Trayvon Martin

Eric Holder Calls George Zimmerman's Shooting of Trayvon Martin 'Unnecessary'


Video via The Orlando Sentinel

Today, speaking at the national convention of Delta Sigma Theta, an African-American sorority, Attorney General Eric Holder called George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin "unnecessary" while noting that his department is mulling a second prosecution of Zimmerman, who was acquitted by a state jury on Saturday after arguing that he acted in self-defense. Was Holder declaring that the jury got it wrong and prejudging the outcome of the Justice Department's investigation? Not necessarily, but that is one plausible inference, and it would have been better for him to avoid commenting on the case so as not to create the appearance that the fix is in. Here is the context of Holder's remark:

As this celebration unfolds, we are also mindful of the pain felt by our nation surrounding the tragic, unnecessary shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida last year—and the state trial that reached its conclusion over the weekend.  As parents, as engaged citizens, and as leaders who stand vigilant against violence in communities across the country, the Deltas are deeply, and rightly, concerned about this case. The Justice Department shares your concern—I share your concern – and, as we first acknowledged last spring, we have opened an investigation into the matter.

Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised. We must not—as we have too often in the past—let this opportunity pass. I hope that we will approach this necessarily difficult dialogue with the same dignity that those who have lost the most, Trayvon's parents, have demonstrated throughout the last year—and especially over the past few days. They suffered a pain that no parent should have to endure—and one that I, as a father, cannot begin to conceive. Even as we embrace their example and hold them in our prayers, we must not forego this opportunity to better understand one another and to make better this nation we cherish.

Moreover, I want to assure you that the Department will continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law. We are committed to standing with the people of Sanford, with the individuals and families affected by this incident, and with our state and local partners in order to alleviate tensions, address community concerns, and promote healing. We are determined to meet division and confusion with understanding and compassion—and also with truth. We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too common incidents.  And we will never stop working to ensure that—in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community —justice must be done.

Perhaps Holder meant that Martin's death was unnecessary in the sense that it would not have happened if Zimmerman had not deemed him suspicious and started following him. As the prosecution emphasized during the trial, Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had instead continued on his shopping trip to Target. But that kind of culpability is not enough to make Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, let alone second-degree murder. As the prosecution conceded, everything Zimmerman did until the encounter turned violent, however unwise or unfair, was nevertheless perfectly legal. If Martin responded with violence, as Zimmerman claimed and the evidence suggested, and if the fight proceeded as Zimmerman described it, he reasonably believed shooting Martin was necessary to prevent death or serious injury. By calling the shooting "unnecessary," Holder could be questioning that claim, which was the basis for Zimmerman's acquittal. Technically, it is possible that Zimmerman reasonably believed something that was not true, but I doubt Holder is making such a fine distinction. So if the attorney general was commenting on Zimmerman's legal justification for the shooting, he was indeed disagreeing with the verdict and prejudging the conclusion of a federal investigation that could lead to a second prosecution aimed, in effect, at overturning the acquittal.

NEXT: Snowden Has NSA "Blueprint," Says Greenwald

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. To be fair, if anyone knows about unnecessary use of force, it’s the head of the Justice Department.

  2. Is Eric Holder the worst Obama appointee ever?

    I think so.

    1. No. Janet Napolitano was. Holder is an idiot, but we haven’t had a decent AG in decades.

      1. Holder is much worse. Napolitano was just a faceless politico. Holder is actively vile in a way Napolitano never dreamed of being.

        1. Holder is vile, but I’m just comparing against recent AGs. The Bush AGs were uniformly terrible. And nothing Holder has done has compared to what Janet Reno did.

          1. Reno yes. But Napalitano is not Reno.

          2. Holder worked for Janet Reno and is directly responsible for much of what happened under Reno. In fact, he authorized the supply of explosives to McVeigh and Nichols. Eric Holder has been in DC far longer than many suspect and is directly linked to the most vile acts committed by the US government.

    2. Ashcroft was much worse than Holder could ever be.

      1. Really? As much as I dislike the closet pervert Ashcroft, Gonzales was worse than him and Holder is in a class of his own.

