Trayvon Martin

4 Reasons to Reject Federal Charges Against George Zimmerman

Obama wants us to respect the jury's verdict. He should too.

|

After a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin on Saturday, President Obama appealed for calm. "I know this case has elicited strong passions," he said. "And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."

Although Obama wants us to respect the jury's verdict, that does not necessarily mean he will. His Justice Department is mulling the possibility of prosecuting Zimmerman again, most likely based on the federal hate crime statute. That would be wrong for at least four reasons.

There is very little evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by bigotry. Zimmerman, a Hispanic with an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather, grew up in a racially mixed household, started a business with a black friend, and mentored African-American children. Last year the FBI interviewed dozens of his neighbors and co-workers, none of whom described him as racist.

The evidence that race was a factor in Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was so thin that the judge did not allow the prosecution to mention it during his trial. Yet to convict Zimmerman of a hate crime in connection with Martin's death, federal prosecutors would have to show not just that the teenager's skin color was one of the things that made him seem suspicious to Zimmerman but that Zimmerman shot him "because of" his race.

The government should not punish people for their beliefs. If Zimmerman had been known to espouse racist views, or if he had uttered racist epithets during his encounter with Martin, that evidence would be used to prosecute him for a federal crime that carries a life sentence. A man with different opinions would not face that risk. To make criminal punishment hinge on a defendant's expression of politically disfavored ideas violates freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

Federalism. The federal hate crime law allows the Justice Department to prosecute any violent offense allegedly motivated by bigotry when the defendant "interferes with commercial or other economic activity," "otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce," or even uses a "weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce." These ridiculously broad excuses for federal intervention make a mockery of the balance between state and national powers established by the Constitution.

Double jeopardy. Although the Supreme Court has held that serial prosecutions for the same actions do not violate the Fifth Amendment as long as they are undertaken by different levels of government, the "dual sovereignty" doctrine should not blind us to what is really going on here. A state jury acquitted Zimmerman based on his claim of self-defense. If the Justice Department decides to prosecute him, it will be saying that the state jury got it wrong.

Attorney General Eric Holder already has implied as much, calling the shooting "unnecessary" in a speech on Monday. While Holder might have meant that Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had not deemed him suspicious and started to follow him, the comment can also be read as a rejection of Zimmerman's defense, suggesting Holder is prejudging a Justice Department investigation that could lead to a prosecution aimed, in essence, at overturning Zimmerman's acquittal.

Although it was predictable that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would demand federal charges against Zimmerman after he was acquitted, it is sad to see the American Civil Liberties Union, which should be standing up for the rights of unpopular defendants, jumping on this bandwagon. In a statement issued on Sunday, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said "it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime."

In other words, the ACLU is calling for a federal inquiry into an acquitted defendant's beliefs with the aim of justifying a second prosecution for the same crime. What part of that says "civil liberties" to you? 

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Cool, Clear Water

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. Although Obama wants us to respect the jury’s verdict, writes Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, that does not necessarily mean he will.

    Hey, the 2014 mid-term elections are just around the corner, and he needs to take the focus off of all his scandals and keep the low-information idiot base whipped up somehow. Too bad if a man’s life and the rule of law must be destroyed in the process. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs, after all.

    1. You’d think one of those fake scandals would stick around long enough to impact the election in November 2014 (just 16 months away).

      Kind of like how the Lewinsky scandal did NOT impact the 1998 elections.

      I noticed the home builders survey hit 57 yesterday (highest since 2006) as the economy keeps gaining strength. Low-info types don’t hear that on AM wingnut radio though. Benghazi, bitches!

      1. BOOOSH!!111!!!!
        CHRISTFAGS!!!11!!!!!

        1. WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? A gauge of home-builder confidence in July hit the highest level in more than seven years, according to data released Tuesday that showed the interest-rate spike has yet to dampen industry confidence.

          The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo housing-market index rose in July for the third consecutive month, reaching 57 in July ? the highest level since January 2006 ? from 51 in June. The sentiment gauge is up 63% from a year ago.

