Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty of Killing Trayvon Martin

|

Although the jury asked questions about the manslaughter option presented toward the end of the trial of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., the group of six jurors ultimately found him not guilty tonight. From the Associated Press:

Jurors have found George Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

The six-member, all-woman jury deliberated for more than 15 hours over two days before reaching their decision Saturday night.

They had been given the chance to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter but did not do so, despite asking for a clarification of the charge earlier in the evening.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

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. 10 pm on a Saturday – perfect weather for a riot… This will be fun watching.

    1. It’s raining in Florida. People are out on Sat night. Any rioting will have to wait a bit.

      1. I don’t expect much rioting. I do however expect some drunken fights.

        1. So a normal Saturday night.

          1. Basically, yeah.

  2. Justice. Some hope remains, but I’m sure it will be crushed by the next stupid event.

    1. I’m surprised and relieved that justice was done in spite of our justice system doing everything in its power to render an injustice to the accused.

    2. Law was done. The only person who will ever know whether justice was done is Zimmerman.

      1. It is unjust for a person to be convicted without evidence. Therefore, justice was done.

        Should not have to explain this to anyone on Reason.

        1. Stormy isn’t known for being too bright.

          1. There are two things at play here: (1) did Zimmerman actual kill Martin with the mens rea for murder or manslaughter and without a reasonable self-defense motive, and (2) did the state have evidence to convict?

            Our system is intentionally designed to let an actually guilty person walk free if the evidence the state has is inadequate. That’s right, even today, we have a process that inherently values the limit on government abuse greater than putting the guilty away.

            If Zimmerman is actually guilty–something no one but him knows–it bothers me that he’s walking free. But it would bother me more if the state convicted him without sufficient evidence.

  3. Good.
    Fuck the State.

    1. I’m always happy to see the prosecution lose.

      1. That means you never want the rights of victims defended.

        1. Vendetta, dueling, lynching…

          There are non-state solutions to these things.

          1. Thanks for illustrating the difference between libertarianism and anarchism. Libertarianism is against coercion in general, while anarchism is only against coercion perpetrated by people with uniforms and badges.

            To the anarchist, it would seem laundry and jewelry are everything.

            1. Thanks for illustrating the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

              You’re welcome.

              That’s why I’m here.

            2. You’ve got it backwards.

              Anarchists are against coercion in general. Libertarians make exceptions for certain subsets of people who have been sprinkled with magic government fairy dust. E.g. the IRS.

              1. Well, isn’t that special.

                My thought is that so long as anarchists can’t connect the dots from A to 1, 2, 3, you’re just wanking. Places where the monopoly of power becomes pluricentric are not nice places to live — and fortunately, the sort of places that tend to go from monopoly of violence to plurality are run under the type of laws that libertarians oppose in the first place.

              2. Woah, what? No. In the US tradition, Libertarians are divided between Minarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists, among many other smaller or non-Capitalist camps (like those Libertarians of the traditional European socialist variety).

                But anyway, no Libertarian, who is principled, would make an exception for anyone to be forgiven for using coercion against another person.

                Minarchists are retards who think that we can make do with small amount of government to “protect” people *cough* Rand Paul *cough*. Those are the Libertarian assholes you’re after! Leave me and the rest of my Anarcho-Capitalist group out of your classification.

                Thank you.

                1. Minarchists are retards who think that we can make do with small amount of government to “protect” people *cough* Rand Paul *cough*.

                  In large social groups, there will always be some sort of system established to manage the society–it doesn’t matter whether it’s a wolfpack, a group of cavemen, a rural community, or a large urban metropolis. People who think it’s possible for this to never occur are the actual retards.

                  1. I don’t think anyone here is a retard. Just blinded by ideology.

                2. Vendettas and duels and lynchings aren’t coercion?

                  TIT has it right about my main concern with anarchism, which is that it’s unstable and, when it crop up, tends to be replaced by the primitive forms of government.

                  1. Vendetta and dueling are voluntary.

                    1. “Dueling” is essentially trial by combat, which is a rather primitive notion of justice.

                    2. So do you advise that Martin’s use chaumurky/chaumas or just go for a hunter/killer to pursue their vendetta against Zimmerman?

                    3. Granted for duelling (though that’s also why it doesn’t work as a justice system replacement — the accused can always decline) but vendettas aren’t voluntary for the side currently being vendetta-ed against.

          2. Warren’s assertion only works if prosecution is always unjust.

            Yours only works if those solutions are more likely to produce a just result than prosecution. That is a dubious claim at best. Essentially, people who oppose the Zimmerman verdict should be within their rights to harass or lynch him because he violated Martin’s rights in their eyes.

        2. That means you never want the rights of victims defended.

          The state can avenge a violation of rights. The only way to defend your rights is for you to do it yourself, or for someone else to do it for you at the moment those rights are being violated.

          1. Split hairs much?

            Without something resembling a state, if the person/group violating your rights is stronger and/or more ruthless than you, then your rights have no practical effect.

            SIV’s effectively promoting might makes right here. Plain and simple. Vendettas, duels and lynchings aren’t available “remedies” to the weak or the alone.

            1. It’s not splitting hairs at all. It’s simply being precise in how one uses language. A vaccine and a cure are not the same thing, and defending rights is not the same as punishing those who violate rights.

              That’s not to say that punishing those who violate the rights of others is not a worthy endeavor. But you cannot go back in time and make the violation go away. You can only punish the perpetrator, compensate the victim, or both.

              1. Given the comment he was responding to it was clear what Mr. Rat meant, and SIV’s response about vendettas and lynchings makes it clear he understood what Mr. Rat meant.

                And of course, there are many cases where police intervention prevents a violation of rights.

                1. And of course, there are many cases where police intervention prevents a violation of rights.

                  Thanks for the guffaw.

          2. That is perhaps more semantically correct, but the prospect of punishment also provides prophylactic defense against future crimes by making immunity against consequences less likely.

    2. “Fuck the State.”

      Oh, please. Can you IMAGINE the STDs?

  4. Now we’ll see how much people really support the system and its authority. Niobe could question the outcome of our glorious system, right? On what ground could they possibly stand?

    Let’s all watch the news and find out.

    1. Thanks iphone autocorrect.

      1. I do love an auocorrect to a name that no one you’ve ever met has had. Thanks for keeping that in the dictionary and making it more likely than common words, guys

    2. Go to Hell, Niobe!

      1. Niobe is beautiful and I’ve been after that action for YEARS, if she’d only quit dating jackass club promoters. So you shut your mouth.

        1. Niobe is too much sand for your truck, little boy.

        2. Whatever you do, don’t tell my Winnebago.

            1. Niobe is in the Winnebago!

        3. Niobe likes hook-ups; they’re easier than pursuing a full-on relationship. I mean, she has to finish her degree and then pursue a career before she can even think about settling down with you, Dweebston.

          1. She’s been saying that for years and my friends tell me I’m an idiot for holding out so SHUT UP IT’S GONNA WORK.

            1. Like Niobe said, I can’t believe it’s possible to make $8730/week on the computer, in your spare time, with zero startup time and minimal investment.

              1. +1 MLM drone

  5. Eat a giant bag of dicks, every one of you left-wing scumbags, all the vermin in the media, and all the whitey-hatin, racists.

    1. Hilarious.

      You really think this is a big win for the Tea Party Brotherhood?

      Why?

      I personally don’t give a fuck about the verdict.

      1. How did you connect the Tea Party to his statement?

        1. Trayvon Martin bought some ice tea, didn’t he?

        2. Don’t ask.

        3. Living in his head…

        4. History. Mike M. is like a big TP boil on the ass of America.

          Recent big deficit reductions leave the little twerp scowling.

          1. History. Mike M. is like a big TP boil on the ass of America.

            Proof please. Exact quotes.

            Recent big deficit reductions leave the little twerp scowling.

            I’d say the cuts aren’t big enough, though. 10 billion dollars isn’t that much.

            1. It’d fund the government for about two days, I think.

              1. $10 bil? Only one day.

        5. It’s Shrike. He thinks everyone here is a Republican and feels the need to bash them at any opportunity as if we disagree. Don’t try to reason too much with him.

        6. Here’s how Butthurt’s tiny brain works:

          If you do not share all of his hyper-partisan views, you are a member of the Tea Party, a racist, a homophobe, and an unconditional of BOOOOOSH!

          1. $117 billion federal surplus in June alone.

            Fact.

            Don’t doubt me.

            I am always right – ask John, RC Dean, Sevo, wareagle, or many of the other doubters here.

            They will lie, of course.

            1. Dude, you’re all over the fucking place. Keep blowing bath salts through a crazy straw and flaming comment boards with Blue Tribe rhetoric.

            2. $117 billion federal surplus in June alone.

              Relevance?

              Fact. Assertion

              Don’t doubt me.

              Why?

              I am always right – ask John, RC Dean, Sevo, wareagle, or many of the other doubters here.

              Assumes facts not entered into evidence…

              They will lie, of course.

              Of course… Boooooosh!!!!111!!!!!1

              1. You can say that again!

            3. $117 billion federal surplus in June alone.

              Relevance?

              Fact. Assertion

              Don’t doubt me.

              Why?

              I am always right – ask John, RC Dean, Sevo, wareagle, or many of the other doubters here.

              Assumes facts not entered into evidence…

              They will lie, of course.

              Of course… Boooooosh!!!!111!!!!!1

            4. $117 billion federal surplus in June alone.

              Relevance?

              Fact. Assertion

              Don’t doubt me.

              Why?

              I am always right – ask John, RC Dean, Sevo, wareagle, or many of the other doubters here.

              Assumes facts not entered into evidence…

              They will lie, of course.

              Of course… Boooooosh!!111!!!1

              1. It’s nothing but a rabid shit-throwing monkey that craves your attention. Don’t give it to the animal.

            5. Palin’s Buttplug| 7.13.13 @ 10:52PM |#

              $117 billion federal surplus in June alone.

              Fact.

              How much of that was remittances from the FED?

              1. I have a massive surplus two days a month. The other 28…

                1. Heh. Back when my friends and I were all still in our 20s, I remember one of them mentioning that since he had gotten paid yesterday, that he was now a thousandaire again, for a few days at least.

                  1. he was now a thousandaire again, for a few days at least.

                    Back in my 20s I had a job that paid Fridays. There were two women who would go on a shopping spree every Thursday evening, then race to the bank every Friday when the checks came out. Oh, the caterwauling when the checks ran even a few minutes late!

            6. Palin’s Buttplug| 7.13.13 @ 10:52PM |#
              “Don’t doubt me.
              I am always right – ask John, RC Dean, Sevo, wareagle, or many of the other doubters here.”

              You sleazy turd, do you have *ONE* cite? go fuck your daddy.

            7. PB — learn how to say this:

              “FUCK OBAMA FUCK OBAMA FUCK BUSH OBAMA BUSH SUCK EACH OTHER’S shriveled peckers”

              Cleanse your soul — stop supporting child-killing warmongers.

        7. Enigma| 7.13.13 @ 10:37PM |#
          “How did you connect the Tea Party to his statement?”

          Never presume shreek has any connection to logic.
          Shreek is a full-blown ignoramus who invents ‘reality’ as he pleases.

      2. “You really think this is a big win for the Tea Party Brotherhood?”

        I have to wonder how many head injuries one must sustain in order to read that from his post, which contained nothing like that.

        You, however, appear to have suffered so badly that you think “Eat a giant bag of dicks, every one of you left-wing scumbags” is equal to “You really think this is a big win for the Tea Party Brotherhood”.

        You are actually so fucking dumb that posted that.

        1. Why is this a big win for you TP Bro’s?

          1. Palin’s Buttplug| 7.13.13 @ 10:42PM |#
            “Why is this a big win for you TP Bro’s?”

            Had bets on another result, dipshit?
            Go fuck your daddy.

            1. Don’t sugar coat it man, tell em’ how you really feel…

              1. Dipshit deserves that and more.

          2. Shorter buttwipe:

            If I repeat the same mindless shit over and over again, maybe it will become true!

        2. Of course Shrieking Idiot is angry and takes this personally. He’s the biggest lefty asshole here on the site.

          1. Even worse than Tony?

            1. Tony is more eloquent and informed.

              1. sgs| 7.13.13 @ 11:07PM |#
                “Tony is more eloquent”
                OK.

                “and informed.”
                Nope.

                1. “”and informed.”
                  Nope.”

                  Than BUTTPLUG?

                  We’ll agree to disagree about you being wrong.

              2. I thought Tony and Buttplug were the same woman. And I’m not sure that she’s actually American either.

                1. Gillespie isn’t a woman.

                  1. You sure about that? He writes like he was one. I assumed the Jacket was basically a “beard”.

        3. I have to wonder how many head injuries one must sustain in order to read that from his post, which contained nothing like that.

          More than the number needed to shoot someone, and claim self defense.

          1. So evidently you can’t imagine any scenario to justify shooting someone in self defense?

            Well, folks, the cops and military can melt down their weapons now. F2B has explained you gotta be head-shot to think they need to be used!

          2. “More than the number needed to shoot someone, and claim self defense.”

            I bet you wish you had an edit button for that piece of stupidity.

      3. “I personally don’t give a fuck about the verdict.”

        Oh, and you’re a liar.

      4. What did Bernie de la Rionda score on the Buttplug Purity Test?

      5. I personally don’t give a fuck about the verdict.

        And yet you commented here 15 minutes after the post late on a saturday night.

        1. And yet you commented here 15 minutes after the post late on a saturday night.

          That’s what some people do instead of fucking. I was a bit busy giving Mrs OMWC the high hard one to pay much attention to some unimportant trial in a useless shithole state.

          1. Wasn’t it a bit late to be throwing batting practice for Mrs. OMWC?

            And why the high hard heat? Was she crowding the plate again?

            1. We prefer night games under the lights. The balls seem to have a bit more pep to them.

          2. “a useless shithole state.”

            Protest more Shakespeare.

      6. Suck it, Buttplug! Your comrades’ attempt to lynch a “white hispanic” failed miserably. Not even a judge who ruled with Obama’s balls in her mouth, and the usual ignorance the average juror, could pull off this attempted travesty.

        If Zimmerman (the evil white hispanic) had been convicted, you’d be all over this site telling us how it was victory for justice. Your side lost, so now you pretend you never cared either way.

        I call bullshit on you sir!

        1. Not even a judge who ruled with Obama’s balls in her mouth, and the usual ignorance the average juror, could pull off this attempted travesty.

          She made Ito look like the greatest judge evah!

    2. I’m telling you, if there is a riot, the rioters need to be met head on by the non-racist, sane members of the community. That is the only way you can make a riot (and their race baiting handlers) lose support.

      1. Better they are met head on by a cadre of Korean shop keepers.

        1. I remember that. Those shop owners performed well under fire and protected their livelihoods and families like true fighters.

          1. One riot=one Korean and one 1911. Like the Texas Rangers. Nearly brings a tear to the eye.

  6. Another Festivus miracle!

      1. Change your handle to “Palin’s Butthurt” you fucking partisan toady.

        1. I”M LOVIN’ IT!

          Eat me, Michael Moore!

        2. “BOOM. Yummy.”

          1. ^ In ref to Caligula

        3. Give Obama’s Toiletpaper a break. He is clearly the lonely, awkward, moron who hangs around with people who despise him but he is too stupid to know it. He probably tells people that the posters on this board are his “friends” because he is to obtuse to know the difference between a friendly back and forth between friends and red hot hatred.

          Pity him.