        1. Agree with Scruffy. Ashcroft was at least humorous while being EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous to freedom.

          Holder’s even stupider and MORE partisan and MORE dangerous, which I didn’t think was possible.

          Of course, every time I think we’ve reach ed Peak Retard, there goes someone else to remind us there is no Peak Retard…

          1. I think you need to review the record again Ashcroft is much worse than Holder – I am not even counting his horrible record in Missouri – Holder does piss me off with his stance on the second amendment.

          2. Peak retard, that reminds me of Veep and made me think of this variation for Holder.

            For ’tis the sport to have the attorney
            Hoist with his own retard; and it shall go hard

          3. Ashcroft was such a loser he couldn’t even win a Senate race against a dead opponent. AG was his consolation prize.

      2. No he wasn’t.

      3. No, actually Holder is way worse. Holder is a degenerate party man.

    3. Wow, this list of AG luminaries is as depressing as a Lars von Trier movie. These are really the best the past 3 administrations could do?

      1. They really are the best they could do – you just assume a different goal than they actually have.

    4. What about Van Jones? Does he count as an appointee? He was far less damaging, but a bit more crazy.

      1. The stinkiest turd?

        We could make a list a mile long of obama appointees that are beyond contempt.

        This administration is like a circus freak show.

  3. alleviate tensions, address community concerns, and promote healing

    Since when did the justice department take on this mission?

  4. Shorter Marcotte, “Wipe that smirk off your faces, right wing America. What’s so funny about harmony, peace, and railroading a man acting in self understanding?”

    Oh, I don’t even know if her post verdict piece has been published yet, but I’m gonna take a guess here.

    1. railroading a man acting in self defense furkin’ tags.

    2. She was one of the liberals bitterly clinging to the idea that the Duke lacrosse players were guilty even after the prosecution’s case spectacularly collapsed, wasn’t she?

      1. They were affluent white men. The must have been guilty of something.

  5. The Obama administration is going the route of George Wallace: stoking racial divisions for political gain.

    1. I still haven’t figured out how they gain politically from this. I think that they think they will gain politically, but I also think they’re wrong.

      1. See my post below. They won’t gain from it. They are just doing it because that is all they do. It is like a reflex. They divide and stoke tensions. They don’t know any better. That is okay when you are not in charge. But when you are in charge, it is suicidal.

      2. They’re not doing this simply for political gain. They can’t help it; this is simply who these guys are: a couple of out and out whitey hatin’ racists.

        1. That is what I think. This is just what they do. You can’t ascribe rationality or self interest to it.

  6. How come I don’t get a headline?

    “Gojira Calls Eric Holder ‘Unnecessary'”

    1. No justice (for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki), no peace!

      1. HOW DID YOU KNOW?!

  7. I posted this as a threadjack and sadly it got trolled by Stormy Dragon. If they don’t indict Zimmerman, these protests are going to go on and stand a decent chance of turning into riots. I can’t see how that ends well for Obama.

    What if these nightly protests the occutards are having turn into riots? What if they get really big and out of control? What then? I don’t see them stopping unless Martin is indicted and maybe not even then.

    A long hot summer of race riots would be leave Obama’s second term and the Democratic Party in general in tatters. You guys always say “but they will just blame the Republicans”. Ah no. You have to understand how riots work in revolutionary politics. You have riots to blame the guy in charge and put him in an unwinnable dilemma. Either he cracks down, in which case you call him a tyrant and undercut his moral authority to rule or he doesn’t do anything in which case you use the resulting chaos as a way to paint him as ineffective and a reason why the public needs to support your side to restore order. I am starting to think the village idiot missed the memo that he is in charge.

    1. I haven’t watched the protests much, aside from the Oakland tantrum, but are the progtards really seeming like they’ll stick with it? I’d kind of expect they wander off pretty quickly.

      If it does get big, though, yea, I could see it going nutty like that.

      1. The progs don’t matter. Will the blacks move on?

        1. Maybe it’s just what I see in social media and such, but I hear a lot more from the progs than blacks. Maybe it’s just rending of garments / gnashing of teeth, but it seems the progs get a chance to go culture war.

          I mean, looking at the pictures from Oakland, it wasn’t black people breaking windows on Saturday night.

