I’ve avoided weighing in on the George Zimmerman trial, out of deference to the judicial process. But now the jury has spoken: George Zimmerman is not even guilty of a lesser charge such as assault, child abuse or manslaughter; still less is he guilty of any degree of murder. It’s official.
My sympathy, and I’m sure all of our prayers and sympathies, continue to go out to Trayvon Martin’s family for the tragic loss of their son and brother.
But I believe they “lost him”, so to speak, before his lethal encounter with Zimmerman. On the total weight of evidence, I believe that Martin was an aggressor, and I agree with the jury that it would have been wrong to send Zimmerman to prison, on the strong possibility (if not likelihood) that Zimmerman acted in reasonable self-defense.
I want to go beyond what Kurt and Roger L. Simon have said about President Obama. He didn’t just besmirch his office by taking public sides in a painful criminal matter where the utmost caution was needed. And he didn’t just lose politically (by taking the side that lost on trial), nor win politically (by revving up his base). No, it’s worse than that. Obama has lost morally by saying things in this matter that, in all likelihood, are morally wrong.
The latest would be Obama’s call to “honor” Travyon Martin:
President Obama called on the nation to honor Trayvon Martin a day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of his murder by asking “ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence.”
…Obama said in a statement on Sunday…”We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.”
Let’s be clear. Just as the weight of evidence suggests that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, so it also suggests that Travyon Martin used excessive physical force, acting in illegal, criminal aggression. (Otherwise, how could Zimmerman’s action have been self-defense – objectively?)
Physical aggression, especially that which threatens another’s life to the point where he may be justified in taking drastic action, is morally wrong. And self-defense, IF it is genuinely called for, is morally right. And “honor” ought to be given, if at all, to the person, philosophy or action which is in the right.
I really don’t believe that either party should be “honored” here. But, if one of them absolutely had to be, wouldn’t it be Zimmerman? Certainly not because he killed; but because he was – on the weight of the evidence, and as now officially determined by a jury – likely reasonable to have killed, under the law and circumstances; likely the party who was more in the right.
That President O’Pander ignores the moral implications of what the jury found (after their intensive study of the matter), and even presents the opposite to people as that which is good and true, is typical.
Tragically, it is also divisive beyond words, a terrible injury to our nation. Why? Because it sends many people in the wrong direction – with their emotions and their sense of injury inflamed, on behalf of that which is likely wrong. Honoring the wrong does not bring healing – especially in racial matters.
Your headline is “Obama: Racial Divider”
Yet you don’t say anything about how Obama used race? He said “could be my son” and lamented the insane gun laws that would make his murder legal. He personalized it and clearly was touched that such a senseless murder would occur but unless I missed something, I did not see him use race.
So please explain clearly why you titled this “Obama: Racial Divider”
Furthermore, Martin was innocent in all of this. He was walking home, then harassed by a guy who then got his ass kicked, who then shot Martin despite instigating the fight.
Thats what happened. To claim he is nothing but a victim is very wrong. Just because a jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt it was illegal does not make it morally justifiable to pick a fight with a kid then shoot him.
mike: Obama has played an inflammatory role, and morally incorrect role (taking the morally wrong side – when he should be taking no sides at all), in a racially charged, racially divisive, judicial matter.
I said as much in my conclusion, after implying it in the rest of my text. And I provided an Obama quote for you to ponder.
Wrong. Martin beat a guy within what seemed – seemed to that guy, ***and more importantly, seemed to the jury as well*** – an inch of his life, effectively forcing the guy to draw and fire his legal, duly-licensed firearm in self-defense.
Lots of important evidence opposes your view. For example, the bruise/contusion evidence favored Zimmerman’s account. But I believe you don’t honestly care, so I’ll stop.
There are far too many emotional statements being made about this. Case in point: mike.
You don’t know what happened, mike. You don’t know that Zimmerman “picked a fight” with Martin. Clearly, six jurors, who are guaranteed to know more about this case than you do, don’t think that is what happened.
I love mike’s use of the double-passive voice: Martin “was harassed by a guy who then got his ass kicked”, as though Martin was almost a bystander; as though Martin was NOT actively doing every last bit of that “kicking”, in response to what were (apparently) only verbal provocations at most.
Just like I love mike’s repeated misstatements of Martin’s age, in the other thread.
That Martin died, is very sad. But the jury has closed the case, finding Zimmerman not guilty.
“taking the morally wrong side – when he should be taking no sides at all”
ILC:
Please explain how this makes him a “Racial Divider” as you call it in the headline.
To play the hypothetical:
Imagine if a Muslim who carried a legal fire-arm, goaded a US solider into a fight, then shot that solider and claimed self defense under “stand your ground.”