  7. NAACP tweets:

    “BREAKING: Zimmerman acquitted on all charges.We will update you as we work to pursue civil rights charges against Zimmerman through the DOJ.”

    1. Good luck with that.

      1. Yeah, what with Eric Holder and all.

      2. From what I’ve heard, the only option the feds have is to prove that Zimmerman committed a hate crime. Of course, there is more evidence of a hate crime against Martin than Zimmerman.

  8. Just watching the Florida attorney Angela Corey – what a slime ball

    1. Not classy like when Charlie Crist was there!

    2. Isn’t Pam Bondi AG still?

  9. The Rodney King riots weren’t just about the Rodney King verdict. A lot of it was about Daryl Gates, the LAPD, and the way they were treating people in South Central.

    I don’t know what the people in that part of Florida are dealing with, but it takes a lot more than one verdict to make people go off like that.

    Anyway, it’s good to know that although neither the president, nor Congress, nor the courts are interested in protecting our rights these days, that juries can and will sometimes stand up for an individual’s rights.

    1. Yeah anyone who thinks the 92 riots were just about King is really misinformed. One reason why I’d be surprised if there were serious riots, let alone anything approaching that.

      1. Yeah, like I said above there will be some fights and probably some people using this as an excuse to do whatever bad shit they were probably going to do anyway.

        1. People are fickle… you never know.

    2. Well, there have been protests with people saying “no justice, no peace” and clearly meaning “punish Zimmerman”, but, well, most of them probably don’t really mean it.

      I wasn’t going to bet either way, until that guy predicted riots in NYC.

    3. Yes. In the good ol’ days, C.R.A.S.H. units straddled the line between Gestapo and crime syndicate.

  10. Already a stream of comments on the decision on facebook, almost all critical, and from all races. Actually, the only comment that wasn’t explicitly critical was from one of my black friends (he said something along the lines of “countdown until Jackson and Sharpton try to regain relevancy”)

    1. Yeah. Same here. These same people already had their minds made up before the trial, though. It seems that Zimmerman’s guilt is another thing “All Right Thinking People Just Know”.

      1. Best one so far, from the lesbian who runs a DV hotline:
        In a state where numerous women are still in prison for defending their lives against someone who said the loved them, another man can pull a gun instead of running in the other direction and get away with murder.

        I have to post this here to keep from pointing out that yes, someone is dead because a person decided not to just run away. Two people made poor decisions, one had a gun. Guess which one lived. Draw whatever lesson you wish. Not to mention that numerous probably is more than a couple, less than a dozen.

        1. That comment doesn’t even make sense. Zimmerman claims (and all the evidence supports it) that he didn’t pull the gun until Martin was on top of him beating him. There was no way he could have run the other direction.

          Now granted, we don’t know for sure, and as I’ve said, no one alive besides Zimmerman will ever know, who started the fight. But there’s no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that it was Martin, and as such, he can’t be convicted.

          1. Like I said, she and some of my other “right-thinking” friends have “known” he was guilty since the story broke. They aren’t bad people, other than the fact that they think a guy should rot in prison to appease their sense of “justice”, regardless of the actual facts.

            1. Same thing here.

              None of the people on my facebook saying he should have been guilty are bad people. They just either approached the case from the get go completely emotionally, or don’t know much about it, but have heard from all the right people that Zimmerman senselessly murdered Martin in cold blood.

              1. Same here, I think it’s pretty sad really, letting yourself be overwhelmed emotionally by the outcome of trial that really has absolutely nothing to do with you.

              2. Um…no offense Cali, but if they really believe that, they ARE bad people.

                They deserve no such slack and should be held to task.

                1. Indeed. In order to believe that you have to deliberately ignore all the evidence presented at the trial, and if you’re the kind of jackwagon that does that, you’re a bad person.

            2. They aren’t bad people, other than the fact that they think a guy should rot in prison to appease their sense of “justice”, regardless of the actual facts.

              Sarcasm? I hope.

              1. None of the people on my facebook saying he should have been guilty are bad people.

                For the sake of emotion, or sentimentality, people believe that a man deserves to go to prison because he killed someone in self-defense? How is that anything but evil?

                I have 4 public child indoctrination directors in my family. While I used to think that they “were not bad people” they live their lives rationalizing evil actions. Those same actions indoctrinate a future generation into more rationalization of evil.

                My younger sister is one of them. In her mind, she is a good person and in many ways this is true. I have heard that Hitler was a wonderful dancer.

                The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for “good” men to rationalize it. Marshall Gill

                1. People who can coldly analyze the consequences of their actions, especially while surrounded by others passionately denying that such stress is necessary, are flipping rare. It is hard to look at the numbers and the facts and it runs contrary to much that we have been taught. I struggle with it daily, and often fail. So I try very hard to not judge others who fail.

                  It ain’t easy.

                2. You’re reminding me strongly of this CS Lewis quote, regarding his book The Screwtape Letters:

                  The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.

          2. It’s utterly astonishing how so many people think there’s a duty to retreat when you’re being sat on by a person slamming your head into the concrete. And not even complete morons. (selective morons, apparently)

            1. I think a lot of people seem to think that the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin, and suspicious of him, even though it turned out he was staying in the neighborhood, is enough to mean he’s guilty, even if there’s no proof he started the physical altercation.

              1. That plus the people who think that merely owning a gun, let alone carrying one, is prima facie evidence of mental illness and intent to commit murder.

              2. I think a lot of people seem to think that the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin, and suspicious of him, even though it turned out he was staying in the neighborhood, is enough to mean he’s guilty, even if there’s no proof he started the physical altercation.

                This is exactly the argument I had with someone the other day. If you follow someone, they’re allowed to beat you to death? That’s insane.

            2. A lot of people are horrified by the thought of shooting somebody. And I’m not sure that is wrong. Many would rather take a beating than kill. That is certainly a Christian attitude, at least as I was raised. Which is one of the reasons that said raising didn’t entirely take.

      2. Oooh. A better one: from a white, 40 something woman: Florida wins… fucking white people

        I at least respect her candor that this is purely about racism and not an actual sense of justice.

        1. What irks me is that it’s entirely possible that Zimmerman is innocent. Actually innocent. So their politics are more important to them than the freedom of a possibly innocent man. Let that sink in for a moment.

          From the evidence that’s been presented, if we had to pick what narrative was most likely, it seems to me that Zimmerman’s story is the more plausible. He may well be guilty, but if viewed dispassionately, it looks more likely than not that he acted in self-defense.

          1. Looking at all the evidence I saw presented, I think Zimmerman is actually innocent. I don’t see any inconsistencies in his story.

    2. I have a mix of both right now and they are all retarded.

    3. Anybody that tried to make this a race issue–those really are some of America’s most horrible people.

      Quite frankly, I don’t think much of people who tried to make this a Second Amendment issue–on either side–either. If Zimmerman had killed Martin with a hammer, the verdict should have been the same.

      Everyone who wants gun control and wanted to convict Zimmerman of a crime–simply because they like gun control–they should all be ashamed of themselves. And everyone who believes in Second Amendment rights and wanted Zimmerman to go free–simply because they support the Second Amendment–they should all be ashamed of themselves, too.

      1. No one besides Zimmerman knows whether or not Martin’s race played a role in him calling the cops, getting out of his car, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if Martin being black played a role in that. Likewise, given that Zimmerman could easily be portrayed as a wannabe hero, I could easily see him taking the opportunity to try to be one regardless of the race of the teenager. I don’t know Zimmerman, so I can’t say. And either way, being racist doesn’t make you guilty of murder.

        1. Likewise, given that Zimmerman could easily be portrayed as a wannabe hero, I could easily see him taking the opportunity to try to be one regardless of the race of the teenager.

          I know that you’re just responding to the overall media narrative on this but it’s complete bullshit.

          He’s a wanna be hero really means keep your head down, don’t get involved and instead call the proper ‘authoritease’.

          Fuck that bullshit. If the people in that community that heard someone screaming for help had wanted to be heros and left their fucking houses instead of cowering inside we would definitively know who was the aggressor and Martin might still be alive.

          1. “I know that you’re just responding to the overall media narrative on this but it’s complete bullshit.”

            Yeah, I didn’t say it’s necessarily true. Although I’m not saying it’s necessarily bullshit either. I don’t know George Zimmerman, so I can’t say either way. But there certainly are a lot of people out there who wish they were heroes, want to be a cop, etc etc. and it’s not insane to think Zimmerman might be one of those people. Wannabe or not, I don’t think it’s crazy to think, based on what we know, that he would have done the same thing if Trayvon was white but everything else about the situation was exactly the same.

            1. I was really attacking the narrative and not you.

              As I said, society would be a lot better off if wanting to be heros motivated people to get off their asses and get involved. Totalitarian state require fearful, uninvolved populations and it seems that America is slouching into that condition.

              1. “You know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed.”

                — Black Hispanic woman

                1. Don’t you mean:

                  — character in a tv show

                  1. Well, Gina Torres did say it.

                    BTW, see how mature I’m being by not pointing out it was said in a movie, not a TV show?

              2. Ok, I agree, I was just clarifying my point

      2. If Zimmerman had killed Martin with a hammer, his claims that he was getting his ass kicked would be more difficult to believe, so the self-defense defense would suffer.

        @Calidissident oh, we don’t really know, but we can guess pretty accurately. He knew that young black men were robbing houses in his neighborhood. He correctly identified him as a young black man on drugs.

        We’ll never really know, but it seems pretty obvious.

        1. If Zimmerman saw an unfamiliar white teenager who appeared to be on drugs walking in a hoodie in the rain, I don’t think it’s absurd to think he would have done the same thing. Of course he many not have. Either way, it doesn’t make him guilty of murder, and there’s no way to prove it

          1. Sure, but in the real-life case, he did a great job of identifying a person who matched the description of one of the thieves in his area.

      3. I don’t know, looks like a race issue to me. A minority kills someone who looks like the son of a President in self-defense, and bigots try to railroad the bastard.

    4. Probably because you’d be insane to post a pro-Zimmerman comment under your real name right now.

      1. I don’t post ANYTHING on the Internet under my real name, and I haven’t for a couple decades now.

        All it takes is one jackass that gets pissed at you for no good reason at all to ruin your life for quite a while if not permanently.

      2. I’m a little bugged by the idea that being pro-acquittal–that is, believing the evidence presented was entirely inadequate–is viewed by many as pro-Zimmerman. I don’t know what happened that night. Nor does anyone other than the defendant. Sucks if he’s actually guilty, but the evidence simply isn’t there.

    5. “countdown until Jackson and Sharpton try to regain relevancy”

      1,000,000,000,000,000 and counting…

    6. I jumped on facebook expecting tears, but instead just some bullshit about close friends getting engaged. I thought I had an opportunity to further alienate myself from acquaintances. Briefly considered threadjacking the engagement announcement, but even I’m not that gaping huge an asshole.

      1. I’d go for it.

        1. You would. But I notice you invariably show up late for our h&r palavers, so I’m never sure how much credit to give your suggestions.

          1. None at all. I can’t keep up.

            1. Most of us have lives away from here.

    7. The vast majority of people decided Zimmerman was guilty because Martin is black and/or because they still think he “got off” because of the stand your ground law.

      It’s very simple. It’s TEAM bullshit.

      I don’t have an opinion either way other than IF Zimmerman shot Martin because he was getting an ass kicking, then he should have been found not guilty.

      But both Facebook and Twitter have found a case of the derp tonight. Sideline jurors who made up their minds long before the trial.

    8. Huh. Most of the comments I’ve seen were positive and/or critical of the prosecution and media for blowing this out of proportion.

  11. “I don’t know what the people in that part of Florida are dealing with”

    Sanford is not like LA, nor is it even close. The idea that there would be riots was always a little silly to me.

  12. Defense attorney is angry, wow.

    1. Classy.

    2. Can you imagine a white guy sporting a t-shirt saying, “Yes sir…creepy ass nigger?”

  13. Al Sharpton hasn’t been this upset since Obama’s first debate.

    1. (laughs) Good one!

  14. fucking thing should have never gone to trial to begin with.

    1. A-fucking-men. Cops didn’t want to charge him, he didn’t get charged until the bloody fucking politicians got ahold of it.

  15. Defense attorney: If Zimmerman was black, he wouldn’t have been charged.

    Snap!

    1. But he *is* black! I mean, if having a black ancestor makes you black.

    2. If Zimmerman had been a cop, he wouldn’t have been charged. That’s for sure.

      1. The sad thing is, if the exact same circumstances and evidence applied, and Zimmerman was a cop, a whole lot of the commentariat would be on Martin’s side, facts be damned.

        We are not completely immune to emotional knee jerking here, either.

  16. Fromtwitter:

    mia farrow ?@MiaFarrow 17m
    Wish I had a zanax

    Lena Dunham ?@lenadunham 6m
    @MiaFarrow I have Klonopin! Come over

    1. ^ from twitter. EDIT BUTTON!

    2. Wait, did Lena Dunham just commit a felony on twitter?

      1. No, she’s just trying to get a cop to pat her down.

        1. Maybe it’s just late and I’m a bit punchy, but that’s fucking hilarious right there.

      2. Silly ‘tarian, don’t you know laws are for the little people and not big Hollywood stars like Lena Dunham and Mia Farrow?

        (BTW, Mia, it’s spelled X-A-N-A-X, or Alprazolam, as you prefer.)

        1. We can hope she gets lots of them. And shuts up.

    3. And it’s called Xanax, know your drugs morons.

    4. I hope they hook up and cry over the verdict, take their pills, and drink heavily

      1. And go swimming.

  17. This little story is making the facebook rounds. Supposedly as an example of the broken american justice system. Of course the article is extremely light on the facts of that particular case.

    1. IIRC, she had initiated the contact and he was dumb enough to go over there. That was why she was convicted of attempted murder. Because she admitted to inviting him over and in. (I’m not sure I’d vote for that charge, but you have to admit, she gave the prosecutors a great setup.)

      Also, note that this is 10-20-Life problem. She discharged a gun in the commission of another crime. She has to do 20, according to FL law. The judge is right. The law says anyone who brandishes a gun gets a 10 year minimum, anyone who fires a gun at a non-LEO gets a 20 year minimum, and anyone who shoots at a LEO or kills a non-LEO gets life.

      1. LEO = magic badges!

    2. Reason covered the case last year:

      https://reason.com/archives/201…..her-ground

      1. Yup, again, all the stories starts when she “told him to leave and he refused”. Why didn’t she call 911 the moment he showed up at her house if she had a restraining order? He was there long enough to pick up her cell phone and look through the pictures before starting a confrontation. You can see how the prosecution got her for a setup.

        1. Sometimes Reason seems to leave out key points. Even if they didn’t agree with the prosecution theory, they should have mentioned it.

          1. In fairness, none of the other stories in the links (or their links) mention it. But read two or three and you’ll see what I mean. I just remember looking into it at the time — and I could be misremembering.

          2. Sometimes?

            It’s little more than Libertarian Kos at this point.

            1. I love how Tulpa shows up out of nowhere for this thread. And was the Daily Kos saying that Zimmerman should have been acquitted?

              1. Didn’t realize I had to give notice. Did you guys get an OOP against me?

                Anyway, I’m referring to the new Reason habit of leaving out facts that conflict with their narrative. Libertarian RedState would be an equally applicable moniker.

                1. “Didn’t realize I had to give notice.”

                  And yet you gave notice of leaving.

                  Which was a lie.