          This is a chance for the progs to go black bloc and cause some trouble, I think.

          1. Social media might actually be preventing rioting now. If people had had twitter and facebook back in ’92 how many of them would have stayed at home rather than hitting the streets? Initial crowd size is a big factor in whether a riot gets off the ground. The few percent who are truly violent need cover from the majority who just want to watch stuff burn and maybe grab a few things after the windows are broken.

        2. All my neighbors spent the weekend doing their normal activities, but of course they all have two-car garages.

          I really don’t think the protests are significant or have much staying power if nothing even happened in Philadelphia, which has a significant black underclass with real, understandable grievances and anger.

          The last real, long-lasting riots in the country were Benton Harbor, Michigan, in what, 2004?

          1. We had a police riot out in california a few months ago, then one in Massachusetts when the marathon bombers shot that cop.

          2. About the only thing that could put people on the streets of Benton Harbor is a riot. Last time I drove through there it was a ghost town of empty shops.

    2. Hm, interesting point. I certainly hope it doesn’t devolve into riots. I should actually find out where the protests in NYC are (and avoid them).

      1. Whoa, all over the place. I guess they weren’t that intense, given that they weren’t that far and I never realized they were there…

        1. Yeah, I was in NYC yesterday walking about, and didn’t even hear about any protests until I saw it on the news.

    3. How are things going in DC? If people want to put Obama in an unwinnable dilemma, they will need to get in his face.

    4. Well if things get really big and out of control could that give the administration an excuse to implement martial law? At least in some cities? I don’t think it will come to that, and if they tried it would most likely backfire pretty badly. Except in places like Boston where the cops can lock down an entire suburb and they’ll fucking thank them for it.

      1. I keep trying to think what I would do if martial law were declared. Would I bottle up and obey because I like my life the way it is? Or would continue about my business and risk meeting an unfortunate end?

  8. The new professionalism.

  9. “It is scary,” Vanterpool added. “[Martin] went to the store, bought Skittles and a watermelon Arizona and was shot on his way back. Many times I go out at night just to get a snack, cause I’m hungry.” Vanterpool believes circumstances would have been very different if Martin were white and Zimmerman was a black man. “At the end of the day, if it was a black 29-year-old that had shot a white 17-year-old, I feel like he would’ve been in jail.”

    Read more:…..z2Z93i7jHN
    Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

    1. At the end of the day, if it was a black 29-year-old that had shot a white 17-year-old, I feel like he would’ve been in jail.”

      He feels that way so it must be true. There are just so many cases of black people being brutalized by white people in this country. So many more cases of white on black crime than there are black on white crime that it must be that way.

      1. Well he may be right, and that would be an example of racism in the justice system.

        1. The stupid part is when they argue that, well, if a black man would have been wrongly convicted, a white (Hispanic) man should be too!

          Because that’s the way to make things right.

    2. “At the end of the day … I feel like

      Tells me pretty much everything I need to know about this mental midget.

  10. You know what I find unnecessary? The President of the United States and the Attorney General commenting on a criminal proceeding not involving a government official or any obvious violations of Constitutional and civil liberties.

    1. A murder trial is outside of their jurisdiction. And the bullshit about a civil liberties charge is bullshit. So they shouldn’t have word one to say about this.

      1. THIS. I mean what the fuck? For the Feds to get involved they would have to invoke civil rights laws intended to overturn cases where a clearly racist jury flagrantly ignored the law and the evidence.

        How can that possibly be the case here? Every citizen of Florida should be outraged at the way the administration is proposing to treat them.

          1. Maybe have wild drunken sex on beaches and while driving speeding cars?

            In other words keep calm and carry on.

            1. Headline: LIBERTARIANS GO FULL LIBERTINE.

        1. You mean a blatantly political and opportunist politician is inserting himself into a matter that he should have no connection with? That never happens!

          1. Yeah, I know! I’m really befuddled by this one. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

            1. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

              Black Jesus just hasn’t explained himself monosyllabically enough for mouth breathers like us to understand.

