Trayvon Martin

Eric Holder Condemns 'Stand Your Ground' but Does Not Blame It for Zimmerman's Acquittal



In a speech to the NAACP today, Attorney General Eric Holder mentioned George Zimmerman's acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, portraying the shooting as the result of racial profiling. That view is tempting and common, but it does not fit the facts as well as you might think. Judging from the recording of his 911 call, Zimmerman deemed Martin suspicious enough to contact the police before he got a good enough look to verify his race. Although Zimmerman's neighborhood had been plagued by burglars identified as young black men, the evidence that race was a factor in the shooting was so thin that the judge did not allow the prosecution to bring it up during his trial.

The juror interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper last night said the issue of race did not play any role in deliberations. "We never had that discussion," she said, adding that "I think George would have reacted the exact same way" to Martin if he had been white, Hispanic, or Asian. The issue was not Martin's skin color, she said, but what Zimmerman perceived as suspicious behavior by a young man he did not recognize: "He was cutting through the back. It was raining. [Zimmerman] said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road….I think he profiled anybody who came in and acted strange." Take that with a grain of salt if you like, since the all-female jury did not include any blacks. [Whoops—yes, it did.] But while Zimmerman bears responsibility for creating the circumstances that led to his violent confrontation with Martin (a point the juror also made), it is debtable whether racial profiling explains his decision to follow the teenager.

Although Holder sees clear racial overtones to Zimmerman's actions, he did not try to make the case that the shooting illustrates the folly of Florida-style self-defense laws, possibly because that case is so hard to make. Indeed, Holder explicitly separated the "stand your ground" debate from the Zimmerman case:

Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if—and the "if" is important—no safe retreat is available. 

But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and—unfortunately—has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation—we must stand our ground—to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent. 

All that is eminently debatable, starting with Holder's claim that the right to stand your ground is a dangerous new invention. As Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University, noted shortly after the shooting of Trayvon Martin became a national story:

The law in America has always been ambivalent about the duty to retreat, with about half the States at any given time recognizing the duty to retreat and about half abrogating it. This is not a new development. Moreover, even where there is no duty to retreat, it is still a requirement that the defendant reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of deadly physical force. And even in a retreat jurisdiction, the prosecution generally must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he could retreat with complete safety. So, in practice, there is not a whole lot of daylight between retreat and no-retreat jurisdictions.

Presumably that is why Bernie de la Rionda, the chief prosecutor in the Zimmerman trial, says "the law really hasn't changed all that much" since 2005, when the Florida legislature abolished the duty to retreat for people attacked in public places. At least Holder is not listing Trayvon Martin's death as one of the "resulting tragedies" he attributes to such legislation. Still, you have to wonder why "it's time" to question "stand your ground" the week after Zimmerman's acquittal if the two things have nothing to do with each other. 

NEXT: Manning Defense: Charges Threaten Whistleblowers

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. Holder:it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense…

    At least we’re getting some finer resolution on what constitutes “common sense” legislation.


    1. Well, that’s the good ole government conundrum at work. Sure, you can have a gun. But you can’t ever load it, carry it or use it. Sure you can defend yourself, but you have to wait until you’re beaten right to the point of death before you can. So see, you still have the right to be armed and defend yourself.

      Of course, if you wear a government-issued costume, you can use deadly force whenever the hell you want.

      1. Sure, you can have a gun. But you can’t ever load it, carry it or use it.

        So you can keep it, but you evidently cannot bear it, huh?

        1. Basically Canada’s laws regarding firearms.

    2. Did he try offering to go into counseling with Trayvon? Or helping him with his homework after school? Why didn’t he explore any of the alternatives to violence?

      1. Did he try offering to go into counseling with Trayvon? Or helping him with his homework after school? Why didn’t he explore any of the alternatives to violence?

        You jest, but I’ve seen this idiocy coming from morons on the left who believe they can negotiate/commiserate with someone engaged in a violent crime against them.

        They even have their own version of a parable (except totally true you guys!!) to support their lunacy.

        1. “He wants my money, so I just gave him my wallet and told him, ‘Here you go,'” Diaz says.

          Then you shot him, right?

          As the teen began to walk away, Diaz told him, “Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something. If you’re going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm.”

          Ahhh, letting him get comfortable, right? Then you shot him?

          Diaz replied: “If you’re willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money. I mean, all I wanted to do was get dinner and if you really want to join me … hey, you’re more than welcome.

          Oooh, I see!


          You’re a wily one. Gonna poison the bastard! Nice.

          “No, I just eat here a lot,” Diaz says he told the teen. “He says, ‘But you’re even nice to the dishwasher.'”

          Diaz replied, “Well, haven’t you been taught you should be nice to everybody?”