              2. Eh, if the shoe fits.

                Reason reports sensationalistically and with few filters. Balko is the last Reason journalist who was very, very good at his craft.

            2. People read the articles??

              1. Wait, there are articles? I thought this was just a forum.

        2. Oh, again, none of this should be taken as support for the verdict. Just more proof that the best thing you can do is shut the fuck up and get the best lawyer you can afford, immediately.

          1. I’m still assimilating the fact that Floridians get a higher sentence for killing someone with a gun than with (say) an axe or a pair of nunchuks (sp?).

            1. Holy shit. This may be the worst law ever. And I include Obamacare. In addition to all of the really shitty minimums, they tossed in this cherry on the turd sundae:
              Under Florida law, the prosecutor in a case is the only person eligible to waive any mandatory minimum.[9] The only way a judge can issue a waiver is if he or she were to sentence the defendant as a youthful offender which would cap the maximum penalty at 6 years of any supervision whether it be prison or probation. One of the qualifications for a youthful offender sentence is that the defendant be no more than 20 years of age at the time of the sentence

              1. Because Florida prosecutors are so demonstrably trustworthy.

                1. I hope “Chain Gang” Charlie Crist voted for it so I can drop that fun fact during the gubenatorial race next year when the Dems who used to hate him are fellating him.

          2. Just more proof that the best thing you can do is shut the fuck up and get the best lawyer you can afford, immediately.

            If Zimmerman had refused to talk to the police, he would have been just a guy standing over a dead body with a gun. He actually got out of the charges by talking.

            That is, until the outrage industry got a hold of him.

            1. He also had injuries to his face and the back of his head.

              1. Don’t see how that helps without his explaining how he got them.

                1. Doesn’t take much explaining to do. The BOP is on the prosecution. Had he waited for a lawyer, there’s still no way he gets indicted without the ensuing media outrage.

                  1. No Cali, he went home that night. It was only after the media shitstorm brewed up that he was arrested and charged.

                    This was a political show trial from the moment the national media got involved.

                  2. Really? Having a cut on the back of your head == self-defense? How would they even know the cut was related to the killing, and even if it was, that he didn’t pull the gun first?

                    1. How would they *know* that either way?

                      In any case, you didn’t say him talking to the cops helped him avoid arrest, you said it helped him avoid charges. Maybe he gets arrested if he waits for a lawyer, but he sure as hell wouldn’t have gotten charged and gone to trial, and talking to the cops without a lawyer definitely increases your chances of accidentally screwing yourself.

                  3. If anything this case shows that under SOME circumstances talking to the cops is going to get you out of a jam, as it did GZ.

                    Cases where the police responding to a scene are convinced by a person of their innocence don’t usually make the news, and certainly won’t make it past Reason’s editorial filter, so we get a biased perception.

                    1. Well you can’t unring bells. It’s best, if you do shoot someone in self defense, to simply repeat that you were in fear for your life, and that you want to speak to a lawyer before making any formal statements. Be polite, but firm.

                    2. If you’re going to have one rule of thumb, that’s better than the opposite, I agree.

                      But sometimes it is good to talk. If one doesn’t have confidence in one’s ability to determine when those times are, one shouldn’t talk.

                    3. I agree with that Virginian

                    4. It comes direct from the nation’s, and probably the world’s for that matter foremost expert on armed self defense, Massad Ayoob. Don’t give me credit for it.

                      One day I’ll take his class. I’ve never heard it described in anything but very positive terms.

                    5. Until the prosecutor argues that that’s exactly what gun nuts counsel each other to do in gun forums after they shoot someone.

                      You can’t win with these people.

            2. Credit to the local PD that they played this the right way. But Zimmerman still would have been better off to STFU because convincing the PD wasn’t enough.

              1. Not sure about that. The cop who responded to the scene was essentially a witness for the defense, and if GZ had STFU, that testimony never occurs.

                It certainly doesn’t appear that failing to STFU hurt him in any way. The reasons he was charged had little to do with what he said to the cops.

                1. It certainly doesn’t appear that failing to STFU hurt him in any way.

                  Other than months of time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential legal fees, and the death threats, it was all a big party for him, right?

                  Riding your motorcycle home in a thunderstorm while shitfaced doesn’t appear to hurt in any way on those times when you make it home. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

                  You seem to be confusing “don’t talk without a lawyer” with “don’t talk even with a lawyer.” Nothing you say without a lawyer is so important that it couldn’t wait.

                  1. Other than months of time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential legal fees, and the death threats, it was all a big party for him, right?

                    That wasn’t caused by his talking. Indeed, his talking helped his case at trial. You think if he hadn’t talked to police, and was just an armed man standing over a dead black minor’s body, that Al Sharpton & company wouldn’t have swooped in and did their thing?

                    Reason MCMXXLI why I don’t hang here anymore: you guys have so internalized this pseudo-libertarian dogma that all facts are warped to service it. How someone could look at this case and say “This proves you should never talk to the police” just boggles the mind. TALKING TO THE POLICE HELPED HIM. The night of the shooting AND at trial. Sorry if it breaks your worldview.

                    1. Reason MCMXXLI why I don’t hang here anymore

                      Yet, here you are.

                    2. That wasn’t caused by his talking. Indeed, his talking helped his case at trial.

                      You don’t know that. Hell, there might not even have been a trial if he had waited and gotten a lawyer first.

                      Find me one, and I mean only a single example, of a defense attorney anywhere in this country who would advise a person in Zimmerman’s situation to talk to the cops before he talks to a lawyer and I will concede that you have a point. Out of all the defense attorneys in the entire country, find me just one who agrees with you. Just one.

                    3. You don’t know that. Hell, there might not even have been a trial if he had waited and gotten a lawyer first.

                      You guys seem not to be getting this: he had gotten out of the charges already! If he had waited to get a lawyer, the lawyer would already have been off the case when the shitstorm started. There is no way that a lawyer would have been able to make what happened not happen.

                      If anything, what got him in trouble with the outrage industry was his commentary on the 911 call, not what he said to police. I hope you’re not saying he shouldn’t have called 911.

                      Find me one, and I mean only a single example, of a defense attorney anywhere in this country who would advise a person in Zimmerman’s situation to talk to the cops before he talks to a lawyer and I will concede that you have a point.

                      It’s a high risk strategy so of course they won’t. Professional advisors never advise the high risk strategy.

                    4. “TALKING TO THE POLICE HELPED HIM. The night of the shooting AND at trial.”

                      Not really, the prosecution spent a long time hammering him with slide after slide of his “lies” during trial.

                      None of which would have been possible had he shut up.

                    5. And those slides had absolutely no effect because they were ridiculous.

                      Again, the cop who responded to the scene was a huge witness for the defense. If Zimmerman doesn’t talk, that testimony never happens.

                    6. No. God no. It means it doesn’t happen at that time. It doesn’t necessarily mean it never happens.

    3. One person getting wrongfully convicted* doesn’t justify another person getting convicted.

      *I’m assuming that for the sake of argument, I don’t know a whole lot about the case beyond Brett’s comment. Just based off that, I don’t think an attempted murder charge was justified, and just because you invite someone into your house doesn’t mean you can’t later defend yourself legally. And yeah, I think the 10-20-Life law should be repealed, based on Brett’s description of it.

      1. If you invite them over so you can provoke them and then kill them in “self-defense” that would be premeditated murder. Of course the BOP that that’s what you did is pretty high.

  18. I am wondering what sort of bullshit is going to be in the all new “Trayvon’s Law”, that you just know is waiting in the wings.

    1. “All occupants of the United States must treat each other with proper respect at all times.”

      1. “A defendant who shoots someone who is given a sympathetic portrayal in the media is forbidden from claiming self-defense, and instead should plead guilty to whatever he’s charged with.”

        1. “When legal procedures produce results that conflict with reasonable perceptions of morality or conventional expectations of justice, those results shall be subject to automatic reformation by the President’s National Justice Court.”

    2. All-female juries are henceforth prohibited.

      1. All *juries* are henceforth prohibited.

      2. Except in sexual assault/discrimination cases, I presume.

    3. “If lefties don’t like it, they get to shoot the people who do”
      Pretty much what we have now.

    4. What would that be?

      If you get sucked punched by a guy and he gets on top of you, you have to let him punch you in the face as much as he wants?

      Then again, pretty much every lefty hates the idea of guns and/or self-defense, so they believe exactly that.

  19. Correct verdict. The prosecution never had a chance. Also watching West and O’Meara and love the fact they’re holding no punches when it comes to telling the media and the overall narrative set BEFORE FACTS WERE GATHERED to fuck off.

    Well done.

  20. Defense attorney smacking around the media now.

    1. They deserve it. A bunch of assholes. I’m afraid I have to include Obama in this. What a petty, unwise, thing he pulled.

      1. Butthurt ain’t gonna take too kindly to yer cussin’ Obamalamadingdong. He don’ much care for nun of dat.

      2. Rufus, show a little respect. Obama’s (fake) son was killed by this white/hispanic/One-drop black guy.

      3. It’s not over. DOJ can always bring “civil rights violation” charges.

        1. And they definitely will at least look into it. So much for that double jeopardy thing in the Fifth Amendment. But aren’t most constitutional protections considered optional these days anyway, especially if demanded by MSNBC panelists?

          1. Dual sovereignty: another gift from the Confederacy/Jim Crow South that some commenters here have a soft spot for.

            1. God you’re a fucking dildo. The dual sovereignty doctrine was first introduced in court dicta in 1852. You know, 9 years before the confederacy actually existed? And it wasn’t until 1922 that it was ever actually applied – to a case where a man called Vito Lanza was tried under both state and federal alcohol prohibition laws.

              1. Thus, the end of Amendment V’s prohibition of double jeopardy was brought about by the Progressive movement.

                The only document Progressives hate more than the Constitution is the Declaration. The former attempts to constrain the scope of government’s authority, the latter denies government’s legitimacy whenever it opposes natural law.

    2. Defense attorney smacking around the media now.

      And doing a damn good job of it to.

  21. I’m watching the race baiting network, MSNBC. Same old tired bs from Sharpton, Perry and the rest of the racists there.

    Question, does their bullshit appeal to anyone anymore?

    1. Sharpton was incoherently rambling. Mumble mumble Tea Party…mumble mumble Republican..mumble DOJ ramble ramble…

      1. Isn’t Zimmerman a registered Democrat?

        1. Hes not the right kind of Hispanic Democrat.

      2. Shrike is Al Sharpton?

        1. DK| 7.13.13 @ 11:26PM |#
          “Shrike is Al Sharpton?”

          Beat me to it.

        2. Al is both prettier and more cogent than Shrike.

          1. Al looks like he’s dying

            1. Can we hope? The world would gain!

      3. Slammer| 7.13.13 @ 11:15PM |#
        ‘Sharpton was incoherently rambling. Mumble mumble Tea Party…mumble mumble Republican..mumble DOJ ramble ramble..”

        So, shreek?

        1. Didn’t mention Cheney, didn’t say christfag. Looks like Sharpton isn’t shrike.

        2. And uhh, Sharpton is a christfag. He’s a Christian Reverend.

          1. Calling yourself a Christian Reverend doesn’t make you one. The Phelpsians call themselves a church too but I refuse to call them that because they’re fucking shitheads that if they were on fire, Jesus himself wouldn’t piss on them to put out the flames.

      4. Sharpton: “I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I’ve seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed and someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies. … Even at trial when he is exposed over and over again as a liar, he is acquitted is not automatically convicted of murder.”

        Clearly, this man needs power and influence.

        1. It’s amazing how people are acting like Zimmerman just rolled up and shot Martin. There was obviously a physical altercation, and Zimmerman was getting punched in the face and had his head shoved into the sidewalk. We can’t know for sure who started it, but precisely because of that, we can’t convict Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt.

          1. Al Sharpton is a politician, not a person.

            1. Sharpton is far from the only one to make a comment like that

              1. Local talk radio in San Francisco has been unbelievable tonight. KGO, which considers itself middle-of-the-road talk (therefore, because it’s the Bay Area, it would be considered far left anywhere else) has had an anchor and callers just dumbfounded and outraged ever since the verdict. The best was an older-sounding white woman who called up in tears, saying “Trayvon was such a beautiful baby, who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Did you see him on that pony? What a treasure he was. Those jurors…they just had no idea about what happened. I know the real story, I could see it in Trayvon’s eyes.”

                1. According to his history and his own words, not only would he hurt a fly, but he had beaten up people before.

                  Of course, the tweets weren’t allowed into evidence.

                2. Anacreon, who’s the host? I used to listen a lot to KGO when I lived in the Bay Area, and I was consequently surprised when Bernie Ward got rung up for kiddie porn. I wouldn’t class Bill Wattenburg as very lefty, and I don’t think Gene Burns was, but the rest?

                  Jeez, going down memory lane…

                  1. GG, you gave me a nostalgia rush.

                    Bernie Ward was no surprise. He never looked like a talk show host, he looked like someone who had just eaten a talk show host. I would have called him the most brainless person on the radio until I discovered the wonders of Thom “I always confuse hydrogen and helium” Hartmann.

                    Len Tillum was absolutely delightful.

          2. It’s amazing how people are acting like Zimmerman just rolled up and shot Martin.Every one of the fucktards on TV who were “shocked” or “stunned” or “saddened” by the verdict went from “Martin was just walking home” to “Martin got shot.” They completely skip over the entire crux of case. What about the “Martin was beating on Martin and wouldn’t stop even when a witness called out to him”?

            1. Fuck.

    2. Think of it as a direct line to the administration.

    3. If their ratings are any indication, the answer to that question is no.

      1. The fucking left is split into roughly equal parts of people that think it’s 1880, 1930 or 1960.

        It’s 2013 dumb fucks not 1950.

  22. The “family’s” attorney thanks everyone that attended rallies and put their hoodies up.

    WTF?

    1. Heard that.

      It’s sad for the family, but man, the responses falling along narrative lines is retarded.

      Family attorney still talking about ‘racial undertones.’ WHERE WAS THE PROOF OF THIS?

      1. Shouldn’t be hard to prove Trayvon was black…

        Nuff said for some people just look at Facebook or twitter

  23. Prediction:

    There won’t be any riots despite the best efforts of the Jurassic Media?
    The Rodney King riots followed decades of abuse by an institutionally racist LAPD. This situation is completely different.

    1. I honestly think those who kept saying there would be riots were hoping that would be the outcome.

      1. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

      2. Agreed.

        It was a combination of race baiting pols, professional grievance mongers and their media enablers.

        The ‘protests’ are entirely contrived, astroturf.

      3. I honestly think those who kept saying there would be riots were hoping that would be the outcome.

        Maybe. I’m more of the opinion they were looking to pressure the jury.

    2. ^This!

      1. Time to get ol’ Arthur Hi-Point out….

      2. Fake vid.

  24. LET THE NONSENSE CONTINUE!

    Now, two months (at least) of faulty analysis about the meaning of it all…

    *barf*

  25. …Not in an effort to persecute George Zimmerman

    This woman speaking now is a fool

  26. What bed did Fox News pull Geraldo out of?

    And that black woman behind him looks like she has a loaf of bread on her head.

    1. I thought they were her brains.

    2. It appears his mustache was in a different bed.

      1. Imagine how much DNA he has collected with that thing.

        1. Gonna go find some mind bleach now. Thanks for that nightmare.

          1. I’m a giver.

            1. Too generous.

  27. For a perfect storm of outrage the DOJ should announce tomorrow they’re going to use NSA data picked up from Twitter to charge everyone who threatened Zimmerman’s life tonight with a hate crime.

