Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman Backlash Continues Thanks to Media Misinformation

The media fails, again.

|

More than a week after George Zimmerman's acquittal in the fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin, the backlash against the verdict continues. President Obama spoke some undeniable truths when he noted that the African-American community's intense reaction to the case must be seen in the context of a long, terrible history of racism. But there is another context too: that of an ideology-based, media-driven false narrative that has distorted a tragedy into a racist outrage.

This narrative has transformed Zimmerman, a man of racially mixed heritage that included white, Hispanic and black roots (a grandmother who helped raise him had an Afro-Peruvian father), into an honorary white male steeped in white privilege. It has cast him as a virulent racist even though he once had a black business partner, mentored African-American kids, lived in a neighborhood about 20 percent black, and participated in complaints about a white police lieutenant's son getting away with beating a homeless black man.

This narrative has perpetuated the lie that Zimmerman's history of calls to the police indicates obsessive racial paranoia. Thus, discussing the verdict on the PBS NewsHour, University of Connecticut professor and New Yorker contributor Jelani Cobb asserted that "Zimmerman had called the police 46 times in previous six years, only for African-Americans, only for African-American men." Actually, prior to the call about Martin, only four of Zimmerman's calls had to do with African-American men or teenage boys (and two of them were about individuals who Zimmerman thought matched the specific description of burglary suspects). Five involved complaints about whites, and one about two Hispanics and a white male; others were about such issues as a fire alarm going off, a reckless driver of unknown race, or an aggressive dog.

In this narrative, even Zimmerman's concern for a black child—a 2011 call to report a young African-American boy walking unsupervised on a busy street, on which the police record notes, "compl[ainant] concerned for well-being"—has been twisted into crazed racism. Writing on the website of The New Republic, Stanford University law professor Richard Thompson Ford describes Zimmerman as "an edgy basket case" who called 911 about "the suspicious activities of a seven year old black boy." This slander turns up in other left-of-center sources, such as ThinkProgress.org.

Accounts of the incident itself have also been wrapped in false narrative—including such egregious distortions as NBC's edited audio of Zimmerman's 911 call which made him appear to say that Martin was "up to no good" because "he looks black." (In fact, Zimmerman explained that Martin was "walking around and looking about" in the rain, and mentioned his race—of which he initially seemed unsure—only in response to the dispatcher's question.)

While this falsehood was retracted and cost several NBC employees their jobs, other fake facts still circulate unchecked: most notably, that Zimmerman disobeyed police orders not to follow Martin (or even, as Cobb and another guest asserted on the NewsHour, not to get out of his car). In fact, there was no such order. The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following the teenager; Zimmerman said yes, the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that," and Zimmerman replied, "Okay." (Just before this, the dispatcher had made comments that could be construed as asking him to watch Martin, such as, "Just let us know if he does anything else.")

No one except Zimmerman knows whether he continued to track Martin—or, as he claims, headed back to his truck only to have Martin confront him. No one but Zimmerman knows who initiated physical violence. Both eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, including injuries to Zimmerman's face and the back of his head, supported his claim that he was being battered when he fired the gun. It was certainly enough to create reasonable doubt. Yet accounts that deplore the verdict often completely fail to mention Zimmerman's injuries. Thus, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says only that an unarmed "skinny boy" could not have been a serious threat to "a healthy adult man who outweighs him by 50 pounds"—nearly doubling the actual 27-pound difference between Martin and Zimmerman and omitting the fact that Martin was four inches taller.

The false narrative also makes it axiomatic that a black man in Zimmerman's shoes wouldn't stand a chance—especially if he had shot someone white. Never mind examples to the contrary, such as a 2009 case in Rochester, New York in which a black man, Roderick Scott, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager and was acquitted. Scott, who had caught 17-year-old Christopher Cervini and two other boys breaking into a car, said that the boy charged him and he feared for his life. (While the analogy has been decried as false in a number of Internet discussions because Scott actually saw Cervini doing something illegal, this is irrelevant to the self-defense claim: stealing from a car does not call for execution.)

What about general patterns? In the New Republic article, Ford cites a report in the Tampa Bay Times showing that "stand your ground" self-defense claims in Florida are more successful for defendants who kill a black person (73 percent face no penalty, compared to 59 percent of those who kill a white person). But he leaves out a salient detail: since most homicides involve people of the same race, this also means more black defendants go free. Nor does he mention that another article based on the same study of "stand your ground" cases from 2005 to 2010 noted "no obvious bias" in the treatment of black defendants—or mixed-race homicides: "Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free."

One Florida case has been widely cited as a contrast to the Zimmerman verdict and a shocking injustice: the case of Marissa Alexander, a black woman said to be serving twenty years in prison for a warning shot to scare off her violent estranged husband. But that's not quite what happened. Alexander's "stand your ground" claim was rejected because, after the altercation with ex-husband Rico Gray, she went to the garage, returned with a gun and fired a shot that Gray said narrowly missed his head (a claim backed by forensics). There is plenty of evidence that Gray was abusive, but Alexander was not the complete innocent her champions make her out to be: she also assaulted Gray, giving him a black eye, while out on bail for the shooting and under court orders to stay away from him. Her twenty-year sentence, required by a mandatory minimum for firearm offenses, was a travesty; her conviction was not.

Liberals and disenchanted conservatives who decry fact-free ideological narratives, true-believer hysteria and willful reality-denial on the right should take a good look at the left's Zimmerman Derangement Syndrome. Some far-right blogs have trafficked in bad information of their own, using Martin's marijuana use, past fighting, and teenage social-media bluster to portray him as a thug and even spinning bizarre theories about his possible drug dealing the night of his death. Yet this instance, their misdeeds are dwarfed by far more mainstream liberal "faux news" (meticulously documented on a dissenting left-of-center blog, The Daily Howler). As a fiction, Zimmerman the white supremacist rivals Obama the Kenyan-born commie Muslim.

Obama was right when he said that the racial context—the context of a history in which just sixty years ago blacks really could be murdered at will for giving trivial offense to a white person, and of a present in which young black males still face the daily reality of racial profiling—gave Trayvon Martin's death a powerful and painful resonance for black Americans. That made it all the more incumbent on the media to be scrupulously truthful and responsible in their coverage. At this, they have spectacularly failed, with deplorable consequences.

A version of this article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

NEXT: Undercover Informant Plants Crack Cocaine in Smoke Shop, Business Owner Saved by Tape

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. Writing on the website of The New Republic, Stanford University law professor Richard Thompson Ford describes Zimmerman as “an edgy basket case” who called 911 about “the suspicious activities of a seven year old black boy.” This slander turns up in other left-of-center sources, such as ThinkProgress.org.

    The Ghost of Stephen Glass Haunts the Halls of The New Republic But Mostly Just Offers Them Advice on How to Cook a Story
    … Note well they do not change the sentence from a false one to a true one; instead, they merely edit it so they cannot be charged with explicitly saying that Zimmerman feared the criminal capacity of a seven year old black boy.

    But they edit it in such a way that a reader is invited to draw that conclusion anyway — a conclusion TNR now knows is false. They scrub the part where TNR makes a false statement in support of a false conclusion, but then are careful to leave the false conclusion alive in the minds of their dwindling readership….

    1. I’m beginning to think Stephen Glass might have been the most honest writer The New Republic has ever had.

    2. TNR’s been shit since the early 90’s.

    3. I don’t think the reporting of the TNR amounts to too much. The reason why the backlash continues is because Zimmerman killed a boy and walks. Dragging the press coverage, however mistaken, into this is a red heron. The key facts, that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old boy, are not in dispute.