          “Yea, but I didn’t think people actually behaved that way,” the teen said.

          The kid is like clay in your hands, mold him to his death, you magnificent bastard! This seduction of death is a thing to behold.

                1. uh, you’re posts are butt naked, you might want to look to that general

  3. Wasn’t one juror described as identifying as black and Hispanic? (I didn’t learn this until after the trial, but I might be mistaken.)




      2. Trayvon was not the one on trial. Besides, “one’s peers” does not necessarily mean those on the jury must be the same race or the same gender as the defendant. “Peers” means ordinary citizens, as opposed to a judgement rendered by a judge or a group of government officials.

        1. As John mentioned in another thread – under this assumption that the jury is made up of the victim’s peers and not the defendants would mean in the 1950’s when a black man was accused of raping a white woman, the jury should be all white women.

          But with people like Jackson, it’s all about the ends – if the ends are what they want/expect – then the process is “broken”.

          For instance, if Jesse Jackson cannot be rich without extorting businesses, then Jesse sees this as a market failure.

          Which is true of the rest of the left as well – one of the arguments supporting bans on smoking in private businesses was that the lack of non-smoking private businesses was a market failure.

          Because it’s simply not possible for them to be wrong – therefore starting with the conclusion and working backwards just makes it all the easier.

          1. second paragraph..if the ends *aren’t* what they..

            preview, preview, preview

    2. Jesse Jackson argued yesterday that the jury was defective for the following reason: Trayvon Martin was black, the jury was all white; therefore the constitutional protection of a “jury of one’s peers was not followed.” Seriously. He made that argument.

      It is hard to operate with that level of stupid.

      1. Perhaps the right reverend was waxing poetical? It is kind of a frequent rhetorical device of his to play on well worn phrases with specific meanings. I imagine what he was getting at is that a black juror might have a different perspective on Zimmerman and Martin’s actions, and those actions were important to decide the case.

        1. Perhaps. But as I listened, he seemed to be arguing for a constitutional violation. However, given his career, you could well be correct.

        2. I’m going with, “Jesse Jackson is an ignorant, race-baiting dumbass who was not, in fact, ‘waxing poetic’.”

          1. With him the two are not mutually exclusive.

            1. Whatever gets him ink and contributions; those are the keys.
              Considerations regarding principle are irrelevant.

              1. He really would have been pissed if they held the trial in Hymietown and had a jury of Jooz!

                1. How Jesse ever lived that down is beyond me. Oh wait, we are dealing with the Left here.

                  1. I was referring to sloopy’s comment. Eddie Murphy did a great bit on SNL about that.

                  2. Duke| 7.16.13 @ 9:25PM |#
                    “How Jesse ever lived that down is beyond me.”

                    The same way Obozo ‘finessed’ the Wright connection; lie and the lefties eat it up and say ‘isn’t that wonderful?!’.

        3. Perhaps the right reverend was waxing poetical?

          Perhaps Ol’ Jesse was being the racist piece of rusty fucking cunt that he is. Fuck that tired motherfucker. If I was black I’d beat his racist old black ass.

          Motherfucker talks about being afraid of black guys walking down the fucking street and then condemns Zimmerman, what a piece of rotten goat shit. Fuck man, I don’t get afraid of any group of people walking down the street and I’m a tiny white dude.

          And if you wanna different perspective, Bo, how about I climb on top of you and punch you in the face a few of times. You can chalk it up as another cultural experience, dumbass.

          1. “If I was black I’d beat his racist old black ass.”

            Who are you? Imposter! I am certain that General Butt Naked is black.

            1. I was, but I’m trying to get into White Heaven.

              No Jesse Jackson! Hallelujah!

          2. That’s the thing motherfuckers like Jackson and Sharpton opportunistically overlook: Martin could have just kept on walking.

            Zimmerman could have just asked questions, and turn the car around.

            They did neither. Tragedy ensued.

            How this is racial is beyond me.

            What a bunch of fucking assholes and people who support these fools are assholes too.

            Holder apparently lent support to Sharpton and his crappy march his organizing?

      2. It is hard to operate with that level of stupid.

        Let’s be fair…at Jesses age he could be passing from the simply stupid phase into his simply demented stage. To be fair.

        And Eric Holder is a useless, mendacious piece of shit! How will the country ever find someone worse…unless Angela Corey becomes available.

        1. Yeah, as I noted below: worst A-G since at least John Mitchell.

          1. Name one who was decent? I can’t.

            … Hobbit

      3. Well, it wasn’t.

        But still, it’s a good idea to avoid a situation where a defendant is acquitted due to racial bias, rather than the facts, and a mixed-race jury would make more sense. Of course, so would a mixed-gender jury, but whatever.