          1. RECOVERY SUMMER!!11!!!!AGAIN!!111!!!

            DERPITY DERP DE DERP!!11!!!!!

          2. Ah, the one-track mind of a monetarist clown, obliviously stumbling from one self-inflicted bubble to the next. You guys remind me of Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons.

          3. A gauge of home-builder confidence in July hit the highest level in more than seven years,

            YOOHOO

            It’s back to 1969 levels.

          4. Only three months of rising? That takes a bit of wind out of your excitement, no?

          5. You mean the Sequester was actually good for the economy? Is that your point, Butthead?

            1. Ha, that is a great response.

            2. The sequester was Obama’s idea though every consequence of it was unintended.

      2. Feds admit improper scrutiny of candidate, donor tax records. Justice has declined to prosecute any of the cases

        The Washington Times, Monday, July 15, 2013 – A government watchdog has found for the first time that confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials, but the Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.

        Its investigators also are probing two allegations that the Internal Revenue Service “targeted for audit candidates for public office,” the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, has privately told Sen. Chuck Grassley.

        1. Don’t waste your time with logic and facts, it’s only a completely dishonest sockpuppet/troll.

        2. “Since 2006” and three of the four instances were “inadverdent”?

          That is all you have?

          1. And here comes shreeky to prove my point.

            1. Explain how an improper IRS entry into tax records in 2006 will feed the Obama IRS “scandal”?

              Let us see that logical brain of yours at work for once.

              1. BUSHPIG!!111!!
                CHRISTFAG!!!11!!!

                1. You’re as inept as Sevo and John.

                  1. You’re as inept as Sevo and John.

                    Dude. All you do is move the goalposts and rebut arguments that no one is making. Then you think the reason nobody wants to respond is because you’re clever. No, it’s because any response results in the goalposts being moved or some straw man being attacked. That’s not being clever. It’s being dishonest and stupid. Please. Do everyone a favor and go kill yourself. It would make the world a much better place.

                    1. I didn’t move goalposts – Fatty posted an article that was supposed to show that this fake IRS scandal had some life left in it.

                      I then rebutted it upon reading it.

                      Meanwhile ‘WRF’ is braying like a donkey.

                    2. No, you didn’t rebut. You moved the goalposts. And now you’re being dishonest. Like I said, do the world a favor and kill yourself. I’m sure it would make everyone happy. Even your mom.

                    3. Indeed, I dedicate this song to whomever posts under the handle “Palin’s Buttplug”.

                    4. I dedicate this song.

                    5. I get that you might have a history with this poster, but do you give any thought as to how disgusting and off-putting a post like this comes off as? Do you care about the impression that someone may have of libertarians or Reason when you post something like this for everyone to see? What kind of a libertarian so casually disregards the property of his host (note that Reason explicitly asks posters to be civil on its board) just to shout at someone he dislikes for…..posting something he dislikes?

                    6. To whom is that comment directed at?

                    7. To whom is that comment directed at?

                      “To whom is that comment directed?” — Is the correct way. The “at” is redundant since it’s grammatical function is used by the “to whom”. Seig heil grammatik!

                    8. The post I’m referring to is sarcasmic’s invitation to Palin’s B to kill himself, it was placed down here.

                    9. just to shout at someone he dislikes for…..posting something he dislikes?

                      lol! That’s some good trolling, Tony!

                    10. I don’t know. I think invitations to suicides are funny.

                    11. just to shout at someone he dislikes for…..posting something he dislikes?

                      No. Fuck shrike. He’s been coming on this board to “argue” in complete bad faith and outright lie for at least 6 fucking years. 6 years of this retarded shit. He’s tried to smear us as all being Republicans, all being sexist pigs, all being lovers of Bush, and all being racists for that entire time.

                      The only reason they don’t ban him is some grotesque experiment they are performing in how stupid he will eventually get.