      1. The key facts, that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old boy, are not in dispute

        What is in dispute is whether it was in self defense, which the physical evidence and testimony was shooting. Why is that little tidbit always left out?

        1. “What is in dispute…”

          There will always be facts in dispute. The little tidbit is always left out because it’s precisely what you say it is: a little tidbit. The fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed minor.

          1. An accusation of felony assault, backed up by evidence, is a ‘tidbit’?

            1. Compared to the shooting death of an unarmed minor, it certainly is. Do you really need this spelled out for you, or do you believe that the backlash is conjured up by TNR misinformation?

              1. You keep saying “unarmed minor” as if it has some sort of legal relevance. This “unarmed minor” was conducting a lethal assault on a law-abiding citizen, and properly got shot for it. One fewer homicidal thug in the world – a net gain for civilization.

                The law agrees. You’re on the lonely ice floe of race-baiting.

                1. “was conducting a lethal assault on a law-abiding citizen”

                  Lethal? Only one of the two died. And I don’t give a damn about the race of the participants. By all means let’s discuss this, but keep your emotionalism out of this. Zimmerman was assaulted, to be sure. He was not lethally assaulted. The whole point of this article is to decry the media’s distortions. You’re not helping matters be adding your own.

                  1. And if Z didn’t shoot Martin, you can say for sure that he would not have sustain major brain injury or ultimately been killed during the process of Martin assaulting him?

                  2. Would you be less emotional had he phrased it an assault ‘reasonably thought to cause death or great bodily harm?’

                    Because that’s the conclusion the jury must have accepted in order to render the verdict they did.

                  3. You may not give a damn about the race of the two men, but the media does.

                    Race, both real and ’embellished for effect’, is exactly the reason we are discussing this homicide and not that of one or all of the 16-17 other black homicide victims killed the same day as Mr. Martin.

                    Statistically 16 murders that day and that of 8,288 other black people killed in homicides since the day Mr. Martin was killed are not news worthy because in all probability they were murdered by other black people.

                    That is the real issue America needs to be discussing, instead of tossing out disingenuous talking points like “The fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed minor”, as if that provides canonical proof that Zimmerman is murdering racist white man who got away with it.

                    Your argument is accurate but deceitful. It is a talking point designed to convict Mr. Zimmerman for murder by “self defense while being assaulted by a young black man” in the court of public opinion.

                    1. “Your argument is accurate but deceitful.”

                      I guess I agree largely, but deceitful is not really fair. I’m not steeped in American identity politics like almost all the other commenters here. One man was black, the other wasn’t – a big yawn for me, frankly. Look through my comments here. I ‘ve never mentioned race. I don’t feel the necessity as it’s not part of the argument I’m presenting here.

                  4. Once I owned a fine jewelry store in a large shopping center in a nice suburb. In 1992 I was robbed at gunpoint. Afterward I took a course and began carrying a gun.

                    One day I stopped at a store in the plaza to purchase some items. Onto the sidewalk I was followed and summarily confronted by the store security guard. He accused me of knowing the cashier and receiving an unauthorized discount. Was I angry? Yes. Did I beat his face into the ground? No.

                    He insisted I follow him and took me into an office and proceeded to interrogate me. Turns out I did get some money off on some items I purchased but I never noticed it. He wasn’t buying it though and proceeded to radio his supervisor who told him to apologize and let me go.

                    The whole ordeal pissed me off, but I kept my cool and did not exacerbate the incident with violence which I suppose I could have justified in the heat of the moment. This kid was so stupid that he didn’t realize he was hassling a guy with a 9mm pistol in his pocket.

                    Trayvon’s situation wasn’t all that different from mine. No one deserves to die like he did but he had a choice. He chose poorly. His entire life was riddled with poor choices. Yet some vehemently defend him like he really was that sweet looking boy they erroneously and somewhat hilariously portray. His defenders are, in my opinion, ignoramuses endemic to an American subculture gone off the deep end.

                    1. I’m not defending Martin. I’m saying Zimmerman bears some responsibility for setting off this chain of events. Your comments are critical of Martin. Do you agree with me about Zimmerman?

                  5. unarmed minor…

                    http://www.elpasotimes.com/tab…..g-indicted

              2. Do you really need this spelled out for you, or do you believe that the backlash is conjured up by TNR misinformation?

                The backlash is unquestionably conjured up by overall media misinformation. People believe that Zimmerman called Martin a coon, which didn’t happen. People believe Zimmerman has a history of racism, which isn’t true. People were shown a picture of Martin when he was 14 in order to make him look more innocent, helpless, and harmless than a well muscled 17 year old actually is.

                A large amount of the backlash is the result of people not following the case and continuing to believe misinformation that was refuted almost a year ago.

              3. Oh, fucking, pulleeze.

              4. Trayvon was certainly armed with two quite effective fists, and a large 4 inch thick slab of concrete, both of which can rather easily kill. He chose to use them, thus opening himself up to his victim using potentially lethal force in self defense. It’s that simple.

                1. “Trayvon was certainly armed with two quite effective fists”

                  You’re not catching my meaning. I’m not arguing that Zimmerman wasn’t defending himself.

                2. Humans routinely kill other humans with a single punch and no training at all.

                  Even children have been known to throw fatal punches at other children.

                  Claiming someone can’t truly hurt you because they’re just punching you reveals a disconnect from reality.

                  1. “Claiming someone can’t truly hurt you”

                    I’m not claiming this. You are revealing a disconnect from my argument. My advice is to set aside the other arguments you’ve come across about this case, and re read my comments afresh.

          2. The fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed minor.

            I sincerely hope you never have to face an “unarmed” angry, 6′, 17-year-old football player.

            1. …an angry MMA fighter who laments their opponents not having bled enough…

              1. Trained boxers and other martial artists are considered to be armed with a deadly weapon while bare handed.

                As someone training for MMA, Trayvon was hardly unarmed, despite being bare handed.

          3. The fact is that in the mid-1940’s the United States invaded Europe and killed millions of people, many of them civilians. I may be leaving some contextual details out of that factual description of events, but it’s about as complete an explanation of WWII as “Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed minor” is of the Zimmerman case.

            1. “of the Zimmerman case”

              I don’t really have a problem with the Zimmerman case. My problem is that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with a boy that turned out to be innocent of what Zimmerman suspected him of when he began. He did this I suppose thinking that if things got out of hand, he could blast the boy with his pistol. He bears some responsibility for the death of the boy and yet he walks.

              1. Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch. He’d be derelict in his duties if he ignored a person acting suspiciously (trespassing while disguising your head/face is certainly suspicious).

                He wasn’t being paid to do so, but he did volunteer for the job, and so it was his job to follow and observe Martin. From the evidence, it appears Martin decided to confront Zimmerman, not the other way around.

                The only responsibility Zimmerman has is the responsibility for being a good man, and the responsibility for deciding to live when someone was trying to murder him.

                If Zimmerman planned to kill Martin, he could have done so from 20 yards away. The fact he didn’t shoot until his life was in danger shows who the murderer in this actually was.

                Justice was done, when the murderer died in the attempt.

          4. Yes, yes, I can see it now. Trayvon appears out of the dark taking George by surprise, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground where he proceeds to mount George and pin him to the ground, raining blows down on him MMA style and repeatedly bashing his head into the concrete.

            George, according to mnottrueman, must politely ask Trayvon to stop for a moment and hand him his ID card, so he can check Trayon’s age.