        2. I for one am pissed.

          1. Why are you pissed?

  11. “It is scary,” Vanterpool added. “[Martin] went to the store, bought Skittles and a watermelon Arizona…


    1. It blows me away that leftists and their flunkies in the media have become so fixated on such completely inconsequential minutiae like this yet they can barely understand which statutes were relevant to the case. I’ll bet if you pressed them hard enough they might rattle off the exact expiration dates of the candy and tea that Martin had in his possession.

  12. We are determined to meet division and confusion with understanding and compassion?and also with truth. We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too common incidents.

    I wonder if this dumbfuck is even familiar with the facts or evidence in the case.

    1. No. He just knows what he feels. And of course don’t bother him with the inconvenient facts that young black males have a higher rate of violent death than all young males did during World War II and that most of those blacks are killed by other blacks. Those facts don’t fit his narrative.

  13. “Eric Holder Calls George Zimmerman’s Shooting of Trayvon Martin ‘Unnecessary’ “

    Yeah. They could have tested their domestic drone program instead.

    1. Think about it for a second. A jury that heard the facts determined that the shooting was necessary. If they thought Zimmerman didn’t have to shoot Martin in self-defense, he’d have been convicted of one of the charges.

      1. Hasn’t Holder now tainted the investigation? Shouldn’t it have been an open question, from the FedGov’s perspective, whether the shooting was necessary? Now you have an investigation that’s results-based.

        1. Yeah, well, we had that when the “Not enough evidence to arrest” became “Enough evidence to try for murder.”

      2. Pft. There you go thinking the women (not Womyn!) on that jury have agency and can make a determination themselves.

      3. Actually, necessary or not, the jury found reasonable doubt that it was not lawfully justified. He might be technically correct, but it has dick-all to do with the legal consequences.

  14. “The cracker acted stupidly.”

    1. Niiice.

  15. So I commented above about AGs, then I got to thinking: Who’s worse: Eric Holder or Janet Reno? I mean, Holder is an abomination as an AG, but the Justice Department under his watch hasn’t done anything as terrible as what happened under Reno’s watch, especially in Waco.

    1. Fast and Furious is pretty fucking bad, dude. Yeah, it’s not Waco, but it’s pretty bad.

      1. And the bodies are still piling up.

      2. Remember. The original Waco raid was the BATF going rogue. That wasn’t Reno’s decision. She is responsible for the burning down of the compound. And that is really bad. But it was a one time horrific fuck up that burned a bunch of people to death. Fast and Furious was a thought out months long program designed to ensure innocent Mexicans were murdered by American supplied guns so that those deaths could be used to lie the American people into supporting gun control.

        Waco killed people. Fast and Furious killed people and sought to corrupt the political process. I think Fast and Furious was worse.

        1. Don’t forget shooting people who ran out of the burning building!

          1. Yes. Waco was horrible. It is definitely a close call. But I vote for F&F

            1. The best part of F&F is imagining the low level agent going to his boss and saying:

              Agent: I want to let some guns walk, trace them to Mexican drug gangs, figure out where they are going.
              Boss: Okay, how many are we talking about?

              Then you have the possibilities:

              A: 2 or 3
              B: No problem, grab jimbo, talk to the local office, get going

              A: a dozen
              B: Okay, let’s get a team together, we can make this happen.

              A: 50
              B: Alright, we’ll get some senior agents to lead the team, I’ll make sure you’ve got a good spot on it.

              A: 2000
              B: WTF? Are you trying to arm an army?!?

              At least, that’s what it would be in a sane world, if the scheme came from the bottom up.

              1. Did F&F really involve 2000 weapons? Were they going for a statistically significant sample size or something?

                1. CONAN: Well, how many guns were involved in Fast and Furious?

                  ROBBINS: Michel might have a better – I think it was something like 1,600. Is that right, Michel?

                  MARIZCO: Yeah, it was roughly 1,800, mostly AK-47 variants, but also 50-calliber rifles, which are, you know, a bullet the size of a small beer bottle.

                  Proletariat Radio

                  Didn’t read the rest of the article transcript, though. Had to check myself, 2k stuck in my mind from somewhere.

                  1. “bullet the size of a small beer bottle”

                    WTF is this moron talking about??

