Crime

WP Says Prosecutor Will Charge George Zimmerman

|

The Washington Post reports that Angela Corey, the special prosecutor assigned to the Trayvon Martin case, will announce today that she is charging George Zimmerman in connection with Martin's death. I will post updates as more information becomes available.

Update: ABC News says Corey will make the announcement at a press conference scheduled for 6 p.m. Eastern time in Jacksonville.

Previous coverage of the case here.

NEXT: Stop Cyberbullying Your Masters!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s being railroaded, I tells ya!

    1. The mob threatening a riot if he isn’t tried and convicted, isn’t really conducive to a fair trial is it? You tell me how this guy gets a fair trial?

      1. No way in hell he gets a jury that knows nothing of the case, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t get a fair trial.
        A change of venue is a must, but I don’t think a fair trial is out of the question.

        1. After the Rodney King case, it is going to be hard. Do you want to be on the jury that acquits him? How long before some jackass like Spike Lee leaks the names and addresses of the jurors?

          And even if you are not on the jury, do you want this mess tried in your town? I don’t.

          1. I’m sure there are some desperately poor hamlets in north central Florida that could use the tourism.

            1. Those places are probably full of well armed red necks. That would definitely take the fun out of rioting and burning the place down.

              1. It would put the fun into watching them on TV.

              2. That brings up an interesting question. The jury is supposed to be composed of the accused’s peers. Does it matter if they’re the victim’s peers? ie, if this trial happens in a lily white area, will there be a legal argument about that?

                1. “Peers” means anyone that in this is not smart enough to get out of jury duty or is so lonely that they try to get on one.

                  IOW, he’s probably fucked.

                  1. Fuck you, sloopy! (Btw, as a long-time “lurker”, I think this is my first opportunity to congratulate you and Banjos on your nuptials.)

                    I’ve consistently voted for the last 28 yrs, not because I think voting for Reagan (oops!, I was young), Paul, Marrou, Browne, Browne, Badnarik or Barr was particularly ‘productive’, but I could excuse my waste of time as helping maintain (L)ibertarian Party ballot access- and the thought of being called for Jury duty might be considered a positive externality.

                    While I don’t believe I would ever actually survive “voir dire”, I would definitely enjoy any possible opportunity to ‘poison’ a jury with ideas such as “nullification”.

                2. Why would a Hispanic man want a jury of Whites?

                  1. He’s a white hispanic, so it’s ok.

              3. In the LA riots, it was LA that burned down. Not whatever nice town to the north where they held the trial.

                1. They burned down LA because they knew the LAPD would have mowed them down had they tried to burn down a white neighborhood.

                  1. ^^This^^

                    I didn’t see too many riots happening in Santa Monica or West Hollywood.

                    1. Technically it was the Beverly Hills PD that was lined up along Whitworth Drive with shotguns and rifles. They absolutely would have gunned down the mob. I bet most Florida town PD’s would do the same.

                  2. They burned down LA because they knew the LAPD would have mowed them down had they tried to burn down a white neighborhood.

                    I thought it was because LA’s public transit sucks so they couldn’t all get there.

          2. After the Rodney King case, it is going to be hard.

            In Florida, it is going to be harder because of the Casey Anthony case.

      2. Zimmerman should hope that whoever ends up defending him knows their business during voir dire.

  2. Seemed inevitable. Good luck finding an impartial jury at this point.

    1. Fuck him he is a white Hispanic. And Trayvon was Obama’s son.

      1. It’s OK to say all black men look alike if you’re historic and stuff.

      2. I mean the utter WTF-ness of BO’s comment continues to astound me. That’s like me saying if I had a daughter she’d look like Scarlett Johansson.

        1. Most of what Obama says these days is a giant WTF. He is getting increasingly bizarre.

          1. The echos in his chamber are getting louder.

          1. Sorry, rather sat on the video camera when we were doing the steamer.

            1. You and rather did a steamer? You nasty, Tulpa.

        2. Actually, the kid did seem to have Barack’s skinny face and Michelle’s nose (before she got her work done).

          Not trying to make a race joke, I actually see a little bit of a resemblance there.

          If I had a daughter, she’d look like Dakota Fanning, and not Scarjo.

          1. If Dakota Fanning had a lesbian lover, she’d look like Scarjo. I hope.

            1. I’m serious.

              Watching Man on Fire the whole time I’m thinking, “That’s it, Denzel, cut that fucking guy’s fingers off one at a time! He helped kidnap Fluffette!”

              Watching War of the Worlds, I’m thinking, “Nope, we’re stopping with a son, because I am not listening to that from the back seat.”

          2. Michelle’s nose (before she got her work done).

            You are such a tool of the patriarchy for noticing that.

            1. Her high school yearbook photo is online.

              1. She got a nose job? What is she ashamed of her classical African features? And while she was at it, why didn’t she get that giant ass liposuctioned.

        3. I dunno, Tulps, will you knock up ScarJo?

          1. Did BO knock up Trayvon’s mom?

          2. I dunno, Tulps, will you knock up ScarJo?

            He already did once today. I keed! I keed!

    2. Good luck finding an impartial jury at this point.

      Mars?

      1. Since it only takes radio waves about five minutes to travel to Mars (it would take a little over twenty if Mars was on the opposite side of the sun right now, but it’s not) I think the Mars jury pool has been polluted for a while.

        1. It does not affect them across that immense ethereal gulf. Those intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic, which regard this earth with envious eyes and are slowly and surely drawing their plans against us.

          Oh, no, wait, that’s Washington.

          1. Vast intellects? No, not Washington.

      2. Need I point out the Nuclear Titties’ recovery plan includes a lunar courthouse.

    3. Even if he does walk, I just saw Eric Holder on TV saying that if his office find that any civil-rights crimes occurred, that they’ll proceed with that.

      So yeah, Zimmerman will be going through the wringer.

      1. You think they’ll find any civil rights crimes?

        1. You think they’ll find come up with any civil rights crimes?

          Well when you put it that way, I would say that if the verdict isn’t to their liking, then yes, there’s probably a good chance they’ll come up with something.