            On discovering Trayvon is actually a minor, George politely tells Trayvon to proceed with either killing him or causing permanent brain damage.

            Darn, if only Trayvon were a few months older, THEN George could have done the ID check, pulled his gun, and shot Trayvon, and no one would have minded, because he wasn’t a minor!

            (do I really need to add the “/massive sarc” tag folks?)

            Reality check, mtruem – Trayvon was taller by 4″ to 7″ with that much greater reach, and was a top athlete, while George wasn’t the slightest bit athletic. There was NO competition in a physical altercation between them.

      2. The reason why the backlash continues is because Zimmerman killed a boy and walks.

        A boy who was essentially a fully grown man and the evidence suggests was pounding George Zimmerman’s head into a concrete sidewalk.

        Calling Martin a ‘boy’ or a ‘child’ is patronizing and inaccurate.

        1. I thought calling an adult black male ‘boy’ was racist.

        2. Martin was a minor. He was unarmed. That an adult can kill an unarmed minor and not be punished for it is the cause of the backlash. Blaming outfits like the TNR for the backlash is dishonest. Res ipsa locitur, Irish, it’s a obvious as the piano falling from the window.

          1. He was unarmed

            And committing assault. You keep leaving that part out.

            1. “And committing assault”

              According to whom?

              1. The witnesses and the physical evidence?

                1. I really doubt they said he was committing assault.

                  1. Ah, OK. mtrueman doubts it. The subject is now closed. Screw the evidence. Screw the lies by the media – mtrueman doubts Zimmerman’s testimony and that is all we need to know to see which side is being more honest.

                    Thank you for settling the issue once and for all mtrueman.

                    1. There is a certain segment of the prog/socdem population that lives entirely in a bubble of its own creation. To this sort of individual, finessing the facts of the story to fit your narrative is no sin, because you already have the moral certainty that your narrative is correct and need only prove it to others.

                      For anyone who was raised in or intimately familiar with fundamentalist communities, it’s the same thing you see among fundamentalists of all stripes: an ingrained, unshakable belief that the insular us is better than them. No amount of reasoning will dissuade them, as the source of that reasoning is coming from outside the trusted circle.

                      The MSNBC employees who doctored the Zimmerman tapes were almost certainly this species of self-righteous ideologue. Previous generations knew that this was a possibility in insular groups, which is why we teach journalistic ethics and attempts at objectivity, no matter how futile they may ultimately be. When you put aside ethics and objectivity to embrace an unshakable weltanschauung, you wind up like our friend mtrueman: trapped in a bubble of pious certainty that he cannot and does not want to escape.

                    2. Very true!

                      Ideologues are comparable to religious fundamentalists. At best, facts are seen as malleable to prove their points, and, at worst, are condemned as “tricks” being used by the enemy (right-wingers or the devil, if you’re fundamentalist)to try to move you from your faith.

                    3. “Ah, OK. mtrueman doubts it.”

                      Of course I doubt it. It stinks of untruth. I much prefer Irish’s version:

                      ‘hitting him MMA style.’

                      If you have problems with that, take it up with Irish.

                      In the meantime why don’t you give me a break and go back to your idiotic meditations on the racism of calling a black person a boy.

                    4. Are you fucking stupid? Hitting someone MMA style outside of the octagon would be considered assault in all 50 states and most of the rest of the world. Jesus Tap Dancing Christ.

                    5. Are you fucking stupid?

                      IMHO mtrueman has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is indeed fucking stupid. He clings to misconceptions like a drowning man clinging to driftwood, and facts fail to penetrate like water off a duck’s back.

                      Truly, his mind is made up and he refuses to be confused by facts.

                    6. The most amusing part of this subthread was “I haven’t really looked closely at it, but a 17 year old kid is dead, and an adult shot him.”

                      But oh, no, don’t look closely. Don’t read up on the details or research what went on, and when something is considered self defence. It might change your opinion on it, and therefore make you a racist.

                    7. Mrtrue is also ignoring the sworn testimony of the only eyewitness, the one who said it was Martin going MMA on a prone Zimmerman.

                    8. “Mrtrue is also ignoring the sworn testimony of the only eyewitness”

                      Mrtrue is doing so because it is irrelevant to the point I’m making. Read again my comments and it might help you.

                  2. Do you know anything about the trial? Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story. The closest witness said Martin was straddling Zimmerman and ‘hitting him MMA style.’

                    Honestly, do you know anything about the facts of the case? It’s more complex than ‘Zimmerman gun, black boy unarmed.’ Based on the evidence the case is more like ‘Zimmerman severely beaten, defended himself effectively.’

                    I don’t know exactly what happened that night, but you have to look at the evidence. The evidence says they had to find him not guilty.

                    Martin was a minor. He was unarmed. That an adult can kill an unarmed minor and not be punished for it is the cause of the backlash.

                    No. The cause of the backlash is people making up their minds in the days after the case became public and then ignoring the evidence for the next year. The cause of the backlash is willful race baiting on the part of the media, which published lies like the claim that he called Martin a coon. Furthermore, the cause of the backlash is people deciding to turn the Zimmerman case into a referendum on their pet racial theories instead of caring about guilt or innocence.

                    1. “Do you know anything about the trial?”

                      I know very little of the trial. I read some reports of this affair when it happened and that’s it.

                      Thanks for conceding that the backlash doesn’t continue due to some mistaken reports in the TNR. It’s ridiculous that anyone takes such a line of argument seriously.

                      Longtorso Johnny claimed that the eyewitnesses said Martin was “committing assault” and others here say he was “committing felony assault” – so obviously untrue. Your account that they said Martin was “hitting him with MMA style,” whatever that is, has the ring of truth to it – it’s the lack of legalisms that make your version credible.

                      Had he lived, Martin should have been held to account for his actions, no doubt. Zimmerman did live, and should be held to equally high standards, if not higher, given his status as an adult, and initiator of the fracas. Martin died a stupid, pointless death at the hands of Zimmerman who walked. That’s reason enough for a backlash, gratuitously throwing in race baiting and media malfeasance does nobody no good.

                    2. mtrueman| 7.27.13 @ 6:14PM |#

                      “Do you know anything about the trial?”

                      I know very little of the trial. I read some reports of this affair when it happened and that’s it

                      And despite your admitted ignorance you are sure that Martin was not assaulting Zimmerman and that Zimmerman got away with murder becasue [HE HAD A LOADED GUN] and [HE’S A RACIST].

                    3. “And despite your admitted ignorance you are sure that Martin was not assaulting Zimmerman and that Zimmerman got away with murder”

                      How did you reach this conclusion? I never denied that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman, some of the witnesses claim he was. And I never said Zimmerman murdered anyone. I said he killed Martin. Nobody has disputed this.

                      I don’t know if either of them were racist and I don’t care. Zimmerman had a gun and that’s the reason why the whole thing took place. Had Zimmerman been unarmed, I doubt any of this would have happened.

                    4. Zimmerman had a gun and that’s the reason why the whole thing took place. Had Zimmerman been unarmed, I doubt any of this would have happened.

                      And hence the retreat begins, going to what mtrueman sees as the issue all along.

                      Guns bad, and anyone carrying one is automatically guilty of something.

                    5. This is the nugget that he is holding on to. No matter what Martin did, Z should be punished because he legally owned and carried a firearm. It doesn’t matter that Martin could have just gone home and that he doubled back and threatened Z’s life with violence, Z should be punish for some reason.

