegemann

            You tampered with the evidence.
            “Are you following him?”
            I’ve seen others do the same with the recording. Glad I made the effort, glad it’s available.

    • OnPointComments

      Imagine an all black court, jury, judge, prosecution and defense attorneys, prosecuting George Zimmerman.  Imagine if the verdict was not guilty.  There would still be protests because it’s not justice that the protesters are seeking, it’s vengeance.

      • Art Toegemann

        At some point we should imagine GZ being convicted. What would that response be?
        Protestors are seeking justice because it has been so egregiously violated, originally criminally neglected. It isn’t as if there’s wiggle room, “reasonable doubt”, it is obvious and conclusive. That court failed this matter and we are left speculating as to why.

    • Lusitan75

      Right.  So the only way to have a non-racist trial in your opinion is to have skin-color quotas for judges, prosecution attorneys, defense attorneys, and juries?  That’s absurd. 

    • fun bobby

      following someone is not a crime

  • OnPointComments

    Uh oh.  If the allegations in this article are factual and correct, it could diminish the ranks of Trayvon Martin protesters.
     
    “Trayvon, Sharpton, and Homophobia”
    “Did anti-gay prejudice lead Trayvon Martin to attack George Zimmerman?”
    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/18/trayvon-sharpton-and-homophobi 
     
    I remember reading an article years ago about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at an American university.  The article said that his typically absurd and outrageous remarks (there was no Holocaust, for example) were met with polite response from the liberal audience, UNTIL he touched the third rail of liberal politics:  gay people.  He claimed that there were no gay people in Iran, and the liberal audience responded with boos.  
     
    If Trayvon really profiled George as gay, his profiling may trump the false profiling charge that has been attributed to George.

    • 1Brett1

      Uh oh, up in the sky, it’s a bird, a plane, no it’s…OPC: amateur, trashy, pseudo-tabloid journalist to the rescue!

      • OnPointComments

        Excerpt from Rachel Jeantel interview with Piers Morgan:
         
        MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it? [being followed by Zimmerman]

        JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it — as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that. 
         
        Sounds like Rachel and Trayvon profiled Zimmerman as gay.  When you can’t refute the facts, refute the messenger.

        • 1Brett1

          You guys seem to pick and choose which statements of Ms. Jeantel’s you want people to believe and which you don’t, for one thing; but, aside from that, I was replying to something despicable you are building that far exceeds just a comment about an excerpt from Rachel Jeantel’s interview. 

          You went much much further; you invoked a broader, more exaggerated opinion found in the piece from The American Spectator. Then you broadened your speculative opinions even more to include some weird, distorted slam of liberals’ reactions to an Ahmadinejad speech at AU. The sum of all that is why I say you are engaging in  some kind of amateur, trashy, pseudo-tabloid journalism. 

          You are hardly engaging purely in facts, OPC. 

  • HonestDebate1

    Larry Elder is exactly right and put the appalling black crime rates in perspective to Piers Morgan.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svIDcRFDaPY&feature=player_embedded

    • HonestDebate1
      • hennorama

        What a complete mischaracterization.  The Twitter comments of 5 fools are not “the reaction from the tolerant libs.”

        Try reading for comprehension next time, sir.

        • HonestDebate1

          Here’s some more:

          http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/epic-clash-between-larry-elder-and-piers-morgan-libs-unleash-torrent-of-haterade/

          But you miss the point once removed The reaction is not the issue but if you want to talk about it then consider the outcome if just one single person used this language against a liberal black. The examples are legion of this kind of vitriol against black conservatives such as, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Mia Love, Michael Steele and on and on. Even RGIII caught it from ESPN. This is standard fare for the left.

          Have a look at Elder on the video, the first two minutes are enough. It is hard to listen to because of the cross talk but Elder’s outrage is well placed. He is echoing all I’ve been saying. That’s the issue.

          “Half the murders in this country are committed by black people even though black people are 12% of the population.”

          • hennorama

            YOU talked about “the reaction,” sir, and mischaracterized it WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, as “the reaction from the tolerant libs.”

          • HonestDebate1

            I gave you numerous tweets. That is not “NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER”.

          • hennorama

            Please demonstrate that those persons are:

            A. tolerant
            B. “libs”
            C. “tolerant libs”

            Please show ANY evidence of ANY of the above.

          • HonestDebate1

            KMA, no. 

            Why don’t you reply to the elephant in the room? You alluded Thomas Sowell was no better that a white supremacist, period, end of story. Put your big girl pant suit on and man up. Apologize for being so wrong and maybe we can get somewhere. And I’ll reiterate my point if you are capable of looking at the bigger picture. I have been very consistent in registering my complaint about the shallowness of decrying racism in lieu of honest debate. You don’t like the 39 number, fine. What about twice? What about “more likely”? All I am doing is refuting the notion blacks should fear whites. The numbers don’t support it yet the disgusting meme is believed. I would rather not talk about race at all. Mr. Elder summed up my outrage to a tee.

            You are guilty. You can’t argue the facts so you suggest it’s white separatist stuff. You suggest that’s where I get my info. It’s the shallowest form of debate. You are a race hustler.

            And a final word for my liberal and conservative friends. I don’t like getting personal but Hennon and one or two others are not worthy of respect. I don’t use this personal approach lightly. It’s come to this, I didn’t ask for anything but honest debate.

          • hennorama

            “He Bends To Tea” – TYFTL.

            “KMA”? What does Kansas Mutual Aid have to do with this topic? Please explain. I don’t want to assume anything about your response, “sir.”

            The balance of your post was HILARIOUS, though. Again, TYFTL.