          1. Life is pretty well over for Zimmerman. By the time he probably successfully defends himself in State court, he will be financially ruined. Then the Feds will bring civil right’s charges…

            1. In all likelihood, BO isn’t going to be in office when this trial is over.

              1. You think the trial is lasting five years?

            2. and if found guilty, years of solitary, since any of the black prison gangs would be happy to kill him. Which makes me wonder, would the Mexican/Hispanic gangs stick up for him?

              okay, watched too much Prison Nation last time I had access to cable.

              1. Being bi-racial, the Aryans and the Latinos will have nothing to do with him. He’ll just have to hang out with O’Reily and Beecher.

            3. Yup. They’ll just keep charging him and trying him until they get the verdict they want. It’s too bad the framers didn’t anticipate the government doing something like this and draft some basic protections against it…

      2. Moral of the story: If you’re going to cap the nice African-American fellow that is beating you to a pulp, don’t have the misfortune of having him look anything like the white black President.

  3. Hopefully this news will delay the rioting until there’s a verdict in the case.

    I wonder what the charges will be?

    1. Killing the President’s son.

  4. One of the detectives wanted to charge him in the first place, seems to have circled round to that.

    A person was killed by another, a trial is appropriate.

    1. If there’s sufficient evidence to vitiate self defense, yes.

    2. A trial may be appropriate, but only if it can be a fair trail. Does anyone seriously think that he can receive a fair trail in this political climate.

      1. Change the venue to Dogdick, Alabama. He’ll get acquitted.

        1. congratulations on confirming your idiocy. It was the think tank of CA that acquitted the Rodney King goons the first time.

      2. He can opt for a bench trial, dudebro.

        1. You have a right to a jury trial if you want one. You dont’ have a right to a bench trial if you want one. (Ask Sun Myung Moon about that.)

          1. Sun Myung Moon was tried in a federal court, which, according to its own rules of criminal procedure, states that the prosecution and the judge must also consent to the waiver.

            State rules vary.

  5. I’ve got Headline News on TV in my office, and they’re still saying the decision is “imminent.”

    1. The “decision” that he’s guilty of murder, that is.

    2. Never mind, HLN just announced it.

  6. Dunphy (the real one)|4.10.12 @ 6:43PM|#|-|filternamelinkcustom
    i doubt he will go to trial. i’d estimate 20% chance at best. fully prepared to be wrong, but i’ve just seen too many facts thus far that support zimmerman.
    -and-
    Dunphy (the real one)|4.10.12 @ 7:42PM|#|-|filternamelinkcustom
    i disagree. florida is not ny (bernie goetz)

    i have more faith in the prosecutor’s office at this point, although again… i may be proven wrong
    ——————————-
    Derp-a-derp-ta-tiddley-tum.

    1. Things that have a 20% chance of happening do sometimes happen, sloopy.

      1. Yeah. I give a 20% chance that dunphy will come on here and make a comment about being wrong without calling me a bigot.

      2. 20% of the time, according to my statistics….

    2. Guy gives opinion based on what he knows of the case and his experience as a LEO. He qualifies that future events may prove him wrong. Events have proved him wrong.

      Pointing this out is important because?

      1. Pointing this out is important because?

        It’s important because he’s a disingenuous fuck that rarely, if ever, argues in good faith and/or concedes a fact that runs counter to his “cops are angels and any evidence counter to that is just bigotry” meme.

        1. You’re a bigot, Sloop. And don’t forget it’s your turn to bring the chips and soda for the next bigots meeting.

          1. I draw a pretty big distinction between judging people based on their membership in groups that they belong to involuntarily vs. ones they join voluntarily. In the first case, membership is simply a data point, being in no way indicative of the person’s character, while in the second, it is entirely predicated upon the nature, character, and continuing wishes of the person in question.

            Which is what makes it so insulting when dunphy likens his treatment here to that suffered by people who have suffered discrimination not due to any choice of their own. Someone in such a position might even dream of being able to alter the situation, knowing of course that they cannot, while dunphy, on the other hand, could do so at any moment, but chooses not to. Instead, he comes here and whines because people draw conclusions based on truths which necessarily follow from the fact of his voluntarily chosen vocation.

            Which is not to say that I personally think (not that it matters) sloopy is always fair; the word that comes to mind there would be: exasperated.

  7. Well, the dumbass did call the prosecutors without his lawyers.

    Who knows what he said? Probably nothing, but who knows?

    The real weak point of his statement was where he claimed to be walking back to his car when he was attacked out of nowhere. If they establish that he was chatting with Martin when the fight started, and call his statement into question, that puts him in a bad spot.

    1. But if it comes out that a UFO descended and Zimmerman was possessed by an evil alien entity, that would help him.

      1. There could be a witness. Or Martin’s cell phone records could support his girlfriend’s story.

        When Zimmerman’s brother was interviewed, it seemed like he was trying to tweak his brother’s statement after the fact to try to account for a conversation between the two that the initial statement doesn’t include.

        It won’t take a hell of a lot to get Zimmerman fried here. I actually acknowledge that it will be hard to get the guy a fair trial. His statement has to be perfect. If they find a single hole, the prosecutor will call Zimmerman a self-serving liar and his self-defense claim falls apart.

        1. The way you’re salivating over a defendant getting railroaded is unsettling, Fluffy.

          1. Eh, mostly I’m hoping that evidence comes out that he hunted Martin down, made him beg for his life, and shot him like a dog.

            Just so all of you “Nuh-uh! This is all race baiting!” guys end up wrong.

            1. That is possible. But highly unlikely. And what are you going to say if it turns out Martin was an asshole who attacked him for no good reason?

              1. Then I’ll just say, “Wow, I never heard that evidence before! This changes everything!”

                1. you never heard Zimmeran’s account during this whole thing Fluffy? Because that is what he has been saying the hole time.

                  1. I assumed your 2:58 post referred to additional evidence beyond what we’ve already heard that settled all open issues and made Zimmerman clearly innocent.

            2. Just so all of you “Nuh-uh! This is all race baiting!” guys end up wrong.

              Even if that’s exactly what occurred, no one is wrong about the race baiting. How many outright lies and falsehoods have been told to steer us in that direction?