                    6. “Guns bad”

                      Guns in the hands of the wrong people can be very bad indeed. Only a fool would disagree. I believe that Zimmerman lacked the wisdom and self restraint necessary to possess a gun without posing a menace to the rest of us.

                      I don’t see guns per se as the issue all along. This comes down to two men and their moral fibre.

                    7. “Zimmerman had a gun and that’s the reason why the whole thing took place.”

                      That’s neither logical nor true. What you’re saying implies that having a gun caused Zimmerman to see Martin, call 911, become engaged in a fight, and shoot. You could, with the same merit, argue that the whole thing occurred because Zimmerman joined a neighborhood watch, or because a neighborhood watch existed, or because he had a phone (to call 911), or because he was outside.

                      By that logic, armed civilians should either be shooting each other in the streets constantly, or should be constantly assaulted by young pedestrians, depending on your take on the events of that evening. It’s a variation on the whole anti-gun mentality that posits that, since a gun can be used to kill someone, all guns will be used to kill people, regardless of the people who own them.

                      Regardless of what you believe led up to it, the “reason why the whole thing took place” was because Martin sat astride Zimmerman pounding his head with his fists. Maybe that was a reaction to Zimmerman threatening him, or maybe not, but that’s what drove Zimmerman to shoot him.

                    8. “but that’s what drove Zimmerman to shoot him.”

                      You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not concerned with what drove Zimmerman to shoot Martin, but rather what drove him to follow Martin and initiate the confrontation. I think the gun in Zimmerman’s pocket led him to recklessness.

                      The gun didn’t cause him to see Martin. It’s clear you have a problem with logic. The gun played no role in Zimmerman’s catching sight of Martin. I’m arguing that the gun played a role in Zimmerman’s decision to follow Martin and initiate confrontation.

                    9. But it’s also in doubt that Zimmerman was the “initiator of the fracas.” He may have been.

                      It’s really not up to Zimmerman to prove that Martin was the initiator, although it’s in his favor. The state prosecutors have to PROVE that Zimmerman did NOT have a reasonable fear for his life. They did NOT.

                    10. “The state prosecutors have to PROVE that Zimmerman did NOT have a reasonable fear for his life.”

                      My argument doesn’t hinge on what must be done in a court of law. Read my comments carefully. I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, but you are knocking on an open door here. And, may I add, misunderstanding my position.

                    11. Then maybe you should restate your position more clearly. It seems to me that you’re essentially arguing that Zimmerman was at fault, morally if not legally, for following Martin at a distance. Or, that he bears a moral culpability for killing him, even if he was acting in self-defense, and even if the alternative would have been to sustain permanent brain damage or death. Those are very, very difficult points to argue persuasively.

                    12. “Then maybe you should restate your position more clearly”

                      You seem to have it. Thanks for your patience. My argument is all but impossible to argue before a judge in a court of law, but outside one where we might encounter more flexible minds, I think my argument has more resonance. That’s why there’s the backlash.

                    13. What evidence to you have to claim Zimmerman was the initiator of the ‘fracas?’

                    14. Martin was a minor. He was unarmed. That an adult can kill an unarmed minor and not be punished for it is the cause of the backlash.

                      Your statement indicates you believe that Zimmerman and/or any other adult who find themselves physically overpowered and being beaten by “an unarmed minor” should just accept the beating even to the point of death.

                      Such is not a part of any legal canon I’m aware of. So, out of curiosity, upon what moral basis do you justify such a statement and the concept underlying it?

                  3. I really doubt they said he was committing assault

                    That’s because you’re a progressive moron that lets MUH FEELINGS overcome your good sense.

                    1. “That’s because you’re a progressive moron”

                      No, that’s because I really doubt that the witnesses would resort to legalisms when asked what happened. If they had, I would be less likely to believe their version of events – being coached by cops or whatever is a possiblility. Look at Irish’s version of what the witenesses said. I think he’s probably closer to the truth.

                    2. No, that’s because I really doubt that the witnesses would resort to legalisms when asked what happened.

                      No one should really take your musings on this seriously when you typed this:

                      I know very little of the trial. I read some reports of this affair when it happened and that’s it.

                      Your passive-aggressive line of argumentation pretty much confirms this.

                    3. “No one should really take your musings on this seriously when you typed this:”

                      I never pretended to be up on all the details. Frankly this sordid affair never really sparked my interest from the beginning. Still, nobody has disputed the truth of the facts I’ve presented here and nobody has disputed my main point, that the idea that mistaken reports from the TNR are fueling a backlash is ludicrous.

                      My biggest failings so far have been to mangle an old saw, and mispell a Latin word.

                    4. shorter mrtrueman; “i dont know all the facts but it is clear that zimmerman acted stupidly”

                      If you dont like being made to look like an ignorant ass, dont be an ignorant ass.

                    5. shorter mrtrueman; “i dont know all the facts but it is clear that zimmerman acted stupidly”

                      No. Not clear at all. The state failed to prove that he did. There is definitely room for doubt that he simply confronted Martin and shot him when he resisted, or else attacked Martin and Martin simply fought back and then got shot. Are those two scenarios possible? Sure. But not likely, and certainly not proven.

                    6. You haven’t presented ANY facts for people to refute.

                    7. No you most certainly are a moron. MMA is the acronym for Mixed Martial Arts. A martial artist straddling another man and raining down blows is the very definition of an assault (legal charge would be battery). So much like saying you saw someone spray paint someone else’ car is you testifying that you saw them commit an act of vandalism, saying you saw someone straddling another man and delivering MMA style blows is testifying that you saw that person assaulting (battery) another person.

                      Additionally the fact that you openly admit that you’ve not familiarized yourself with the evidence provided during the case yet you’re still comfortable defending your position tells me beyond a doubt that you’re a disingenuous moron.

                    8. I may be a moron, but I’m not disingenuous. I sincerely didn’t know that MMA meant mixed martial arts. I don’t see your point. I never pretended to be fully aware of all the facts of the matter.

                      Assaulting someone in the manner you describe is a crime. I don’t dispute this. Killing a 17 year old boy is also a crime.

                    9. I never pretended to be fully aware of all the facts of the matter.

                      And no one would have ever accused you of such a thing.

                      Killing a 17 year old boy is also a crime.

                      Ah, no. It’s not.

                    10. Assaulting someone in the manner you describe is a crime. I don’t dispute this. Killing a 17 year old boy is also a crime.

                      False equivalency.

                    11. mtruem said: “Killing a 17 year old boy is also a crime.”

                      No, in fact, it’s not. Not when one does so using legally justifiable self defense, as Zimmerman did. Which is why the jury found him not guilty, and why the public backlash is outrageous – particularly when it comes from people such as yourself who were too lazy to learn anything about the case, but have no problems generating opinions and false statements about the situation.

                      And if it hadn’t been for race baiters, liars in the mainstream media, and the grossly inappropriate pressure from Obama and Holder, you’d likely never have even heard of the case, because no charges would have been filed in accordance with the law.

                    12. You are simply wrong. There is not disputing that. Some killings, such as this one, are legally defensible. And that is not some opinion of someone who is only haizily aware of the facts (as you seem to be), but a jury.

                  4. Don’t be so obtuse. What they described, and the physical evidence proved, is that Trayvon was committing aggravated battery, which is a serious felony. That’s fairly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the law. Or some might not know the proper term and would call it assault or battery (or both). But that’s the legal term for what the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence show.

          2. Loquitur. If you’re going to be a pretentious fuck, at least be an educated pretentious fuck who doesn’t get on your editor’s nerves.