    1. That would actually merit riots

    2. The hilarious thing is that apparently Twitter isn’t monitored by the government.

      Apparently some kid threatened to shoot up the town of Zion if he went free, and the hacking group Anonymous contacted authorities.

      The charge? Disorderly conduct, apparently

    3. What cracks me up is that a whole lot of jackasses have been threatening GZ’s life on twitter, and people have been having loads of fun retweeting those to the FBI, which is causing said jackasses to pull down said comments and cower.

  28. NAACP are outraged? Calling this an ‘injustice?’

    Wtf?

    The Justice Department is ‘evaluating the verdict?’

    Wow.

    What makes this case so unique from thousands of others that happen like this?

    And Sunny Hostin. Wow. Just wow. She’s ‘stunned?’ Her fucking narrative about ‘a kid went for a snack’ shtick was sickening.

    1. She said there was no justice but she ‘respects the system.’

      Fuck off.

      If you respect the system, you wouldn’t have a god damn issue with the fact the prosecution FAILED.

      Her bias and true colors showed.

      1. I think “respect the system” means “I’m graciously agreeing not to riot. In exchange for my forbearance, the least you can do is run the courts the way I want.”

    2. NAACP wants to repeal all stand your ground laws.

      It’s rare to see someone side with criminals.

      1. It’s rare to see someone side with criminals.

        Nah, it’s really common with liberals.

        1. Why does it seem like liberals side with cops in all the wrong instances?

          1. I dunno, they seem good on, like… Kent State.

            But not Waco, of course.

          2. Why does it seem like liberals side with cops in all the wrong instances?

            Because they side with criminals. You answered your own question.

      2. Have they not figured out that the law doesn’t apply in this case?

      3. Supposedly the most common group using the SYG as a defense is gang members.

    3. “The Justice Department is ‘evaluating the verdict?'”

      Is Obozo gonna announce a royal decree? Is Valerie Jarret working her personal blog this evening?

      1. In other words, Obama wants to look like he’s doing something or considering doing something. Par for the course.

    4. The Justice Department is ‘evaluating the verdict?’

      WTF does that even mean? Don’t tell me the Feds can override jury verdicts now.

      1. See the Rodney King retrial.

      2. WTF does that even mean? Don’t tell me the Feds can override jury verdicts now.

        The Feds can override jury verdicts now.

    5. My reading of the law is that the Feds have no case. The only criminal violations of civil rights law a person who is not a government official can commit are ones that interfere with exercises of civil rights, such as denying them the ability to vote, rent/buy a home or have access to public services.

      Zimmerman did none of those things.

      It’s an utter farce. I kind of hope they do try it. It will move the people to hate and disrespect the federal government even more. Sucks to be Zimmerman though.

      1. Get creative. GZ took away TM’s right to vote, buy a house, etc., by killing him. Hence, the civil rights violation.

        It wouldn’t surprise me.

      2. Mmmno, there have been “civil rights” cases brought against people who killed another person when the jury acquitted due to lack of evidence.

        There’s precedent. It’s happened before. There’s nothing unique about this case that would bar the DOJ from bringing a civil rights case, except for the fact that the race angle is really weak tea, and Zimmerman didn’t commit (wasn’t even charged with) premeditated murder, even by the broadest interpretation so it probably won’t happen.

    6. The Justice Department is ‘evaluating the verdict?’

      Doubleplusgood!

  29. FB comment:

    “It’s not about his skin color. It’s about the fact that he’s a kid who was shot by a man.”

    So it’s now illegal for an adult male to shoot a minor for any reason whatsoever? WTF?

    1. Well, that’s just going to ruin my Passover plans.

      1. What you did there, I see it

    2. It’s about the fact that he’s a kid who was shot by a man.

      By itself, shooting a person is not a criminal act. You would have to prove that the person acted maliciously, willfully, recklessly, or negligently.

      1. Obviously. Shooting someone in self-defense is not a crime. That was the whole point of contention in this case. Not sure how someone doesn’t get that.

        1. Calidissident| 7.13.13 @ 11:48PM |#
          …”Not sure how someone doesn’t get that.”

          Oh, I’ll bet you know full well how someone ‘doesn’t get that’.
          Shithead and shreek are constant reminders of willful ignorance masquerading as higher knowledge or intelligence.
          I’m sure I know how someone ‘doesn’t get that’; it’s because they’re lying assholes, that’s how.

    3. Shoot, yes. Drone, no.

      1. Barry has put safeguards in place. Secret safeguards. Nobody but al-Qaeda super-terrorists are on the receiving end of Drone Process.

  30. Robert Zimmerman Jr. speaking very well.

    1. …Bob Dylan?

      1. Eyyyenh ahhhhyuh annnnuh!

        1. http://vimeo.com/7996297

          But seriously, I’m hard-pressed to find another song I like better than this live, electric version of “Shelter from the Storm.”

        2. Still better than his harmonica playing. 40, 50 years – STILL can’t play that goddamned thing.

    2. Never watched Morgan before, God what a pillock.

  31. Piers Mrogan IS A GIGANTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

    1. How is this different from any other day?

  32. Zimmerman is PUMMELING Morgan.

    1. I see what you did there,

    2. Jesus, Morgan how many ways can you ask the same fucking question?

  33. My fucking God – I made the mistake of checking Facebook.

    *deactivates account*

    It’s THAT fucking retarded. More than the 2008 and 2012 elections combined. It’s the end of justice in America. “I cried and cried…” Post a picture of yourself in a hoodie.

    GAH!!! I’m fucking OUT. And no news channels for at least a month. Jesus fuck me but this is stupid.

    1. I’m just hoping all the people who are posting “I’ve had it with FL” move. Good. Take you SWPL lifestyle with you.

      1. Heh heh! Exactly.

    2. There are many reasons I’m not on Facecrapbook, and this is just one of them.

  34. Oh dear lord, in two years, if Newsroom is still on their whole season will be about this case and Sandy Hook.

    1. Two years?

      1. I thought that was the concept. They do it that way so they can set up the perfect response from their super reporters.

        1. I was thinking more like two weeks, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right

    2. “A gun-wielding vigilante from the local homeowners’ association chases a black youth into his high school and starts machine-gunning every black kid he sees because ‘they all look alike.’ An armed teacher tries to stop the rampage, but accidentally shoots 100 more children.”

      1. Don’t give them ideas

      2. “An armed teacher tries to stop the rampage, but accidentally shoots 100 more children.”

        That’s only plausible if the teacher was (or is) a cop.

        1. Considering the accuracy of cops in most officer involved shootings, the kids would probably never be safer.

    3. Newsroom can’t last. It’s 10x worse than Enlightened, which wasn’t bad and got canned after what, the first season?

  35. Now I really have a taste for a nice steak. Damn – I wish it wasn’t so late. I’d pay someone to make one for me, but all the restaurants are closed.

    SHIT!

    #FirstWorldProblems

    1. Go to a store, buy steak, party favors and booze and let people know what you are celebrating.

      1. Wearing a monocle.

    2. I had to stop watching CNN because I was gonna throw my slipper at the TV and I don’t want to ruin it.

      This was just a sad tragedy in which a jury found the defendant not guilty.

      Jesus fuck, this skittles narrative is retarded.

      1. Jesus dude what kind of slippers do you have that would ruin a TV?

        1. Does the word “slippers” have a different meaning in Canada?

          1. He might have been worried about ruining his nice slipper by hitting the shit that is CNN

            1. The Bay brand – so yes, I guess Canadian.

              I ain’t ruining my TV for that jerk off Morgan.

              1. It’s hard to ruin it any more than Morgan’s mug could.

          1. Canadian slippers, though. Don’t they double as galoshes/snowshoes/crampons?

            1. I own pairs of galoshes. I sometimes, when feeling frisky, wear them on the house with nothing but my SCTV underwear, a ski tuque and a 1955 Doug Harvey Montreal Canadiens t-shirt with ‘Dougie’ emblazoned on the back.

              Come to think of it, it’s time to buy snowshoes.

  36. Well, the good thing about all this is that I know which Facebook friends to delete: the ones who change their profile picture to a stylized image of a black, faceless figure in a hoodie.

    1. That’s their idea of defending liberty.

  37. You know most of the crowd would usually be happy that the prosecution lost a case involving a black man.

    1. Joaquin Castro ? @JoaquinCastrotx
      Defense attorney Mark O’Mara may incite a riot by his arrogance alone. Talk about adding insult to injury.

      Meanwhile, Barry takes a few victory laps around Bin Laden’s corpse which couldn’t possibly piss off the Muslim world.

      But I forget, the nomenklatura have certain privileges we lowly workers do not. For the good of the party.

      1. The “BLACKS GON’ RIOT” meme is so transparently paternalistic and race-baiting, I’m surprised to see libs giving it any credence. Honestly. I’d expect more nuance from people who know how their bread is buttered.

        1. The “BLACKS GON’ RIOT” meme is so transparently paternalistic and race-baiting, I’m surprised to see libs giving it any credence.

          Why? The Progressives are both paternalistic and racist. To their worldview, black people are children who would resort to rioting and eating each other without the firm hand of Mother and Father Government to guide them.

          1. Because I expect more nuance from them. It’s one thing for unaffiliated or openly conservative folk to suggest that blacks will riot, because it betrays a racist distrust of black people. It’s another thing for an openly lib commentator to suggest it, because it’s akin to suggesting that blacks cannot control themselves and the Zimmerman acquittal is perforce bad news. I expect leftists to keep their racism discrete.

            1. Because I expect more nuance from them.

              This was your first mistake.

            2. Dammit.

              Because I expect more nuance from them.

              This was your first mistake.

              1. It was ok the way you had it.

          2. It’s not just the progressives. Drudge has been gleefully predicting riots for months.

  38. Also, I will never, EVER buy Skittles. I hadn’t up till now, but with all the talk about it in this case, I’ve confirmed I’ll never even consider trying them in the future.

    Fuck you, media and race hucksters. Fuck you with a large bag of Skittles.

    1. It’s not Skittles Wrigley’s fault a bunch of people jumped on their product to express indignation.

      1. But I don’t give a shit whose “fault” it is. It wasn’t Kip Winger’s fault Mike Judge made him the object of scorn on a very popular TV show, either.

        Ain’t ever eatin’ no Skittles! NEVER!

  39. To conservatives, this was a gun issue and they were all certain that Zimmerman was innocent. To liberals, this was all about race and they were certain Zimmerman was guilty. But the fact is, this case should never have even gone to trial because, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, not a single soul really knows what happened and, because of that, the prosecution case was no case at all. There was a boat load of reasonable doubt. The jury should have been pissed that the state wasted their time on a case that was nothing but politics from the very beginning.

    No one was going to be convinced by the verdict in this case either way because almost everyone had their minds made up before the trial ever began. And since there was never enough evidence available to spell out what really happened during the actual confrontation, people are going to stick to their preconceived notions.

    In the end, this case was never going to make a meaningful statement about racial injustice any way you slice it. Racial injustice is routinely delivered unto blacks in a far more destructive way via the drug war. It sends them to prison by the truck load making them practically unemployable. It tears apart their families and it keeps them mired in poverty. Why aren’t they rioting over that?

    1. To conservatives, this was a gun issue and they were all certain that Zimmerman was innocent. To liberals, this was all about race and they were certain Zimmerman was guilty.

      Bzzzzt. The liberals made it a gun issue from day one, in particular an issue of Stand Your Ground laws.

    2. This case had no meaningful input from conservatives whatsoever. Conservatives were not the ones applying political pressure to bring the case to trial; conservatives are not the ones who threatened to riot if the trial didn’t go their way.

      Liberals have been on the offense with this case wrt race and gun issues from day one.

      1. Ok. You’re right if Fox News doesn’t count as conservative.

        Oh, wait. You said “meaningful”. Never mind.

        1. New troll?

          1. Look who’s profiling now.

        2. If you can list one (1) way in which this case’s proceedings changed as a result of Fox News reportage or conservative influence, I’ll eat my hat.

          I can list several ways in which progs have influenced this case’s proceedings…

          1. I can list several ways in which progs have influenced this case’s proceedings…

            There’s only one that matters: it went to trial.

            1. *checks notes*

              Yep, that’s number one on the list.

            2. There’s also the sheriff getting fired and the IT guy that caught the prosecution hiding evidence getting fired.

    3. The issue was guns, race was just a lever used to push the case along.

      Lefties absolutely hate guns in the hands of everyday people. People having the ability to defend themselves without relying on the government is something that horrifies them.

      Though make no mistake, they also view everyone not on the left as pure evil, so through their view, when someone has a gun, it can only be that they are going to murder someone.

      1. I don’t know if it’s quite that explicit. My experience with lefties suggests that they just hate guns period and view police having guns as a necessary evil. They would prefer a British style society where even the police don’t have guns.

  40. http://www.talkleft.com/story/…..Conference

    Another marker of American cultural decline (none / 0) (#9)
    by Palli on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:26:31 PM EST

    American society under Conceal Carry and Stand Your Ground laws has been changed, American democratic progress reversed.

    African American must always be afraid and so should we all. People make guns kill. We are all African Americans now.

    Lawyers will be paid and consciences are clear.

    And the gunslingers are cheering.

    1. “African American must always be afraid and so should we all. People make guns kill. We are all African Americans now.”

      And I’m sure this twit has no knowledge that the gun laws were intended to dis-arm blacks in the south.
      IOWs, s/he is one more lefty ignoramus,

    2. African American must always be afraid and so should we all. People make guns kill. We are all African Americans now.

      Meanwhile, there are some black people being pulled over, harrassed, and cited (read: taxed) by the state’s paid goon squad (read: the police).

      But what am I saying? A badge and a public employees’ union makes the “gunslingers” okay.

    3. What makes me sick about things like that is black on black crime is the biggest problem.

      If the honest blacks had guns, there would be much less crime against blacks.

    4. Dunno. The comments seem to be rather, on the balance, good.

  41. Wow, Roddy White. Really?

    Roddy White ?@roddywhiteTV 1h
    All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid

    1. Maybe the Pats will trade A-Hern for him.

    2. Good thing I don’t watch The Price is Right anymore

    3. Nice. Impressive.

  42. We have a great criminal justice system, baldy?

  43. An extremely liberal Facebook “friend” (someone I went to elementary school with) posted a picture of Jay Smooth and a quote by him “The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans”
    At first I was trying to understand what that quote even means…until I realized, why would I fucking care what someone named “Jay Smooth” thinks?

    1. I’m sure we’ll see a spate of people dissing young men and taking a beating so they can legally kill.

    2. I think what he means is that all us gun owners are now ’emboldened’ by the verdict and will commence to running up and down our street, shooting every suspicious black person we see while standing our ground.

  44. Btw, I sincerely believe the race mongers secretly love this decision. It feeds their business.

  45. EriKKK Holder: “Get the rope, saddle the horses and put on the hoods.”

    1. EriKKK Holder: Damn, I can’t see fuckin’ shit out of this thing.

      Valery Jerrett: Are we ready or what?

      Holder: Ah, hold on. I’m fuckin’ with my eyeholes. Shit, just makin’ it worse (yanks off hood).

      John KKKerry: Who made this goddamn shit?

      Holder: Obama’s wife.

      Obama: Well, make your own goddamn mask!

      Holder: Look, nobody’s saying they don’t appreciate what Michelle did.

      Kerry: Well, if all I had to do was cut a hole in a bag, I could’ve cut it better than this!