              Why is everyone trying to have a conversation about racist white people when a latino shoots a black guy? Zimmerman could have shot him while wearing a white hood and there would still be an enormous amount of unjustified bullshit race-baiting on display.

        2. A lot will depend on his injuries. If he has actual no kidding injuries that support that Martin was seriously kicking his ass, he probably gets off. If he doesn’t have any injuries, he is probably in trouble. When you shoot someone you better be able to show they had a weapon or were somehow doing some serious harm to you.

          I think the most likely outcome is manslaughter. I think any kind of murder charge is going to be really hard to prove. Of course, anything short of the chair, will give Holder and Obama enough ammunition to start a good race riot, which is the whole point of this.

          1. And this trial would probably take place right around the election. BO will find that quite helpful, as white people needing to prove they’re not racist make up a significant part of his voting bloc.

            1. The rumor is that the in house polls show his numbers among blacks is nothing like they were in 2008. It is not so much that his raw numbers are down, they are some. But it is that the intensity is way down. Right now he is looking at a pretty big drop off in black turnout compared to 2008. He has to do something to get that back up. And this case is that something.

              God he is a scumbag. Obama isn’t just stupid and silly. He is a legitimately awful human being.

              1. For being political and Machiavellian? Taking advantage of stupid people is pretty much how both parties are able to control 95+% of the vote.

                Can’t say I blame Obama. He’s not concerned about your antipathy, as he is already planning next year’s taypayer funded vacations and golf course visits.

                1. He is a scumbag for ensuring the country is a worse place and all of the racial problems he claimed to transcend are worse.

                  1. I hate having to defend him from unfair attacks because I loathe the dude, but saying “He could be my son (because he looks kinda like me)” is not really the same as inciting race riots and putting bounties on peoples’ heads. Likewise, Holder saying they are investigating federal hate crime charges is probably severely misguided, but within the realm of his job description and a rational response to a media inquiry.

                    Jackson, Sharpton, NAACP and the Black Panthers have always been provocative, so it’s nothing new they’d use a “white” on black crime to call attention to their delusions of rampant racism (which gets them donation$, media appearance$, etc.).

                    Not sure how that’s Obama’s fault. They’d do the same if McCain were president.

                    1. MCain wouldn’t be cheering them on the way Obama and Holder are.

                    2. Show me where Obama and Holder are “cheering on” race riots, vigilante justice, cracker beatdowns, etc. Haven’t seen it.

                    3. Well, going and giving a speech at the National Action Network praising Al Sharpton and not once calling for restraint in a rush to judgement sounds a lot like cheerleading to me.

                      I may be overzealous in my condemnation of Holder because I think he is a legitimately evil human being, but I’m still dead certain I’m correct.

                    4. Well, going and giving a speech at the National Action Network praising Al Sharpton

                      And just when I thought Holder couldn’t get any more despicable.

                    5. Likewise, Holder saying they are investigating federal hate crime charges is probably severely misguided, but within the realm of his job description and a rational response to a media inquiry.

                      Except Holder is on location now, huddling with the likes of Al Sharpton and praising Big Al’s actions.

                      Not what you’d call a healing moment.

                    6. So he praises Sharpton. And John Ashcroft praised the neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan, a publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke.

                      What’s the difference?

                    7. What’s the difference?

                      Like I said earlier, the difference is that he’s doing it now, which makes it correctable. When Ashcroft did his thing with Southern Partisan, he was not the AG. And while it should have disqualified him, it wasn’t done in his official capacity. What Holder is doing is under color of the Office of the Attorney General, thus making his race-baiting the de facto policy of the USDOJ.

                      There’s a big difference, IMHO.

                    8. My counter argument is when has race baiting NOT been the de facto policy of the USDOJ? Racism is exploitable for political ends, and I don’t believe in the facade that the USDOJ is not political.

          2. A lot will depend on his injuries. If he has actual no kidding injuries that support that Martin was seriously kicking his ass, he probably gets off.

            A shame he opted to not go to the hospital and have these “injuries” treated and documented. Assuming they actually existed.

            I think the most likely outcome is manslaughter.

            It’s the charge I would go for, just based on his story. Even if he was “in fear for his life” the situation could have been avoided if he wasn’t auditioning to Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

            Of course, anything short of the chair, will give Holder and Obama enough ammunition to start a good race riot, which is the whole point of this.

            ?Que?

            1. That is totally the point of it. Do you think that if Martin was white, Holder and Obama would give a fuck? Of course they wouldn’t. They don’t care about Martin. They want to get a good race riot started so they can get black turnout up in November. These people are fucking evil. If doing that means killing a few people in a riot or wrongly convicting Zimmerman, they don’t care.

              1. They want to get a good race riot started so they can get black turnout up in November.

                Not sure how a race riot = voter registration drive, but whatever. But if that’s your concern, wouldn’t a speedy trial and verdict be for the best to get this matter out of the way and make it old news come November?

            2. A shame he opted to not go to the hospital and have these “injuries” treated and documented. Assuming they actually existed.

              Did you miss the police report and the video that show wounds consistent with his story?

              1. Did you miss the police report

                Cops lie.

                the video that show wounds

                The grainy police station video or the “enhanced” (altered) video that allegedly show head injuries (but not a drop of blood anywhere on his person)? Maybe I missed the mortician who claimed that the skin on Martin’s knuckles was unbroken.

                If only we had some photographs clearly showing Zimmerman’s broken nose, bashed head, grass stains, torn clothing, etc. Oh wait, they don’t exist!

                1. Cops lie.

                  How dare you besmirch the name of our Watchmen!

                  The grainy police station video or the “enhanced” (altered) video that allegedly show head injuries (but not a drop of blood anywhere on his person)? Maybe I missed the mortician who claimed that the skin on Martin’s knuckles was unbroken.
                  If only we had some photographs clearly showing Zimmerman’s broken nose, bashed head, grass stains, torn clothing, etc. Oh wait, they don’t exist!

                  How can you be sure they don’t? And the mortician’s interview was with a TV newsman, not the police. It may pan out different under oath. And unless he’s a forensic expert, any defense attorney will render his testimony either useless to the prosecution (at least) or of great benefit to the defense.