      4. It’s not so hard for Jackson, apparently. He’s made a career of it for several decades. My guess is, by now, operating with that level of stupid is second-nature to him.

    3. Wasn’t one juror described as identifying as black and Hispanic? (I didn’t learn this until after the trial, but I might be mistaken.)

      All women, one latina.

  4. To the American people, let me say this – we need to have a conversation about what’s important. And what’s important is to heap more crap on that shitty ‘Superman’ movie. And to any aspiring Hollywood screenwriters, I’ll just leave this here for your study.

    1. All one needs to know about that film is that it has Russell Crowe shooting laser beams while riding a dragon.

      1. That opening 5 minutes was the best part.

    2. That movie was ridiculously uneven in terms of what message it was trying to get across about Superman/Clark Kent.

      1. That they’re gay lovers?

        1. An ouroborous of homosexuality?

          1. That’s a lot of letters to say ‘batin’.

            1. I was thinking autofellatio

              1. Its how uncle Zod *really* broke his neck, but you don’t want to tell his mother that.

  5. Racial profiling is morally neutral. If you profile blacks and then beat them senseless, that’s morally bad, but the bad part wasn’t the profiling. Similarly, if you profile them and intervene more in their schools because you think they’ll benefit from extra academic attention, that’s (at least arguably) morally good. Again, the profiling itself is neutral. It has no moral content.

    1. Isn’t it tribalism? Is that morally neutral? It seems to me libertarians should be the most vocal about racial profiling as we’ve long rejected collective judgments in favor of individualism.

      1. we’ve long rejected collective judgments in favor of individualism.

        I see.

        1. Heh, I see. Let me rephrase “as the political philosophy has long rejected collective judgments in favor of individualism.”

          1. I think collectivism is dumb but somebody could still be a tribalist/racist and a libertarian as long as it doesn’t affect their political positions.

            1. I think collectivism is dumb but somebody could still be a tribalist/racist and a libertarian as long as it doesn’t affect their political positions.

              I think we all agree with that.

              1. & we all are tribalistic in various ways and in various groups – everyone likely belongs to a family of some sort that we would likely help before others, we all likely have a professional tribe, a friend tribe…

      2. No. Yes.

        Profiling is well or poorly founded, along a continuum of values from 1 (each and every person with P characteristic also has Q characteristic) to 0 (the correlation of P characteristic with Q characteristic is random). If someone is making a judgment based on profiling, that initial judgment is either likely to be true or not likely, based on the truth of the generalization enshrined in the profile. Since generalization is a thing people have to do, based on information that is never complete, this judgment has to happen. If a strong judgment is made with a weak correlation, that’s unwise. But that’s it. The moral content comes in when you decide what to do with the information – the action that follows profiling determines the moral worth of the combination.

        There is no getting around making general judgments, and if that’s tribalism, science is tribal. The very act of judging is tribal. I tend to think tribalism is not trivial, so I don’t regard every generalization as tribal.

        1. I think racial profiling is bad science, or bad math if you will. Even if a majority of robbers are black that doesn’t mean a majority of blacks are robbers, so making a judgment that a given black person is a robber is going to be mathematically unsound.

          I also think there’s a kind of rights moral issue that trumps math. It’s wrong to punish people (and a fair amount of racial profiling is punishing in some way) for the supposed sins of other people “in their group.”

          1. This statement is illogical. Nobody is assuming that or acting as though a majority of blacks are robbers. A police officer who profiles somebody as a potential burglar is going to consider a variety of factors. Maybe you don’t understand Acosmist’s point.

            1. “A police officer who profiles somebody as a potential burglar is going to consider a variety of factors.”

              I’d say that depends on the police officer

              1. Agreed – though given the number of laws on the books and their continuing growth – we will see continued discretion with whom to charge… and then it becomes profiling to see who to charge.

                No need to worry if they’re criminals yet – just if you’re a cop and you don’t like them – or you do and they don’t like you – charge them with one of the many violations almost every person is likely breaking anyway.

                So as the liberals continue to increase the number of laws, they also increase the actual racist/sexist/etc police officer’s ability to be as racist as they wish and maintain cover.

                Just as increasing regulation will increase money in politics.

        2. So…science is…RACIST!

      3. Maybe it’s more of a conservative view than a libertarian one, but I see tribalism (like, say, greed or lust or addiction) as something that can motivate a person to do evil, rather than being an evil thing in and of itself.

        The desire to protect and help family members is just concentrated tribalism, but for the most part it prompts people to do good, not to do evil. Greed in the right context can lead to decisions that make everyone better off, lust is pretty much necessary for life, and so on.