      3. There have been whisperings that Holder was the guy running PATCON which was supposed to ID terrorists in the ‘Patriot Movement’ in the 90’s and that his signature appears on documents authorizing the feds to give Nichols explosives.

        1. Oh damn would that be a party if somebody posted that grainy PDF.

    2. but the Justice Department under his watch hasn’t done anything as terrible as what happened under Reno’s watch, especially in Waco. Yet.

      Although he did run a *lot* of guns.

  16. We must delve deep into their thought processes. I submit for your approval:

    But the verdict in the case of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, proves that everyone from Agatha Christie to James Patterson has been thinking small. The perfect crime is not just the one you get away with. The perfect crime is the one for which you are acquitted in a court of law. In fact, the most perfect crime of all is the one where, no matter what your true intent, the law supports and sanctions your right to murder in cold blood.

    The shooting of Trayvon Martin, it turns out, was that most perfect of crimes.

    1. skipping some and continuing:

      So he’ll just say this: On that night last February, when he got out of his car, George Zimmerman became the judge and jury of Trayvon Martin, accused of the crime of being a black male teenager walking in a neighborhood. Zimmerman then became Martin’s executioner because, like so many oppressed people before him, Martin resisted Zimmerman’s judgment. So Zimmerman did what scared people in power do all the time. He used overwhelming force to stop Martin’s resistance. It is the same kind of force that has killed people and movements in America and all over the world.

    2. The truth means nothing at all to these people, does it?

      1. Feelings are truth and the truth is abduced, not deduced.

    3. It impressive that this person can read minds. You’d think they’d be more busy with a skill like that, with no time to write articles on websites.

      1. Well he did say “no matter what your true intent.” He doesn’t need to read minds to point out that any ol white(hispanic) man can just walk around murdering black kids. I mean it doesn’t matter what their true intent is.

    4. This avalanche of dumb has just got to stop.

      1. Read on and weep:

        There was no way George Zimmerman was going to be found guilty because his guilt would have made Trayvon Martin innocent and said that the law was wrong. Even worse, it would have made Trayvon Martin, the black male teenager, right in his resistance, and the state of Florida, if not the entire nation, would not allow that to happen.

        1. Wow. These people really have no idea how laws work or what the purpose of the trial was.

          1. MORALITY PLAYZ!

          2. The part that will really make you cry is this: idiots like this VOTE.

  17. but the Justice Department under his watch hasn’t done anything as terrible as what happened under Reno’s watch, especially in Waco.

    Waco today would be covered w/ people’s cell phone cameras – no hiding the Feds actions.

  18. Let’s get the Zimmerman vs Holder scoreboard going on “unnecessary” acts.

    1. Oooo – I like it!

  19. The perfect crime is not just the one you get away with. The perfect crime is the one for which you are acquitted in a court of law.

    It’s been done.

    1. If Step One isn’t “be a running back turned actor” I am disappoint.

  20. As a Floridian I am glad to see Holder not use stand your ground as basis for his speech – as I have said all along regardless of the legality of Zimmerman being able to commit murder and claim self defense this whole situation is complete bullshit – Jim Crow laws were legal and I doubt any of you could mount a convincing agreement in their favor – The issue here is that Zimmerman could have avoided this situation and he didn’t – and the best “brains” of this site can only resort to comments like trolls, idiot, and other such childish rants when faced with the reality of any situation that doesn’t fit their comfort zone. For the final time class I don’t give a fuck about what is legal or not I care about what is morally right.

    1. Since you’ve seen to ignore thousands of rational comments expressing convincing arguments in favor of this verdict and the law that have been posted in the last month, as well as in the year+ since the case first became national news, I’ll give your comment the response it deserves:


    2. Fine. Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman wasn’t right about what Martin was doing? He had caught burglars before, you know, so maybe he’s an expert in how they act.

    3. Jim Crow laws were legal and I doubt any of you could mount a convincing agreement in their favor

      Your straw man is big ole’ steamin’ pile of shit. Find me an example of someone supporting Jim Crow laws on this website.

      You can’t? Then go trolling somewhere else.