                  1. How can you be sure they don’t? And the mortician’s interview was with a TV newsman, not the police. It may pan out different under oath. And unless he’s a forensic expert, any defense attorney will render his testimony either useless to the prosecution (at least) or of great benefit to the defense.

                    This is all true. However, the claim that the skin on Trayvon Martin’s knuckles was unbroken does call Zimmerman’s version of the incident into question. Throwing punches where ground, skulls, and pavement are concerned usually leave some scratches or tears on the skin.

                2. Wasn’t he treated by EMTs? Couldn’t they testify as to what his injuries were and what they treated him for? I’m pretty sure these guys and gals take notes when they treat anyone.

                  1. Wasn’t he treated by EMTs? Couldn’t they testify as to what his injuries were and what they treated him for? I’m pretty sure these guys and gals take notes when they treat anyone.

                    They could. That would be what a trial is for.

                3. The grainy police station video or the “enhanced” (altered) video that allegedly show head injuries (but not a drop of blood anywhere on his person)?

                  Unless you’re a hemophiliac, that’s to be expected after time has passed and you’ve gotten first aid for your wounds.

                  And do recall that the video in question was first publicized by the anti-Zimmerman people as supposed evidence that he wasn’t injured.

                  Then when the pro-Zimmerman people pointed out that if you zoom in you actually can see evidence of wounds, the anti-Zims suddenly changed their tune and said the video was worthless.

                  1. Unless you’re a hemophiliac, that’s to be expected after time has passed and you’ve gotten first aid for your wounds.

                    Unless he’s has his nose broken in the past, his nose would gush blood pretty good.

                    Then when the pro-Zimmerman people pointed out that if you zoom in you actually can see evidence of wounds, the anti-Zims suddenly changed their tune and said the video was worthless.

                    Ah, the “enhanced” video.

                    1. My point is, ABC put out that video as supposed evidence that there were no wounds, but of course it was so grainy that you really couldn’t tell.

                      Then when people tried to carefully analyze it ABC et al played the same game you are right now, claiming that zooming = alteration and the video was worthless. OK, so why the heck did your side post it first?

                    2. Then when people tried to carefully analyze it ABC et al played the same game you are right now, claiming that zooming = alteration and the video was worthless. OK, so why the heck did your side post it first?

                      Zoomed and re-digitized, Tulpa.

                      And you have me at a loss as my pay grade isn’t high enough in the George Zimmerman Conspiracy to determine when materials are leaked to our agents in the mass media.

            3. WTF? Are you seriously claiming that if a citizen calls in a possibly suspicious character and follows him at a distance to make sure the cops can be directed to the possibly suspicious guy when they arrive, and doesn’t try to confront the guy, then he’s to blame if the possibly suspicious guy starts whaling on him?

              1. Yes Seamus. They are seriously claiming that. This board has gone mad over this case.

              2. Yeah, I just don’t think that’s what happened.

              3. Martin was suspended from school for bringing a harpoon and an eyepatch to class.

                1. Martin was suspended from school for bringing a harpoon and an eyepatch to class.

                  but our Fungineers imagine it went something like this:

              4. Are you seriously claiming that if a citizen calls in a possibly suspicious character and follows him at a distance

                “Possibly” suspicious? What exactly is “possibly” suspicious? Is that like being “a little” pregnant?

                then he’s to blame if the possibly suspicious guy starts whaling on him?

                Oh, so you know who initiated the violence between Zimmerman and Martin! You’d best fly to Sanford and clear this matter up for everyone quickly.

    2. The prosecutors (apparently) told him not to talk w/o his atty present.

      1. That’s mighty white of them.

  8. And the second ring of the circus is now open. The third, of course, opens after the verdict.

    1. Needs more bread.

      1. geez, Groovus. Its:

        NEEDZ MOAR BRED.

        1. Thanking you, young squire, for correcting my unforgivable breach of Netiquette.

  9. And the asshole Holder just throws more fuel onto the fire.

    Somebody should ask the esteemed AG if he supports this kind of bigotry and hate speech.

    Fucking scumbag administration stirring up racial hatred to deflect from their ineptitude and evildoing.

    1. Even if you think Zimmerman is guilty, Holder’s behavior is disgusting. What federal issue is there here? Zimmerman wasn’t a law enforcement official. Maybe Holder should shut the fuck up and let Florida handle their own murder cases.

      Holder has gone from being the worst AG in history to being the worst public official in history.

      1. “the worst public official in history”

        Now you’re just being hyperbolic. There’s a long, esteemed history of awful public officials “stirring up racial hatred to deflect from their ineptitude and evildoing”. There was a good century there where doing such things was very beneficial to those in power. Holder may have turned the racial tables, but he’s not worse than public officials that upheld literal slavery out of racial superiority.

        1. Since 1900. Holder is worse than Reno and Reno burned a bunch of people to death on national TV. That is a pretty high bar for awful and Holder has cleared it.

          1. Thomas Watt Gregory and A. Mitchell Palmer jailed critics of the government and immigrants under the Sedition Act. Francis Biddle and Tom Clark jailed critics and imprisoned innocent Japanese American citizens. John Mitchell was primarily responsible for Watergate, approved unconstitutional wiretaps, prosecuted anti-war protesters, etc. Oh and every liberal and their grandma thought John Ashcroft was the worst and most evil AG ever. Holder seems like a run of the mill AG to me, no better or worse than those before him.

            1. I think inciting racial animosity beats imprisonment. More sober minds can get you out of jail; they can’t do a thing about a mob burning places down.

              1. I guess I didn’t realize that the period from 1900-1960s was a time of racial harmony where the people in power would never incite racial animosity to gain more power?

                1. Justifying bad behavior by pointing out previous bad behavior is a poor argument. History is full of odious acts. A civilized society attempts to learn from them in order to not repeat them, not find convenient ways of rationalizing, justifying, and excusing them.

                  1. It would be fallacious in most contexts, but I am responding to John’s hyperbolic argument that he’s the “worst ever”. How can you make such a statement without historical context?

                2. I guess I didn’t realize that the period from 1900-1960s was a time of racial harmony where the people in power would never incite racial animosity to gain more power?