                    12. Stupid and bad faith is one thing, inviting someone to kill himself because it will make the world and his mother happy are another. It’s disgusting. More importantly, it’s amazingly disrespectful to our host who has asked that topics be civil. Imagine how it looks to people who might be reading and interested in a Reason article and click on the comments.

                    13. Does it look better or worse to have the causal reader see that or shrike calling Clarence Thomas an “affirmative action hire” and referring to a former presidential candidate as “Herman ‘Where be the white women at’ Cain”?

                      Fuck him. He gets his jollies off harassing us. Suicide is far too kind.

                    14. To the extent his comments are not civil themselves I hope they look at him, but up there it is not him being grossly uncivil.

                      I don’t think “he harasses us” is a response. To the extent he engages in uncivil or off topic “harassing” then he deserves condemnation. But if by “harassing” you mean posting comments you disagree with, or that are stupid or argued in bad faith, I point out that this is not the board of “us” but of Reason, and they “invite comments.” The only thing they ask is that they be “on topic” and “civil.” Libertarians should respect the wishes of our host.

                    15. Your protests make you look like a fool.

                    16. I don’t know, I think Bo’s got a point. I’m relatively new to the boards, but this isn’t my first rodeo as far as forums go, so I think it’s funny. Also, it’s pretty obvious what PB’s role is on the site. But, I could see where someone might come across and see things from Bo’s perspective. You know, the whole “never argue with an idiot” thing.

                    17. It’s disgusting.

                      What’s disgusting are these fumes coming out of my ass thanks to my ignoring my lactose intolerance and eating dairy last night.

                      Inviting a dishonest loser rid the world of his presence is more like a public service.

                    18. I lurked for many, many months, and already seen the like-kind conversations played out for pages. So, the dissassmbling of the progressives debate tactics is actually more interesting than the debate. Besides, the IRS information is easy to find, very clear, and the story is still developing. I think responding at all was a favor.

                    19. Meanwhile ‘WRF’ is braying like a donkey

                      The lack of self-awareness is amusing.

                    20. Palin should be made to meet with those targeted by the IRS or the families of Benghazi.

                      See how ‘fake’ they are once faces are put to the lies.

                    21. Have to agree with the esteemed Esquire here. Reason is one of the most circulated libertarian magazines/webazines. To people outside of our circle, these kinds of personal attacks look really pathetic. It certainly does not help to advance the spread of libertarian ideas.

                    22. Plus, the retaliatory comments are just as tiresome as PB’s strawmen.

                      My feeling is that suggesting that someone commit suicide is a lot like when we threw “gay” around as a general pejorative back in the day. It’s got potential for huge emotional collateral damage, and it’s not even clever enough to justify it. Some insults should only be used in controlled circumstances.

                      Seriously, why do we go so much easier on uncivil and bloodthirsty talk than racism? None of them can survive consistent application of individualism, spontaneous order, and the NAP for long. But we (rightly) beat up on Ameriderp and wish violent death on pols in the same thread. How do you think that looks?

                    23. I think the frank, open and free discussion here is reflective of the libertarian ethic and that anything up to actual physical threats should be tolerated, if not embraced. It would be rather hypocritical for a libertarian website to censor comments some people might find offensive.

      3. Dems set sights on IRS watchdog

        House Democrats are setting their sights on the Treasury watchdog who investigated the IRS, questioning whether his work left gaps that helped Republicans attack the White House.

        If it’s not a real scandal, why are they going after the IG?

    2. Do you think the DoJ is going to do any actual further work on this case?

      They can dangle all the sanford.whatever tiplines they want; NO ONE is going to be checking that Inbox.

      As you note, 2014 is at hand, and they have constituencies to whip up.

    3. my co-worker’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the internet. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her income was $19910 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site WEP6.COM

  2. it is sad to see the American Civil Liberties Union, which should be standing up for the rights of unpopular defendants, jumping on this bandwagon.

    Yes it is.