            Please tell your story in the Week In The News forum. Lay out exactly how “[hennorama] alluded Thomas Sowell was no better that a white supremacist, period, end of story.” Show the events in the “allusion” process, one by one.

            That should be good for a few additional guffaws.

            Please tell everyone about the “forrest [sic] thing” and explain “the bigger picture.” Show your colors, sir. Be proud. Demonstrate your omniscience. Outline everything that is being hidden and denied by “tolerant libs” and “the MSM” and/or whomever else you blame. Lay out the whole conspiracy theory for everyone to see.

            Please lay out your refutation of “the notion blacks should fear whites,” and especially demonstrate exactly who has, and believes, “the notion blacks should fear whites.” Show us how the US is “…a nation convinced blacks are targets for walking down the street with skittles [when] the opposite is true.”

            For extra credit, please show exactly which racial group(s) should “fear” which other racial group(s), and the reasoning involved. Tell us everything. Demonstrate your omniscience about the “forrest [sic] thing” and “the bigger picture.”

            List and explain your statistics, and be “honest” by citing each of your sources. Explain the arithmetic involved, step by step. Show how you understand statistics and probability. Demonstrate the absolute certainty of your positions. Don’t be afraid to use a bunch of unequivocal statements about what “Blacks are more likely…” to do.

            Meanwhile, let’s just look at what seems to be your argument. You wrote:

            “I have been very consistent in registering my complaint about the shallowness of decrying racism in lieu of honest debate. You don’t like the 39 number, fine. What about twice? What about “more likely”? All I am doing is refuting the notion blacks should fear whites. The numbers don’t support it yet the disgusting meme is believed. I would rather not talk about race at all. Mr. Elder summed up my outrage to a tee.”

            First of all, you might want to find out what the word “decry” means before you use it again.

            Your “complaint,” exactly as you have written it, is “about the shallowness of [expressing strong disapproval of] racism in lieu of honest debate.” Just FYI, “”sir.””

            For some reason, the phrases “Put your big girl pant suit on and man up” and “Apologize for being so wrong and maybe we can get somewhere” come to mind. I have absolutely no idea why.

            Please tell everyone exactly who has been shallowly expressing strong disapproval of racism in lieu of honest debate.

            “””Sir.”””

            Actually, before you do anything else, please define “honest debate” for everyone, then lay out your “honest debate” standards. I don’t want to assume anything. You may actually have some standards and you may actually have defined terms. If you do, I’ve missed it, which explains why I’m eager for you to define your terms and list your standards.

            Next, it’s not that I “don’t like the 39 number.” It’s that “the 39 number,” which you repeated over and over, is a false white separatist pseudo-statistic. It has ZERO to do with me or what I “don’t like.” It’s “about” actual facts, as opposed to your claim, which is a lie, a damned lie, and a statistic. You repeatedly made the “Blacks are 39 times …” claim, and clearly believed it to be honest, factual, and current. You have yet to disclose the source of your claim, and how you drew your conclusion.

            So much for so-called “honest” debate, “””””sir.”””””

            Next, you make a new claim – “The numbers don’t support it …”

            Please explain. Show everyone “the numbers.” Again, explain the arithmetic involved, step by step. Show how you understand statistics and probability. Demonstrate the certainty of your position.

            “”“””Sir.”””””

            Finally, please demonstrate how you “would rather not talk about race at all.” If that were true, why have you repeatedly brought up the topic, unsolicited? “It’s gotta be the reluctance,” right?

            I deny the remarks contained in the balance of your post without further comment, as your words are merely ad hominem.

            TYAFTL.

          • hennorama

            Smith – think of Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson, Sr.’s famous quote as you read this, OK?

            Please point to any circumstances where I did anything remotely like what you wrote:

            “Heck you even alluded that Thomas Sowell was no better than a White supremacist. This is standard fare for the left.”

            In fact, point to a single instance wherein I even mentioned Mr. Sowell’s NAME, that was not a quote of YOU, sir.

            Your words are simply more equine excrement from the e.e. expert.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you Henn! You just won me a steak dinner. I’m absolutely serious. I was completely sure you would not comment on Elder’s indictment of black crime; I knew you would ignore the extra disgusting tweets; I was sure you would not comment on the hideous racism directed at black conservatives. There was no doubt in my mind you would continue to bask in your delusion that black violence isn’t at epic proportions. I was 100% certain you would zero in on the single carefully worded comment and I bet my wife a steak dinner on it. I’ll end up paying for it anyway but still…

            I can’t stop laughing except when I realize how far you will go to be disingenuous and think of the damage this mindset has caused. It has set back race relations in this country enormously. We now have AG Holder telling violent blacks he understands their frustration. It’s awful.

            You wrote: No doubt you are just being “honest” when you don’t cite your source for the “honest” white separatist pseudo-statistics you quoted over and over and over and over.
            No doubt you “don’t go there” and were just quoting some completely reputable and reliable and yet somehow completely secret sources when you wrote the claim “Blacks are 39 times …”

            And: “…I read a number of white nationalist/separatist/supremacist links and publications, in an effort to understand the claim that YOU made, sir.”

            Well yea, I consider World Net Daily a reputable source. Ditto the Examiner, certainly they are not a white supremacist site. The claim came from a book entitled “White Girl Bleed A Lot” by Colin Flaherty.

            Here’s what Thomas Sowell said about the book:

            ”Reading Colin Flaherty’s book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities.”  

            Here is an article referencing his said research:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299918/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell?splash=

            So if this claim is “white separatist pseudo statistics” it is a claim Dr. Sowell embraced in print. That makes him “no better than a white supremacist”. Does it not? And I didn’t say you said his name, I even used the word “alluded”.