                  He must have forgotten how drugs were made illegal. Holder is bad, but Anslinger was worse.

          2. I’d say all of those who actively supported and enforced Jim Crow were still worse than Holder or Reno.

    2. Oh, the irony. 50 million rednecks have been calling Obama a Kenyan/ni**er/Marxist/anti-Colonial etc every day for over three years and this shit is all you have?

      1. For someone who is not a Marxist, he sure talks a lot about wealth redistribution and social justice.

        1. Hardly ever really. The EITC was the most wealth redistributive policy in my lifetime and it came from Reagan.

          1. And libertarians support it…how?

            1. Geez, sloop. What are you slow? Libertarians are clearly TEAM RED by virtue of not being TEAM BLUE.

            2. Well, technically it WAS inspired by Milton Friedman’s negative income tax idea, and he is generally considered a libertarian.

              1. True, but Glory Road was inspired by a true story. And we all know it wasn’t factually accurate in its portrayal of many opponents.

          2. EITC is from the Ford era, bright boy.

          1. Marxfags and Obamapigs!

      2. 50 million

        Really? REALLY?

        Citation please.

        Nah. Just kidding ya. Stay in that bubble and have fun. You seem to be enjoying yourself.

      3. How many of those rednecks are the Attorney General of the United States?

        And “50 million rednecks”? [citation required]

        1. Shrike is a self loathing Southerner invested in a facade that is as far from his true identity as he can get without going post-op. Safe to ignore until he gets his own issues settled.

    3. “I know that many of you are greatly — and rightly — concerned about the recent shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a young man whose future has been lost to the ages.”

      This would actually be meaningful if we had an accurate count of all the 17-year-old Mexicans whose lives have been snuffed out thanks to Eric Holder’s arms trafficking scheme.

  10. 6pm – prime news time!!

    1. Give the special prosecutor a break. She has to coordinate with her stylist, talk to a wardrobe consultant, ensure the proper lighting and make sure her image consultant approves of everything.

      Didn’t Marcia Clark teach us anything about prosecuting a high-profile case.

      1. Clark was the worst trial attorney ever.

        1. Vincent Bugliosi didn’t have very kind words for her or Darden in their handling of the Simpson trial. I have to agree.

          1. They totally fucked up. They had a rock solid case against OJ with the circumstantial evidence alone. But all of that got lost because they obsessed over the DNA evidence, which allowed the Mark Furman dog and pony show. And then Clark was a white feminist obsessed withe the domestic violence. What she didn’t realize is that the black women on the jury didn’t give a fuck if OJ beat Nicole Simpson

            1. Or killed her, apparently.

            2. All the evidence had issues with it. The defense attacked just about every piece of evidence the prosecution had.

  11. Well, the dumbass did call the prosecutors without his lawyers.

    This was an incredible batch of freshly baked stupid on his part.

    Hiding from his attorneys doesn’t paint him in a favorable light either.

    The real weak point of his statement was where he claimed to be walking back to his car when he was attacked out of nowhere. If they establish that he was chatting with Martin when the fight started, and call his statement into question, that puts him in a bad spot.

    This is the crux of the matter, and will be dependent on the veracity of the three eyewitnesses testimony.

  12. TBH, life in prison may not be the worst outcome for Z. I don’t think there’s anywhere in the country that’s safe for him right now unless he’s essentially imprisoned in his house. And he doesn’t have Roman Polanski or Salman Rushdie money to make that livable.

    1. TBH, life in prison may not be the worst outcome for Z.

      Commit a crime that is construed as racially motivated, whether it actually is or isn’t is ancillary, add lots and lots of negative media attention (inmates do know about high profile news in prison), and you tell me how safe you are in the showers of general population, Tulpy Poo.

      1. No way he’s going to be in general population. If he goes to jail it’s solitary.

      2. Why do you assume he’d be in general population?

        Often inmates will be put in solitary for their own protection.

        1. Often inmates will be put in solitary for their own protection.

          Just ask any policeman ever convicted of a crime and thrown in jail for it.

          1. Just ask any policeman ever convicted of a crime and thrown in jail for it.

            Policemen go to jail for the crimes they commit????

            1. It has happened.

              1. And in one instance, apparently, a cop was sentenced to 23 years, which is six times a few more years than a non-cop would have gotten…probably…maybe…kind-of.

      3. That’s true what you both point out. However, if someone puts a hit out on you in prison, you will eventually get bagged. It may take a while, but it can (and does) happen.

    2. But he has a whale of a defamation lawsuit against NBC. That would pay for a lot.

      1. If he is convicted of a crime, he will have no standing. He has to win a defamation suit first. Criminal trial will be resolved, I bet, before a civil trial commences.

        1. Not true. Just because he wrongly shot Martin, doesn’t mean he was a racist or it was okay for NBC to defame him as such. He has a case either way. IN fact, if he is convicted, he might have a better case since he can argue that NBC tainted the jury pool.

          1. I’ll take your word for it John, as IANAL, obviously. I’ll leave all that legal wrangling to you barristers and solicitors.

    3. Best he could possibly hope for at this time is that some white supremacist take pity on his ass and hide him out in Wyoming. Prison will get him him killed just as assuredly as it did Dahmer.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqFk6Mrcmw

  13. Strangely, the charges here cut against evidence that utilitarianism is anything but an evil lie. If the Florida AG was a utilitarian, she would have said that there was insufficient evidence, the noise would have eventually quieted down, and everyone would have gone home.

    Instead, in the pursuit of justice, she’s opened up, as someone upthread said, the second ring of the circus.

    1. You don’t think she’s got anything to gain from the circus?

      1. Not having her house burned down by a mob for one.

      2. Can you say “State Senator Corey”?

  14. We still don’t know what he is being charged with. I will find it hilarious (by hilarious, I mean “oh, shit here comes the riots”) if it is a petty misdemeanor. But to be fair, there will be riots if it is anything short of first degree murder.

    1. Involuntary manslaughter will likely be the charge. That is a permissible charge when the prosecutor thinks she can prove that the defendant used excessive force in a self-defense context.

      1. While that may satisfy the legal requirement, it hardly sates the bloodlust being exhibited by the race-baiter Sharpton and the NBP Party.