Then, what if the Muslim’s supporters data mined the US soldier’s life and used no-context social media snippets to paint this murdered solider as a PSD crazed stereotype, despite the many testimonials that this was not the case.
What would your honest reaction be?
“Goaded” how? Define “goaded”, mike.
If the Muslim only used words, while the U.S. soldier initiated physical aggression – and was winning, creating a reasonable immediate threat to the Muslim’s life, such as (for example) repeatedly, and unnecessarily, slamming the Muslim’s head into the concrete – then the U.S. soldier would very clearly be in the wrong.
It’s called applying legal principles, mike. Military justice deals with these sort of cases all the time. U.S. soldiers (who had acted wrongly) are in prison right now under that very type of case, and I have no problem with it.
Like all leftists-at-heart, you think tribally. (Collectivism is tribalism, and both are found in Rousseau, the modern father of leftism.) You also assume that others must be basically the same way you are. So you created a hypothetical, setting the tribal identifications to trap me (you thought) on the assumption that I, too, think tribally. It didn’t work, because I don’t.
Let’s not forget that while T. Martin had a legal right to be where he was the last night of his life, he was still an outsider—he didn’t live there, but was merely a visitor.
There are plenty of places where I may have a legal right to be, but where I would still be an outsider. When in those instances, I am mindful and respectful of my surroundings. In those cases, I certainly don’t pick or engage in fights; and I don’t expect others (that is to say, locals) to move out of my way—I am more than happy to move out of their way.
I don’t care if a self-appointed Wyatt Earp confronts me: I will be polite and respectful and answer his questions and assume he’s acting in the best interests of his community (even if, in reality, he’s just a Gladys Kravitz-type with a perceived mandate). If I feel threatened, I will retreat to what I perceive as a safe place. But I won’t feel ‘disrespected’ and feel the need to show him why he should treat me in the way I feel I deserve to be treated.
ILC – Zimmerman stalked him and at the very least tried put him under some kind of citizen’s arrest. – And its seems very likely he did not do so very politely or calmly based on the transcript of his 911 call as he stalking him, calling him swears and other unintelligible things.
The only person who can refute Zimmerman’s ever changing story happens to be dead.
And in my view, if you instigate a fight that you can only finish with a gun, you are a murderer.
Meaning what – that Zimmerman watched him, in the public area? Followed him at a distance in the public area, as part of a neighborhood watch? Asked him, from a distance of several feet (or meters), what he was doing?
Nothing wrong with those things. Zimmerman had as much right to be there (and do them), as Martin had.
Meaning what – that Zimmerman tried to handle Martin physically? Perhaps that Zimmerman jumped Martin?
Or is our only real evidence, evidence of Zimmerman using words – *****words**** – on Martin? Be specific and honest, mike. Remember that the bruises and contusions were found on Zimmerman (not on Martin). And that Martin was physically tall and powerful with a track record of starting fistfights, while Zimmerman was widely viewed as a fat wimp, unlikely to start a fistfight or manhandle anyone against their will. And that Martin racially profiled Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker.” (Wrongly, since Zimmerman is Hispanic. And unlike Zimmerman, who commented on Martin’s racial appearance only in response to the 9-11 dispatcher’s direct question.)
SO….. WHAT? Really, mike. Words.
Sorry, but it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to claim that George Zimmerman was just defending himself. He went out of his way to make sure a there was some interaction with Martin, even after being advised against by a dispatcher and despite the fact that it was clear that the boy was actively trying to avoid him. At night. In the rain. He was the one who carrying the deadly weapon, so he is the one who should have shown restraint instead of careening recklessly into an altercation he seemed hell bent on creating. The prosecution only had to prove negligence for a manslaughter conviction. As in was it negligent for a grown man to follow a teenager around with a gun and go up to him even though the police were on their way and there was no threat since no crime had even been committed. The answer is yes. And if not that, they should have zapped Zimmerman with a felony murder charge via his aggravated stalking of Martin. The prosecution simply wasn’t looking to win this case, as evidenced by their refusal to acknowledge the obvious racial element of Zimmerman’s baseless suspicion AND his history of making bogus phone calls on black children as young as 8 years old. If the prosecution had mentioned any of that stuff it would indirectly implicated them because they refused to press charges initially.
It amazes me that people can, with a straight face, claim that a man whose actions leading up to this shooting singularly exhibited an extraordinary amount of suspicion and hostility (suspicion, I might add, that was found to be utterly baseless) somehow became a pacifist in the moments leading up to the deadly scuffle and merely used the minimal amount of force necessary to protect his person. These people (who CERTAINLY aren’t racist) seem to be sold on the fact that in this scenario, which was made flammable by Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone, the seventeen year old on his cell phone armed with a pack of skittles and some tea inexplicably transformed into a raging, homicidal maniac and thus left Saint Zimmerman with only one reasonable recourse; shooting an unarmed child in the chest. Maybe that fits right into the racist presuppositions about black aggressiveness, but it seems laughably absurd to those of us who aren’t actively looking to rationalize the senseless the death of a black kid. Do tell me whether or not you think that a black man could follow a white teenager around with a gun, end up shooting him dead during the subsequent altercation, and then be staunchly defended by these same upholders of the constitution for exercising his right to protect himself after initiating a confrontation with a stranger for no logical reason.