  46. So when does Tony chime in?

    1. Tony lives in a gated community, he’s not worried about riots.

  47. Shouldn’t the headline be “George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty of Murdering Travon Martin”? I mean, he was clearly guilty of killing him, no?

    1. yes yes

  48. Not only is Trayvon Martin Obama’s Son, He’s Also Emmett Till

    He referenced another killing of a black youth that many have compared to the Trayvon Martin slaying, the 1955 killing of 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was killed in Mississippi for allegedly flirting with a white woman. “Trayvon Martin’s case has focused a generation the same way that the Emmett Till case focused a generation 60 years ago. I had hoped that this time we would get a verdict that fit the gravity of the case.”

    The Rev. Al Sharpton, who led thousands of protesters in Sanford seeking a prosecution of Trayvon’s killer, called the verdict “a sad day in the country” and “a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.”

    “I think this is an atrocity,” Sharpton said. “It is probably one of the worst situations that I have seen.”

    Jesse Jackson called the verdict “Old South justice.”

    Those women on the jury imagined that Trayvon Martin had whistled at them.

    1. Comparing the two situations is insulting to Emmett Till

      1. Seriously. The lack of proportionality is stunning.

      2. If there’s any justice, Zombie Emmet Till will rise from his grave and take revenge on them.

        1. Who, the women on the jury or the people fielding a bad analogy?

        2. Also, I’d prefer a zombie Jethro Tull, so he could go on tour with Ian Anderson et al. as The Official Jethro Tull, performing badass vaudevillian concert pieces a la Alice Cooper.

      3. Comparing the two situations is insulting to Emmett Till

        God this x 1000.

        1. Ditto that.

      4. These people are so fucking racist it’s amazing. That they would compare this to Emmit Till… yeah, just insanely insulting, but also historically fucking ignorant.

  49. And another bald idiot on CNN.

  50. Since the jury came up with the wrong verdict, the NAACP is promising to get the DOJ to retry Zimmerman. That’s what makes America such a great country. The federal government is always there to serve up some politically based justice if a jury of one’s peers fails to satisfy the angry mob.

    Sorry, George. Did you actually think that an acquittal meant something? Not in the New America.

    1. Isn’t there something in that Constitution thingy that says something like you can’t be tried for the same crime twice? I mean, I know it’s like 100 years old, and was written in Old English by dead slaveowning white men, but I’m pretty sure it’s there

      1. If they care at all, they’ll try him for something different. Civil rights is a different charge.

        1. That’s just circumventing. It’s still the same crime. And if what tarran said upthread is correct, there’s no way they can legally charge him on civil rights charges, even excluding double jeopardy. This doesn’t fall under any of the laws, unless Zimmerman was a cop/public employee, which he isn’t

          1. The justification is not that it’s a different crime, it’s a crime against a different sovereign.

            1. You’re slightly confused. You can’t actually be tried again on the same charge. All the doctrine does is allow the feds to come in after a failed prosecution and attempt to find a secondary charge they can try to prosecute on. But it has to be a seperate and distinct charge that was not included in the previous case, they cannot retry the same case.

      2. Dual sovereignty; crimes against the feds are not the same as crimes against a state.

        Total poppycock of course, but like federal civil rights prosecution, it was invented to circumvent Jim Crow era Southern juries’ reluctance to convict white people for crimes against blacks.

        1. it was invented to circumvent Jim Crow era Southern juries’ reluctance to convict white people for crimes against blacks.

          You mean in pre-Civil War 1852? Or in 1922 when the doctrine was first applied to a bootlegger under fucking prohibition laws?

      3. They don’t try you for the same crime twice, they try you for ‘civil rights violations’.

        It’s been done before. I’m just not sure that the DOJ has the balls on this one.

        1. Huh? It’s this DOJ, and this is exactly the kind of shit that will win back some of their base.

        2. There is no double jeopardy (legally speaking) if there’s a federal charge after a state verdict, even if the elements are the same.

          1. (bullshitly speaking)

            1. Yeah, we’ll, I don’t agree with it. But it’s settled law, regardless.

              1. Understood.

  51. I am waiting to see if the left tries to devour the all female jury, and what tact they will use. I predict they will now focus on the idea that there was just not enough African Americans on the jury, therefore unfair. In fact I just heard the first “…mostly white jury” comment on Fox just now.

    Also heard another total idiot blathering away…to paraphrase…”Micheal Vick killed a dog and got 3 years, but Zimmerman killed an African American kid and gets nothing. He didn’t shot Treyvon because he was a Baptist, so what else could have been the reason?”

    It was a truly epically awful argument.

    1. That might be the worst argument ever.

    2. Micheal Vick killed a dog and got 3 years

      Incorrect information. Vick wasn’t incarcerated for killing a dog (because he personally didn’t kill any animals). He was incarcerated for running an illegal gambling operation.

      but Zimmerman killed an African American kid and gets nothing

      Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman admitted it. However, Zimmerman did not murder Martin and no facts introduced into evidence support a claim of murder.

      He didn’t shot Treyvon because he was a Baptist, so what else could have been the reason?

      Zimmerman was in fear for his life?

    3. Ok, so I rewound and watched it again. I still have the jist of it right, but the exact wording is a paraphrasing. The Guy’s name was Rod Wheeler, and he was saying this at the very end of Geraldo’s coverage of the event. Perhaps a video will emerge.

  52. After reading facebook comments, as well as articles and quotes from media members, it’s amazing how so many people in this country, even supposedly intelligent and educated people, can’t even understand the basic facts or legal concepts of the case. The number of people saying “Zimmerman obviously killed him, how is he not guilty?” or something similar is astounding.

    1. I was flipping through and heard some “legal expert” woman on Headline News say that the acquittal of Zimmerman is basically a conviction of Martin for aggravated assault. Supposedly one of the finest legal minds in the country, and she apparently doesn’t even know there are different standards of proof for prosecution of a crime and defense against it.

  53. http://gawker.com/zimmermans-b…..-774157551

    Why the hell are these people such sensationalists? It’s so damn irresponsible, yet they are obvious to this fact. Morgan repeatedly referred to Martin as an unnamed boy, just trying to make it home with his skittles, and a response such as this is supposed to be surprising or outraging? I thought it was relatively tame considering.

    The only response I can muster for the comments is a sigh.

    1. It’s especially strange since Skittle trafficking would probably be illegal if Michelle O. had her way.

    2. I don’t really see why Z’s brother brought that up. It has absolutely no effect on whether or not George Zimmerman committed murder

      1. Because kids who smoke weed are violent. Reefer madness.

        1. That settles it.

          Outlaw Skittles!

          Fixed.

  54. I watched the interview, and pretty much feel the guy smacked Morgan over the head with the actual facts of the case every time he tried to pull his BS. The part they are taking out of context was nothing like they are implying it was. He didn’t even want to answer the question, they let the other guy in at the last second to ask some bizarre question, and that’s what he eventually came up with. Should have just let it go since they are analyzing every word looking for something to take out of context.

    Try not to venture over to the Huffpost to see their headline…

    1. Pretty sure that this has become some sort of esoteric competition. Only the enlightened few know.

    2. Personally, I avoid the PuffHo in much the same way that I avoid herpes.

  55. I’m just waiting to be told how the Koch brothers are responsible for killing Travyon Martin again.

    1. Wait, what?

      1. Surely there are liberals out there who will seek to place the blame squarely on the Kochs.

        1. you said “again” so I assumed it had already been done

          1. Killing him again as in for the second time (because of Zimmerman’s acquittal).

  56. Stefan Molyneux:

    Before we get to the questions, however, there are a few additional thoughts I would like to share about this whole mess.

    The “Child” Victim?
    Referring to Trayvon Martin, who was 17, as a “child,” is lowlife propaganda at its most obvious. Can you imagine a 17-year-old actor being referred to as a “child actor”? Given that most teenagers are allowed to drive at the age of 16, have you ever seen an article referring to the modern horror of allowing children to get behind the wheels of cars? You can join the US military at the age of 17 with signed parental consent, have you seen many articles raging against the practice of the US army in recruiting children as soldiers? When a 17-year-old Onar ?merican soldier is killed overseas, did you see articles reporting the death of a child?

    1. Molyneux:

      The “Unarmed” Victim?
      With dull, monotonous, metronome repetition, the mainstream media refers to Martin as “unarmed.” Only hyper-liberal victim mongers completely unaware of the reality of gun ownership would imagine that the word “unarmed” somehow invalidates shooting an attacker in self-defense, or that the word “unarmed” somehow translates into “harmless.”
      One of the main purposes of gun ownership is to protect yourself from people who are going to attack you without a gun. I mean, come on, just think about it for a moment ? how many people buy a handgun to protect themselves from snipers? Well, no one, because if someone is going to shoot you from a distance, without warning, your handgun isn’t going to do much to protect you, now is it?

      1. The second paragraph’s pretty weak. There are weapons besides guns that people are attempting to protect themselves from, and the lack of weapon use on the part of the alleged attacker always makes self-defense harder to prove.

      2. Well, actually, the thing about shooting people at a distance is that it’s not so easy. At least with a handgun.

        Look at police – they typically empty their whole magazine, yet only hit a few times.

        There’s a saying, it doesn’t matter who shoots first, it matters who shoots last.

    2. Molyneux:

      If Trayvon Martin was in possession of the handgun he was reportedly trying to acquire, and if he had decided to kill George Zimmerman, he would have shot him from the bushes, without warning, and Zimmerman’s gun would have done nothing to help or save him.

      So yes, Martin was in fact unarmed. So was Mike Tyson when he bit someone’s ear off. So were Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and Richard Speck – all serial killers who didn’t use guns. So were the little old lady poisoners in the movie “Arsenic and Old Lace.” So what? Self-defense does not require that your attacker be armed with a gun, a hand grenade, a rocket launcher, a bag of killer bees or have the ability to call in an airstrike. It only requires that you believe with reasonable justification that you are in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death.

      1. Dahmer, Gacy, and Speck all used knives and thus were armed.

    3. Molyneux:

      And, if memory serves, the capacity of human beings to cause bodily harm to each other did not magically appear with the first handgun.
      As propaganda goes, the worst part about it is that it’s also pathetically transparent. Personally, I prefer my neurolinguistic programming just a little bit more sophisticated. This stuff is all sort of on the level of “monkey want a banana?”

      1. This stuff is all sort of on the level of “monkey want a banana?”

        RACIST!

    4. Of course not ? the word is only used to inflame prejudice and provoke base-of-the-brain parental protection instincts.

      1. ^^^This should go under the first paragraph.

  57. Good stuff from Lupe Fiasco, who sang those anti-Obama lyrics during the inauguration party.

    “Nobody knows what really happened except trayvon and Zimmerman. The justice system relies on reasonable doubt not our emotions.”

    “Rub your face in it! Swallow down that hard pill! Black blood spills in the streets of America nightly at the hands other blacks”

    1. Old Lupe Fiasco… he rarely misses.

    2. It’s a sad day when a rap artist (or really any celebrity famous for entertainment) is 1000x more rational than virtually the entirety of the MSM and many politicians

  58. Proof that no good deed goes unpunished: IT director who raised questions about Zimmerman case is fired.

    Cliffs: IT guy working for FL State Atty’s Office claimed that prosecutors didn’t turn over to the defense, all of the texts and pictures in Martin’s phone. DA’s office ignored him, and he got canned when he told the defense team anyway. FTA:

    Kruidbos testified before Zimmerman’s trial began that Martin’s cell phone contained images of Martin blowing smoke, images of marijuana and deleted text messages regarding a transaction for a firearm and that those images had not been given to Zimmerman’s defense team.
    He received the termination letter, dated July 11, on Friday, the same day jurors began deliberating Zimmerman’s case. The letter states: “It has come to our attention that you violated numerous State Attorney’s Office (SAO) policies and procedures and have engaged in deliberate misconduct that is especially egregious in light of your position.” Kruidbos said that, when he printed a 900-page Florida Department of Law Enforcement report from Martin’s cell phone in late 2012 or early 2013, he noticed information was missing.
    Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney’s Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

    1. He received the termination letter, dated July 11, on Friday, the same day jurors began deliberating Zimmerman’s case. The letter states: “It has come to our attention that you violated numerous State Attorney’s Office (SAO) policies and procedures and have engaged in deliberate misconduct that is especially egregious in light of your position.”

      So the State Attorney’s office admitted, in writing, that withholding evidence is their official policy.

  59. Wonder if that guy who was fired from Chief of Police after thirty years’ service for saying that Zimmerman was justified under SYG will receive any sort of apology.

    1. He wasn’t justified under SYG. He was justified over prior self-defense law.

      1. You have no idea what you’re talking about, as usual.

        1. No, he’s right. SYG wasn’t a part of his defense at all and has no relevance. The Police Chief said it wasn’t relevant either.

    2. He didn’t get fired for “saying that Zimmerman was justified under SYG”, he was fired because the City Council didn’t have confidence in him any more.

      Actually, it looks to me like he was an embarrassment to them.

      1. Actually the word I was looking for was “scapegoat”.

        This case brought the wrong kind of attention to Sanford. someone had to be sacrificed.

        1. Or as Scottie Pippen once put it “escape goat”.

  60. Still more FTA:

    Kruidbos said he generated a report that was more than three times the size of the one that had been handed over.
    For example, Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos.
    Kruidbos also said that he has been told to not put specific case-identifying information into internal e-mails.
    Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman’s defense team that the information existed.

    In court, Kruidbos testified that he was concerned that he could be held liable if all information wasn’t shared. “All the information is important in the process to ensure it’s a fair trial,” he said.

    Provided all of his allegations are true, and they fired him for that, I hope he owns their asses in the wrongful termination suit. Followed by a misconduct action from the FL Bar Association against the responsible state attorneys.

    And then I want a pony that shits Neapolitan ice cream…

  61. A huffpost comment about supposed protests in Oakland: “I’m about twenty minutes outside of Oakland. The protest didn’t look like much last time I saw it on the news. A bunch of younger people just walking down the street committing small acts of vandalism. Someone burned an American flag as well. All rather tame thankfully.” Right, someone’s property getting vandalized is so tame. It was also a small act of vandalism because the person only broke one window instead of two. Thank goodness for the TAMENESS!!11!!

    1. We’re talking about Oakland here. If anything, the rioters are probably keeping the usual criminals off the street.

      1. True, one of my facebook “friends” just shared the occupyLA post about the trayvon protests, and I just about pulled my hair out reading all of the comments, I mean people are just….. I don’t even know.

    2. Right, someone’s property getting vandalized is so tame. It was also a small act of vandalism because the person only broke one window instead of two.

      Easily repaired vandalism isn’t really vandalism. Haven’t you been keeping up?

      1. Pfft, does it even really matter actually? All property is just a gift from the state anyways that they can take back whenever they please, so up yours!

  62. Obama could have Zimmerman deported. After all, now he can get his hispanic heritage back.

    1. Zimmerman would be smart to take that “self deportation” option, IMO.

      1. I dunno, they hate him even more in other countries.

        I mean, in foreign countries, the media is almost entirely left wing. They’ve been painting him just as villainously as our media.

        1. Alaska is where he should go.

  63. Now that this clusterfuck is over, all I want to know is… who won the bet?

    On a completely different matter, contemplate the question: Was Tulpa always a troll and we merely made him rip off the mask, or was he an honest commenter with a fragile ego that we broke?