        Which do you think the prosecutor is more concerned with?

        1. I think that the charges are going to take a lot of the sting out of this thing. Now that the Hustler Brigade feels as if it has been heard (and, no doubt, fleeced plenty of well-meaning people out of their money through grandstanding), they’ll melt away. Zimmerman will plead to a lesser charge and serve like, a year.

          That’s just one man’s guess.

          1. I think that the charges are going to take a lot of the sting out of this thing.

            I’d disagree. 98% of the people demanding that charges be brought actually just want his head on a pike. There will be almost no change in the rhetoric, save changing “charged” to “convicted of murder”.

  15. The lesson here is, of course, never shoot anybody.

    The corollary to the first lesson is that, if you do shoot somebody, don’t talk to anybody until you have a lawyer present.

    The corollary to the second lesson is get some money together and put an attorney on retainer.

    1. And make sure you kill a person of your own race* if you’re white or hispanic. Nobody seems to care then.

      *If you kill a blonde girl or a white toddler with any color of hair, all bets are off regardless of your race.

      1. Exactly. I take back what I said below. Shoot someone of your own race and never shoot a cute white girl or cute white toddler. As long as you are black, cute young black girls and toddlers are still okay.

    2. Or if you are going to shoot someone, be sure to shoot a white person. If Martin had been a white kid, we would never have heard about this case and Martin would have walked away.

      1. Shooting white people is optional, but talking to cops without a lawyer is a dumbshit move.

        1. Most people are not smart enough to realize that. They think cops are their friends.

          1. You mean to say dunphy doesn’t have my best interests at heart?

            *makes shocked face*

          2. “Don’t talk to cops without a lawyer” should be up there with “leaves of three, let it be” and “if it flies, floats or fucks, rent it”.

            1. You don’t have to think cops are your friends to realize that in some situations you’re better off talking to the cop. Usually you aren’t, but in this situation Zimmerman would have been worse off had he clammed up.

              Absolute thinking corrupts absolutely.

        2. If Zimmerman had refused to talk to the cops responding to the scene he would have already been charged.

          You’re standing there with a gun in your hand, next to a dead body with a gunshot wound. What do you think is going to happen if you demand a lawyer when the cops arrive?

          This isn’t a case where they’re trying to search your car for MJ.

          1. What do you think is going to happen if you demand a lawyer when the cops arrive?

            I think the best option there is to say “I feared for my life, I need to talk to a lawyer.”

            The “feared for my life” part is usually enough to spring the self defense protections without incriminating yourself.

          2. You should never say a thing to the cops once they mirandize you. Anything said prior to that is inadmissable.

          3. 1. “That man attacked me, and I was forced to defend myself”

            2. “I will give you a full statement within 24 hours, after I consult with my attorney.”

            3. Then……..STFU.

    3. Going along with that, if you’re going to carry, follow these rules:

        1. Plan on not shooting.
        2. Mind your own business.

      As to the first, you should prefer to take a beating to within an inch of your life, provided that your opponent has no firearm, rather than make the mistake of presenting your weapon. Because if they are not similarly armed, you are altering the fundamental nature of the situation; you transform what was your attacker into someone fearing for, and now defending, his or her life. Whatever the law says, that is what you are doing.

      If they are similarly armed, then knock yourself out. But…only if the scenario has unavoidably come to you. As always, the winning move is not to play. If you do, know that when you look back, you will likely identify multiple points at which you could have backed yourself out of the situation.

      This Zimmerman appears to have broken both of these rules, and if so, this makes it very difficult for me to have much pity for him. His choice did not occur in the moment; it occurred when he decided to inject himself into the situation, and doubly so when he chose to do so while strapped.

      This is not necessarily the principled argument, but it is the pragmatic one.

      1. I agree with this. If you are going to carry, you need to do everything you can to avoid having to use your gun.

      2. mind your own business appears to cancel out community watch. The whole point is to be on the lookout for things that look out of place. Rule 1 makes sense and I remain convinced that A) this did not have to happen and B) it will not end well.

        1. Aren’t neighborhood watches just supposed to watch and report? Wouldn’t that preclude you getting out of your car or being armed?

        2. Rule 1 makes sense and I remain convinced that A) this did not have to happen and B) it will not end well.

          For one of the participants, this is already the case.

      3. There is some truth to what you are saying. Of course there is a another rule that applied to Martin,

        don’t mouth off and get into fights with people you don’t know.

        I think both of them were idiot children. If you made me bet my life on what happened here, I suspect Zimmerman was being aggressive rent a cop and shot his mouth off to Martin. And Martin was getting his thug on and decided he would go kick Zimmerman’s ass for doing so.

        If either party had had an ounce of common sense, this would not have happened. I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for either of them. You are right, Zimmerman should have let the cops handle it. But Martin should have not been whaling on Zimmerman. If you don’t want to get shot, don’t get into it with people.

      4. This is not necessarily the principled argument, but it is the pragmatic one.

        So otherwise innocent people who get screwed because they weren’t sufficiently pragmatic get no sympathy? That’s kind of a cold attitude.

        And not to get all Kantian on you, but what would happen if everyone really took that attitude? Without an omnipresent police force that means the weak are going to be continually preyed upon while the strong look the other way.

        1. ^this.

        2. I am specifically in reference to what you ought to know going in, should you choose to carry. And if you do, and then unilaterally choose to inject yourself into a situation that ends up going badly for you, then no, don’t expect much sympathy from me.

    4. Please explain how not talking to anyone would have made Zimmerman better off.

  16. At this point you might as well throw him in a lake and see if he floats, becasue that’s about as fair a trial as this guy is going to get given what the media has done.

    1. I was just pondering whether it wouldn’t be smarter to ask for a bench trial.

      Anyway, there will be no trial. He’ll plead.

      1. I am not so sure. The DA might not take a deal. You have no idea what kind of screws the Obama administration is putting to her. They want a trial. They want a riot. A plea deal might not fit their purpose.

        1. I think you’re verging on paranoia here, John.

          1. Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean people are not out to get you. If they don’t want a riot, why is NBC out doctoring tapes to make Zimmerman look like a racist?