      1. How is the fact that just because something is legal doesn’t make it right a straw argument? By the way this is what I typed “Jim Crow laws were legal and I doubt any of you could mount a convincing agreement in their favor”

    4. For the final time class I don’t give a fuck about what is legal or not I care about what is morally right.

      Well the good news is that there are all sorts of jobs available in government and politics for someone so sold on the idea that the ends justify the means.

      The bad news is that you are a horrible fucking person and will live in misery because no matter what power your idols collect, no matter what levels of depravity they sink to they will never be able to create your perfect world.

      1. I am a horrible person because rather than hide behind what is legal – I am more interested in truth and justice – I have a question for you is OJ guilty of murder?

        1. Is self-defense immoral? You seem to think it is.

    5. The Jim Crow laws were not legal. They were the result of the Supreme Court refusing to properly read the Constitution.

      Is it your position that proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a jury trial, and self defense as a defense to murder are actually contrary to the Constitution? If so, then please explain this novel Constitutional theory of yours. If not, shut the fuck up and stop dropping Jim Crow into a conversation it doesn’t belong.

      1. John I know this is hard for you but the basis of most of the crying you and others have been doing is that what Zimmerman has done is perfectly legal – I gave you an example of another law that was perfectly legal

        1. What is he did was legal under the law. IS the law immoral? If not, then Jim crow has no place in the conversation.

          1. you are missing the point – and based upon how you imagine yourself this should be easy for you

            1. No. You don’t have a point. At most you are saying that what Zimmerman did was immoral but still legal. Well yea. Adultry is immoral and still legal. Lots of things are immoral and still legal.

              But that has nothing to do with Jim Crow. Jim Crow as an immoral law that was in fact illegal the entire time. There is no analogy here to Jim Crow. You just bring it up as some kind of emotional appeal. Well those don’t work here. You have to argue rationally if you want anyone to agree with you.,

              1. emotional appeal ? you and your brain trust have no sense of emotion only laws matter to you – your entire Zimmerman cheerleading is based on whether or not what he did he was legal to do – you also typed this “You have to argue rationally if you want anyone to agree with you” – I am not interested in you agreeing with me you can continue your insults – my only interest is expressing my opinion on this the same as you and everyone else

                1. Opinions are like assholes, and yours smells like it came from the same place.

                  1. of course this is type of comeback I have come to expect from you guys

                    1. Well, you seem to value emotions over rationality, and then you complain when someone gives you their emotional take on your post. Make up your mind already.

    6. For the final time class I don’t give a fuck about what is legal or not I care about what is morally right.

      And of course you know what is “morally right” to an absolute certainty. And to such a certainty that the rule of law is no longer required.

      So really, you don’t care about the rule of law or anything beyond getting what you want.

      I tell you what is morally right, the government not being able to throw you in prison without convincing a jury you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to get rid of that principle I wish you luck with that.

      1. the government you support has been doing these things for many years – have you finally awaken to this fact?

        1. You’re in the wrong forum if you think people here generally support the government.

          1. It certainly demonstrates a gaping ignorance of John’s history of having been both a prosecutor and a defense attorney.

            Whiny and ignorant is a hell of a way to go through life.

    7. Self-defense is not murder. Even the ancient Israelites had that figured out thousands of years ago back in the time of Moses.

    8. The issue here is that Zimmerman could have avoided this situation and he didn’t…

      According to the most likely scenario given in court testimony, Trayvon Martin was in the best position to “have avoided this situation”. He could have simply walked the last couple of hundred feet to his front door and gone inside.

      1. Exactly. There was nothing morally wrong with GZ observing and following TM to investigate what GZ considered suspicious behavior. If TM, instead of continuing into his house, circled back and physically assaulted GZ, that is most certainly both immoral and illegal, and it constitutes both legal and moral grounds for self-defense.

  21. MSNBC last night: Apparently there are 12 year olds crawling into bed with their parents because they’re afraid of George Zimmerman.…..1U2UFL7Ka8

    1. That is probably true and it doesn’t surprise me. That is the is the effect the media is going for isn’t it? We have had a year of “this case is about whether white people can hunt down and kill black teenagers”. It is not surprising all of that has had some effect.