            You alluded Thomas Sowell was no better than a white supremacist. Don’t even try to deny it, choke on your own words.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – TYFYR.

            First, it would appear that your partner won the bet. Perhaps you should discuss it while reading this comment together.

            I did comment on Mr. Elder’s inaccurate remarks. See, I don’t just make assumptions and “pop off”, I actually take some time, do some checking, and then respond. Only when the checking was complete, did I write a response about Mr. Eller. It was posted prior to seeing your “bet” reply.

            As I had commented in my earlier post about “5 fools” who posted anti-Eller remarks on Twitter, and the link in your second post displayed tweets by all of the same fools, I saw no reason for further comment. Your second link contained only one or two new Twitter, obviating the need for further comment. In essence, your second link was worthless as it added no really new info, contrary to your belief.

            Ditto as to your remarks about “vitriol against black conservatives” in general. Ad hominem remarks made by fools rarely require commentary, as their foolishness is apparent to all. As I see it, fools are sufferable, gladly or otherwise. It’s one of the prices we pay for freedom of expression.

            I’ll leave you to your own delusions that “black violence [is] at epic proportions.”

            The thing is Gregg, I recall you saying “What I am concerned about is violence.” Since I share that concern, I was right with you.

            Right until your very next sentence – “ The epidemic of blacks forming mobs and spreading mayhem is troubling.” You followed this immediately with “I believe it is enabled by a lack of outrage rooted in white guilt making excuses. Blacks are not expected to be good citizen by liberals.”

            When I think about violence and violent crime, I think about victims. From their perspective, the characteristics of the offender rarely matter in any way, other than as a way to describe the offender to police. Think of it this way – if someone crashes into your vehicle with their vehicle, does the color of the cars matter? Not to me. All I want to know is whether anyone was injured.

            But it seems that ALL you see is “the color of the car.”

            In a similar way, if one was truly “concerned about … violence” and violent crime, then why focus solely on the race of offenders, and specifically on the race of offenders involved in interracial crime? Why not focus on victims, crime prevention, the causes of crime, etc.?

            Unless of course all one were truly “concerned about” is “the color of the car.”

            Please note that you introduced the term “White supremacist site” to this discussion.

            I prefer the term “white nationalist/separatist/supremacist” or similar, as it is difficult to distinguish between the three descriptors. I have used the term “white supremacist” to describe particular links from the KKK and the Aryan Nation, as they clearly are “supremacist” in my view. But I’m otherwise careful to not use that term alone, due to its connotation. You seem much more comfortable with it, for some reason.

            Regarding your claims, I have used the term “white separatist pseudo-statistics,” as that is what I have shown your claim “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa” to be – a pseudo-statistic from white separatists. By inference, your additional statistical comment, from the same origin – “Blacks are …136 times more likely to commit a robbery” was also shown to be a “white separatist pseudo-statistics.” Those are the specific white separatist pseudo-statistics to which I refer . If those are in the book you cite, they are quoting The Color Of Crime, about which I have already commented extensively.

            I have not in any way characterized examiner.com, and did not ask about it. I asked only about a specific article/blog post that was hosted on that site. The specified link from your post, in other words.

            As to WND – try searching that site for [blacks are 39 times]. The fifth result is this:

            http://www.wnd.com/2007/08/43138/

            Others have a more expansive critique of WND:

            http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/fall/world-nuts-daily

            As to Mr. Sowell – let’s just count me as “not a fan.” I made no “allusions” about him. That you would make such a circuitous claim speaks to the weakness of your position in general.

            And as to Colin Flaherty, or anything he has said or has written, all evidence points to him as somewhere on the white nationalist/separatist/supremacist spectrum.

            Here’s an article from salon.com about both WND and Flaherty:

            http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/worldnetdaily_now_peddling_white_nationalism/

            That you find these sources, sites, claims, books, publications and people credible also speaks volumes about you.

            For you, it’s all about “the color of the car.”

          • HonestDebate1

            God, you incessant use of quotation marks is annoying, that’s just me. So Dr. Sowell is no better than a white separatist. because he endorsed Colin Flaherty. As I said. What’s your point?

            Alrighty then.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – it is unsurprising that someone who won’t attribute the claims they make to the source of their claim would find “use of quotation marks … annoying.

            I have made no comment whatsoever about Dr. Sowell. The sum total of my remarks:

            “As to Mr. Sowell – let’s just count me as “not a fan.”

            Sorry you are unable to understand those simple words.

            “Sir.”

          • hennorama

            BTW – you needn’t refer to me as “God, you.”

            “hennorama” has always been sufficient.

          • HonestDebate1

            Crickets.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – you wrote “Half the murders in this country are committed by black people even though black people are 12% of the population.” presumably a quote of Mr. Elder’s words; please correct any inaccurate presumption.

            Mr. Elder should be more careful when he speaks in public. Here’s why:
            His unequivocal and completely unqualified quote is another lie, damned lie and statistic because it assumes:

            1. All murders that are committed are known about
            2. All murderers are identified
            3.The race of each and every murderer is known

            None of the above are true, making his words absolutely and demonstrably false.

            According to the FBI:

            For 2001 (the latest year with final results; 2012 data is still preliminary), of the 14,548 Murders known to the FBI, this was how they categorized them by Race:

            32.5% White 4,729
            37.7% Black 5,486
            1.8% Other 256
            28.0% Unknown 4,077

            Mr. Elder needs better sources, or to learn how to interpret data in a more accurate manner, or both.