            And as difficult as the concept is for many people, shooting children, even unarmed children, isn’t always illegal or immoral. It doesn’t take a professional writer to recognize that there are circumstances in which shooting multiple unarmed 17-year-olds is not only not immoral, but absolutely the ethical thing to do.

            1. “shooting children, even unarmed children, isn’t always illegal or immoral.”

              Sorry for the mispelled Latin. I’m stuck being a miseducated pretentious fuck.

              You have a point about shooting children. However this incident didn’t start with a shooting. It ended with one. I don’t have the facts at hand, but I think the incident started because Zimmerman had a gun and that made it easy for him to escalate. I’m not against guns or interested in promoting gun control, but face it, when guns are involved, the escalation of violence becomes all the easier. This incident shouldn’t have escalated. Martin died a pointless and stupid death.

              1. Martin died a pointless and stupid death.

                Yes, doubling back to try and play Knockout King did end up in his pointless and stupid death.

              2. Martin died a pointless and stupid death.

                Your risk of dying a pointless death tends to increase when you decide to assault someone. He has nobody to blame but himself.

                1. “He has nobody to blame but himself.”

                  No, the adult, Zimmerman, should not have let the situation come to such a pass. He was older, better armed, and presumably wiser.

                  1. No, the adult, Zimmerman, should not have let the situation come to such a pass. He was older, better armed, and presumably wiser.

                    For someone who admitted to not know the facts of the case, you seem pretty comfortable passing judgement.

                    1. “you seem pretty comfortable”

                      I may seem comfortable, but I have many doubts, and am commenting here to see if there is anyone here with the knowledge and insight to put these doubts into sharper focus.

                      So far no luck. Some have corrected my Latin, others have pointed out my misuse of idioms.

                    2. “you seem pretty comfortable”

                      I may seem comfortable, but I have many doubts, and am commenting here to see if there is anyone here with the knowledge and insight to put these doubts into sharper focus.

                      Well, what would it take? An explanation of self-defense law (“Would a reasonable person fear for his life?”)? A link to the wiki article with the timeline?

                      It turns out the timeline is even more compressed than I thought.

                      “Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.”
                      “Police officer Timothy Smith arrived at the scene at approximately 7:17 PM.”

                      Two minute gap between hanging up and a police officer responding to the shooting. Based on that, do you think Zimmerman confronted Martin and Martin retaliated, getting on top of him and slamming his head into the ground? Or did Martin jump him?

                      Would a reasonable person be in fear for his life after having his head slammed into the ground, nose broken, jumped, etc.? or should he have guessed that it was more love taps than anything else?

                      Help us out. What would your standard of proof that Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life be?

                    3. “What would your standard of proof that Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life be?”

                      Whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life when he shot Martin is not my concern. Zimmerman made his mistake when, gun in pocket, he decided to confront what turned out to be an innocent boy, presumably thinking that he could easily kill him if things got out of hand. Is this murder? No. I’m not sure legally what kind of brutality this is. To me clearly with Zimmerman walking, an injustice has taken place. I’m not the only one, hence the backlash. I assure you it has nothing to do with anything published in the TNR.

                    4. “Whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life when he shot Martin is not my concern.”

                      Well that certainly is honest.

                      Willfully stupid, grossly unconcerned for legality, and absent any sense of morality too.

                      Yet you judge yourself qualified to stand in judgement of Zimmerman?

                      Yowza.

                    5. “Well that certainly is honest.”

                      Thanks for acknowledging that. I may be stupid and unconcerned with legality, but I disagree that I’m absent any sense of morality.

                      Zimmerman initiated a confrontation, I assume thinking that if it went sour for him, he’d resort to shooting Martin. For this he is morally culpable to some degree for the death of a boy who turned out to be innocent of what Zimmerman initially suspected him of.

                      If that seems willfully stupid, tell me and I’ll try to explain it again. But I tell you with all the honesty you so rightly appreciate, that’s about as clear as I can make it.

                    6. Following someone who you suspect of being up to no good is not illegal. Nothing about it is. Z did not threaten the Martin, or initiate force against him. He even called 911. Martin could have gone home but decided to double back and assault Z. That was the crime. Z did nothing worthy of punishment, from what the evidence shows.

                      This has been explained to you many time. It seems useless, you cannot realize these simple facts and still want Z charged for following somebody. You absent any sense of morality.

                    7. “Zimmerman initiated a confrontation, I assume thinking that if it went sour for him, he’d resort to shooting Martin. For this he is morally culpable to some degree for the death of a boy who turned out to be innocent of what Zimmerman initially suspected him of.”

                      Now you’re off to fantasy land – simply making up crap – too lazy to educate yourself on the true facts.

                      Those facts are that Zimmerman saw a suspicious person who fit the criminal profile of recent burglary’s in the neighborhood, and called the non-emergency police number to report it – exactly the purpose of Neighborhood Watch.

                      Contrary to made up claims from idiots like you he did NOT leave his car against orders from the police – again that evidence is easily found. When Martin “ran away” – Zimmerman got out of the car and started around the building to see where he went.

                      AFTER you can hear him clearly get out of the car and being walking dispatch asked if he was following. He said yes – dispatch told him “we don’t need you to do that. Zimmerman said “OK” and stopped – arranged with the dispatcher to meet the officer and hung up.

                      He was NEVER told not to leave the car and follow. When it was SUGGESTED he didn’t need to follow by dispatch he stopped and was returning to his car.

                    8. The hard physical evidence – had you cared or bothered to investigate it, show the initial confrontation occurred at the back corner of the building Zimmerman was parked in front of.

                      Which directly supports that he did not follow or stalk Martin in any way – but simply went to the corner of the building to try and see where he went.

                      The hard physical evidence also shows us it was Martin who was doing the “stalking” – not Zimmerman.

                      Martins girlfriend testified, that in the 4 minutes between Martin running and losing Zimmerman – and the time the confrontation began, Martin told her he was ‘back at my Dad’s girlfriends’ place. He was at his home.

                      Let me repeat – after losing Zimmerman he went to and WAS AT HIS HOME.

                      His ‘home’was well over 300 feet from where the altercation began – which was less than 90 feet from Zimmermans truck.

                      Instead of simply going inside – to complete safety – which would have eliminated what happened – he CHOSE to return over 300 feet to where Zimmerman was.

                    9. It is very clear who was stalking whom. The confrontation was a direct result of Martin’s actions.

                      Martins girlfriend also said Martin threw the first punch and then gave a “whoop ass” to the man he had called a “creepy ass cracker”

                      The PROSECUTION’s eyewitness testified he saw Martin on top “ground pounding” Zimmerman “MMA Style” … ie: trying to beat him into unconsciousness.

                      The physical evidence supports Zimmermans story here as well – the back of his jacket was wet and grass stained. His face was smashed and he had cuts and contusions on the back of his head.

                      The physical evidence, eyewitness statements and Zimmerman’s account all support that Martin returned the 300+’ from his home, found Zimmerman, smashed him in the face, knocking him to the ground, and the proceeded to “ground pound” “MMA style” – hitting him rapidly and repeatedly.

                      The physical evidence – from the 911 tapes – show Zimmerman was beaten for over 45 seconds, with increasingly desperate cries for help heard.

                      We know Martin continued to beat Zimmerman even after neighbors shouted they called police and to stop.

                      It was only after all this that Zimmerman finally, in clear fear of great bodily harm or death – managed to free his weapon and fire one shot.