    1. I said that it would be no worse than a hung jury. I never believed he would be convicted of anything. Juries have a really good habit of rising to the occasion. It really is one of the last bulwarks we have against tyranny. Even the President can’t bully a jury into convicting someone.

      1. I said the same. At best, a hung jury.
        There was clearly no evidence to prove George was the instigator in the physical conflict.

        1. Here is the thing, even if you think Zimmerman is guilty, I don’t think anyone can reasonably say that the jury didn’t try to do the right thing even if you don’t agree with them.

          If ever there was a case that would cause a jury to make a decision either way for the wrong reasons it was this one. And that appears not to have happened. And that is a good thing.

          1. Go Florida…for once.

    2. Honest commenter with a fragile ego. I wanted to go with troll but then remembered he’s a professor, a group of people known for fragile egos.

        1. Heh. There isn’t much opportunity for pushback in mathematics as reasonable people CAN’T disagree in that subject. But in any case, a quick review of my history here will disperse any belief that I can’t roll with the punches, however much the commentariat narrative demands such a viewpoint now.

          1. If you can roll with the punches, why do you avoid the subthreads which destroy your “dual sovereigns theory as a result of Jim Crow” assertions?

            1. Oooooooh. Kitty’s got some scratch.

              1. So you don’t have an answer to his question?

                1. I do, but I’m not sharing it.

      1. If I had a fragile ego I would have been gone the first time EpiSugWart called me a retard and accused me of sexual behavior that they supposedly have no problem with (but still use it to insult people nonetheless). Considering the source does wonders for commenter longevity.

        I finally left for the most part when it became clear this place had become Libertarian Kos. Enjoy your echo chamber.

        1. If you “finally left” why are you still here commenting?

          1. “for the most part”

            1. You have like 40 something posts on this thread alone.

              1. And no posts on any other thread from the past few weeks.

                I shouldn’t have come back, I agree, as it’s easy for me to get distracted by pointless Internet arguments. It was such a momentous event that I had to see what my acquaintances at the ol’ Echo C. were up to.

                1. Tulpa just can’t quit us.

                  1. Consider this thread a nicoderm patch.

                2. “And no posts on any other thread from the past few weeks.”

                  Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about this?

                  I’ll give you one chance to walk it back.

                3. And no posts on any other thread from the past few weeks.

                  Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 6.30.13 @ 11:23PM
                  All I know is that it happened a couple of days after she praised me in a thread and said I was a positive influence on Reason, keeping people intellectually honest. Then, poof, gone.

                  13 days is not within the “past few weeks” I guess.

                  Of course, he is too afraid to read my posts, so I guess he won’t see me proving that he is a lair… like I have so many times before.

  64. And the Left isn’t even going to get a good race riot out of this. Six months from now no one will remember who Zimmerman is. You watch.

    1. As a proud member of the left, I am hopeful that no riot or mass civil disturbance will take place.

      Trayvon did receive justice. He at least got a hearing. Didn’t think a trial was necessary. A Grand Jury hearing would had been fine. They probably would had never indicted.

      1. Not all of the left, just some of it. And I wouldn’t have rioted at he been convicted. I wouldn’t have liked it. But you have to live with they jury trial. I didn’t like the OJ verdict. But I sure as hell would not have wanted him retried or taken to federal court.

  65. No living somebody knows what happened except George.
    Our system is designed this way so I am satisfied with the Jury’s vertict.

    However, George was responsible for Trayvon’s death…although not criminally.

    1. “However, George was responsible for Trayvon’s death…although not criminally.”

      I have to respectfully disagree with you there. Trayvon is responsible for Trayvon’s death. George his responsible for saving his own life – this simply required Trayvon’s death because of Trayvon’s actions.

      1. None of us really know. We don’t know who instigated. And, since we don’t know, George was, rightfully acquitted. And we should all be satisfied with this verdict. I feel the jury came to it in good faith.

        1. I agree that George was, rightfully acquitted. I am more than satisfied with this verdict.

        2. Of course nobody knows with certainty that wasn’t actually there. But all existing evidence points to that, and not a single shred of evidence was produced that contradicts it. Any other conclusion would be unreasonable.

  66. I think the FEDs should bud out. There’s no grounds here for civil rights violation. Other than the usual police-like racial profiling by Zimmerman, there’s no evidence that the colors BLACK/WHITE played a role. The only color that plays a role here is BLUE. A police-like action that, if you asked me, George Zimmerman Botched-up.

    Trayvon finally did get justice. I think the jury took a fair look at his killing. Perhaps not the verdict the family wanted, but this is our system. What would have been injustice was if there were not hearing at all.

    1. The feds have no interest here. This was a confrontation between two people and nothing more. If this case has federal implications, then every case involving two people of different races does. It is a local case. It was a tough case and the jury made its decision.

      This kind of thing happens every day in this country. Most people are convicted. But some are acquitted and some never have charges brought. If you can’t live with that, you can’t live with a justice system.

      1. And, this is the best justice system on the planet today. I’d rather let 10 guilty men go free that convict an innocent guy.

  67. http://www.thedailybeast.com/c…..alism.html

    This is right out of Soviet Russia.

  68. The thing with this case is that most people are not nuts. Most people are reasonable. The idiots on twitter, half of whom I am convinced were white leftist mobies sockpuppeting to stir up trouble, are not representative of black people in general. Opinions on this case probably do split based on race. But that doesn’t mean black people are going to burn shit down anymore than it would have meant white people were going to do so had he been convicted. Fuck all of the racists who were so convinced that black people are so irrational and violent they would stage a riot over this.

    1. Agree 100%.

      The true “Race-Baiters” where not people that felt Zimmerman was criminally responsible. The Race-Baiters where not all the people that felt Zimmerman was innocent.

      The true Race-Baiters were the ones referring to Trayvon as some sort of thug and kept professing violence by the part of blacks.

      Many white kids in this country dress like him, smoke weed, say silly things on face book, get into fights, etc.

      1. No. The race baiters were the ones saying this case had anything to do with “justice” for anyone but the people involved. That is race baiting. This case had nothing to do with justice for black people or white people or anyone else. This case was about the two people involved. The race baiters were the ones saying it meant something beyond that.

        All of that I saw was on the part of people who wanted a convicting. But, if anyone on the other side said this case said anything about the larger issue of whether white people can get a fair shake, they were race bating too.

        The worst offender was the President. The media have always been whores who would do anything to get a few ratings. But the President is supposed to be better. That a President would comment on a local murder case, that wasn’t an obvious hate crime, before there was even a trial and try to use it to make political points was disgraceful.

        1. Don’t think the president was the worst offender.

          John, I don’t think (and I’m almost sure), that you are black. Black people have a different opinion on this.

          I am a mixture of both races, making me a proud member of neither. And I can tell you I see both sides from the emotional standpoint.

          1. I am a mixture of both races

            You are George Zimmerman

          2. Sure black people have a different opinion. But that is all the more reason for the President to stay out of it. It is a local case. He has no interest in it. And he is supposed to be the President of the entire country, not just black people.

            What did he accomplish by giving that speech beyond inflaming people’s passions about this case? It was precisely the kind of thing people elected Obama not to do.

            1. Sure black people have a different opinion

              Which ties back to our conversation about the media. How many people actually paid attention to the facts of this case, beyond what was presented by a media that was hell bent on painting Zimmerman as a racist.

            2. What did he accomplish by giving that speech beyond inflaming people’s passions about this case?

              This simply highlights the hypocrisy of the “African-American community”. Where’s the “Million Hoodie March”, or the presidential speech condemning all the black on black violence that happens every day in America? The race baiters rushed to judgement as an opportunity to shove the old stereotypes down our throats. Unfortunately, they didn’t bother to find out that Zimmerman is every bit the minority that Martin was. The cat was already out of the bag, so the race baiters had to use the media to spin the story to fit the narrative.

              1. Thousands of young black men die or go to prison every year because they have been infected with this horrible view of masculinity that says you must respond with violence every time you feel that someone is disrespectful to you.

                If you live like that, one of two things will happen. Either you will finally really hurt someone and end up in prison or you will finally run into someone who is better armed and more dangerous than you and you will end up dead.

                We will never know what happened for sure. But even Martin’s biggest defenders have to admit it is at least a decent possibility that Martin attack Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him. And maybe we should ask ourselves why Martin felt being followed was worthy of doubling back and attacking Zimmerman instead of going back to his uncle’s house. What causes someone to be that violent?

                1. As long as we’re speculating on things we can never prove, I think Jeantel egged Martin on to fight the cracker and that’s why she didn’t want any part of anything to do with the case.

                  The idea that you’re talking to a friend who’s being followed and then the call cuts off and you don’t even try to find out what happened for days just doesn’t pass the smell test.

                  1. That is an interesting theory NEM. We will never know, but that is entirely possible. Martin wouldn’t be the first or the last man to get egged on into doing something stupid to impress a woman.

        2. And for the record, I know several black people who agree with Zimmerman. And ironically, all of them grew up in very bad neighborhoods and look at Martin and think “of course he attacked him”. So it does go both ways. Not every black person thinks the same on this.

      2. And NBC. Let’s not forget about the doctored 911 call that probably did more to fan the flames of race, than anything else.

        1. You really can’t hold the media in too much contempt over this. And don’t forget they also lied and reported Zimmerman as being white, when he is in fact mixed race. To this moment, I bet most people think Zimmerman is totally white instead of being mostly Hispanic with some black and some white in him.

          It is funny. If anyone “looks like America”, it is George Zimmerman. But he was portrayed as “white” because that supported the narrative they wanted. They are just scumbags.

          1. The “White Hispanic” thing is hilarious! Zimmerman looks like 90% of the Hispanic’s I have ever seen. Hispanic isn’t really a race, so the label is probably more accurate than we choose to believe, but it’s laughable that the media chose this case to make that distinction.

    2. The thing with this case is that most people are not nuts. Most people are reasonable.

      The first is probably true. I’ve seen scant evidence in my life that two is remotely true.

      1. It is if you take a broad definition of “reasonable”. By reasonable I don’t mean “thinks with a high degree of logic”. I mean “is smart enough to go burn stuff down and try to kill people every time something doesn’t work out the way they want it”.

        And I don’t mean that to pick on black people. I am speaking of people in general.

        1. It sounds like you’re using “reasonable” to mean “not nuts,” then.

          Reasonable, imo, is basically a subset of not nuts. In this context, all reasonable people are not nuts but not all not nuts people are reasonable.

          Reasonable means using reason or having sound judgment. Plenty of not nuts people come nowhere near that.

          Ask one of these people smart enough not to go burn down stuff why they think Zimmerman is guilty and you’ll see that reasonableness doesn’t even make a guest appearance in the explanation.

          1. Difference between “being unreasonable” and “being an unreasonable person”. Everyone is unreasonable about something sometime. But being unreasonable in this or that situation doesn’t necessarily mean you are an unreasonable person in general.

            1. Again, I submit that people who want to send a man to prison for decades because of how they feeeeel are not unreasonable on that topic alone. To me, someone who is Spock-like on everything except, say, race relations is still not a reasonable person.

              If someone said, “I wanted Zimmerman to go to jail but the state didn’t prove its case” I could at least respect that as an attempt to separate reason from emotion. Everyone emotes some of the time. I think most people emote enough of the time that they are emotional rather than rational beings. Not everyone shows their lack of reason to the world on a constant basis like, say, Amanduh Marcotte’, but I think most people go through their life operating with the same kind of detachment from facts and reason.

              1. I think is what is happening with those people is that they are allowing the media and their politics to stir their emotions so much, they stop being reasonable on that topic. I know people who think just what you are saying. And on this topic at least they are being emotion, unreasonable, and stupid. But they are also very reasonable on lots of other topics and not generally speaking stupid people.

                What has happened here is the media has effectively manipulated some people’s emotions to get them to throw reason and logic out of the window. And that is appalling. But I don’t think all or even most of the people who have fell for the manipulations are generally unreasonable people. In fact, the fact that they had to be manipulated to this state shows that they are normally reasonable. Otherwise, there would be no manipulation needed.

    3. Fuck all of the racists who were so convinced that black people are so irrational and violent they would stage a riot over this.

      Was there someone who expected ALL black people to riot over this?

      I don’t think so. Some people thought that riots would occur. Big difference, and not racist at all. It’s not like we’re starting from day one, this has happened before. The fact that most blacks in SCLA stayed home during the riots doesn’t change the fact that there were riots.

      1. So thinking enough black people are so crazy about this they could create a riot is not “racist”? No it is racist as shit. It is typical liberal white supremacy. The black people are just animals whose reactions are going to be emotional and violent in some cases.

        1. There are “animals” in every race. There are few riots of white people in America anymore because wealthy people don’t want to break their shit, and there aren’t any concentrated pockets of poor white people left.

          1. Sure there are. But none of the people worried about black riots were worried about white people doing the same if Zimmerman were convicted. That is because they consider white people to be a superior race who would not do such a thing.

            1. Did you even read my comment? Where are white people going to riot in America? Everywhere you find a dense population of white people it’s relatively wealthy, and wealthy people don’t riot and break their shit.

              White people are perfectly capable of rioting for stupid reasons, as evidenced by every riot in American history prior to the Civil War and many thereafter, and nearly every riot in Europe. No argument there.

              1. Everywhere you find a dense population of white people it’s relatively wealthy, and wealthy people don’t riot and break their shit.

                That is just not true. There are thousands of elusively or close to exclusively white poor areas in this country. Do you really think that poor people live all mixed together rather than segregating by race just like everyone else?

                I am not sure if you believe this shit or just make it up to troll.

                1. Densely populated poor white areas?

                  WV is poor and mostly white, but having a statewide riot is a pretty ginormous undertaking.

            2. And the people rioting in Europe are not white much less white Americans. There hasn’t been a “white” race riot in this country in at least 50 years or more.

          2. There are few riots of white people in America anymore because wealthy people don’t want to break their shit, and there aren’t any concentrated pockets of poor white people left.

            So all whites are wealthy? Is that what you’re saying, mr racist?

            1. No it’s not. You may want to read what I said again.

              Not being arrogant, just trying not to repeat myself.

  69. From my local paper:

    Let’s see: A woman in FL fired a warning shot at her very abusive husband and is in jail for 20 years ….even though she “Stood her ground.”

    Now we have a white man who killed a 17 year old black boy due to a set of circumstances precipitated by the white man. The white man walks.

    As I forecasted: Stand My Ground is a law for white men……only.

    Disgusting. For this law we can thank republican men, ALEC, the Koch Bros, and many corporate members of ALEC.

    1. That’s scary. The article that is.

    2. Of course, your local paper fails to mention that “stand your ground” had nothing to do with the George Zimmerman case. Facts, how do they work?

      George Zimmerman, set to stand trial in the 2012 shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin, on Tuesday waived his right to a “stand your ground” pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman’s attorneys have decided they will try this as a self-defense case.

      1. Oh, it sucks, it’s the definition of “rag”.

    3. A woman in FL fired a warning shot at her very abusive husband and is in jail for 20 years ….even though she “Stood her ground.”

      I would like to see a citation and some facts about that. The right to use a gun in self defense doesn’t invoke stand your ground. If she went to jail, it wasn’t because of stand your ground. If anything, stand your ground should have saved her. So one has nothing to do with the other.

      I find it hard to believe that anyone who had any sort reasonable fear would go to jail for 20 years for simply firing a warning shot. I call shenanigans. Without seeing further evidence, I conclude that is a total lie.