        1. ant1sthenes| 7.16.13 @ 9:24PM |#
          “Maybe it’s more of a conservative view than a libertarian one, but I see tribalism (like, say, greed or lust or addiction)”

          Greed, lust or addiction are somehow related to tribalism?

          1. Sure – not that I’d place them all that high on most people’s list – but one of the things the reformation did was give people the idea that they could keep their tribalism, but define their tribe how they wanted. They could even define their tribe based upon an idea or ideal.

            One could say the US was a tribe based & founded upon the ideal of individual freedom.

    2. Doesn’t the BAU on Criminal Minds profile? In fact, I once watched a doc that discussed how ‘profiling’ (invented by a cop or something) revolutionized how law enforcement investigates crime – for the better.

  6. “By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.”

    This really disturbs me. The problem for Holder is not the people initiating violence, it’s the law allowing someone to respond in kind. The victim should have a duty to retreat before the offender because when they stand up to them and respond in kind some offenders get hurt and this “undermine(s) public safety. And this coming from the scold who lamented a “nation of cowards.” It is to barf.

    1. I’ve always wondered about this – where does that ‘duty to retreat’ end?

      Guy comes along and starts pissing on my head so I move away, then he follows and starts pissing again. How many times must I move before I can legitimately punch him in the balls?

      1. three. I have no legal or philosophical rationale for this but I believe three warnings like – “Leave me alone or I’m going to kick your teeth in” are fair enough. And anyone ignoring the third and final warning deserves whatever they get.

        1. Your warning of violence to stop someone is an escalation of the situation allowing the first perpetrator to legally increase his pissing on you and you have no recourse what so ever now since it was your fault for standing there in the first place.

          1. I was being a little hyperbolic there I usually start with would you please stop doing that, the move to I’ll ask once more nicely, then the teeth kicking.

            1. then move to

        2. Now extend having your head pissed on to someone pulling a gun on you. Do you still think that you have to retreat three times before its permissible to take other action?

          1. Warning someone to stop aggressing on you is (IMO) only a suitable response for either minor-to-moderate aggressions or for those things that can be legitimately mis-interpreted (like if someone I know slaps me on the back of the head – my desire would be to beat the shit out of that guy until he’s left bleeding and broken. But, I know that for some people its a funny joke and they don’t know how much I despise it).

            Other things deserve to be acted on immediately. I don’t expect to *have* to run away from a guy with a knife (though that’s certainly a prudent response). Instead I *should* be permitted to immediately over-match his force.

          2. I took “pissing on your head” to be a metaphor for annoying you, if physical violence or threats of such are made, “go time” is a acceptable option immediately.

        3. It’s actually not that hard to justify not retreating, anyway. As I understand it, the duty to retreat is only a duty to the extent that you can do so in complete safety. If you can say that you thought you couldn’t do that, then you don’t have a duty to retreat.

          1. God, this case is stupid. And I’m not sure whether I’m even stupider for thinking an acquittal would clear up this stupid case for all but the putative rioters. Now we’ve legal scholars and the AG rather brazenly showing their colors as political dweebs by questioning the wisdom of a law that had no effect on the stupid case in the first place and, in any event, appears to be entirely toothless in the rare cases it is used.


            1. SYG was the main reason they were interested in the case, the racial shit was just a bonus.

              “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

              Holder is a lover of tyranny, first and foremost.

              1. And guns, don’t forget gun control. It was a trifecta!

          2. My assumption in this little Gedankenexperiment takes as a given that you can retreat and its obvious that you can.

            I think that maybe you should have a duty to *not* retreat. Getting all ‘social contract’ here but it seems that as long as people will retreat, MF’s will continue to press and so we should force people to confront aggressors so that the price of aggression is raised and less of it occurs.

  7. I’ll take him seriously on the duty to retreat once he applies it to LEOs.

  8. All these people whining about ‘Stand your Ground’ do realize that the opposite of Stand your Ground laws are called ‘Lie back and enjoy it’ laws, right?

    And Steadman… Steadman kiss my ass.

    1. I thought they were called “grab your ankles” laws.

  9. Holder is obviously trying to imply a link between the Zimmerman case and SYG without directly stating it, thus keeping plausible deniability if someone calls him on it.

    1. Well, if he called it SYG, people would call him a dumbass lawyer. Because it’s pretty fucking obvious to most of us that it’s not SYG.

  10. The aggressor has the duty to retreat.
    What Holder and his ilk want is a submissive population. After all, it is more difficult to keep your boot on the neck of a person who resists.

    1. Unfortunately, this is essentially true. There was a time when I thought this was hyperbole, but there is a broad push in this country to create a dependent population. You can’t manage a population if something essential like ‘defense’ is outsourced… outsourced to the population needing defending.