            See:
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

          • HonestDebate1

            Nope, either look at the video and comment on the merits or go home. “Presumably” my eye, if you can’t be bothered to watch it then don’t comment. I trust the eloquent Mr. Elder far more than I do your 12 year old cherry picked stats. I’ve followed him for years and years and have never known him to be inaccurate. You are not qualified to label the much respected Elder unqualified. I’m done chasing your tangents. Focus or shut up.

          • hennorama

            Oops. “2001″ was a typo for “2011″ (as anyone with half a brain would have understood from the context). I listened to Mr. Eller’s screed, and he went on to make other unsupportable claims as well.

            I would never say or even think any thing such as what you suggest, sir. That you would suggest such a thing speaks volumes about you.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s not about me.

          • hennorama

            Right.  It’s about your suggestion as to what I should call Mr. Eller.

            That IS about you, sir. and “the content of your character.”

  • HonestDebate1

    This guy’s a bit over the top, I can’t endorse everything he says… just most of it and I’m glad he said it.

    “You see the world through your black eyes”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CUNUVhzFAQ&feature=player_embedded

    • 1Brett1

      So, you’ve found a ranting southern black Baptist preacher that has the same opinion as you; whoop de do…I guess that’s one way to pretend to hide your racially charged opinions. Which components to what he says do you disagree with?

      The preacher has painted those African-Americans, with whom he disagrees, with a broad brush. He has also characterized a whole sector of his own race as “see[ing] the world through…black eyes.” He is basically saying that blacks who disagree with him aren’t using reason, aren’t thinking for themselves, are racist, etc., which is very similar to the thing you accused those of who called for calm should the Zimmerman case have ended in acquittal. Your hypocrisy has reached new heights. 

      But, aside from all that, this is yet another set up for your “epidemic-of-black-crime-and-racism” meme that you finally invoke in a comment or two down your thread. This is despicable. We all know you opinions on this; you’ve stated them ad nauseam. You are trying to goad people into a fight; you are intentionally provoking a confrontation. Then, as hennorama tried to point out, when you were called on it, you attacked. Such a punk you are; such a bigoted, little man with an axe to grind.

      Perhaps with someone else, this might be worthy of discussion, but you are not worthy to discuss anything with; you have proven that over and over. Your comment is only worthy of spitting on.

      • HonestDebate1

        He’s in New York City, that’s not the South. Why are you so prejudiced?

        • 1Brett1

          First of all, there are white Baptists and there are black Baptists; that religion is segregated. It is almost two different religions. And black Baptists have their  origins from the south. Do you walk around your homeland with a blindfold on? Or are there no black southern Baptists where you live? All Black Baptists have their origins in the south; it is a religion that comes from the south. 

          But, okay, you’ve found a ranting black NORTHERN Baptist preacher to prop up your nonsense. Feel better? Your nitpicking is a trivial criticism, and it sidesteps your vile intentions. Any criticism you make is invalidated by your obvious vitriol and vehement desire to push a racially divisive agenda but blame those you condemn as doing so instead.

          • HonestDebate1

            No jerk, I found a man who made sense on more than a few levels. If he happens to be black or Southern (not) or Baptist (assumption, where did you get that?) then I don’t care. Don’t project your bigotries on me. 

            Do you have a comment on what he actually said?

          • 1Brett1

            Do you think he’s Catholic? 

            You are ignorant. I commented on what he said in my initial reply. I also asked you what you disagreed with him on. You replied to neither. I’l be more explicit about his nonsensical, racist rant if you don’t understand:

            His nonsense about whether ZImmerman is white or Hispanic is just that: nonsense. First of all, you argued a ways back that Obama isn’t even black that he is half black. Now, you are agreeing with some silly argument about Zimmerman’s ethnicity based on half of his ancestry. Any aspect of this argument is flawed, but aside from that you are also changing your earlier argument. Secondly, He’s arguing that his audience’s ethnicity is secondary to anything else in their lives, including their religion, yet they are putting their inherent ethnicity first and that because of this they are blind, that because some of them might believe something different than he does they are racist: nonsense. Third: his hypothetical argument that being in an  elevator with a 17 year old boy who is wearing a hoodie being scary is ridiculous. He’s a ranting idiot. Get it vile little racist man who hides behind some vile little racist black man just so you can make yourself feel better about your racism? 

          • HonestDebate1

            I have been consistent, I don’t care what color anyone is. It’s the left who call’s Zimmerman a white hispanic but doesn’t call Obama a white black. The inconsistency does not come from me. I have no idea what you are saying I am agreeing with.

            And your “secondly” argument is just pure insanity. I did not get that at all. In a nutshell, he is saying they are looking at the world through the lens of race (I say it all the time) and that God would not approve. 

            And the hoodie thing is a point where I would part from him, however I concur with the overall notion that profiling is not by default bad. 

            As Jesse Jackson said:

            “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved.”

          • 1Brett1

            “It’s the left who call’s Zimmerman a white hispanic but doesn’t call Obama a white black. The inconsistency does not come from me.” 

            So you are calling Zimmerman a white Hispanic and Obama a white black? What are trying to say with that nonsense? 

            You use Jesse Jackson to bolster your so-called argument? Why do you use black people as spokespersons for certain ideas you want to express (to provide cover for your racially charged attitudes I’d say) and then the same people as examples of race baiters you roundly condemn when that is convenient for you? 

            No, you are inconsistent when arguing your points. Your consistency comes in your ideology and bigotry only.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not the one with the labels. Obama is a man, Zimmerman is a man. Their race has no meaning to me. Their race is an obsession to liberal haters.