      1. Brett L commented on the case above, she got 20 because she fired a gun while committing a felony.

        1. The article says she was convicted of attemtped murder. A warning shot is not attempted murder. Clearly the jury thought she was shooting at him.

          I am not saying they were right. I don’t know. But the article linked above doesn’t give any of the facts. I can’t tell what the hell happened other than a woman was convicted of attempted murder who claimed she was only firing a warning shot. Well, a lot defendants with poor aim would claim that. And every woman who kills their husband claims he was abusive.

          This may be a horrible miscarriage of justice. But from the link, you can’t tell. Show me what actually happened.

          1. According to Brett the woman either invited her husband over or didn’t call the police to enforce the restraining order. I agree attempted murder seems like a stretch but I don’t know what her plans were when the man came over. The miscarriage of justice int that case is the mandatory minimum. Of course, the people sending this thing around facebook only see it as a black woman going to jail while a white man walks free.

            1. The minimum mandatory and the gun escalator are ridiculous. But of course the same thing would have happened to Zimmerman. If you are guilty of depraved indifference, what difference should it make if you killed the person with a gun or a car or a steamroller?

              Imagine if Zimmerman had been convicted of manslaughter. He would have gotten double the sentence because he did it “with a gun”. So if Zimmerman had rather than shooting Martin in a fight, had drank himself to a .25 BAC and ran over Zimmerman with his car, he would have gotten half the sentence. That is totally fucked up. In the same way, if this woman had gone after her husband with a butcher knife, she would have gotten a much lower sentence, even though frankly going after someone with a knife exhibits a much more violent personality than trying to shoot them.

              The problem is the sentence and in particular the fixation on the use of a gun in a crime and not the conviction. And of course, it is a bit rich for leftists to blame gun sentence escalators on the evil Rethuglicans.

              1. Are people being reasonable when they view death by gun as worse than death by knife?

                1. It’s reminiscent of the chemical weapons “red line” in Syria. Just stick to killing people with cluster bombs and knives, the way God intended.

                2. No. But one can be a “reasonable person” without being reasonable on every single issue.

                  1. one can be a “reasonable person” without being reasonable on every single issue.

                    Serious (albeit imprecise) question: At what point does a person become “unreasonable”?

                    1. At what point does a person become “unreasonable”?

                      Depends. There is no one answer to that question. But one thing for sure is that involves more than “thinking something stupid” or “having an opinion I don’t like”.

                  2. I submit that members of the “guns as a totem of evil” group are not unreasonable on that topic alone.

                    1. True NEM. But that just means they are stupid.

                    2. Can they derive “reasonable” conclusions from “stupid” premises?

      2. John, the case involving this woman was an event bigger travesty than the Zimmerman matter.

        20 years for a warning shot is crazy.
        It was basically a reckless act by the woman, but not a 20year reckless act.

        1. It was basically a reckless act by the woman

          This. Thank the law and order types for the mandatory minimums.

          1. The jury found her guilty of attempted murder. They found that she was more than reckless. They found that she wanted to kill him and just was a bad shot.

            Maybe they were wrong. But without hearing more facts, we can’t conclude that. Just because you shoot and miss doesn’t mean necessarily it was a warning shot or you were just being reckless.

      3. This wasn’t a “Stand Your Ground” case either

        In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander’s attorney to grant her immunity under the “stand your ground” law. According to the judge’s order, “there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself,” and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door “is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life.”

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..er-ground/

  70. Sounds like a lot of crazy smack to me dude.

    http://www.Privacy-Web.com

  71. Wow. Massive confused, baffled, incoherent butthurt on MSNBC this morning.

    “Why didn’t they burn the witch, Mommy?”

    1. For the bestest comments on this issue ever, check out the democratic underground.

      “The Grand Experiment” was a failure. The people cannot be trusted to govern or to judge. The people have turned a once proud,just and compassionate nation into a hell hole of greed, hatred, religious fanaticism and violence.

      1. Native Americans and the slaves.

        Nice band name.

        1. How aboutThe Native American Slave Drivers?

          1. Better, much smoother sounding.

          2. +1. Whip it. Whip it GOOD.

      2. If you can’t trust six women to convict when the mob tells you to, who can you trust?

        These people are by the book definition fascists, plain and simple.

      3. “The Grand Experiment” was a failure. The people cannot be trusted to govern or to judge. The people have turned a once proud,just and compassionate nation into a hell hole of greed, hatred, religious fanaticism and violence.

        It had me at the first sentence, but then it turned into a ravaging maelstrom of massive proglodyte retardation.

        I keep forgetting what a nation of atheistic, loving, inclusive people of the Socialist Utopia we had prior to the era of RONNIERAYGUNSMCBUSCHIMPHITLER.

        1. The last clause is in the running for the dumbest thing I have read this year. I don’t even know what to say.

          1. To me, this is could be a sign that The Singularity is near, just not the really smart one that everyone is expecting.

  72. Was Tulpa always a troll and we merely made him rip off the mask, or was he an honest commenter with a fragile ego that we broke?

    Did you guys break Tulpy Poo again?

  73. Jury deliberations apparently involve sitting around in the jury room sharing “life experiences: and not examining the facts of the case as presented in the courtroom.

    Also, paid attorneys subvert the justice system, when they get white clients off.

    1. Decide with your heart, P Brooks. Decide with your heart.

      1. Exactly, NEM.

        The victim is some mother’s child.

    2. The attorney part is funny. I’m sure when these people get in trouble they’e just hoping to get some underpaid, overworked public defender.

    3. Jury deliberations apparently involve sitting around in the jury room sharing “life experiences: and not examining the facts of the case as presented in the courtroom.

      Is that the MSNBC spin this morning? Funny how the same people who loved the jury system after the OJ verdict are now convinced it is evil.

  74. Another comment from a moron:

    I watched this trial carefully. I have served on juries, including a sequestered one. It’s hard for me to see how so many people don’t understood the magnitude of this case?how “the system” responded to the death of an unarmed teenager with a shoulder shrug?in its failure to arrest George Zimmerman who was responsible for his death. I have no doubt that Travyon Martin was guilty only of walking after dark while black and likely defended himself when being followed and pursued by a strange man. Only public pressure resulted in Zimmerman’s belated arrest and made him subject to accountability. All too often in our country black people are presumed guilty while white people are presumed innocent. There’s so much in our country that needs to be fixed?for starters, Florida’s “stand your ground” law. How to change the fear and hate is a taller order.

    1. The post this person was responding to.

    2. So if this clown is so interested in how the system responds to the death of an unarmed teenager, I would advise him to go to Chicago. That seems to happen about 30 times a weekend there. And I have yet to see the system be too concerned about it.

    3. I have no doubt that Travyon Martin was guilty only of walking after dark while black and likely defended himself when being followed and pursued by a strange man.

      I wonder what types of self-defense, in this person’s world, are validly brought to bear when someone follows you? I wonder what he would think if I happened to shoot anyone, let alone a black anyone, simply for following me. My guess is I’d be the bad guy for presuming bad intent from the follower.

    4. If blacks want principled while to continue opposing PD behavior like stopping people for DWB (“driving while black”), as I do, they should stop trying to equate that type of situation with this one. Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was perfectly reasonable, and there was no one to contradict him. Hence, reasonable doubt. Nothing more is required for an acquittal.

      1. I never thought I’d say this, but for fuck’s sake, get Disqus (which sucks, but sucks WAY less than Reason’s forum).

        s/while/whites/

      2. I also seems to me that telling white people they have no right of self defense against a black person who attacks them is not a very good way to get white people to worry about police mistreatment of blacks.

      3. To be fair that’s only the case in FL. In many states, once it’s established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the other person (never contested in this case), self-defense has to be proven by preponderance of the evidence.

        1. Thank Zod it’s the same way in Texas.

          “Self-defense is not an affirmative defense. Once the defense presents ‘some evidence’ of self-defense, the State must persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.”

          Which states put the burden of proof on the defendant?

          1. I don’t know the exhaustive list, but in NYS, SD is an “affirmative defense” that must be proven by preponderance of the evidence. PA is like TX, but as you say “some evidence” of SD is required, not just disputing prosecution evidence.

            Otherwise, a person who kills someone with no witnesses could always claim self-defense and let the prosecution try to prove a negative.

            1. Otherwise, a person who kills someone with no witnesses could always claim self-defense and let the prosecution try to prove a negative.

              But your claim has to be reasonable and a jury is free not to believe you. If there is no physical evidence of a fight or the victim isn’t found with a weapon, your claim is unlikely to work. Just because you claim it doesn’t mean the jury has to find it credible. Reasonable doubt means “reasonable doubt” not “possible doubt”. The jury has to find your story reasonable not to convict.

              Yes, they could always claim that. But absent some kind of circumstantial or physical evidence supporting it, it is very unlikely to work as a defense.

            2. It looks like Ohio also puts the burden on the defendant. Those are the only ones I’ve found, which isn’t to say that’s all there are.

              … but as you say “some evidence” of SD is required, not just disputing prosecution evidence.

              “I was scared and killed him to protect myself” is “some evidence.”

              1. That’s a claim, not evidence.

                1. Again, it take more than a bare claim for the claim to be “reasonable”.

                2. 99% of evidence at trial is “claims.” Everything almost every witness said was a “claim.”

                  “I saw someone hitting another person” is a claim.

                  You gotta do better.

                  1. Did you ever wonder why defendants who testify in court to their innocence but are convicted anyway aren’t immediately charged with perjury?

                    Their testimony isn’t considered evidence, it’s considered claims.

                    1. Because the fact that people don’t believe you does not mean you are lying.

                      The defendant’s testimony is most certainly considered evidence. The fucking prosecution’s whole case was based on the evidence in Zimmerman’s statements. You’re just wrong.

                    2. Did you ever wonder why defendants who testify in court to their innocence but are convicted anyway aren’t immediately charged with perjury?

                      Their testimony isn’t considered evidence, it’s considered claims.

                      That is the dumbest thing you have ever written on here. Of course they could be charged with perjury. And if they do testify to their innocence and are convicted, the government can get a “mendacious accused instruction” telling the jury it is okay to punish the defendant more for lying to them.

                      It is not a “claim”. There is no such legal term as a claim in that context. It is testimony and direct evidence. Whenever a person, a witness, the accused, or anyone else, gets up under oath and testifies to something, that is evidence. The accused testimony is not automatically given less weight or considered any less evidence than anyone else’s testimony.

                      Just stop it Tulpa. You don’t know anything about this subject. The things you are saying are making my head hurt.

                    3. We’re talking about civilian courts, not military ones, John. Every reference I find to “mendacious accused” is in the context of military trials.

                    4. We’re talking about civilian courts, not military ones

                      Which have virtually identical rules of evidence as the federal courts. And I have practiced in civilian courts to and like every other attorney took Civ Pro and Evidence in law school. There is no and has never been a rule in American law that says a party to a case is not really under oath, not subject to perjury, and their testimony is not considered evidence.

                      It is just mind boggling that you think that. We couldn’t have that rule if we wanted to. It would be effectively saying no one can ever testify on their own behalf in a case. Sure, you can testify but we are going to instruct the jury not to consider anything you say not to be evidence but merely a “claim”. Yeah, that is consistent with the right to defend yourself in open court.

                      If I am accused of murder, and I get on the stand and say “I didn’t kill the victim I was in Florida the day of the shooting.” That is evidence. And if the jury believes me, they can acquit me based on that statement alone.

                    5. I already walked back the “not evidence” thing.

                      “Mendacious accused instructions” are apparently not available in civilian courts, or so well-hidden that google can’t find their existence.

                    6. Just stop it Tulpa. You don’t know anything about this subject. The things you are saying are making my head hurt.

                      Sigh. Yet people keep debating him…. It’s like tasting spoiled milk over and over again to see how spoiled it is.

                3. Are you claiming that only physical evidence counts?

                  1. Testimony by people who are not a party to the case is evidence.

                    Testimony by a party to the case is a claim.

                    1. Citation needed.

                    2. This is the most retarded thing you’ve ever said, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

                    3. Testimony by people who are not a party to the case is evidence.

                      Testimony by a party to the case is a claim.

                      So says the common law of Tulpa’s ass. That is so idiotic I am not even sure I could call it wrong. It is something beyond that out in the abyss of stupidity.

                      If John sues Tulpa for breach of contract and gets on the stand and swears under oath Tulpa agreed to the contract, that is evidence. It is not conclusive. But it is evidence. If it is under oath and admitted before the court, it is evidence. Judges don’t instruct juries not to consider the testimony of one of the parties not to be “evidence”.

                    4. Perhaps I was too strong in saying all testimony by a party is “not evidence” but to say that a claim of self-defense, by itself, is evidence of self defense is fairly ridiculous.

                    5. No it is not you half wit. I am accused of murder. I get on the stand and say “I shot the guy but it was only because he had a gun and I thought he was going to kill me.”. That is evidence. The jury can acquit me based on that statement alone. My testimony is enough for the jury to find in favor of me. The jury decides the credibility of the witness. And the jury can choose to believe a witness if they find the witness credible.

                    6. To answer your question Tulpa, now that you have moved your statement from completely idiotic to merely wrong, is

                      Yes, the jury can in theory acquit a defendant based solely on the defendant’s testimony that he acted in self defense. They don’t have to. They probably are not even likely to. But they can. The jury can chose to believe the defendant.

        2. I would like to see your list of states Tulpa.

          1. NY, IL, NJ, among others.

            1. See above. The defense as it is in Florida and Texas really isn’t that different in practice. The difference between “reasonable doubt” and “preponderance” is actually less than you might think. For my defense to create reasonable doubt, it has be credible. It can’t just be “because I say so”. In reality most cases that create reasonable doubt are also going to have enough evidence to convince the jury by a preponderance of the evidence. You have to come up with a pretty specific and unlikely case where a self defense claim would merely be “reasonable” but not also have enough evidence behind it to convince a jury that more likely than not you acted out of self defense. So I really think the difference in the law makes a difference in very few cases.

          2. And of course FL is weird, since it goes way beyond what even TX and PA do. The defendant doesn’t even need to present any evidence of SD in FL to get an acquittal.

            1. Not sure how weird it is. Criminal convictions place the burden properly on the state. A killing to be a murder should require the state to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. How does that burden remain the prosecution’s if it’s largely shifted to the defendant? There’s a presumption of murder?

  75. I’m afraid to say anything on facebook because reasoned logical analysis is sure to get you labelled as a tea partier. I’m sure if my friends saw my few posts on reason they would hate me. Its about to be open season on “Uncle Toms”

    1. Yeah, a friend of mine posted something mild about the role of juries in out legal system and got flamed.

    2. The new meme I’m hearing is “Regardless of whether you agree with the verdict, you must admit that if Z hadn’t had a gun then M wouldn’t have been shot. Therefore, more gun control.” 8-(

      1. See, I reach just the opposite conclusion.

        1. Ah, but you’re not a reasonable person.

          1. John says I am.

      2. Of course if Zimmerman hadn’t had a gun, he would have ended up severely injured or maybe dead and Martin would be another young black man in prison. Not sure that is a better result. To say it is is to say that the world would just be a better place if white people would take their beatings from young black men rather than defending themselves or at the very least fight a sporting fight using only fists.

      3. That presumes that someone dead from a gun is worse than someone dead from having their skull caved in by blunt force trauma. It is just bizarre.

        1. And worse, that attitude is written into the law. Kill someone by beating their head in in a fist fight, get one sentence. Kill someone by shooting them in a fight, get that sentence plus 15 years for “using a gun”.