      1. There was a time when I thought it was hyperbole also.

    2. -The aggressor has the duty to retreat.


      1. Well, we live in a time where a kid defending themselves against a bully get in trouble.

  11. Holder has to be the most despicable A-G since at least John Mitchell

    1. I’m going with since Reno. Mitchell helped plan and cover up a minor break-in. Reno orchestrated the fiery deaths of dozens of innocents. I think she wins most despicable out of those two.

      1. Good point.

      2. Generic Stranger| 7.16.13 @ 7:58PM |#
        “I’m going with since Reno. Mitchell helped plan and cover up a minor break-in. Reno orchestrated the fiery deaths of dozens of innocents. I think she wins most despicable out of those two”

        And then she took ‘responsibility’ and went home.
        To be honest, Slick Willy needs a helping of shit here also; he covered for her.

        1. Yeah, but we’re limiting ourselves to AG’s, not Presidents.

          Also, someone mentioned down thread that Holder was involved in WACO as well, which means he gets to pull out into the lead. Most despicable USAG of all time?

          1. *Waco. Not an acronym. Derp.

  12. It seems like libertarians may be missing an opportunity to focus on the broader issue of unfair policing practices in this country.

    From the facts as I understand them, Martin chose violence when he felt someone was following him. I don’t think we should forget that point. Maybe Zimmerman was harassing him(I doubt it), but that did not morally empower Martin to initiate violence or escalate the situation in any way. Martin had a duty to retreat. Go to a neighbor, call 911, or simply run.

    However there is still the issue of racial profiling in America. Being black does indeed seem to open the door to all kinds of quasi-legal harassment. Look at stop and frisk or drug war arrest statistics for example. If anything, we should be moving on from this particular incident and beginning a larger dialogue concerning fairness in policing and the criminal justice system.

    There’s a lot of ugliness going on right now, and it seems to be escalating as folks take sides. That’s not good for any of us.

    1. Good points.

    2. not good for any of us

      Based upon their utterances and actions, over a sustained period of time, it appears to me that The President and his sycophants believe it is “good for” them.

      Of course, I may be mistaken.

      1. Well obviously this whole situation was a wonderful gift to politicians seeking to deflect attention from their endless screwups… Hell, the more they can divide America, the more they can claim to be necessary in order to ‘unite’ us and ‘fix’ the problem.

        I was really talking about the seemingly endless cries of racism and the minority of racists who are now making such cries seem justified.

    3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe a civilian can “profile” anyone. Isn’t that a legal term and can’t it only be applied to agents of the state?

      1. Who cares? This tapped in to a lot of feelings of resentment caused in large part by the continued harassment of ‘people of color’ by law enforcement.

        White man looks at it and talks technicalities. Black man looks at it and sees another victim of profiling. You can keep trying to play lawyer or you can think strategically and engage on common ground.

    4. I wouldn’t say Martin had a duty to retreat. What he did have (as do we all) is a duty to not escalate the situation into one of violence.

      He had the options you listed. He also had the option of saying “Why the fuck are you following me?” Had they simply had an awkward verbal altercation it’s likely that it would have ended at that.


    /Holder THIS

  14. while Zimmerman bears responsibility for creating the circumstances that led to his violent confrontation with Martin (a point the juror also made), …

    He bears some of the responsibility, but not all of it. At least not as far as anyone other than Zimmerman knows.

    1. I believed from the very beginning that he bore a lot of responsibility for the circumstances, but none of that means that he was guilty of murder or even manslaughter.

      All it means is, “Please, Mr. Zimmerman, next time, let the police handle the suspicious characters”

      I draw the analogy this way: If I see or hear an altercation in my front yard or in front of my house and I call 911 and then I see the altercation begin to escalate. I let the 911 operator know I’m heading out to break things up, and the 911 operator tells me, ‘don’t do that sir’, but I go anyway. Now, once out there, one or both of the people turn to me and attempt to do injury or harm or… possibly kill me and I defend myself with deadly force, I’m not guilty of a crime, I’m merely guilty of poor judgement.

      1. The 911 operator does not have the authority to put you into the kind of legal jeopardy that a prosecutor can later use to exploit an ignorant jury pool. He should not be telling you or GZ anything of the kind. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, note the passive voice the operator used, ‘we don’t need you to do be doing that.’ He was well aware that he was irresponsibly overstepping his authority with that suggestion.

      2. “don’t do that sir” – Are you sure that’s what the non-emergency line operator told Zimmerman?

        “I’m heading out to break things up” – is that what Zimmerman did?

        Once again someone is arguing this case without having a clear understanding of the events. There are many subtle facts in this case that distinguish it from the scenario you outlined.