This is how racism works in 2013. Take note. I doubt anyone on this blog will take note though, because apparently the only racial injustice in the US is against middle class white men. But at least now you’ve been told.
Of course it seems that way to you, Another_Jeremy, because you’re a race-baiting bigot.
You and your bigot friend mike tried, convicted, and screamed for Zimmerman to be lynched the night you found out Trayvon’s skin color, and you’ve just been digging yourself deeper with these elaborate spins, rationalizations, half-truths, and outright lies ever since.
Why? Because to acknowledge ANY facts to the contrary exposes your racism, bigotry, and bias. You heard what you thought was a white guy’s name and made a knee-jerk reaction, and neither you or your fellow race-baiting Obama bigots are man enough to back off or accept any conclusion other than the one you and your racist Obama immediately screamed, no matter what the evidence.
You and your fellow Obama supporters like mike are at the same level as a Stormfront pamphlet. You are racist bigots, you are “proving” a predetermined conclusion, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, facts be damned.
<A href="http://www.sportsmedia101.com/atlantafalcons/2013/07/14/atlanta-falcons-roddy-white-tweets-that-jurors-in-george-zimmerman-trial-should-commit-suicide/"Since your Obama Party and black community leaders are already screaming for Zimmerman and the jurors to be murdered, we see exactly where this is going. Do what racist Chicago thug Obama and his race-baiting idiots like you want, ignore due process and the rule of law, ignore evidence, ignore the results of trial by jury, and just lynch — and to any juror who would think about contradicting the Obama Party’s predetermined result, you and your family will be killed.
You are the new KKK, Another_Jeremy, and you’re too stupid and clueless to recognize it.
How can we live in an era of unparalleled access to information, and have people like mike and Another_Jeremy telling blatant lies about this case?
Obama should have risen above this, and the Gates/Cambridge Police case, because he should be Presidential. I understand that, at the core, he is nothing more than a community agitator, but you would think he should understand this by now.
A President represents ALL Americans, not just one group. Remember his (obviously revealed to be lies) campaign speeches about representing all America, not just Red America or Blue America? Pretty obvious he didn’t mean it.
And while mike and Another_Jeremy wring their hands, clutch their pearls and recline on their fainting couches, maybe one of them can explain why Obama, being SO CONCERNED for Trayvon, doesn’t seem the least concerned (nor does the Media, Al Sharpton, etc) for the 72 shootings in Chicago over the four-day holiday weekend a week ago?
Oh, right, it doesn’t fuel the “America is RACIST!’ narrative when it’s black on black murder, does it?
And why, oh why, are mike and Another_Jeremy such racists? Why do they hate Hispanics so much that they would lie about and misrepresent George Zimmerman so?
I can’t fault people too much for drawing the wrong conclusions about the Zimmerman verdict given how dreadful and dishonest the MFM were in covering the story. The MFM portrayed Trayvon as a sweet, innocent little schoolboy gunned down by a trigger-happy white racist (who probably had an NRA sticker on his pick-up truck and was shouting “Woohoo, FoxNews Rules” at the top of his lungs as he blew Trayvon away with his 30-round magazine-equipped AR-15.)
Of course very little of the MFM narrative turned out to be true. Trayvon was no innocent little schoolboy. George Zimmerman wasn’t white, wasn’t a racist, wasn’t disobeying “police orders,” and wasn’t out hunting black people.
A lot of what leftists believe about the case isn’t true; but it’s what they’ve been told.
Agreed. A couple Flash Facts.
1) Stand your ground was never implied, invoked, or mentioned in the defense.
2) Every account puts MArtin as the physical aggressor. The best theory the prosecution could give was that while MArtin was on top of Zimmerman, pinning him down in ‘ground and pound style’ his flailing blows never connected with the prone man he was on top of.
3) The Prosecution had to prove self defense was not a factor. Not ‘mearly negligence’
Those are the top three in showing Another Jeremy is Another Idiot. I strongly suggest anyone who actually wants to know about the law read legalinsurrection.com’s blog on it.
Well, acethepug, part of the reason is that Obama supporters like Another_Jeremy and mike are just plain uneducated and incapable of basic research.
The second is, as we’ve been hearing since 2007, that all criticism of black people is racist and that, if you criticize a black person like Obama, you are a racist.