            I do not share your consistent assumption that what someone says should be trumped by who is saying it. I don’t agree or disagree with anyone 100%. And I don’t agree with Jesse Jackson or Manning here regarding the circumstances they describe. I do agree with the notion they illustrate about profiling. It’s a nuanced point, I don’t expect you to understand.

          • HonestDebate1

            Forget the merits, forget the point, forget honest debate, Manning is a racist. What is it like to see the world and everything in it through the lens of race? Never mind, I don’t want o know.

          • 1Brett1

            This man is Pastor James David Manning of ATLAH Worldwide Church, which is a Baptist church in Harlem.

            They were founded in 1957 (which, from its date, would be from a branch of the black southern Baptist church). They wouldn’t be from a branch of the northern Baptists (which are white), which would come from Pennsylvania and would have been established from a  northern tradition from much, much earlier than mid-20th century. You are just flat wrong in calling me a bigot for pointing out something factual. You are ignorant, and that is all there is to it. 

            Here’s another video from this man you have found a kinship with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUgd60LPnzw

          • 1Brett1

            Here’s more vile vitriol from this man you love to agree with.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBhH8AGxbhI

          • HonestDebate1

            Kick butt, that’s funny. I made an issue out of your statement that he was a black southern Baptist preacher because he’s not, that’s all. Do what you gotta do to puff your ego. 

            No, I laugh at the fact that you immediately assume he’s in the South when he’s not, Now you google up some stuff and you’re an expert. You are going on and on about the South but it is just a rant with assumptions. What possible relevance can the founding or migrations have? The church IS NOT Baptist, the denomination is listed as Independent. The church was formerly Baptist but changed when Manning took over. That seems to me to be a rejection. But so what? If you want to insist he’s a Southern Baptist preacher then don’t let the facts get in the way. It never bothered you before. You seem to be trying to make the point that since you believe he’s a black Southern Baptist that he cannot possibly have anything of value to say. It’s like being a Southern black Baptist is the triple whammy of stupidity. Fine but again, don’t project your bigotries on me. I thought he made some good points, I don’t care what color or religion he is. I don’t care where his church is.

            And now all of the sudden I love to agree with everything he has ever said. I explicitly said otherwise in my very first comment but you love to tell me what I think.

            I posted the video because of what he said not who he was. 

            You and Hennon are two peas in a pod, do anything to avoid honest debate and change the subject. Here’s a clue, the topic is “Zimmerman not guilty”.

          • 1Brett1

            I know what a black southern Baptist is, and so do you, but I did Google him to find out his name. I already knew a lot about Baptists, though. 

            As I said, I wasn’t talking about his location but his religion. Of course you said it doesn’t matter and has no effect on your point. So, make up your mind. 

            (You never did say what exactly you disagree with.)

             You also can not refute the fact that your whole purpose for even posting was to pick a fight and further throw in your meme about black crime being an epidemic, which you did. You lost your little debate because you are a vile little bigot who likes to stir up racial divisiveness and you can’t hide that.

          • HonestDebate1

            My mind is made up, I don’t care where he’s from, never did. You injected all that. What are you talking about?

            “You also can not refute the fact that your whole purpose for even posting was to pick a fight …

            So you want me to refute what you say my propose is? Why do you always insist i’m up to something you made up Mr. fight picker? You’re the one talking about fights and kicking butt. It’s bizarre

            Look, my issue is and has always been a disgust for the way honest debate is poisoned by the incredibly shallow and nasty cry of racism. Obama has taken it to new levels. The Zimmerman trial is a travesty because of it. It makes a burly manly man like me cry. I hate it to the pit of my soul with every fiber of my being. I refuse to shy away from honest debate for fear of being called a racist. So call me what you want but you are just outing yourself.

          • 1Brett1

            You challenged my label of the guy and you were wrong.

      • Lusitan75

        “Such a punk you are; such a bigoted, little man with an axe to grind about race”

        To me, and many others, everyone complaining about the outcome of the Martin/Zimmerman case is just using it as an excuse to grind an ax about race.  

        It’s a trial, over and done with.  You may disagree with the jury verdict, but why you and people like you persist in using it as an excuse to inflame racial tensions is beyond me.

        I don’t agree with every jury verdict either.  I was frustrated when that Kaycee Anthony or whatever her name was walked away scott-free after that little girl was killed.  I wasn’t on the jury, it’s not my call to make, I just have an opinion.  But turning everything into a race-issue just because, in this particular case, the two people were of different races is stupid and divisive.

        “No justice no peace”?  Well, that’s great.  I guess that means “If I don’t agree with the verdict, no peace.”  And tell me, what does “no peace” mean?  You can peacefully protest, peacefully vote, peacefully speak out with your opinions in whatever peaceful forum you’d like.  Why the need  for the implicit threat of violence with “no peace”?

  • HonestDebate1

    Moved to today’s board.

  • Lusitan75

    “There are, frankly, very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.”

    Obama just can’t resist talking about the Martin/Zimmerman case (to the exclusion of countless other cases where the racial facts aren’t so convenient).

    A citizen might reply:

    There are, frankly, very few non-black Americans who haven’t had the experience of being threatened with violence by someone like Martin, because of the color of their skin.  That happens to me; that happens to my children.  There are very few non-black Americans who haven’t had the experience of a loved one, or they themselves, being attacked by someone like Martin.  That happens often.  And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences (and any rational analysis of facts, such as those contained in the FBI crime statistics on race) inform how the non-black American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.

  • Art Toegemann

    Florida’s law on self defense; what should have convicted GZ is at (2)(a) and (2)(c).http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

    • fun bobby

      buddy did you read the title of that law? that’s the statute that applies to defense within ones home. keep fishing

      • Art Toegemann

        I must admit, this was before I was better versed on Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force by an Aggressor law. See immediately following, fun bobby.