            Why is the President in the middle of this if not to stir up as much trouble as possible?

          2. Seconded. John, ratchet it down a hair. You’re one speedball away from screaming about how Nat Turner will rise from his grave and lead the biggest race riot ever.

            1. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl…..de-trayvon

              Because having the AG praise Al Sharpton is just the way to ratchet things down. These people are evil AC.

              1. I’ve got to agree with John on this one. It’s a calculated effort by the WH and their unofficial state media outlet NBC, to foment racial animosity to drive an otherwise disinterested black community back to the polls.

                1. ditto on the evil. It was probably coincidental that this story was leaked to the WaPo and not a paper/tv station in Florida.

              2. You’re giving Al Sharpton a bit too much credit. He’s like a classic poltergeist. He feeds on your fear and the more you fear him, the stronger he becomes.

                The best way to deal with a man like Al Sharpton is to show him the contempt he deserves. Throw his failures in his teeth (Tawana Brawley) until he shrivels up and crawls away.

                1. AC,
                  and exactly who, except maybe for Ann Coulter, has ever done that with Sharpton? The alphabet soup media fears him and the allegedly conservative Fox won’t lay a glove on him. Doesn’t leave many folks who will dismiss him a race-hustling fraud, no more credible than David Duke. If anything, less credible; Duke owned up to being a Klansman. Sharpton denies having done anything wrong.

                  1. and exactly who, except maybe for Ann Coulter, has ever done that with Sharpton?

                    I said it was the best way, not that people were actually doing it.

                    Sharpton denies having done anything wrong.

                    Which makes him even more susceptible to being mocked. A man who confesses when he is in error can’t be mocked because then it just seems like you’re beating up on him. Look at Bill Clinton. He apologized for lying about getting his dick sucked by the chubby intern. Was he actually sorry? Probably not. He’s probably had his dick sucked many a time after that by women other than his wife. But the act of contrition made further attacks on him about it seem petty.

                    1. AC,

                      that’s the point – NO ONE will do it. And instead of being mocked, Al is lionized, often by the very people whom he duped.

                    2. that’s the point – NO ONE will do it. And instead of being mocked, Al is lionized, often by the very people whom he duped.

                      This is true. People are stupid. Once you accept that fact, the world becomes much easier to understand.

                    3. ‘fessed up when we all saw his splattered cum stain on that dress. Before that, he was more than happy to lie about it.

              3. Ok, Sharpton’s a douche and Holder’s a douche, and they like each other, and you disagree with them. We get it. I still don’t see anything at all in the quote on that link that strikes me as instigating racial tensions and rioting – it sounds like he, like Sharpton, is concerned justice might not be served, and they will look at the facts and decide if any further course of action needs to be taken. That’s his job. So, you’re still blowing it out of proportion.

                1. Proprietist,

                  What has Eric Holder ever done that would cause you to give him the benefit of the doubt here? Holder wants justice done? Are you kidding me? I am sure he would be all over this case if the races were reversed. And he is so interested in getting to the bottom of fast and furious.

                  Come on. Holder is the worst.

                  1. Prop,
                    when a career race-hustler like Sharpton is basically directing traffic for DOJ, you have no issue with that? Oddly, I do not recall such hand ringing concern from Eric the Lesser when the racial mix of crimes was flipped and a black was the assailant. See, had he done so, Eric might have this thing called credibility.

                    1. When did I ever say “I have no issue with that”? AG is a political appointment and will often partner with and praise the ideological allies of the administration, and lambaste (or in the past, imprison) their opponents. The opponents will consider this persecution and call the AG the “worst AG ever”.

                  2. Hey, I’ve said repeatedly that Holder is a typically corrupt, power-hungry, manipulative and incompetent AG. I’d be interested if there was one AG ever that wasn’t all of these things. I’m just not getting how a horribly miscalculated gun running operation, a lack of interest on the Black Panther voter intimidation and a disproportionate interest on this case suddenly makes Holder the worst AG ever? Sounds run of the mill to me.

                    This story received great public outcry, for whatever reason. When stories do that, they attract interest from higher ups who get asked to take action. When the higher ups realize a political advantage, they will act more strongly. Thus, nothing Holder does surprises or shocks me. The only difference is that the racial tables are turned from past AGs.

                    1. So because it’s happened before (for the sake of argument) we should just shut up and accept it, Proprietist?

                      That seems to be the sum total of your concern trolling today.

                      And afaict Holder is doing all the bad things Ash and Gonzo did plus more.

                    2. ?? When did I say that? I’m not the one concern trolling here. Criticize Holder all you want – I do too. I just can’t join hyperbolic, heat of the moment assessments of public officials as the “worst ever” when they’re really not any worse than many of those that came before them. The Justice Department has always been corrupt, and will probably always be, as it is one of the most absolutely powerful parts of the government.

                    3. The only difference is that the racial tables are turned from past AGs.

                      I guess I missed it when Ed Meese and John Ashcroft got involved in local murder cases trying to railroad a black defendant.

                      What are you talking about?

                    4. Throughout history, how many whites do you think have gotten off with assistance from the Justice Department for racially motivated crimes against blacks (either tacitly or simply because the Justice Department never saw dead blacks as worth the time to investigate)?

                    5. Too damn many. But we can’t be tried and retried for the sins of our fathers. That’s what being a “post-racial” society is all about. But the current administration, for all its talk, refuses to let us get to that point.

                    6. But we can’t be tried and retried for the sins of our fathers.

                      No I agree totally. My point is still that Holder’s actions are nothing new (and in comparison to some AGs, relatively mild and controlled thanks to the viral age for news/leaks/etc), thus it shouldn’t be shocking. My only guess as to why it’s shocking to some people is because the colors have switched sides. Don’t take that as a defense of Holder because it’s certainly not.

                    7. My only guess as to why it’s shocking to some people is because the colors have switched sides. Don’t take that as a defense of Holder because it’s certainly not.

                      No, I think it’s because we hate the person fucking us in the ass at the moment more than the one who fucked us in the ass 5 years ago. Because, you know, it’s happening right now.

                      And we can’t go back and stop what they already did, but there’s a chance if people are vocal enough that Holder could be stopped in his gunrunning, race-baiting, selectively-enforcing ways.