                      The evidence shows this shot was fired at close range – in contact with at least Martins hoodie. Which again support all the other evidence.

                    10. Unlike your ridiculous and ignorant claims that you admit are unsupported by any facts, the evidence supports Zimmerman’s statements.

                      He did not shoot a poor defenseless young black child. He shot a young black adult, bigger and stronger than himself, who had been beating him nearly senseless for close to a minute.

                      Zimmerman had every legal right to be where he was doing what he was – including carry his weapon. Martin also had every right to be where he was – including to return to find Zimmerman.

                      Martin had NO right whatsoever however, to beat George Zimmerman nearly senseless.

                      The physical evidence show your “morality” claim to be nothing more than ridiculous, intentionally ignorant and uninformed,drivel.

                      The real problem here is people like you who will pass judgment, while admitting your laziness and ignorance.

                    11. Thanks for your exhaustive response.

                      I’m not sure I understand your point though. If Zimmerman was not following/stalking Martin, how did Zimmerman end up 300 feet from Martin’s residence? Was he dragged there by Martin? Is that what the witnesses were testifying?

                      I think you are confused. And I have my doubts that this incident would have occurred had Zimmerman been unarmed.

                    12. ThomasD said:

                      “Willfully stupid, grossly unconcerned for legality, and absent any sense of morality too.

                      Yet you judge yourself qualified to stand in judgement of Zimmerman?

                      Yowza.”

                      Too true, and thanks for stating my exact sentiments about mtruem’s absurd posts also.

                    13. “mtrueman:

                      “What would your standard of proof that Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life be?”

                      Whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life when he shot Martin is not my concern.”

                      Which shows you for the idiot you are. You’ve already admitted your lack of knowledge about the details of the case, which hasn’t stopped you from passing judgement.

                      Here you show your complete ignorance. Whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life is EXACTLY the legal standard in this case. That it is no concern to you shows you for what you are.

                      Someone who refuses to spend the few minutes it would take to educate yourself on the case evidence, and on the law. Who KNOWS and admits your own willful ignorance. But is willing to pass judgment anyway.

                      People like you, who have no regard for the facts, are FAR more danger to the world than those like George Zimmerman – whose biggest crime was caring about his community and neighbors – including the black ones.

                    14. “Zimmerman was in fear of his life is EXACTLY the legal standard in this case.”

                      But I don’t dispute the legalities of the case. They are fairly clear cut, it seems.

                      What I’m arguing is that Zimmerman bears some degree of moral responsibility in the death of the boy as the initiator. It’s the disconnect between the moral dimension and the legal dimensions that are the cause of the backlash.

                      I have said it before: the backlash is not caused by mistaken reporting by TNR, CNN or any other outfit. The key facts of the matter are not in dispute.

                    15. There is no disconnect between the moral dimension and the legal dimension. How many times do you have to be told that there is no evidence suggesting that Zim initiated anything with Trayvon, and pretty much all of the evidence suggests that in fact, Trayvon was the initiator. Also note, YOU may not be hung up on race about this, but most of the backlash is based on claims that Zimmerman was supposedly a racist who profiled Martin for no reason.

                    16. “but most of the backlash is based on claims that Zimmerman was supposedly a racist who profiled Martin for no reason.”

                      Race can only add to the feelings around the case, that much is true. Zimmerman decided to follow Martin. What actually happened when they came face to face, I don’t know, and if you do, you should provide your evidence.

                    17. You are truly twisted. You say: “you should provide your evidence.” yet I’ve already told you multiple times, it’s not “my” evidence – it’s the evidence produced during the trial, which if you actually had any moral fiber, you’d go watch at least the closing arguments on youtube. Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone’s time – or you are purposefully trolling.

                    18. How do you know what GZ was thinking? You seems pressume to know a lot, then plead ignorance. Then refuse to learn when people point out the simple facts. As has been pointed out many times, and you dont seem capable of understanding, this was a garden variety self defense case (as testified to by the original investigating officer), which is why no charges were brought. Only through the sensationism of the press, such as TNR, did the political pressure build to bring this case.

                      You best case argument seems to be that GZ bears some moral responsibility for this death, and that is probably right on some basis as he did make some poor decisions. But the article points out that this case has become a cause celebre’, primarily due to the inaccurate reporting of the press. You disputed this, but present no evidence other than your opinion, and your admitted ignorance (which admittedly is substantial). But since this was a garden variety self defense case, why is this national news? Can you explain that?

                    19. I may seem comfortable, but I have many doubts, and am commenting here to see if there is anyone here with the knowledge and insight to put these doubts into sharper focus.

                      No, you’re feigning ignorance. The facts of the case are available to anyone who can do a basic google search. Your comments so far have consisted of blanket statements of false equivalency and a passive-aggressive obtuseness.

                    20. “Your comments so far have consisted of blanket statements of false equivalency and a passive-aggressive obtuseness.”

                      Sorry to disappoint you. Truth is, the facts of the case are not important or interesting to me. I’m concerned with what was going through Zimmerman’s mind when he decided to confront Martin. Martin could have been bashing his brains in or tickling him with a feather, it’s not relevant. The self defence argument is not the issue for me.

                    21. What was most likely going through his mind was, “is this kid, who is acting suspiciously, planning on breaking into one of the neighborhood houses and steal the stuff inside? I’m going to follow him to see what he does.”

                      There had been numerous break-ins, apparently by young men, in that neighborhood recently. Being part of the Neighborhood Watch, Zimmerman was doing what his neighbors had asked of him – keeping an eye on their homes. That’s why he was following Martin — not because he was black, not because he wanted to start a fight, and not because he had a gun.

                    22. Truth is, the facts of the case are not important or interesting to me. I’m concerned with what was going through Zimmerman’s mind when he decided to confront Martin.

                      What was going through his head isn’t relevant to the case.

                      Martin could have been bashing his brains in or tickling him with a feather, it’s not relevant.

                      The American legal system disagrees.

                      The self defence argument is not the issue for me.

                      That’s because it destroys your St. Skittles fetishism.

                    23. “The American legal system disagrees.”

                      You’re making my argument for me. It’s the disconnect between Zimmerman’s moral culpability as initiator and the decisions of the legal system. That’s where the backlash comes in.

                      I’m not saying that Martin was a saint. I’m saying that Zimmerman bears some responsibility for the incident. If you disagree and believe that Zimmerman had no culpability whatsoever it seems that you are the one engaging in hagiography.

                    24. mtruem said: “but I have many doubts, and am commenting here to see if there is anyone here with the knowledge and insight to put these doubts into sharper focus.”

                      Then why in the world don’t you do the responsible thing and at least go watch the defense closing arguments. They were extremely methodical, went through all the evidence presented point by point, along with going thru the applicable law point by point, without any drama or spin.

                      It’s extremely easy to find the full defense closing arguments on youtube.

                      How about you go be a responsible citizen and listen to it, THEN form your opinions, instead of going around not even half cocked spouting nonsense and then blaming others for your ignorance.

                    25. “easy to find the full defense closing arguments on youtube.”

                      Maybe so, but I don’t watch youtube.

                      I don’t really have a problem with the jury’s decision, they seem to have done what’s required by law. I don’t think you’ve understood what I’m arguing here.

                      I’ll summarize.

                      The backlash wasn’t caused by media reporting. The backlash was due to the legal system’s inability to hold Zimmerman to account for his actions. initiating a confrontation that led to the death of an innocent boy.