      • Art Toegemann

        Stand Your Ground law defends Martin.

        • fun bobby

          was martin charged with something?

  • Art Toegemann

    “We don’t need you to do that.” GZ was defending no one.

    GZ seems to have known the law to the letter. But..
    “he or she has exhausted every reasonable means” 2(a)

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2FSections%2F0776.041.html

    He was the only one armed. He could have shot to disable, not kill: he killed in one shot, the only shot. Florida gave him his gun back anyway.

    Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us

    Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us

  • Art Toegemann

    “We don’t need you to do that.” GZ was defending no one.GZ seems to have known the law to the letter. But..”he or she has exhausted every reasonable means” 2(a)http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2FSections%2F0776.041.htmlHe was the only one armed. He could have shot to disable, not kill: he killed in one shot, the only shot. Florida gave him his gun back anyway.Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine http://www.leg.state.fl.usStatutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine http://www.leg.state.fl.us

    • fun bobby

      he was defending himself. is it wrong to know what the law is?

      • Art Toegemann

        Knowing the law (by way of rehab for assaulting a policeman) gets dicey when you shoot someone to death.

        • fun bobby

          “gets dicey” what does that mean? he was given legal education in rehab for assaulting a policeman? that does not sound silly to you? you are not making much sense

          • Art Toegemann

            It ain’t law school. It ain’t even self education. Z is the product of the old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

          • fun bobby

            what does “gets dicey” mean? are you drunk?

  • Art Toegemann
  • Art Toegemann

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2FSections%2F0776.041.html
    “We don’t need you to do that.” GZ was defending no one.
    GZ seems to have known the law to the letter. But..”he or she has exhausted every reasonable means” 2(a)
    He was the only one armed. He could have shot to disable, not kill: he killed in one shot, the only shot. Florida gave him his gun back anyway.

    • Art Toegemann
    • Art Toegemann

      Sorry. Had trouble posting.

    • fun bobby

      so when he was on his back being beaten where would you have had him shot his attacker?

      • Art Toegemann

        Z could have shot M in the shoulder(s). But, Z was determined to kill.
        It is a mistake, Z’s and ours, to go beyond the dispatcher’s instructions. The only thing revealed is Florida’s absurd self defense law.

        • fun bobby

          too bad Zimmerman was in real life and not an episode of Dr Quinn medical woman. when defending your life you need to end the threat immediately. you shoot for center mass. he was lucky to get such a good shot.
          you seem kind of focused on your interpretation of the dispatchers instructions and what you believe Zimmerman did after they said that. they said “we don’t need you to do that”, he stopped following and went on up the sidewalk in another direction from where he has last seen martin to find a house number to tell the police. M circled around and jumped him on his way back to his truck. the stand your ground law did not apply in this case at all, no one said it did. the case would have been decided exactly the same under MA law.

          • Art Toegemann

            How did fun bobby wind up on an all female jury?

          • fun bobby

            ? that does not make sense.

          • Art Toegemann

            You are a misogynist at “Dr Quinn medical woman.” but you agree with the all female jury.
            Your video that doesn’t make your point.
            Were you schooled at “center of mass” shooting? Understand fun bobby?
            Another dumb as dirt hot shot. Grow up.

          • fun bobby

            um that’s a tv show where everyone got shot in the shoulder. you have mentioned the “all female jury” twice, what is your problem with women?
            so you did not watch the video. why not?
            I am afraid your question, like much of your post does, not make sense.
            I don’t think its because I am dumb as dirt though I feel like it has more to do with you being incoherent. if I was smarter I would not bother with people who are angry and incoherent

          • Art Toegemann

            Tell us again about aiming center of mass.

          • fun bobby

            what would you like to know about it?

          • Art Toegemann

            How does is apply to the Zimmerman case?

          • fun bobby

            Zimmerman made a center mass shot as was appropriate in the situation. you have some idea about “shooting to wound”. there really are not any real defensive situations where it is appropriate to shoot to wound. either your life is in immediate danger or it is not in immediate danger. if you are in immediate danger (like someone on top of you beating your head in the pavement, verbally threatening your life and trying to grab your gun ) you need to stop the threat immediately and “shooting to wound” does not accomplish that because a wounded person is still a threat, perhaps more so.

          • Art Toegemann

            But police are trained and issued nonlethal methods like tasers, well known.
            fun bobby, you are a gun owner that doesn’t know how to aim.

          • fun bobby

            tasers are illegal for citizens in MA. are you saying you have an illegal weapon?
            The average police officer gets 8 hours of range training per year. I do that every month. I have great aim but paper targets don’t move of fight back. Was the silly insult to distract from the reader from you ignoring the content of the post? real life is not a practice range. your “trained” police miss 8 of 10 shots taken from less than 10 feet in real life situations. Tell the 9 innocent bystanders the NYPD shot in one incident in front of the empire state building about that training I am sure they would love to hear more about police expertise with tasers.

          • Art Toegemann

            Your directive to “shoot to kill” reveals you to be a murderer. Official and responsible policy is the exact opposite.
            “less than 10 feet”? How far was Z from M when Z shot M to death?
            Your admitted you possess guns. Are they all legally owned?
            George Zimmerman has outwitted you fun bobby.
            We have your contempt for your police department and your dispatcher.

          • fun bobby

            I have never said anything about to shooting to kill. I have said that “shooting to wound” is impractical. Find any firearms training anywhere that advises that one ever shoot to wound. You sound kind of crazy calling me a murderer.
            Furthermore self defense is not murder. that seems to be a fact that you do not accept.

            the point of that statistic is that in real life police officers miss shots from very close range. shooting accurately under pressure is very difficult. that’s one reason people are taught to aim for center mass. Zim was at arms length or less, what’s your point?