      3. I’m not ready to concede that it was poor judgment. Homes in your neighborhood have been robbed multiple times; the cops always arrive too late and haven’t accomplished much of anything; you see a young guy with a hood up wandering through the neighborhood looking at the houses at night; you call 911 and then follow the guy so that you can hopefully keep an eye on him until the cops arrive. That seems pretty sensible to me.

        The 911 operator saying “we don’t need you to do that” is something I would ignore in a situation like that. Following that advice in the past is what has allowed the robberies to continue while the cops achieve nothing.

        However, I don’t own a gun, so I’m not sure how that would affect my thinking.

        1. If you think a guy is suspicious and up to no good, and then lose sight of him, at night when it’s pitch black and raining outside, I’d say it’s pretty stupid to leave the safety of your car in that situation. And while I know you can’t always use hindsight to judge properly, the outcome of the situation seems to support that it was a dumb decision.

        2. “I don’t own a gun”

          You should think about changing that.

        3. I don’t own a gun

          Jesus, they’ll let anyone in here now, won’t they?

          Get armed young person, post haste!

      4. As pointed out, Zimmerman did not get an order from 911. Even more importantly, after being told “We don’t need you to do that,” he said “OK,” and AFAIK, did not continue to follow Martin after that. However, Martin did come back and assault him.

  15. Eric Holder, the man who first made his DC bones by making Waco go away? The man, identified as a member of Obama’s murderdrone star chamber, who also has the death of at least one seventeen year old teenager on his hands? That Eric Holder? He’s the very reason we need not only stand your ground laws but strong, private militias to keep monsters like him in check.

  16. DoJ asking civil rights groups and general public to email them “tips” about George Zimmerman so they can try and push through a civil rights case against him.…..8518.story

    1. Didn’t the DOJ already interview a boatload of people and determine that there was nothing to show that Zimmerman was a racist?

      1. Now, now, let’s not let facts interfere with justice there Hash. We have a duty to pander to the professional victim industry, after all.

        1. They aren’t through embarrassing themselves yet.

        2. Part of me thinks the administration just wants to appear to be doing something, while in reality it has no intention of ever bringing a case against Zimmerman.

          This first occurred to me yesterday morning, when the National Party Radio reporter was lowering expectations right off the bat (“it will be very hard to prove … DOJ tends not to pursue these cases when there’s been an acquittal …” etc.). If I’m right that NPR is the administration’s mouthpiece, then it sounds like they want us to expect little in the way of action on this one.

          1. My theory: Turnout in midterms is often low. Only the truly dedicated party warriors get out to vote.

            All of these scandals have energized the shit out of the Republicans and demoralized the crap out of the Dems. But if Zimmerman were to “get off” again between August and October 2014, you’d see the proggies and blacks be energized and motivated to vote. It may not gain them any seats, but it could serve to mitigate the losses.

            1. All the smart money is saying the same thing right now.

              I think the Zimmerman thing will dry up pretty quickly for ’em and they’ll be left praying for another school shooting.

    2. Well he was a Democrat, had black friends, and was of black, hispanic and white ancestry.

      Obviously the guy hates asians and jews.

    3. “He turned me into a newt!!”

      … I got better.

  17. Fuck the shut up, Holder, you retard.

    I was in downtown Balmer all day today, at my office, workin. Walking around some on the streets. Very calm. No rioters, no Trayvon signs spotted while there or commuting to and from. No hoodie wearing mobs. Very calm day in Balmer. Looks like, so far, Obama and him minions are losing their bid to start a race war that they can’t win, dumbasses.

    1. Looks like, so far, Obama and him minions are losing their bid to start a race war that they can’t win, dumbasses.

      Even if that were their aim, Obama and Holder play for Team State, not Team Black. It might not work out so badly for them as you might think, unless it escalated to include a civil war and the military came down on the side of the people.

      1. I think the Obama crew were creaming their shorts at the idea of widespread rioting. What better excuse for further domestic militarization and a huge new federal initiative?

  18. Stand by your
    Give it
    some grass
    for cover.
    And some small shrubs
    to line the land.

    Stand by your
    Don’t give and inch
    my brother!
    Cause Florida’s got you
    covered nooooooooow!!!

    Stand by


    1. I’ve had this song–the first line of it–in my head for days. “Stand by your ground.”

  19. Most tyrants and their supporters are against people defending themselves.

    1. There is the heart of it.

  20. I’m sick of Zimmmerman so here’s a puppy.…..76/photo/1

  21. I’m sick of Zimmerman. Here’s a list of 100 books for men/a.

    1. So if books for women are chick lit, then what do we call books for men? Oh, never mind, I know what you’re going to say.