    In other words, the ACLU is calling for a federal inquiry into an acquitted defendant’s beliefs with the aim of justifying a second prosecution for the same crime. What part of that says “civil liberties” to you?

    Zimmerman gave his civil rights by being a racist, gun-totin’, child-murduring, creepy ass cracka. So the ACLU is justified.

    1. The ACLU — the organization that doesn’t even acknowledge the Second Amendment. I guess it’s okay, though, since they can’t count to two anyway.

    2. More importantly he’s a race traitor and white privilege monger

    3. I have never considered the ACLU as anything other than left wing law practice.

  3. “Although the Supreme Court has held that serial prosecutions for the same actions do not violate the Fifth Amendment…”

    How this God-fucking-awful abomination of a ruling isn’t being rabidly campaigned against by groups like the ACLU is beyond me. Fuck the Supreme Court. Seriously.

    1. Otherwise known as the “Fuck You, That’s Why” decision.

    2. I’m not a fan of federal power, but I don’t see any issue with this reading of the 5th Amendment. The problem is not that the feds and states have the power to prosecute for the same incident. The problem is that there are so damned many federal laws which encroach on the states’ police power. Traditionally, the states have police power, while the feds don’t. The feds only have Constitutional authorization to prosecute for a few specifically named crimes (e.g. treason). This is the real problem – the proliferation of federal police power. Without that, this 5th Amendment issue would never arise.

  4. Woohoo! Another George Zimmerman thread!

    What’s next? A properly-timed Brickbat?

    1. If it makes you feel any better, Ted, American media outlets, in all their fervent retardation concerning the Zimmerman case, still don’t even come close to reaching the levels of Fucktard being demonstrated by foreign outlets.

      Prime example (this one’s being reported pretty much the same way by three big British newspapers): The Daily Mail claims Martin was just visiting a relative in the neighborhood, that he was an “unarmed, innocent teenager” (verbatim), that the entire justice system and the jury were probably motivated by their intense crackerness and institutional American racism to acquit Zimmerman, that Americans are gun-crazy, and that Europe, quote, “may have much to teach the Americans in how to dispense justice.”

      My head literally exploded, Ted. My brain is splattered across the wall. I swear to God. But I haven’t yet become one with the Force, since I knew it was my duty to warn you guys of the intense HERPADERP in the wider world.

      It seems raging retards exist everywhere.

      1. Judging by the way I’ve seen them treat soccer players, Europeans lecturing about racism is amusing.

        1. And that’s the least of their worries. Their problems with race really can’t be matched by anything America can produce.

          African guy gives opinion on BBC news report, thousands of Limeys Tweet in virulently racist shit in response, BBC informs cops, cops arrest Tweeters, Tweeters prosecuted for improper speech.

          This is their definition of civilization, RG. I wouldn’t take anything these slavemakers have to say seriously.

        2. I flew on a French crewed international flight, and saw first hand just how nasty they are to black people. They would walk around the cabin and only ask white people if they needed anything, and were extremely rude to the black lady and her little daughter who were sitting next to me. When I realized what was going on I got pissed off, and loudly told the stewardess that I was fine, but the lady next to me had a few things she needed. (No doubt this was turned into another “rude American” anecdote later on.)

          I have a relative who lived in Paris for a year, and she said that casual and overt racism was the norm there.

        3. Britain is lost. Like I said in another thread, you guys will have to save them again somewhere down the road.

      2. Oh, I listen to international broadcasters. When they start talking about the Martin case, I hit the fast forward button.

  5. And, for us fiscally conservative libertarians, more legal action against Zimmerman by the federal government would be a waste of my money.

  6. ‘He took one more breath and that’s it’: Mother describes heartbreaking moment she watched white neighbor ‘shoot dead her unarmed son, 13

    John Spooner suspected Darius Simmons of breaking into his Milwaukee home and stealing guns
    Spooner confronted the teen on the sidewalk two days after the weapons were discovered missing and demanded they be returned
    When the teenager denied stealing anything, Spooner shot him in the chest whilst his mother watched
    The case has drawn comparisons to the trial of George Zimmerman

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..k-son.html

    Wait a minute. A white guy shoots an unarmed black kid who is not attacking him and it’s identical to the Zimmerman case?