      1. It’s fucking psychotic how people pour their fears into their kids.

        1. It really is. Look at all of the kids that adults terrorized over Newtown. Any sane person would have been careful about what they told their kids about Newtown and made that kids understood that what happened in Newtown would never happen to them. Not today. No way. Instead people let their own self absorption and desire to be a part of the larger story allow them to let their kids be terrorized.

        2. Well, stupidity is hereditary.

    2. Bogeyman = Zimmerman. That’s true on so many levels.

    3. What is going on in this crazy country? I can see that shit being posted on Democratic Underground like the link above, but this is a major cable news network show and they are allowing commentary like that?

      Totally and completely unhinged.

      1. Dude, they’ve been completely unhinged for a while now. Newtown and the gun control bullshit was completely unhinged.

        1. A war against reality is futile, in the end. Perhaps it’s for the best that they openly demonstrate their insanity.

          1. Let’s hope that reality doesn’t ultimately reassert itself in the same way the Allies and the Wehrmacht did against Fascist Italy’s pasteboard military.

        2. I can see why the murder of little children would upset people, but Martin was not a helpless innocent seeing as he quite clearly was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.

          To me what’s truly unhinged is that they all think Zimmerman deserved to be beaten. They wouldn’t have cared if Zimmerman ended up like Reginald Denny because he committed thoughtcrime.

      2. but this is a major cable news network show

        It’s MSNBC. I don’t think “major” applies.

        1. Neither does ‘news’, they’ve openly admitted that MSNBC’s job is not to cover breaking news.

    4. “Eat your vegetables, little Johnny, or George Zimmerman will eat *you!*”

  22. This shit ain’t gonna end until some random White Hispanic is dragged behind a car for a few miles with his entrails hanging out while everybody from MSNBC cheers.

    1. I hope not – another senseless pointless death is not what is needed – sad thing for Zimmerman is he is already dead regardless of what the law says or does – finding him guilty would have actually been more humane but I don’t expect any of you to understand my saying that

      1. Oh yeah, I suppose Zimmerman in a Florida prison would have worked out great for him.

        1. People, it’s not nice to taunt the retarded.

          1. He’s like Tony, except more concerned and less intelligent.

      2. Zimmerman gained a bunch of weight since the shooting for a reason. Once all the trials are over he’s going to drop that weight, grow a beard, change his name and disappear.

    2. That will never happen. Not because it won’t actually happen, but because if it does happen, it will ipso facto have happened to a Hispanic.

  23. For the final time class I don’t give a fuck about what is legal or not I care about what is morally right.

    You’re like a modern day Nathan Hale.


    I’m not going to second-guess the jurors, except to say the obvious: if that were a jury of Trayvon’s peers, then I’m a heterosexual.

    1. Andrew Sullivan’s quest for pictures of Palin’s vagina is so consuming that he really didn’t have time to see the paucity of evidence the state had.

    2. Whatever parasite has made Sully’s brain into Swiss Cheese may actually cause him to become heterosexual. Anything is possible with that lunatic.

    3. God Sullivan is fucking retarded. The jury is supposed to be composed of the accused’s peers. Since when is it supposed to be the victim’s peers.

      By Sullivan’s logic, every time a black man is charged with raping a white woman, the jury should be composed entirely of white women. God he is criminally stupid.

      1. Great example, John.

      2. Or if someone killed a baby, the jury should be all babies.

    4. Last time I checked, Trayvon wasn’t on trial.

    5. Isn’t ‘peers’ referring to the defendant’s peers?

      1. Stop picking on the slow kid

      2. Yes … yes it is.

      3. Yes. See above and my example of a black man accused of raping a white woman.

    6. I have to admire Sullivan’s ability to wrap such breathtaking levels of racism and stupidity into once sentence and yet apparently remain utterly unaware of it.

      1. If lefty shitheads had any sense of self awareness they wouldn’t be lefty shitheads.

  25. Eric Holder Calls George Zimmerman’s Shooting of Trayvon Martin ‘Unnecessary’

    Holder: “Creepy ass cracker honky shoulda learned how to fight. Shiiiittttt.”