The third part is that the Obama Party, as we see with the death threats its leaders and voting base are making against the Zimmerman jury, plus their calls to lynch Clarence Thomas and other non-Obama minority voters, will kill you if you don’t comply.
In short, liberals preach the lie, criticize anything that could disprove the lie, and murder anyone who questions the lie.
1. No accounts saw the beginning of the altercation, so there is no one who can claim that Martin was the physical aggressor. People saw the ensuing scuffle, and maintain that at one point Martin was on top, not who threw the first blow. But it doesn’t matter. Aggravated Stalking is a felony. And if someone is killed during the course of being stalked, that is felony murder in Florida. Statuate 782.04
2. I did not mention stand your ground anywhere in my comment.
3. Self defense must be proportional to the threat posed. Some scratches on the back of the head and a bloody nose do not warrant a gunshot.
4. THIS WAS ONE OF NUMEROUS TIMES HE HAD CALLED THE POLICE ON A BLACK PERSON FOR NO REASON.
The most telling thing, that everyone here seems to be avoiding, is that Zimmerman’s attribution of guilt was wrong and that Martin’s fear that someone was out harm him was right. Zimmerman was pursuing him for negative reasons while Trayvon Martin had done nothing wrong. Think of the amount of aggression it would take to follow someone you think (incorrectly) it doing something illegal, get out of your car and follow them more directly all the while knowing you are armed. Only a plainly bellicose or unstable individual would feel the need to do so, especially if they are running from you. Yet there have been no attempts to empathize with a young boy who was alone at night and being followed by a self-appointed cop. He couldn’t have been scared because he was a big dangerous Negro. Never mind that he weighed less than Zimmerman. He was a violent black animal. How could he have been afraid? Why would he feel the need to defend himself? And I’m sure that had a white person been followed by a strange black man, you would have had no compunctions about condemning the white person’s possible preemptive and defensive attack on someone who was armed and chasing them around at night. Even after the white person called out “why are you following me” to the black person and got no response.
And I’m also glad the white knights of the GayGayK are suddenly the harbingers of racial equity and shrewdly point out that Zimmerman is Hispanic. Because there are no such things as Hispanic whites right? I’m glad you’re making sure each ethnicity is properly identified, just like you guy always shrewdly point out that Obama is mulato when you characterize him as a pimp for black excess.
The only reason that these people are defending this man is because the person who was killed is black. You are fooling no one.
But you claimed ZIMMERMAN was, Another_Jeremy.
So you just caught yourself in a lie while trying to extricate yourself.
And here’s another one:
3. Self defense must be proportional to the threat posed. Some scratches on the back of the head and a bloody nose do not warrant a gunshot.
BROKEN nose, plus lacerations.
So now you’re lying about the extent of Zimmerman’s injuries.
And that’s the way this will go. You are a racist, a desperate bigot who had Zimmerman tried, convicted, and ready to be lynched the instant you heard his last name and that Trayvon is black.
You are flailing. You are desperate to find something, anything, to make your racist hate, your racist bigotry, and your screaming demand for the execution of what you thought was a white man rational.
But it isn’t. The evidence was presented and due process given. And the evidence proved otherwise.
So all you can do is scream and rant and spit and call us racists because we didn’t do what you want.
And thus you expose yourself. You don’t care about due process, evidence, or law; you want people convicted based on their skin color and last names. You are a sick, disgusting racist.
And then we have the Obama Party threatening to kill the jurors. We notice you won’t man up and deal with that, bigot, especially since it’s big strong black men screaming that they’re going to kill women unless the women find the results they want. Is that indicative of how all Obama supporters treat women, Another_Jeremy?
No I did not claim that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I said that his prior actions displayed an extraordinary amount of hostility and aggression. I also said that it doesn’t matter who threw the first punch, because he’s the one who made the situation so volatile by actively pursuing someone who was clearly trying to get away from him. He’s the one who was armed, so he is the one who should have been looking to avoid a confrontation. He did the opposite. This is negligence. Manslaughter. The end.
I’d like to see your legal citation for the necessity of “proportionality” in self-defense, Another_Jeremy. I’m pretty sure you are just making that up.
That Martin was on top of Zimmerman and fighting with him was corroborated by at least one witness. Zimmerman did not have to testify, so we did not get his account of what happened, though both his injuries and reports after the incident suggest that there was good reason for Zimmerman to fear for his life, and clearly the jury agreed.
Once he pulled out his gun, though, Zimmerman’s main objective was and should have been to stop the attack. People are trained when shooting to aim for the center of the target, and evidently that’s what Zimmerman did. Although the movies are full of incidents when people fire warning shots or pull out the gun and threaten to shoot it, or where they shoot the attacker so that the bullet grazes him and scares him away, in real life, in a real attack, none of those options are practical alternatives. Had Zimmerman aimed somewhere other than the center of the target, 1). he might not have stopped the attack, and 2). he might have hit an innocent bystander by accident. If he had simply pulled out the gun and threatened to use it, Martin may have grabbed the gun away and killed Zimmerman instead. But I also suspect that if that happened, most of those protesting the verdict would be happy.