  22. Has anyone posted this already?

    During her lengthy interview with Piers Morgan last night, star witness Rachel Jeantel described how she and Trayvon Martin feared that George Zimmerman was a “rapist” following the 17-year-old teenager.

    Asked whether there was any doubt in her mind as to whether Martin “absolutely believed” Zimmerman was “pursuing him”
    that evening in 2012, Jeantel replied in the affirmative. He was “freaked out” about it, she said, especially after she had suggested to the late teenager that Zimmerman “might be a rapist.”

    She explained that because Martin was not a homosexual, he was troubled by the actions of Zimmerman: “For every boy or every man who’s not that kind of way,” she said, “seeing a grown man following them, would they be creeped out?”

    Jeantel continued: “You have to take it as a parent, when you tell your child, you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that. You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, then you’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.”

    1. Run away?

      Martin was approximately 100 yards from his father’s townhouse. Supposedly, Martin was a high school football player. Assuming he was any good, he could have run home in at least 20 seconds.

      So why didn’t the high school football player just outrun the fat, creepy ass cracka?

      1. Perhaps Martin wanted to prove his manhood with a little gay-bashing. Did he call Zimmerman a “creepy-ass cracker” or a “creepy ass-cracker”?

    2. Boy, there’s some credibility. How could the jury not convict!

      1. But wait — there’s more!

        In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Jeantel insisted that Zimmerman and the jury didn’t have the cultural awareness to understand that Martin wasn’t giving the defendant a “bashing” but merely a “whoop-a?,” Breitbart News noted.

        Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin shortly before he was shot by Zimmerman Feb. 26, 2012, explained: “They don’t understand, they understand, ‘Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.’ When somebody bash somebody, like, blood, people, trust me, in the area I live, that’s not bashing. That’s just called “whoop-ass.” You just got your ass whooped. That’s what it is.”

        1. Another amazing bit of perception from a 19-year-old high schooler who can’t read cursive but can discern the sound of wet grass over a cellphone.

      2. One argument against Z is that maybe he wasn’t in reasonable fear for his life….

        I’m not sure what the stats are – but thinking a random older guy following a highschool aged guy is potentially looking for a rape victim is the very definition of an unreasonable fear.

        & as we all know – male on male rape is usually reserved for prisons and there it’s an amusing feature of the justice system.

    3. Certainly it’s the sort of story most likely to be found in a book or movie trying make some kind of statement. Wannabe hero guy thinks kid rambling around in the rain at night in a hoodie is a burglar and follows him; wannabe hero kid thinks creepy guy following him is a pedo and decides to protect his family by kicking the guy’s ass. Then either a) old guy panics when the fight gets out of hand and shoots or b) kid panics when he realizes the guy has a gun and tries to get it, but is too slow. Either way, same result. Sounds like the plot to a Coen brothers movie.

      Actually, in that version of events, Zimmerman and Martin are about the only sympathetic characters — they may have been foolish, but they were basically trying to do the right thing. Once the media and government and lawyers and activists and rioters (and internet commenters) get involved, it’s a pointless clash between assholes.

  23. the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely

    With all due respect, I had never heard of such an “age-old requirement” until the Zimmerman case.

    “Show me where ….”

    1. Sorry, that was a secret court decision.

    2. Asking a member of the Obama administration to support their point with hard evidence is like asking a retard to do quantum physics. It just ain’t gonna happen.

    3. It just occurred to me that he *might* be referring to JC’s “turn the other cheek” discussion.

      But nah, that can’t be right — it might offend certain folks.

  24. There’s a bigger issue at play here. And that is: can we finally consider what’s happened in the aftermath “rioting” at least in the sense that it will win me the bet I made with Epi, thus earning me The Goonies Data Action Figure?

    1. it was Sloth, right?

      1. I think Pro Lib said he’d give me Chunk and that I hadn’t earned Data. There was no mention of Sloth made, IIRC.

        1. Can the chunk action figure do the truffle shuffle?

          If not, I win by cheap prizes default.

          1. So disappointed in the review on there. And that it didn’t even have a “customers who purchased this item also purchased” Wesley Crusher: Teenage Fuck Machine.

  25. Yes!!!

  26. Fuck Obama.
    Fuck Holder.
    Fuck Jackson.
    Fuck Hillary Clinton.

    The first three are using this as political capital to stoke their base into action now. The last one is piling on to lay the groundwork for a Presidential run. They’re all craven asswipes the same way the GOP were when they waved their bloody banners around post-9/11 through the Iraq invasion.

    We need a revolution in America that will rid us of this type of people. We’re a better society than this as a whole. At least I used to think we were.

    1. Fuck Hillary Clinton

      You first, bro, and last too. I’m not getting involved.