                    26. Sigh. I’ll try again. You claim you have doubts. You claim Zimmerman is morally responsible because he initiated the conflict. Go and watch the closing arguments, and you will find that there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. The evidence all strongly suggests that in fact, Trayvon started the conflict.

                      Furthermore, where is your moral compass, that you want to punish a man or find him guilty of a crime, when you have now finally acknowledged that he was acting in self defense? Just what was he supposed to do, allow Martin to beat him to death? Would that have been the ‘right’ “moral solution” and the only way Zimmerman could have been innocent in your eyes? Also, just how in the world do you know that Martin was innocent? In fact, he broke the law by smoking marijuana that night, and when he committed aggravated battery on Zimmerman. Plus, for all you know, he actually was casing houses to burglarize them, and only seeing that Zimmerman was watching him stopped him from doing so. How do you possibly know that he was innocent? In fact, you can’t know that, no one can but Martin himself, and possibly some of his friends if he told them what he planned.

                    27. “that you want to punish a man or find him guilty of a crime”

                      I’m not sure if or how he should be punished, and I’m not at all sure Zimmerman committed a crime.

                      I’m not sure why you emphasize Martin’s criminality. He smoked marijuana, he was possibly casing the houses, he assaulted Zimmerman. Martin’s guilt here doesn’t absolve Zimmerman for the choices he made, ie to initiate a conflict with Martin.The guilt of one doesn’t imply the innocence of the other.

                      Zimmerman certainly is to some degree morally culpable for setting off a chain of events that led to the death of an innocent boy. You are relying on the evidence, and that will only give you a partial picture of the events. It’ll never give you a complete one.

                    28. Stop being an idiot. How many times do you have to be told that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman initiated any conflict, and all the evidence strongly suggests that in fact it was Martin who initiated the conflict.

                      If Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime, then how can you possibly state he is morally responsible and needs to be somehow punished?

                      I bring up Martin’s behavioral problems because it shows a clear pattern of him initiating violence unprovoked, and breaking laws. Which simply supports the evidence all the more that Martin was the one likely to have initiated the conflict.

                      The guilt of one absolutely does imply the innocence of the other. Just what do you think legal self defense is all about?

                      Just how is Zimmerman in any way morally culpable for “setting off a chain of events?” I guess you are one of those who also believes that a woman who is raped is somehow morally culpable for setting off a chain of events leading to her rape by choosing to wear clothing that some might consider provocative, or walking alone.

                      You keep going back and harping on “innocent boy.” We’ve shown you time and again that Martin was NOT in fact innocent, and the evidence proves that beyond doubt.

                      The evidence will never give a complete picture of events?? You really are bonkers. You want to ignore facts in evidence, and instead rely on your fantasy and imagination and sheer speculation. That’s utterly loony, my friend.

              3. The jury and reasonable people disagree that violence was “escalated”; Zimmerman had reason to believe that he faced serious injury and was right to defend himself with deadly force.

                Beyond the legal standard, it’s self-evident that beating someone who’s supine and unable to escape could lead him to panic and shoot you. Three hundred years ago, it might’ve been a dagger in your belly; today it’s a bullet to the chest.

                Most of us understand this intuitively as a result of socialization: if you don’t want to risk get shot, don’t beat people, break into their homes, attempt to rape her, or otherwise give a reasonable person reason to suspect that he or she facing serious injury from an assailant.

                When your victim stabs or shoots you to stop the battery or attempted rape, that is, as the poets say, tough shit. The world is full of unnecessary tragedies, from top to bottom, but the tragedy here was Martin’s decision to beat Zimmerman, not Zimmerman’s understandable response.

                1. “if you don’t want to risk get shot, don’t beat people”

                  Martin should have, on reflection, just stayed home and not crossed paths with Zimmerman. Staying home would have certainly decreased his risk. He would probably be alive today if he’d followed your risk decreasing advice. Unfortunately he did not take your advice, and responded even brutally according to some witness, to a man following him, convinced that he was up to no good.

                  I’m still not convinced that any of this would have happened had Zimmerman been unarmed. Zimmerman’s gun gave him the guts to escalate.

                  1. Yes, quite possibly Z could be dead right now, or in a coma, or suffering some other major brain injury. You fail to take the viewpoint of Z, the one who was pinned to the ground on his back being assaulted by a stronger, larger opponent. Most anybody would have reacted like Z did.

                    1. “Z could be dead”

                      Zed is not dead. I can’t really fault him for trying to defend himself.

                      Zed’s crime comes out of his thinking, that being armed, he always had the option to kill Martin. This kind of thinking will get a man into trouble, or not. At least I believe it should. I’m surprised that libertarians take the taking of life so lightly.

                    2. Zed’s crime comes out of his thinking, that being armed, he always had the option to kill Martin. This kind of thinking will get a man into trouble, or not. At least I believe it should.

                      When did you gain mind-reading powers, Karnac?

                      I’m surprised that libertarians take the taking of life so lightly.

                      I’m never surprised that progressives can’t think in anything other than cliches.

                    3. “When did you gain mind-reading powers, Karnac?”

                      I’ve always had some ability to read minds, however imperfectly. It comes with the territory of being human.

                    4. You really are lost here aren’t you. You tell us you think he should defend himself but then say if he effectively does, he should now be charged with a crime for doing exactly what you said he should do. Your logic is astounding. Do you also think soldiers should be charged with murder when they kill enemy combatants? Because, like you said, SOMEBODY WAS KILLED!!!!!! You are a moron.

                      Let’s be straight here, Martin was the aggressor. He attacked Z and initiated force. At this point, Z has a RIGHT to defend his life, which was in mortal danger you moron.

                    5. “You are a moron.”

                      Whether I’m a moron or not is besides the point. I’d rather discuss the case. And you seem to misunderstand me.

                      Zimmerman should be held to account for initiating a confrontation with the idea to use his gun, if things turned sour, against what turned out to be an innocent boy.

                    6. And you of course have evidence that he initiated a confrontation (which isn’t illegal unless you assault somebody, like Martin initiated against Z) with the idea to use his gun? You really can’t get it through your head that, from the evidence available, Z did nothing illegal and that Martin was in the wrong and was not an “innocent child”.

                      Your trolling skills are great. You absolutely don’t use logic and reason and only rely on your emotions.

                    7. I’ve always had some ability to read minds, however imperfectly. It comes with the territory of being human.

                      Not really. Comic-Con nerds think they can read minds, but not emotionally balanced individuals.

                    8. Again, you appear to be a mind reader. Or a troll.

                  2. Mr. Trueman, you say you haven’t followed this case very closely, and that is evident in the points you are arguing. You clearly seem to believe that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and started the fight. But the testimony and the clock showed otherwise. After Zimmerman turned around and stopped following Trayvon, five minutes passed after Trayvon had just been a few hundred feet from his uncle’s house. He had ample time to go home, safe and sound. Instead he doubled back, jumped through bushes to surprise Zimmerman, and then sucker punched Zimmerman, knocking him down. He was on top of Zimmerman, smashing his head on the ground, when Zimmerman was able to reach his gun and shoot. The forensic evidence was consistent with his being on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. Witness testimony also confirmed this.

                    If you want to find a media story that really hasn’t gotten any airplay, how about the apparent reason that Trayvon might have gone after Zimmerman — he thought that Zimmerman was a homosexual pervert that wanted to rape him. At least that’s what his girlfriend testified she was telling Trayvon on the phone.