Constantly bringing up race when it isn’t relevant is just demonstrating that you are the racist, Another_Jeremy.
The only important thing about this case was that the jury, who was in the court room paying attention to every details of the case, decided there wasn’t enough evidence to find that Zimmerman was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. As an American, he was presumed innocent until proven guilty, and he wasn’t proven guilty.
That you, and most other leftists, keep obsessing over the racial aspect of this case just exposes how racially obsessed you are. And that you presume a white conservative would think differently if Zimmerman’s and Martin’s races were reversed exposes your bigotry. There is no rational basis for believing that.
Treyvon Martin was clearly casing the places and looking to rob them.
I can state this with the same absolute certiainty that Jeremy says “Zimmerman was pursuing him for negative reasons while Trayvon Martin had done nothing wrong. Think of the amount of aggression it would take to follow someone you think (incorrectly) it doing something illegal, get out of your car and follow them more directly all the while knowing you are armed. Only a plainly bellicose or unstable individual would feel the need to do so, especially if they are running from you.”
OF course I’d be as big a fool as him.
Point: Zimmerman was on the way back to the car.
Point: Martin Confronted Zimmerman
Point: Martin called Zimmerman the racial slur, profiling him as white (possibly gay) and still decided to confront him.
Point: Punching someone is grounds for attempted nurder, let alone bashing his skull into concrete.
Point: Prosecution witnesses admitted that the injuries Zimmerman were suffering were life threatening.
Point: Self defense was justified.
Point, if Martin was beating a gay man, Jeremy would be cheering the court for getting it right.
Zimmerman is straight and not black, so in Jeremy’s world, he’s the enemy.
Doesn’t this neatly encapsulate what an effing idiot this twerp really is?
“I didn’t say he was the aggressor…..I said he was hostile and aggressive.”
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb….ad infinitum.
DUMB!
Why do you folks keep responding as if any recitation of facts gets through to a like this kid?
Because doing that constantly is dumb, too.
….of facts gets through to a JERK like this kid.
Good way to say dumb over and over again to avoid making an argument. He followed a kid through the rain and at night. He got out of his vehicle and followed him on foot after being advised against it by a 911 dispatcher.
That is aggressive behavior. But this has nothing to do with who crossed the line of physicality first.
Duh?
Just a small comment I would like to add: The jury that acquitted George Zimmerman was made up of all women. Are the people who are disagreeing with this verdict implying that women are incapable of making an informed decision? That would seem rather hypocritical coming from the party that claims that they for women’s rights while the right is anti-women’s rights.
“He followed a kid through the rain and at night. He got out of his vehicle and followed him on foot after being advised against it by a 911 dispatcher.”
He was already out of the truck and was advised he did not have to follow by a Non-Emergency Line dispatcher, who, as testified in court, can not give a lawful order.
Wow, you keep showing your ignorance with every post, don’t you?
SPD: Let me know if he does anything, okay?
GZ: (anxiously) See if you can get an officer over here.
SPD: Yeah, we’ve got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
…..
SPD: He’s running? Which way is he running?
GZ: Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
SPD: OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?
….
SPD: Are you following him? [2:24]
GZ: Yeah.
SPD: Okay. We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
GZ: Okay.
Good Lord, we’re now supposed to cower in our homes at night because going out and investigating a suspicious character would be “aggressive.”
Exactly, V. My post’s point is that, according to President Obama’s comments, we should “honor” the suspicious character, rather than the one who goes out to investigate him. If we can’t jail the latter, then we should take away his perfectly legal gun, that apparently he does need in order to defend himself when the suspicious character punches him “MMA style” and slams his head into the concrete. The physically aggressive youngsters, not the ones trying to help their communities against the aggressive, should be respected and empowered – according to Obama.
I did not say that the 911 dispatcher ordered him to do anything. I said that he went out of his way to pursue someone WHO WAS BREAKING NO LAWS after being advised against it was unnecessary by a professional.
That is aggressive behavior.
The Zimmerman apologists can try to rewrite the facts of this case ad nauseum, but the fact remains that Martin was running away and Zimerman was following him.
There is no such thing as justifiable use of lethal force in the name of self defense during unlawful conduct. Stalking is a crime. So if someone attacks you because you are stalking them, you cannot kill them and then claim self defense.