    Oh yeah. Zimmerman started the fight by getting out of his car, and Martin in no way instigated violence when he jumped out of the bushes and started slamming Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk. That was justified by Zimmerman getting out of his car. My bad.

    1. You can’t see how the two situations are exactly the same because of your WHITE PRIVILEGE.

      1. If you are not being sarcastic, then you are the biggest fool on this forum

    2. Racialism. Again. Who gives a shit that he’s a white guy and the kid’s black? Why does race matter here?

      Race-baiting fucks.

    3. “The case has drawn comparisons to the trial of George Zimmerman…”

      Such as, “This case, which is completely unrelated and in no way similar to the trial of George Zimmerman…”

  7. The government should not punish people for their beliefs.

    “Well, if it helps keep us safe ….”

  8. I think after debating this for months now, I think this one can go to bed.

    Zimmerman, in my eyes, was barely guilty of unvoluntary Manslaughter and that is me stretching it. Truth is, no evidence, no good circumstantial evidence either to prove he provoked the fight. We’ll never ever know. And, if you hear the jury lady claims that Zimmerman caused the altercation and she still found him not guilty…which is her right as a juror.

    I would hope that this circus doesn’t continue in Federal Court.
    I see no evidence, other than Trayvon being profiled for being black, that Zimmerman acted in a racist manner.

    Racial Profile is such the norm in the USA, not just in South, NYC Profiles with Stop-and-Frisk. It would be totally unfair to drag St. Zimmerman in for something that every police officer in this country (Black/latino/white/male/female/straight/gay) is guilty of.

    NO FEDERAL CHARGES on Civil Rights Violations for Zimmerman.

    1. That’s true. The proper route was always civil charges against Zimmerman for playing “morbidly obese Batman”.

      1. How dare that creepy ass cracka walk around his neighborhood.

    2. Truth is, no evidence, no good circumstantial evidence either to prove he provoked the fight.

      Common sense.
      If you’re following someone with the intent of picking a fight, do you call the cops first? I don’t think so.
      If you’re being followed and you intend to pick a fight with the person, do you call the cops first? I don’t think so.

      Who called the cops? Who didn’t call the cops?

      That will answer the question of who started the fight.

      1. If you’re following someone with the intent of picking a fight, do you call the cops first? I don’t think so.

        If you’re a wannabe cop enrolled in community college taking classes so you can one day join your brothers-in-blue, you might.

        1. Yeah, but he wasn’t in the club yet.

      2. I was informed by Master Darque that minorities can’t call the police, because I assume the police will just arrest/beat them. If that is true, then the big problem in this country is not private gun ownership but the police.

      3. If you were a black teenager, would you call the cops? It’s like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic.

        1. I think it is a valid concern. You have to determine which is the greater threat. The man behind you or the officer that responds. It becomes a harder choice if you have something to hide like a warrant for your arrest.

        2. I doubt Zimmerman was any safer, calling the cops. He’s a man, carrying a gun. Just because he’s the one who called the cops doesn’t mean he’s exempt from “GUN! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!”

          1. He did it 46 times before without getting shot.

            1. So? It’s also highly unlikely that they would have shot Martin either, if he had called about some creepy guy following him.

            2. Initially that seemed excessive until the trial revealed the local police couldn’t set foot in the private neighborhood without first receiving a call from a resident.

          2. If it was concealed when they arrived I doubt it would be a problem.

        3. Another racist fool. Sugar free should be brain free

    3. I see no evidence, other than Trayvon being profiled for being black…

      Where’s your evidence for that, pray tell?

      1. A brown man would let a white teenager bash his skull against a sidewalk until he was dead, because he’d be blinded by white privilege. It’s only when someone of lower social rank is doing so that he would be psychologically capable of defending himself.