          And it doesn’t even have to involve death. Sell heroin to a 13 year old at a middle school and get one sentence. Have a gun on you while you do it, get another 20 years, as if the gun someone makes it more likely the kid will OD or something.

          1. It’s the same logic as the felony murder rule which tries to ensure that if you commit a felony you should be careful of not killing anyone. People committing crimes are scary, people committing crimes with guns are more scary, so an extra deterrent is put in there.

            I think the NRA actually helped push for these kind of laws didn’t they?

            1. It’s the same logic as the felony murder rule which tries to ensure that if you commit a felony you should be careful of not killing anyone.

              Sure. But in the case of felony murder, you have killed someone. Saying that if you commit a crime and someone dies, you are going to be charged with murder is not the same as saying if you commit a crime and happen to have a gun you don’t use, you are going to get a worse punishment.

              1. People who are reckless with life need to be deterred and those who use guns in an irresponsible way need to be as well. That’s the thinking. But I agree when the gun is not used in any way at all it’s silly.

  76. Meet the Press:

    Harry Reid thinks we should examine whatever “crazy” law they have in Florida which would allow Zimmerman to hunt and kill that poor little six year old boy.

    Somebody should tell Gregory Stand Your Ground was not the defense.

    1. Harry Reid apparently knows as much about Florida law as he knows about U.S. law.

  77. Its about to be open season on “Uncle Toms”

    There is no season for pernicious varmints; it’s shoot on sight.

    1. Jesus. How can progolodytes not see how racist they are?

      1. After reading your other comments, I realized you must just be trolling. Or something. I’m confused.

    2. I wonder how long before people start attacking the one black lady on the jury for not “standing up for racial justice.”

  78. The particulars of this case are so…particular…and unlikely to generalize, I’m bummed that it’s taken up so much “space” in discussions of public affairs. Of course it’s been promoted that way by people who wanted to fuzz and falsely generalize it. Even as a potential crime story, I find it a much duller mystery than cases we could all find local to ourselves where mysterious break-ins have occurred, or missing or displaced persons cases.

    Like for instance a few weeks ago my landlord’s padlocked backyard storage shed was broken into and tools were stolen. Not fancy tools, just ordinary hand tools, probably no fancier than were used to break in with. It happened during a rainy night, a somewhat chilly one so my window was closed and I heard nothing.

  79. I realize NBC is not exactly noted for intellectual consistency, but come on; David Gregory opens the show talking about rotten pro gun laws, and how terrible it is that somebody can legally use lethal force in self defense, and how those bad bad laws need to be repealed. Shortly afterward, he scolds Mitch McConnell for daring to speak against Obamacare because it is the Law of the Land.

    1. IN the next segment I am sure Gregory is going to be talking about the need to strictly enforce the gun laws we have. If these people had any shame, consistency or principles beyond sucking whatever cock needs to be sucked to get ahead, they wouldn’t be on NBC.

    2. Why are you wasting your time with the Sunday morning dinosaur shows?

      You’re better off getting your news from Cartoon Network.

    3. On CBS Face the Nation this morning the segment on the case had one of Martin’s family’s lawyers, the head of the NAACP and Michael Eric Dyson. Pretty balanced, eh?

      And the head of the NAACP said they are pushing not to have DOJ file civil rights charges but hate crime charges. Because if you can’t even get manslaughter, go for something much more difficult to establish…

      1. Because if you can’t even get manslaughter, go for something much more difficult to establish…

        I was thinking Obama wanted an acquital. But now I think maybe he didn’t. If Obama were to bring hate crime charges against Zimmerman, it would be a disaster for the Democrats. No one but the hard core race baiters and the truly retarded progs would support him. Every independent would be against it and many soft liberals would be embarrassed by it. But if he doesn’t, how does he convince the black community to come out and vote D in 2014 if he won’t even prosecute the hate murder of a black teenager?

        1. I think it does put Holder and Obama in an interesting position. Their base that turned out in record numbers will push for charges but it will seem insane to almost everyone else. But when you put a race card in your playing deck you can’t complain when it gets dealt to you sometimes.

        2. BO lost independents in 2012. Demographics the way they are, all that matters is getting Ds to the polls (and continuing to block voter ID laws).

          1. And most Ds would not support hate crime charges. Not everyone who calls themselves a D blogs at the daily KOS.

            And R turn out matters too. It was down in 2012 versus 2010. I am thinking hate crime charges against Zimmerman would get the R base out in a big way.

            Yes, the demographics are what they are. And those Demographics produced the worst De election since the civil war in 2010 and only gave BO 52% of the vote in 2012, despite huge turn out on his side and disappointing turnout by Rs.

            I am not seeing how going full progtard is going to help the Congressional Ds. If doing that did help them, the Ds would still have 60 votes in the Senate and control the House.

            1. House GOPers got 41.4 million votes in 2010, while Romney got 60.9 million votes in 2012. If BO can get 2012-type turnout from his base (including double voters, dead people, and illegals) in 2014, the GOP doesn’t have an answer. Even winning independents isn’t enough.

              1. You can’t compare total votes in a Presidential election to an off year election. They are always going to be larger in the Presidential year. Compare 12 to 08 for a proper comparison. Romney got fewer votes than McCain. The R base for whatever reason stayed home in 2012.

                But 2012 wasn’t just his base. It was a lot of people who are low information part time voters. Those people are unlikely to want Zimmerman retried and in fact might go the other way or at the very least stay home.

                He didn’t win because the Dem base is so big. He won because a whole lot of low information soft voters turned out for him. I seriously doubt going full on start a race war progtard is going to get those people to come out and vote in an off year election. If doing that would work, we really would be having riots right now.

                1. It was a lot of people who are low information part time voters.

                  I’m still confused by this term. Exit polls show Obama won the less than high school group, but also the post-bachelorette group, and barely lost the some college and college degree group.

                  I imagine it might console R’s to explain his win by talking about ‘low information voters’ but the evidence doesn’t seem there to me.

                  1. Bo,

                    Obama won voters who said they rarely or never followed politics by something like 40 points. That was the difference in the election.

                    1. Do you have any citation to that effect? I’m just curious because the discussions of ‘low information voters’ I remember were when I was an undergrad and a liberal prof used the term to explain why that bad old George Bush kept winning elections. Now I hear it from the right all the time. I don’t see evidence for it in the exit polls broke down by education, but I concede that education is not the same as paying attention.

          2. all that matters is getting Ds to the polls

            In a non-Presidential year?

            Good luck with that.

    4. Can you still see the lobotomy scar on Gregory’s head or have they finally gotten better makeup people?

  80. I’m pleasantly surprised by this verdict. My guess was that they would convict him of manslaughter, or even go after a child abuse charge. Apparently, the jury saw how disgusting the behavior of the media and the judge were in this case and didn’t want any part of it.

    Now Obama and his toady Holder will do ridiculous shit in a further attempt to incite race warfare.

  81. I want to put my finger on the pulse of what Serious Americans are thinking. Al Sharpton just said, “Just because the jury found him Not Guilty doesn’t mean he is innocent.”

    1. “I shouted out ‘Who killed Trayvon Martin?’, when after all it was you and me!”

    2. That is actually true as long as you put in the caveat “factually innocent”. Since our system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, factually innocent people are often set free by it. You know, that whole, better to let a hundred guilty men go free than convict a single innocent man thing? You know that principle liberals have spent the last 50 years yapping about in the context of every other trial that has ever been in the public’s consciousness?

  82. I’m confused.

    Poe’s Law.

  83. Question for you legal beagles: Had Zimmerman been charged with manslaughter, would the prosecution had an easier time proving Zimmerman had committed a crime?

    My point, and I don’t know if it is a good one, is the prosecution wasted a lot of effort trying to prove that Zimmerman had whatever it was that makes 2nd degree murder more than manslaughter. If the prosecution had limited themselves to just having to prove that Zimmerman’s actions were not reasonable and he had no reason to use deadly force to defend himself, would the prosecution been successful?.

    The 2nd degree murder always seemed to me a big stretch and politically motivated. Had Zimmerman been accused of manslaughter, I would have been more willing to believe that he was being treated fairly.

    BTW, I am glad that Zimmerman got off. The trial became a political circus. As I have noted before, even cold-blooded killers deserve a fair trial and not a political lynching. Moreover, better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison a single innocent man.

    1. Manslaughter is easier to prove than 2nd degree murder I would think. Different, and lower, mens rea. But I think even if they set out and focused to argue it they couldn’t have won.

    2. Once the self-defense claim is accepted by the jury, under FL law he can’t be convicted of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder or any other crime. The argument that it was easier to get a manslaughter conviction rested on the fact that the jurors might “compromise” on convicting him of manslaughter if they felt the case was murky, contrary to the law.

      1. How can you say something this cogent mere minutes after claiming that a defendant’s words aren’t evidence?

        1. I was saying a bare claim of self-defense isn’t evidence sufficient to force the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

          1. But it is. The defendant can say “It was self-defense” and the jury can believe him. It doesn’t require anything else.

            It’s like you’re bipolar.

            1. A ‘claim’ in legal terminology is not the same thing as evidence. Zimmerman’s ‘claim’ of self defense is not his evidence of it, just as your ‘claim’ of my breach of contract would not be the evidence of it.

              1. You’re explaining the difference between a claim and evidence to the wrong person. If Zimmerman makes a statement that is introduced in court that he acted in self-defense, that statement is evidence.

                NEM, Esq.

                1. His in court statement that he acted in self defense is testimonial evidence, yes, but perhaps Tulpa is using the term ‘claim’ in the legal sense as something like a sufficient cause of action.

                  1. Except that Zimmerman wasn’t making a “claim” in the legal sense or bringing a cause of action here.

                    He’s already walked back the earlier claim, now he’s apparently just claiming that a defendant’s invocation of self-defense isn’t enough to force to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In FL (or TX, etc.), it certainly is. It is “some evidence” and would be enough for the jury to acquit if the state doesn’t disprove it.

                    1. Here’s where I’m not sure.

                      If a defendant ‘raises a claim’ of self defense, is that in itself evidence of self defense? For example, in this case Zimmerman raised such a claim, but he didn’t testify at all and so did not make any testimonial ‘claims’ in evidence of his self defense.

                    2. Sure he did. The prosecution showed the hell out of them.

                    3. I’m sorry if I’m talking past you here, which is too easy to do on the internet.

                      Are you saying that a defendant in FL has no burden of production or proof to raise a claim of self defense other than stating he is making such a claim (and not stating it himself in testimony in court)?

                    4. I don’t know for sure about Florida. In Texas, all it requires is “some evidence” and a defendant’s claim, even if placed in evidence by the prosecution it is “some evidence.” A defendant’s “It was self-defense” is enough to force the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt if they want to convict.

                      If the prosecution had just stuck with proving the elements of murder 2 and manslaughter it may well have forced Zimmerman to testify to establish a self-defense defense. As it was, they basically allowed Zimmerman to testify without being subject to cross.

                    5. Hmm, I see. I also think I see where I was missing you. I was thinking that if you had someone like the Aurora shooter stand up and plea ‘not guilty’ on a claim of self defense, but offered nothing else whatsoever in that vein, then no ‘evidence’ has been introduced to back up the ‘claim’ of self defense. But what you’re saying is that the prosecution’s bringing up Zimmerman’s ‘claims’ that he acted in self defense was enough to support his legal claim (his defense) to the same effect.

                      Interesting, thanks.

                    6. I think if the Aurora shooter stood up and claimed self defense, it would be evidence of self defense.

                      Such a defense would be roundly and substantially rebutted by tons of facts and witnesses. Those facts and witnesses didn’t exist in the Zimmerman case.

                    7. Two guys go out onto the lake in a boat, one comes back. The other one is found the next day floating with a knife in his chest.

                      If the surviving guy claims self-defense, does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t?

                      If so…be careful who you go boating with, because there’s no way in hell they can prove that.

                    8. Yes, the prosecution does.

                      In your scenario, if it just happens out of the blue, it would be hard to prove. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other facts — previous fights, business trouble, whatever — that couldn’t be used.

                      How would you propose that the defendant present a case? Yeah, be careful who you go boating with indeed, because if you have to defend yourself, Tulpa wants to convict you.

                2. It is, of course, evidence. Which the jury can accept or reject.

                  1. I don’t see any requirement in the TX/PA law that the “some evidence” has to be compelling, just that it has to favor self-defense. By the interpretation NEM and others are taking here, the requirement of “some evidence” is vacuous as the defendant can make it up out of whole cloth.

                    FL is different; SD must be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt once it is raised, regardless of whether the defense produces evidence.

                    1. Yes, the defendant can make it up out of whole cloth, just like alibis or whatever else he says. That doesn’t mean the jury has to believe it or that it takes much to rebut.

                      It isn’t an interpretation I am taking. It’s an interpretation the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has taken.

                    2. It’s not just a matter of rebuttal.

                      IF the defendant’s claim of self-defense is sufficient evidence, it immediately shifts the burden of proof regarding SD to the prosecution, whether they rebut the defendant’s claim or not.

                    3. Don’t conflate “some evidence to raise the issue” with “sufficient evidence to prove it.”

                      The jury is perfectly free to find that the claim of self-defense isn’t plausible based on the rest of the case.

    3. Had Zimmerman been charged with manslaughter, would the prosecution had an easier time proving Zimmerman had committed a crime?

      No. Since manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder 2, the government was able to get an instruction on manslaughter even though it wasn’t in the original charge. So, the jury did in fact consider manslaughter and still decided Zimmerman was innocent. So, the result would have been exactly the same if the charge had only been manslaughter.

  84. All this jibberjabber about blackness and victimhood, and no mention at all of the endemic black on black violence in cities like Chicago and New Orleans.

    “White people hate and fear young black men for no reason! It’s inexplicable.”

    1. Every time a white liberal talks about “racism” he is not talking about black people. He is basically asserting his superiority over other white people. That is all it is ever about.

    2. I actually don’t see that as inconsistent. The way a black liberal I know explained it to me, the anger over Martin is focused on the front end, that he was ‘racially profiled’ not on the back end, that he was killed. Or to put it better the second part strikes them as especially bad because of the first.

  85. no mention at all of the endemic black on black violence in cities like Chicago and New Orleans

    How can you use that to play the race card with the purpose of dividing people and gaining political power? You can’t even use it to prove global warming, the data is useless!

  86. Holy fuck. Spitzer says it was a “failure of justice”.

    An INNOCENT BOY, hunted down like an animal and shot through the heart!

    What a fucking slimy shitbag.

    1. The progtard media and pols want riots. The problem is, is that the dependent class that they have created are too well fed and cozy to get out and riot. There will not be any major riots, and this will all be forgotten about in a month.

      If they really want riots, they’ll have to cut off the free shit. The issue with that, is that the wrath they unleash might turn towards them.

    2. Hunted down? Please tell me he didn’t say that.

      If so, then, what’s left to be said except he’s an asshole.

      In any event, I still can’t believe this man of low morals is on TV passing judgments on others.

      The left’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  87. Spitzer and Stephanopoulos both seem to be confused about the scope of the duties and responsibilities of the Comptroller of New York City.

  88. Nice work, Gigot.

  89. And for the record, I singled out Hostin but Jeffrey Toobin was walking a fine damn line himself. It’s like they couldn’t handle the facts weren’t fitting the narrative.

  90. The title of this article is wrong. Zimmerman was never on trial for “killing Trayvon Martin.” Zimmerman always admitted that he killed Martin. Zimmerman was on trial for murder.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.