You said it, but that doesn’t make it so. Define “pursuit”. Was the pudgy Zimmerman running after Martin? (His gym trainer testified in essence that he was a fat wimp; the police considered him physically unable to do police work.) Did Zimmerman try to jump (assault) Martin? Did Zimmerman try to lay hands on Martin, or to threaten him with a gun, etc.? Get specific.
That is not supported by the evidence. [Correction 7/16: Martin apparently ran away at first, but – this is the key point – then came back.]
What is supported by the evidence, is: That Martin had Zimmerman on the concrete, punching him “MMA style” and slamming his head into the concrete. As you yourself just put it well, “There is no such thing as justifiable use of lethal force in the name of self defense during unlawful conduct” (such as, say, assaulting somebody).
Note how Jereemy still clings to it being a 911 dispatcher (it wasn’t) and that he was a ‘professional’.
Yes, he’s a professional at answering the phone. And was advised he ‘didn’t need to’ Not that he shouldn’t. So again, Zimmerman [b]didn’t do anything wrong[/b].
It’s pretty clear that Jeremy likes to keep digging. As a professional (by Jeremy’s definition) I’d like to clearly advise him to stop posting. It’s clear he won’t listen to me either.
What we have to remember, Livewire, is that the verdict has exposed Another_Jeremy, his idol Barack Obama, and indeed the entire Obama Party and liberal movement as being race-baiting bigots.
Why? Because they made a knee-jerk assumption based on the color of skin and a person’s last name.
When Obama and the Obama Party heard about this, the fool probably orgasmed. That’s why he stuck his mug on the camera immediately and blathered on about how awful it was that whitey had shot his son. Obama and his fellow race-baiters like Another_Jeremy heard “Zimmerman” and immediately thought they hit the Sharpton jackpot — a white male shooting a defenseless black child in cold blood.
Problem was, it wasn’t anything of the sort, as the evidence showed. But Another_Jeremy and Barack Obama are in too deep on this — for them to admit that they made a racist judgment based on skin color and last names would call into question their constant screaming of “racist” and make clear how THEIR judgment is impaired by race.
So hence we see these imaginary laws, superhuman gymnastics, on-the-fly redefinitions of “aggression” and “stalking”, rips in the time-space continuum, insistence that the prosecution threw the case, and whatever else they can do to save themselves.
This shows you how divorced from reality Another_Jeremy and Barack Obama are. They cannot accept anything but their predetermined outcome. They cannot even entertain the IDEA that anything other than their picture of George Zimmerman as an ex-military white Aryan Nation supremacist in a Reagan T-shirt waving a Gadsden flag is true.
That is why they blatantly edited and manipulated the call tapes. That is why they forged “confessions” and had Rachel “I can’t read cursive” Jeantel sign them. That’s why they were desperately trying to make charges of child abuse stick at the last minute and why they’re now trying to scream that a “stalking” law they would never deign to apply to their own OWS Obama Party members threatening the homes and families of GOP politicians is relevant.
At this point, Another_Jeremy is insane. He is not capable of dealing with rational thought or reality. All he knows is that everyone who doesn’t give him what he wants is a racist, and that’s because his owner Barack Obama is telling him to scream it.
What is supported by the evidence, is: That Martin had Zimmerman on the concrete, punching him “MMA style” and slamming his head into the concrete.
What’s also supported by the evidence is Zimmernan stalked him, confronted him instigated a fight despite Martin’s attempt to flee.
Despite your clearly wishful fantasies in comment #10 – which seem to be based on the ever changing story from a murderer – you can’t explain way those facts.
Zimmerman was the instigator and he shot an unarmed teen. Somehow in America this is self defense….it’s crazy
Ilc
Why have you not explained how Obama used race to divide in this Martin murder?
No, it’s not.
That is a description of at best, second-degree murder or more likely manslaughter, of which the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.
The jury reviewed and was provided all the evidence, mike. It is YOU who cannot deal with facts, who refuses to accept evidence to the contrary, and is screaming that Zimmerman should be deprived of his rights of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial by a jury of his peers, and due process because you don’t like the result.
You are insane at this point, mike. You are completely irrational. Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that your views trump those of the informed jury to which all evidence was shown? Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that the court and the jury are both wrong because they did not reach the same conclusion you did? Do you realize that you are claiming yourself to be more informed than the jury when you haven’t a fraction of the evidence and testimony they were provided?
You blew it, mike. You bought into Obama’s foolish race-baiting about his “son” Trayvon and his deliberate attempt to whip up racial tensions. You, like Obama, acted stupidly, thinking that “Zimmerman” was a white man’s name and immediately falling into your knee-jerk racist pattern of assuming the white man was evil and the black person was innocent
You could be a man at this point. You could state that Obama was wrong to race-bait and that he should not have compared Trayvon to “his son”. You could accept that the results of due process are not always what you want, but that that does not then automatically invalidate them.