  26. Gosh, Mr. Attorney General, you seem really concerned about “youth” and about unnecessary violence.

    I also hear that you’ve been involved in the executive clemency process (at least where the beneficiary is Rich by name and by nature).

    So maybe you can do something about excessive sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom (I am given to understand) are minority youths. Maybe recommend that Obama release some of them from prison or shorten their sentences (which he acknowledges, in the context of crack at least, are often excessive).

    Or are you going to continue to keep “youths” (of all races) in prison for excessive terms, while weeping crocodile tears about young Trayvon Martin?

  27. Bit confused here, Z was tried and found not guilty in a jury of his peers. It’s a Constitutional thing. TM was not on trial, so his peers are irrelevant. So, if Holder tries to convict him, he is going against the will of the ppl. and our glorious Document. Maybe we should put Holder on trial as a traitor against the Constitution? Just sayin’….

    1. Re: Silly ol’ Bear,

      So, if Holder tries to convict him, he is going against the will of the ppl. and our glorious Document.

      Not the first time ever, Silly!

      Maybe we should put Holder on trial as a traitor against the Constitution?

      Tarring and feathering him would be enough for me, and far more entertaining.

    2. Put Bush and many others on trial first – in terms of crimes against the constitution that you claim to revere so much Eric Holder wouldn’t even make the top 1000

      1. And you and those like you thought Republicans were obsessed with Bill Clinton’s (proven) crimes. You’re taking ‘Blame Boooooooooosh!’ to new heights. Get over it already.

  28. Re: MasterDarque,

    As a Floridian I am glad to see Holder not use stand your ground as basis for his speech

    If he just would use the stand your brain and stay your mouth, everybody’s life would be just a tad less hazardous.

    regardless of the legality of Zimmerman being able to commit murder

    He didn’t commit murder, if that is what you think. He killed in self-defense.

    You can’t even get your basic concepts straight and you want to argue with the adults in the room.

    Jim Crow laws were legal

    No, they were not. Unjust laws that trample over people’s rights (the right to commerce, the right to free association, contract law, private property) are not laws nor are they legal.

    Again, the concepts.

    The issue here is that Zimmerman could have avoided this situation and he didn’t

    You can say the same about Martin – he could’ve gone home instead of playing gangsta on the “creepy-ass cracker,” but chose not to. I would’ve shot him myself if he attacked ME. Better to be taken by two than carried by six, a certain black man from Jersey always said.

    For the final time class I don’t give a fuck about what is legal or not I care about what is morally right.

    And I guess that for you, morally right means vengeance upon the “creepy-ass cracker,” isn’t it???

    1. racial terms again huh? from a dead man correct? Mex you aren’t worth responding to this horse is long dead – continue your legal career on this chat site – I am sure Ill run into you again on another thread-

      1. Re: MasterDarque,

        racial terms again huh? from a dead man correct?

        Not from any seance, if you’re insinuating that. Straight from the horse’s mouth – no pun intended.

        Mex you aren’t worth responding to this [sic] horse is long dead

        Don’t bother responding if you are not capable of placing the commas where they belong.

        1. lol Mex that pic is horrible and on that note I am going to happy hour

  29. Am I mistaken, but I’m positive when I saw this on TV I heard him call it murder which would be insanely prejudicial.

  30. Wow, so Holder was there to witness the event, eh?

  31. Trayvon was just a little kid. That, and the fact he had just purchased some Skiddles, prove he had the right to assault whomever he wanted to. Especially against a cracker who wanted to be a cop one day.

    The day a black kid, practically a toddler, in possession of candy no less, can be assassinated by some white supremacist with impunity then we really are back in the 1800s.

    1. Your “facts” support your conclusion, but they are different from the facts brought out in the trial.

      Apparently the “toddler” was the one on top, bashing the “white supremacist’s” head on the cement.

      Some “toddler.”

      You really believe what you post here?!

      1. If you had bought a genuine Sarcasmometer(tm) instead of a cheap imitation you would have identified that post for what it was.

  32. “Eric Holder Calls George Zimmerman’s Shooting of Trayvon Martin ‘Unnecessary'”…

    Only a mental midget could utter such a stupid comment. But then again, look at who hired him…

    So sad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.