            Of course my guns are all legally owned. That’s silly. Now tell me more about the taser you own.

            That must be your theory. it seems you really believe that George Zimmerman is a genius. He is such a master liar he was able to, right on the spot, tell a story that perfectly comported with all witness statements and 911 calls that he had never heard. He is also such a brilliant liar that he was able to tell a lie that even perfectly comported with all physical evidence and the coroners report before the coroners report was even written! he told such a perfect lie even the prosecution could not poke any holes in it. I notice you also have been unable to come up with a theory of the case in which he is guilty or any specific criticisms of his story.

            http://www.wbur.org/npr/144489360/how-a-teens-coerced-confession-set-her-free?ft=3&f=144489360

            please do me a favor and read that story and tell me how you feel about those police. (please be intellectually honest for just a minute and read the article) How does that make you feel?
            I don’t have any feelings either way about the dispatcher in my town.

          • Art Toegemann

            Slowly now, very slowly: when you kill someone it calls for a murder investigation.
            My point is compare the distances between target practice with the distance between Z and M. See the difference?
            The taser reference rebuts your claim that when one shoots one shoots to kill. You are a murderer in spirit, perhaps in behavior.
            I recommend you develop “feelings” for you police dispatcher. Those instructions convict Z. Everything after is distraction that has misled you.

          • fun bobby

            you are not making sense so I will do my best with this.

            when a person is killed in some way there is a homicide investigation. one possible finding of the investigation is a finding that it was a case of self defense which is a form of justifiable homicide.

            “My point is compare the distances between target practice with the distance between Z and M. See the difference?”

            like I already said Zimmerman was close to travon. why do you think that is important?

            tasers are illegal in MA. What do tasers have to do with this case?

            Although you keep saying I said it I have claimed that “when one shoots one shoots to kill”. why do you keep saying I said something I did not?

            “You are a murderer in spirit, perhaps in behavior.”

            what kind of drugs are you on? you seem like you are on drugs. maybe i am wrong, are you on drugs, insane, or some kind of nincompoop? is it a combination? how do you come up with things like this

            “I recommend you develop “feelings” for you police dispatcher”
            those instructions, as I have said are 100% irrelevant. its pretty funny you are so hard up to ignore all the evidence and still can not come up with one flaw in zims story or any possible theory of the case in which zim is guilty of any crime.

          • Art Toegemann

            Try medical anatomy. Where is the heart to center of mass? By the target silhouette their different.

          • fun bobby

            By the target silhouette their different.
            that’s not a sentence. how am I supposed to decode this stuff?

          • Art Toegemann

            ” By the target silhouette, they’re different”.
            I stand corrected.
            You should probably stay away from anatomy. Your failure rate is too high. (For some of us, anatomy is not “code”.)
            Admit this: what is known as “center of mass” aiming does not apply to the Zimmerman case. This means Z chose lethal force even when nonlethal force was law and available. You lose, no standing on correction.
            You lose at the 911 call too. Even though you tamper with that evidence true copies are easily obtained. For tampering you lose even more. You lose, no standing on correction.

            You would have us suffer the soft evidence of George Zimmerman, video star. This obligates you to provide the distance of Martin’s body, the altercation, and Zimmerman’s car.
            You began this conversation striking down a statute as not relevant. You never provided the controlling statute.
            And if you’re trying to sell all those guns of yours you will never use you lose again.
            You don’t know forensics or pathology. You think you know firearms, but you don’t know that either, which makes you dangerous because you’re a guns owner.
            You are neither credible nor honorable. Remember: some people know who fun bobby is.

          • fun bobby

            “By the target silhouette, they’re different”

            This is still an incoherent statement!

            “This means Z chose lethal force even when nonlethal force was law and available.”
            He did not have a taser. Lets imagine if he did though. The man trying to kill him was physically on top of him. Think for one moment what would happen if you tased someone who you were physically touching. better yet try it at home
            “You lose, no standing on correction.”
            Is English not your first language? are you using some sort of online translator?

          • Art Toegemann

            (Whenever I need a firearms expert, I turn to fun bobby.)
            Hey! I asked you a question, below. Or are you and Zimmerman crawling beneath that rock of yours?

          • fun bobby

            I have to sleep sometime. the great thing about this forum is that the chat will still be there tomorrow. You would be wise to consult me on any firearms related issue were you to do so you could possibly avoid making a fool of yourself at least on this issue.

          • Art Toegemann

            Center of mass, aiming, fun bobby.
            Put up or shut up.

          • fun bobby

            well art if you were a little better organized you would look for the answer to your question below your question

  • Art Toegemann

    As soon as the dispatcher told Zimmerman, in effect, “We don’t need you to follow Martin, we’re sending policemen.” the laws of self defense were no longer available to Zimmerman.

    • fun bobby

      that would be pretty funny if we were not talking about basic rights here. how exactly did he forfeit his legal right to defend himself?

      • Art Toegemann

        His rights by law were mitigated by the police dispatcher’s instruction and information, above.
        Listen to the recording, it’s only 3′+ long.
        No reasonable man describes armed and stalking, contrary to the authority’s instructions, as self defense. Murder in the first degree, guilty.

        • fun bobby

          so what you are saying is you did not watch the 20+ minute long police reenactment with all 911 calls synced to it?