But you aren’t, and I doubt you will. Instead you will continue your imbecilic, childish shrieking about how awful we all are and how you want Zimmerman and the jury dead. It is an irrational tantrum at this point, and we expect no better from you or your Obama, neither of whom is a mature intelligent adult with any respect whatsoever for the rule of law.
You are showing your true fascist face, mike, and it ain’t pretty.
Mike, where in the police reports or trial evidence is the part where Martin attempted to flee before he attacked Zimmerman?
Obama said:
He also said:
In a racially charged case, he took the side of Martin, and implied that he somehow knew that Zimmerman’s motive was racism, and that it was the product of some racist attitude that pervades American society. He didn’t know all the facts of the case. His presumption that racism was to blame was reckless, as was him inserting himself into a local case. Either he is just an incredibly inept leader who doesn’t have a clue where his authority ends, or his reckless statements were deliberately meant to be racially divisive.
Oh, bless their little hearts! Little mikey and another_jeremy have two of the most severe cases of white liberal guilt I’ve ever seen. You need to check that white privilege, boys. lol
38
How is that race baiting other than both happen to be black? He did not mention race at all except to morn the senseless murder of a teen.
The “soul searching” was clearly in reference to gun culture that lets someone walk the street and pick fights then shoot when losing that fight.
Interesting Dallas that you are so quick to submit to the decision of the jury in this case.
I guess you said the same when OJ was acquitted?
And to Capitalism, such as say stalking someone.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
As in Zimmerman was following him by his own admission and any reasonable person who was in Martin’s position would have felt threatened. It doesn’t matter what Zimmerman claims his intentions were.
782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
r. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
See letter N, and come back with a better rationalization of the murder of this black child.
I was turned off by our president’s “if I had a son…” statement as I thought it was a ridiculously irrelevant remark that put emphasis on color and increased racial tensions in this situation (i.e., he declared what side he was on). Which is definitely not what you want of a leader — he is the president of the other guy as well; the one who had not been proven guilty yet, and deserved not to be convicted in public opinion. Having said that, when I watch the whole video, it seems less inflammatory — it seems more like he was under pressure to make some statement and he was trying to show empathy with the parents. What continues to be awful is his tendency to drive his political agenda off of every opportunity, including tragedies. Even in that video, he talks about “examining laws” referring to the claim of self defense. In his recent statement, he acknowleges that the verdict needs to be respected and calls for calm, and immediately pushes the anti-gun agenda. As someone else said, if he were truly worried about senseless murders of black youth, he should do something about Chicago gun deaths. But according to him, people carrying guns for self defense (and sometimes using them) is the most pressing “gun culture” issue that needs to be fixed.
As for the subject of this thread, our president has had a disappointing history of pitting us against each other — he used class warfare as a platform to get re-elected. So he is not above using race or any other dimension that will allow him to divide and rule.
Yup.
And since you and your Barack Obama and Barack Obama Party screamed that questioning the OJ jury was wrong and that anyone who did so was a racist, that makes you a malicious hypocrite.
The reason you tried that, Another_Jeremy, was because you project your own malicious hypocrisy and double standards onto others. You assumed that others are as racist as you are and would judge guilty or not guilty based solely on skin color.
And you failed — and in the process exposed yourself as a racist. Just as in this case, you and your screaming Obama insisted that there was no evidence, no due process, no jury, no anything that could ever convince you that Zimmerman should not be lynched.
It drives you crazy that the jurors reviewed the evidence and decided against you, doesn’t it? Maybe that’s why you and your Barack Obama Party are calling for the jurors to be killed.
And since you want to play the “aggravated stalking” game, Another_Jeremy, looks like you and all your Barack Obama supporters who tweeted death threats to Zimmerman, his family, and the jury are guilty of it.
Go on. Show us you support the rule of law and state that Spike Lee, for starters, should be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for “aggravated stalking”.
Or start throwing a tantrum and smearing feces all over yourself, as is typical for your Barack Obama and your Barack Obama Party when you’re cornered on and have your racism, hypocrisy, and double standards exposed.
No, it’s not.
That is a description of at best, second-degree murder or more likely manslaughter, of which the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.
The jury reviewed and was provided all the evidence, mike. It is YOU who cannot deal with facts, who refuses to accept evidence to the contrary, and is screaming that Zimmerman should be deprived of his rights of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial by a jury of his peers, and due process because you don’t like the result.
You are insane at this point, mike. You are completely irrational. Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that your views trump those of the informed jury to which all evidence was shown? Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that the court and the jury are both wrong because they did not reach the same conclusion you did? Do you realize that you are claiming yourself to be more informed than the jury when you haven’t a fraction of the evidence and testimony they were provided?