      2. He was profiled, he was black, therefore he was profiled for being black.

        /progtard

    4. Do you think this is still about the real George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin any more? Trust me, it is not.

  9. I guess we didn’t need Cool, cool water twice anyway

  10. I’m as sick of the Zimmerman coverage as anyone, but I have to ask: where are all the national Latino associations in the defense of Zimmerman?

    1. there is pecking order in liberalism and they are adhering to it. Race comes first and hispanic is not a race. Nor did it help that George’s last name started with a Z rather than ending in one.

      This is the same tribe that will watch a woman be trampled in service to a black man because race trumps gender, too. The latinos are taking one for the team.

    2. I have wondered how the hispanic portion of the Democratic coalition feels about all this.

    3. where are all the national Latino associations in the defense of Zimmerman?

      The same place that all the woman’s groups go to when a high profile dem gropes / rapes / batters a woman.

    4. I asked this in another thread. How are Hispanics taking this? They’re being singled out for racism. Holder is basically taking sides.

  11. ACLU is in the wrong here. Very disappointed.

    1. I don’t think the ACLU has demonstrated much inconsistency here. They’ve long been known for suing on defendant’s rights, but they’ve also long sued in the area of ‘civil rights’ for minority groups. They are just calling for an investigation, and the federal law (at least one of them) they are talking about is a ‘civil rights’ law. It’s sad they see these at odds here, but it’s not some inconsistency.

  12. We don’t need four reason to not launch federal actions, though they are appreciated, what we need is an explanation for why there should be one at all. The easiest thing for Zimmerman to be prosecuted for was manslaughter, the prosecution didn’t even press that and the jury considered it and rejected it anyways.

    You know who Martin’s supporters should be looking for legal action against? Supporting a suit against NBC for selectively editing and broadcasting the 911 tapes to make it seem Zimmerman was racially motivated.

    1. Martin’s supporters are basing this on emotion. No amount of facts will change what they feel. Even if home surveillance footage was discovered that showed Martin initiating violence, Zimmerman would still be the bad guy for getting out of his car. Even if stolen goods had been found in Martin’s room, it still wouldn’t matter.

      Absolutely nothing will change their minds, because they’re not thinking. They’re emoting.

      1. Yeah, at this point, nothing will change their minds. The Racism Train is on full steam. All aboard! Except you, whitey ass cracka fag!

        1. Actually some guy is offering that ignoramus witness – Jenteal is it? – to pay for an education to any black university she chooses.

          Great an educated idiot. The worst kind. That’s the kind that loves crushing rebellions and going tyrannical with swords and bullets.

  13. You can get all the news you want from mainstream U.S. news outlets as long as it’s about the George Zimmerman murder trial/verdict. I think they’re doing that as a favor to the government, purposely avoiding the topic of mass data collection by the NSA.

    1. The what by the who? /LIV

  14. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, said he agreed with the verdict in the Zimmerman case, noting the prosecutor had “inadvertently” set a high standard for conviction, and that the court settled a legal question, not a moral one. – This is exactly the point I have been trying to make

    1. I accept that. Legally, he is innocent. But he did fumble the legal contact in my opinion.

      Had I been Neighborhood watch, I would not try to confront any suspicious person, regardless of their color, sex, or size. I would call the cops and perhaps video tape the incident from the comfort and safety of my car. This guy got out to be batman.

      Given all that, he is still innocent, as per the law.

      1. Legally, he is innocent. But he did fumble the legal contact

        Translation: derpity derp derp derpy derp

      2. He got out of his car because Martin was ducking between houses to lose the tail, and Zimmerman wanted to keep track of him so when the cops arrived he could tell the cops where he was.

        There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation, and everything to suggest that Martin did.

        Moral of the story: Don’t pick a fistfight with a guy with a gun.

      3. Had I been Neighborhood watch, I would not try to confront any suspicious person, regardless of their color, sex, or size.

        If you were Martin, what would you have done after you ran away, and only a few hundred feet away from home?