      We need a revolution in America that will rid us of this type of people

      We’re going to get it too, unfortunately it will involve massive death tolls and anarchy. Better practice up on those survival skills…

    2. “We’re a better society than this as a whole.”

      Catch-22. To the extent that we haven’t hung them up on lampposts, it’s because we’re a basically decent society that believes in sorting things out lawfully and procedurally. Once Americans do get to that point where they can do that and/or feel they have no choice or recourse, their hearts are probably too poisoned by anger and hate to build anything better on the ashes.

  27. Why is it so ultra-important to prove that race had nothing to do with Zimmerman’s assessment of Martin? Given that young black men commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime in this country, a certain amount of “profiling” is just common sense, and not the super-evil terrible horrible thing we keep being told it is.

    1. Do away with the WOD and let’s talk after that.

      1. Do away with the WOD and let’s talk after that.

        Granted, but burglary would still be illegal and has essentially nothing to do with the WOD. Even if the WOD ended, there would still exist a number of hardcore addicts incapable of supporting their habit honestly that they’d need to engage in property/violent crime to get their fixes. It would simply cease trapping people for the non-offense of drug possession and use.

        Also young black males commit a hugely disproportionate amount of the violent crime in this country.

      2. In that case blacks would commit an ever more disproportionate amount of crime. DUCY?

  28. If you wonder what would happen to a respectable black man who shoots/kills a “troubled” white teen aged boy, this is for you:

  29. Justice Oliver Wendell “Honky” Holmes, speaking for the US Supreme Court in 1921 (shooting taking place at a post office in Texas):

    “The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court….Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him….The law of Texas very strongly adopts these views…”…../case.html

    1. If Holmes agrees with it, I’m starting to question it.

      1. He’s kind of hit or miss, I admit, but he had a unanimous court behind him.

        And I was thinking mainly of Holder’s reference to the “ancient” rule, a rule rejected by the supremes almost 100 years ago, which to progs is also ancient.

        1. And what would Holder do, repudiate St. Oliver the Great?

  30. And why did SYG laws first come into being? Could it be because aggressive prosecutors were pursuing ridiculous charges against citizens who had defended themselves against younger, more agile attackers?

    When you’re a 70-year-old fart wiling away his days in sunny, low-tax Florida, you don’t have many options to retreat when a pack of teenaged attackers start in after you. But that has never stopped a prosecutor who has a career to consider from pursuing charges against such an individual when he defends himself with the best means available to him.

    1. When you’re a 70-year-old fart wiling away his days in sunny, low-tax Florida, you don’t have many options to retreat when a pack of teenaged attackers start in after you.

      Is this America in 2013 or is this A Clockwork Orange?

      1. Yeah Alice, because old farts defending themselves against armed assailants never, ever happen. Never.

      2. Trick question?

        1. Being charitable to you, the reason SYG came into being in the first place is that conventional self-defense case law was being subverted by the modern species of hyperaggressive prosecutor. In contrast to courts of the past, DAs were filing charges against property owners, the elderly, anyone who used deadly force to defend themselves against attackers. SYG is an effort to prevent further overcharging by tying the hands of the state, which is generally recognized as a good thing even by trolls and Gillespies.

  31. Squirrels got me above, dangit!

  32. Can you not reply to yourself now?

    Could someone try? The posts that I reply to myself are eaten.

    1. Could someone try? The posts that I reply to myself are eaten.


      1. Reply to my own post test.

        1. Nope, guess you’re just ‘tarded GBN.

          That’s ok though dude, plenty of ‘tarded people have awesome lives.

          You could even be an airline pilot.

          1. Dang, what the hell? Wasn’t your ex wife ‘tarded, not to talk like a dick or anything?

            Seriously, I don’t know why the squirrels ate my posts. The fucking fuzzy little bastards.

  33. Auric Demonocles condemns missing alt-text, but does not blame it for Zimmerman’s acquittal

  34. “Still, you have to wonder why “it’s time” to question “stand your ground” the week after Zimmerman’s acquittal if the two things have nothing to do with each other. ”

    For the same reason that the Sandy Hook school shooting was trotted out as an example of why we need more gun purchase background check laws despite it having nothing to do with the particulars of that incident – pure emotional bullshit.

  35. Eric Holder is an ignorant fool. No duty to retreat has been a part of American law in many states for over a hundred years. And it has been clearly enunciated in federal criminal law since at least 1920. As the federal attorney general, he should know that.


    The Self-Defense Cases: How the United States Supreme Court Confronted a Hanging Judge in the Nineteenth Century…..-Cases.htm

    Quote from Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 550-51 (1895).

    [Beard] was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

  36. Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate…..e/?print=1

    African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

    Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.