You blew it, mike. You bought into Obama’s foolish race-baiting about his “son” Trayvon and his deliberate attempt to whip up racial tensions. You, like Obama, acted stupidly, thinking that “Zimmerman” was a white man’s name and immediately falling into your knee-jerk racist pattern of assuming the white man was evil and the black person was innocent
You could be a man at this point. You could state that Obama was wrong to race-bait and that he should not have compared Trayvon to “his son”. You could accept that the results of due process are not always what you want, but that that does not then automatically invalidate them.
But you aren’t, and I doubt you will. Instead you will continue your imbecilic, childish shrieking about how awful we all are and how you want Zimmerman and the jury dead. It is an irrational tantrum at this point, and we expect no better from you or your Obama, neither of whom is a mature intelligent adult with any respect whatsoever for the rule of law.
You are showing your true fascist face, mike, and it ain’t pretty. And your cowardice and refusal to answer only proves what a sick, deluded fascist liar you are.
“You could state that Obama was wrong to race-bait and that he should not have compared Trayvon to “his son”.”
“It could be my son/daughter” is a common refrain when witnessing a tragic death of a young person.
But as usual it’s your projection and overwhelming Obama hatred that guides your reality. Thankfully mine is grounded in what Obama actually said.
Another Jeremy keeps digging.
Please point us to the evidence that George Zimmerman “Repeatedly” followed Treyvon Martin and made a credible threat. OF course you can’t.
Please show premeditation. Even the Prosecution couldn’t.
The only one crowing about race is you, Jeremy. Even the Prosecution couldn’t. The facts of Zimmerman’s life put the lie to your racism.
Why do you hate Hispanics? Why do you want to see them suffer for the state?
But that isn’t what Obama said.
Instead, Obama clearly and directly race-baited with the statement, “If I had a son, he’d LOOK like Trayvon Martin.”
And that is because Obama is a race-baiter. Black teens that “could have been (Obama’s) son” die every night in Chicago, but Obama doesn’t care, because he can’t use those to race-bait.
And since you lied and misquoted Obama, mike, your last statement becomes hilarious:
Nope. It isn’t. I just proved that by accurately quoting Obama and showing that you deliberately misquoted Obama. Your Obama race-baited, and like a good cultist, you lied rather than be a man and demand he act like something other than a two-bit race hustler.
But then again, mike, you’re a race hustler and race-baiter who applauds as black teens pick fights and finish them with guns on the streets of Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and others, without ever a word about how THEY need to be “disarmed” or punished.
It is as ILC said, mike; you side with the criminals and thugs, and seek to disarm the law-abiding. You are a contemptible hypocrite and a racist.
I wonder, if Obama had a son, he would look like any of the many, many young black men who are murdered by other black men on the streets of Chicago that he never talks about because there’s no political advantage to it.
#47 – Being factually accurate is race baiting now? I know your partisanship often colors your vision of the world but all Obama is doing is humanizing the victim. Not using race as a divisive element.
If it isn’t race-baiting, why does Obama only speak up when the “victim” is black and the “perpatrater” is not?
Skipping home. You have to see Guy skipping singing lalala in the closing arguments to believe it.
And George Zimmerman was, in effect, just found NOT GUILTY of the above.
The prosecutors had a chance to charge Zimmerman with that. And they didn’t. And the jury exonerated Zimmerman of all such charges as the prosecution did bring, or suggested as possible lesser charges.
So, Another_Jeremy, if you are honest, you must now concede that Zimmerman was in fact *not* stalking, under the definition you offered.
The OJ trial analogy is interesting.
The issue there was: The identity of Ron Goldman’s and Nicole Simpson’s killers. Who was “the real killer”?
The answer is: There is no reasonable possibility, except OJ. But the jury studied it intensively, and found that it couldn’t be proven on the (untainted parts of) the evidence.
Did I accept that jury’s verdict? Yes. Which means, I never did join the candelight vigils for OJ’s victims. And I never did threaten any of OJ’s jurors, nor OJ. On the available evidence, that which was probably done by OJ, could not be proven. I accepted that. I figured that the civil lawsuit would provide at least partial justice (as it could consider the total weight of the evidence, rather than having to look for airtight proof). And that’s what happened.
Now the Zimmerman trial. First, the analogy breaks down because there is absolutely no question who the killer was. We know it was Zimmerman. The issue is different: Was he justified? Did he kill in self-defense against an aggressor?
The answer is: Probably, yeah; it seems so, on the available evidence. And the jury studied it intensively and gave that answer. And there again, I accept the jury’s verdict.
A few things are coming back to me. At the time of the OJ verdict, I went around telling people “Hey, if William Kennedy Smith can buy (lawyer) his way out of a guilty verdict, OJ should be able to. This proves blacks are becoming equal in America, and I’m glad of it.”
So yes, I very very definitely accepted that verdict.