                    8. Amongst actual libertarians, sure, we would always be critical of those in power because the government will almost always be against us.

                      But I sense that Tulpa and John are singling Holder out as “especially evil” because he doesn’t play for Team Red and he disproportionately discriminates against their own race instead of somebody else’s (like all the others before did). I hope my senses are off, just a theory as to why they seem so suddenly apoplectic and paranoid.

                    9. I hope you think my motives are more pure. I’ve hated every fucking one of them I can remember.
                      As a matter of fact, the last administration employee I can remember liking…perhaps the only one, is the late Tony Snow. Not for his politics, mind you, but for his courtesy and professionalism.

                    10. I try to give everyone here benefit of the doubt. But John and Tulpa have a long and documented history of Team Red cheerleading. Their statements lack any historical context. When you’re on Team Red, you tend to judge Team Red officials by a different standard than Team Blue officials. I understand it, but find it unprincipled.

                      From a libertarian perspective, Holder’s nothing particularly special or disproportionately evil compared to his predecessors. He’s as bad as I would have expected him to be.

                    11. Another theory is that because news is far, far faster, searchable and more decentralized than ever before, recent AGs “look” more corrupt because more is coming out and spreading rapidly. F&F would probably not have come out at all prior to the Internet, except maybe in what was once derided as “tinfoil conspiracy mags”.

                      In this regard, I’m theorize that modern AGs would be somewhat less corrupt than past officials only because he knows his chances of exposure for corruption and evil/oppressive acts are higher than ever.

            2. Did you miss the whole manufactured controversy over Sandra Fluke? The “War on Women”?

              First they got the women worked up, now they’re getting the blacks worked up.

              Bush (and Republicans) had a hysterical over-reaction to 9/11. Obama and team blue doesn’t have that excuse.

              It’s not like it’s Clinton in the White House. Obama is a worse president than even Jimmy Carter. Not even close. At least Carter did some good, smaller government things (not a lot, but some)

          3. I think you’re verging on paranoia here, John.

            With BO and his lackeys involved, if you’re not paranoid you’re not paying attention.

            Remember when Fast & Furious was paranoia?

            1. Fast and Furious was an imminently stupid program that you and John somehow seem to hyperbolically blow up into the coming of the Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

              Sorry, I’m thinking if we hadn’t done that program, the cartel thugs in Mexico would have still committed the same crimes with different guns. Access to weapons has never been their problem.

              1. I think questioning the motives of the current admin, when it comes to F&F, is a pretty fair exercise. Especially so in light of the barrage of misinformation, lies and refusal to release information they’ve purported.

                Seriously, if Bush had done that, the media would be rightfully calling for his impeachment. But with their messiaj, it’s hardly mentioned outside of Fox News.

                1. Well, it came out the other day that during the Bush Admin we trained Iranian paramilitary MEK back in 2005 (as we once trained al Qaeda/the Taliban when they were our
                  “allies” against the Soviets). We continue to train violent operatives in Central and South America at the School of the Americas and provide funds to all sorts of dictatorships that go to purchase weapons for political oppression. How is this really any different than what’s always been done?

                  1. We continue to train violent operatives in Central and South America at the School of the Americas and provide funds to all sorts of dictatorships that go to purchase weapons for political oppression. How is this really any different than what’s always been done?

                    Because, while heinous, it wasn’t done with the intention of curtailing part of the bill of rights?

                  2. Because it wasn’t done with the express purpose of limiting constitutionally guaranteed rights.

                    And those actions should be prosecuted as well. Not sure they rise to treason, as F&F does, but they are criminal nonetheless, and deserve a vigorous prosecution.

  17. Yeah, who couldn’t have seen this coming?

    The mob wants blood and they’ll get it.

    You gotta feel for the guy, especially if it really went down the way he says it did, because he’s going to get fucked in the trial. It’s pretty much a done deal.

  18. how interesting that news on a case in Florida is broken by the WaPo. Probably a coincidence.

  19. Wow…

    I eat my words.

    I thought they would never ever ever charge him.

    It doesn’t matter. He’ll never ever ever be convicted….not in Florida.

  20. If Zimmerman was smart, he would have been spending the last several weeks figuring out a way to get out of the country.

    However, I’m not sensing an extraordinary amount of intelligence there.

  21. We have no proof as for what happened.

    We will never know what happened.

    I don’t believe Zimmerman. I don’t believe that he merely asked Martin a question and Martin started hitting Zimmerman.

    Although I have no proof, what’s more believable is that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin until the cops came. He probably tried to hold Martin and Martin was not familiar with the rules of apprehension by an under-cover cop with no badge.

    But I have no proof of the above. So, since there are no video tapes or witness, I say Zimmerman is INNOCENT under Florida Law.

    1. You do know that Zimmerman isn’t an undercover cop right?

      1. I the capacity he was working that night, he is an undercover neighborhood watch guy.

  22. It’s an IN-JUSTICE to Both George Zimmerman and Travon Martin’s family to charge George Zimmerman with 2nd Degree Murder in Florida.

    They will NEVER GET a conviction on that. The DA did this on purpose, she knows she has NO case so she went with the HIGHEST charge. Wouldn’t be surprise if she goes ALL-or-NOTHING on 2nd Degree and not even allow a lower charge.

  23. Can you imagine George Zimmerman gets convicted and Casey Anthony is found not guilty? It’s so Florida and the South.

    1. Do you think for a moment that the prosecutor in the Anthony case proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

      Or did you just gobble up the shit Nancy Grace was shoveling?

      1. I actually understand circumstantial evidence…a concept that is too too sophisticated for Florida…one of the dumbest people in America.

            1. That is uncanny.

        1. I actually understand circumstantial evidence…a concept that is too too sophisticated for Florida…one of the dumbest people in America.

          Is this Joez Law, RC’s Law or is it one of the others? And if it isn’t claimed yet, may I propose “Alice’s Law”?

  24. my best friend’s mother-in-law earned $18006 a week ago. she been working on the computer and bought a $462300 condo. All she did was get lucky and put in action the clues made clear on this website (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/kgnjN

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.