        1. I’ll tell you. I’m impressed at all of the people that are willing to villianize Trayvon for not exercising his “Duty to Retreat”. That fact that he was put into a position to give an un-identified adult the slip, to be killed later, I still say Manslaughter.

          Who knows what would had happened to me.
          If I were white or older or perhaps asian, nothing would had happened as Zimmerman would had never pursued me.

          Had I been black, I don’t know. Depends on the mother I was born to, my social class, my upbringing. I know many of you out there believe your SOULS are holier-than-thou. However, I’d probably be dead just like Trayvon. And probably any other young black kid his age would be in the same situation.

          1. I’m impressed at all of the people that are willing to villianize Trayvon for not exercising his “Duty to Retreat”.

            No, we villianize Trayvon for starting a fistfight with a total stranger.

          2. Your scenario is plausible, since the state did such a bang up job proving that George Zimmerman pursued Martin based on nothing but his race.

            “Voy a MATAR el chardo esta noche. Viva Bush, para siempre, jajajajajaja”

            That’s what he said, said no one.

          3. If I were white or older or perhaps asian, nothing would had happened as Zimmerman would had never pursued me.

            Alice, you’re being a holier-than-thou progressive. The same thing would have happened to you as happened to Trayvon. Now I would like you (and any other Martin supporter) to tell me how you know George profiled Trayvon based on race, and not Trayvon’s actions. All of my left wing friends have tried but failed on that front. Would you like to try? Inquiring minds would like to know.

          4. I’m impressed at all of the people that are willing to villianize Trayvon for not exercising his “Duty to Retreat”.

            My comment didn’t villianize anyone. You’ve made numerous comments second guessing Zimmerman, and saying what he should have done. All I’m asking you to do is apply the same standard to Martin.

            But I get it, you’re just afraid to answer the question.

          5. I’m impressed at all of the people that are willing to villianize Trayvon for not exercising his “Duty to Retreat”

            He had no duty to retreat. But he did have a duty not to punch somebody in the face, straddle his chest, and start banging his head into the pavement. You know what I would do if some “creepy ass cracka” was following me? Either head home (which Martin did, before returning to confront his “stalker”), call the cops from my cell instead of my girlfriend, or perhaps just turned around and said “What’s your problem, buddy, why are you following me?” Punching someone in the face and beating them is not a natural, reasonable, or legally defensible response to being followed.

  15. People bring up the point of calling the police if one is Black.

    Interestingly enough, in the Dominican Republic, if you are a tourist and get robbed by a native, the last thing you want to do is call the cops. And it don’t matter what colour you are.

    If cops see you as an easy target, the only color those cops see is GREEN.

    1. How are police actions in the Dominican Republic at all related to an American situation?

      If cops see you as an easy target, the only color those cops see is GREEN.

      You think this is only limited to 3rd and 2nd world nations?

  16. Since when does this administration or Holder care about the law as written? Remember, they want to fundamentally change the US…so that means, mob rules.

  17. Just heard a lawyer/professor on Montreal radio explaining why Rachel and other witnesses came off badly – in his view, they were not prepared.

    His contention is the prosecution completely messed this up (including not creating a convincing story tying their case up to sell to the jury) and there never was any evidence to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Remove the political circus (which prosecutors will deny had an impact) and there’s no chance there’s a conviction.

    This is all on the prosecution – as we all know – failing miserably.

    1. the prosecution didn’t exactly have much to go on in the first place. I can’t blame them for not getting a conviction, but I can blame them for even attempting a conviction.

    2. Remove the political circus (which prosecutors will deny had an impact) and there’s no chance there’s a conviction trial.

      FTFY.

      There’s a reason a special prosecutor was called in and the grand jury process was bypassed in this case. The original DA and cops were right not to go forward with charges they knew they couldn’t support.

  18. The president is a fence sitter who refuses to admit that Trayvon was savaging Zimm when he was shot. Unless the president states the hard facts he will be seen as a supporter of black violence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.