          “No reasonable man describes armed and stalking”
          this phrase is incoherent and makes the rest of your sentence not make sense.
          there is no law that says that your rights can be mitigated by a police dispatcher. you also seem to have no idea what first degree murder is. perhaps you should spend more time looking into this case and the laws

          • Art Toegemann

            Such a reenactment is rebutted by the evidence. Martin’s body and the altercation occurred at a significant distance from Zimmerman’s vehicle.
            fun bobby, I’m going to have you investigated as armed and dangerous. Your other posts here create a probability.
            “fun bobby”, we know who you are.

          • fun bobby

            so no you have not watched the police reenactment? why would martins body be close to the vehicle when the altercation took place at the other end of the sidewalk like Zimmerman said? so we have established you are not really aware of most of the evidence in this case or the laws. its too bad being ignorant is not a crime. of course I am armed, that’s my duty as a good American, why would that be dangerous? you are not coherent.

            I am a compassionate person so I am going to do you a favor. please take the 20 or so minutes to watch this so you can actually know what you are talking about.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feWZPjCuA5k

          • Art Toegemann

            This isn’t hard evidence, only Z’s recounting after he murdered the only other witness.

          • fun bobby

            no its part of the investigation. it is evidence
            his written statement to police, included in the video, is also evidence as are the several 911 calls synced to the video and the photos of physical evidence and the coroners report, are all evidence. so how many minutes did you watch before you quit? there were several witnesses, if you had actually bothered to watch that video it included the 911 calls of the eyewitnesses synced with the police reenactment.

          • Art Toegemann

            Why do you like these 911 calls more than the dispatcher’s instructions to Z?

          • fun bobby

            you know that’s included right? ( oh yeah I guess you would have had to watch to see that) you know the call you seem fixated on was edited right?

          • Art Toegemann

            I’ll tell you the same thing I told Boston University: I respond to you only to prevent another gun tragedy, to prevent because there is no remedy.
            The record of the dispatcher’s instructions is about 3′ long. You’re the one who cut out the parts you don’t like, here in this thread, because they incriminate your darling George.
            For your information fun bobby, you don’t shoot to kill to preserve the testimony, the information.

          • fun bobby

            how is you whining about a case that’s already been decided going to prevent a “gun tragedy”?
            now I am a tape editor?
            was martins death “a gun tragedy”?
            He is not my darling but by all accounts he is a decent guy who was in a bad situation and did what he had to do so that he could live. You still have been unable to come up with any flaws in Zims story. whatever the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that”(which was included in that video by the way, you would know if you had actually watched) really has no bearing on the case. why cant you find any flaws in george’s story? do you think it could be possible that you and the prosecutor and police cant find any flaws because the man is telling the truth?

          • Art Toegemann

            Your quote of the tape is negligent again. You intentionally leave out the parts that convict. That’s my 3′ of hard evidence to your 20′ of your darling George.
            Where is the heart in relation to the center of mass of the target silhouette? I repeat, Z had the legal option and ability to use nonlethal force.
            Just lose fun bobby. Turn in your guns while you’re at it, instead of someone getting hurt.

          • fun bobby

            “Your quote of the tape is negligent again. You intentionally leave out the parts that convict. That’s my 3′ of hard evidence to your 20′ of your darling George.”

            Is this some sort of dysfunctional haiku? Its not supposed to make sense right?

            the heart is roughly in the center of the chest what is your point?

            whether it was legal or possible for him to have shot martin somewhere besides the center mass is irrelevant. To do so would be stupid as it would not accomplish the goal of self defense. Why is this difficult to understand to you? Had he shot martin in the extremities he would have still had an angry man ( now a really angry man) on top of him trying to get his gun to kill him with. What good would that do him?

            just lose? what does that mean? have you noticed that all the other loonys have given up the” justice for travon” BS after all the evidence came out?

            ” Turn in your guns while you’re at it, instead of someone getting hurt.”
            what’s your purpose when you make a comment like that? do you really think that’s a logical form of debate? if you had half a brain you would thank people like me because otherwise you all would die when your prius collide with deer or from Lyme disease

          • Art Toegemann

            No, it’s George Zimmerman video star, not hard evidence.

          • fun bobby

            no its part of the investigation. it is evidence
            his written statement to police, included in the video, is also evidence as are the several 911 calls synced to the video and the photos of physical evidence and the coroners report, are all evidence.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 29, 2014
The U.S. Senate is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 16, 2014. (AP)

The “Do-Nothing” Congress just days before August recess. We’ll look at the causes and costs to the country of D.C. paralysis.

Jul 29, 2014
This April 28, 2010 file photo, shows the Colstrip Steam Electric Station, a coal-fired power plant in Colstrip, Mont. Colstrip figures to be a target in recently released draft rules from the Environmental Protection Agency that call for reducing Montana emissions 21 percent from recent levels by 2030. (AP)

A new sci-fi history looks back on climate change from the year 2393.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 28, 2014
U.S. Secretary of War Newton D. Baker watches as wounded American soldiers arrive at an American hospital near the front during World War I. (AP Photo)

Marking the one hundredth anniversary of the start of World War One. We’ll look at lessons learned and our uneasy peace right now.

 
Jul 28, 2014
This June 4, 2014 photo shows a Walgreens retail store in Boston. Walgreen Co. _ which bills itself as “America’s premier pharmacy” _ is among many companies considering combining operations with foreign businesses to trim their tax bills. (AP)

American companies bailing out on America. They call it inversion. Is it desertion?

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment
 
The Art Of The American Pie: Recipes
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

In the odd chance that our pie hour this week made you hungry — how could it not, right? — we asked our piemaking guests for some of their favorite pie recipes. Enjoy!

More »
Comment
 
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
2 Comments