                  3. Yeah good point. I’m sure now that you mention it, Zimmerman wishes he could’ve seen the future and stayed home that evening. Matter of fact, it would probably be safer for us to all hunker down in our houses and board up the windows. What an idiot for not using his spidey senses to know he was about to get his ass kicked. The jury wasn’t asked whether or not Zimmerman made all good decisions, they were asked whether he committed murder (and then manslaughter when the prosecution knew they couldn’t get murder). The answer is a very clear “no”. Did Zimmerman act stupidly pre attack? Probably. Did he murder someone? There is reasonable doubt, so no.

                    1. “whether he committed murder”

                      I never said that Zimmerman murdered Martin. That seems to be stretching things out of shape. I agree with the jury here. I suspect the prosecution botched things from the very start.

                      My problem with the results of the affair, Zimmerman walks, is that he is responsible for initiating the confrontation. Here’s what I imagine went through his head:

                      “I suspect this punk is up to no good. I’m going to confront him. Worse comes to worse, I’ll blast him with my pistol.”

                      Had Martin been an actual baddie, we wouldn’t be discussing this today, and Zimmerman would be regarded as a local hero. But Martin turned out to be clean. Emboldened by his weaponry, Zimmerman took a chance. He chose to confront and he chose the wrong man. He deserves to be punished for taking the life of an innocent boy.

                    2. He didn’t take the life of an innocent boy, you cro-magnon idiot. He took the life of a boy who was in the process of beating him to death.

                      The only person who commited a crime here was Trayvon Martin. Read that until it finally sinks in through your empty skull.

                    3. So you agree he didn’t commit murder? What would you charge him with? From all accounts, Zimmerman didn’t throw the first punch or initiate any physical altercation, Martin did that. Would this whole scenario have played out if he’d stayed in the car? Probably not. But that doesn’t make him guilty of a crime. It doesn’t change the fact that (from all accounts) Martin attacked Zimmerman. By the way, justice is not subject to what you “imagine went through his head.” This isn’t the minority report, guy. You said it yourself, res ipsa loquitur.

                    4. “What would you charge him with?”

                      I don’t know, and not being a Florida prosecutor, I’m not the one to ask.

                      Imagining what was going through his head gives an idea of motive and intention. It’s not to be dismissed.

                      I suppose Zimmerman might be charged with careless use of firearms. I suspect that had he never had the gun, he never would have initiated the confrontation. Whatever all the accounts say about who threw the first punch, it is clear that Zimmerman was following the boy, thinking the boy was up to no good. It was the gun that let Zimmerman feel he could pursue the boy even after being warned off when he contacted the police. I don’t have any argument when a gun is used to defend oneself. But a gun that gives one the courage to stalk the innocent, is a gun misused.

                    5. HE DIDN’T INITIATE THE FUCKING CONFRONTATION.

                      Jesus Christ how stupid are you?

                    6. “HE DIDN’T INITIATE THE FUCKING CONFRONTATION.”

                      HE followed Martin to his residence.

                    7. “HE followed Martin to his residence.”

                      NO, in fact he most certainly did NOT. The altercation occurred almost three quarters the length of a football field away from Martin’s house.

                      You keep claiming Zimmerman is morally responsible, yet every “fact” you’ve used to come to that decision is flat out wrong and not supported by the evidence. You could easily get up to speed on the evidence by going and watching it free, incredibly easy to find, on youtube. But you claim you don’t watch youtube, which is a nice convenient way (that makes zero sense) to avoid removing your doubts and learning about what actually occurred that night.

                      In other words, you insist on being willfully ignorant, making up a fantasy, and then claiming that somehow Zimmerman is morally responsible for your fantasy and therefore ought to be punished and found guilty of some crime, any crime, and you haven’t even the moral fiber to say WHAT crime you think he supposedly committed, in your own fantasy!

                    8. “then claiming that somehow Zimmerman is morally responsible for your fantasy”

                      You are mistaken. I am saying repeatedly here that Zimmerman bears some moral culpability for initiating the confrontation.

                      “therefore ought to be punished and found guilty of some crime, any crime,”

                      You’re not the most careful reader, are you? I hope your youtube watching skills are better.

                    9. There you go again – Zimmerman did NOT initiate the confrontation. How about you join us in the real world?

                    10. Here’s what I imagine went through his head:

                      Maybe you should practice some reflection on why you believe those thoughts were going through his head.

                    11. This is bizarre. You admitted hours before this last comment that you knew nothing about the case except for the initial reports from over a year ago. You are now arguing that Zimmerman should have been punished based upon what you imagine was going through his head, yet you offer no evidence as to why those thoughts were probably going through his head. You want him punished for taking the life of an ‘innocent boy’ even though people spent hours explaining to you that the evidence seems to suggest that Martin was the assailant and Zimmerman defended himself.

                      You’re either a troll or a great example of the mental derangement of the progressive left.

                    12. “Martin was the assailant and Zimmerman defended himself.”

                      But Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Martin. This is pretty clear from the contact with police at the beginning.

                      Sorry, but if you want to understand the incident, what was going on in Zimmerman’s head is important. I can only speculate. I can’t offer the evidence you desire. I think it unreasonable of you to suppose otherwise.

                      I think Zimmerman did wrong in confronting Martin. I’m sure he regrets his actions. Exactly what kind of punishment he deserves, I’m not sure. I’d start (and maybe finish) by revoking his gun license. He has demonstrated a lack of maturity and self restraint.

                      “You’re either a troll or a great example of the mental derangement of the progressive left.”

                      Let’s talk about me! Why do conversations at Reason always come down to this kind of name calling?

                    13. Z didn’t confront Martin. Following somebody is not confronting them, it is not initiating force, it is not anything illegal. Martin was in the wrong that is what you don’t seem to be able to grasp. He initiated force against Z. He initiated violent force and put Z’s life in jeopardy.

                      In this country you have a RIGHT (do you know what those are?) to defend yourself from physical violence initiated agains you.

                    14. More abject ignorance from you:

                      “My problem with the results of the affair, Zimmerman walks, is that he is responsible for initiating the confrontation. Here’s what I imagine went through his head:

                      “I suspect this punk is up to no good. I’m going to confront him. Worse comes to worse, I’ll blast him with my pistol.””

                      There is ZERO evidence – NONE – that support this claim. And plenty to refute it. If he figured he’d just blast him with his gun why did he endure a lengthy beating before pulling his weapon and firing?

                    15. “There is ZERO evidence – NONE – that support this claim”

                      This isn’t a claim. This is speculation on my part. Worse DID come to worse and Zimmerman DID shoot Martin. It’s not so implausible as you make it out to be.

                    16. I see, so now you have gone from claiming that Zim is guilty, to he’s guilty in your speculative fantasy. And yes, it absolutely is as implausible as I made it out to be, as you would know if you bothered to go watch the closing arguments so you had a clue what the actual evidence is in the situation.

                      You are either the most illogical perverse person in existence, or you are a major troll – and you clearly have done a good job of trolling this thread and many of us here who have wasted time with your ludicrous contradictory statements trying to reply to you in good faith.

                    17. “claiming that Zim is guilty, to he’s guilty in your speculative fantasy”

                      No, you are not understanding me. I’m claiming that Zimmerman bears some moral culpability for initiating this confrontation, It was Zimmerman who decided to follow Martin.

                    18. “bearing moral culpability” is being guilty. It’s the exact same thing. There is no “moral culpability” from following someone, nor is following someone “initiating” a confrontation in any way shape or form. Or in every city in the nation, people are initiating confrontations all the time with people they never talk to or interact with in any way, other than they sure as heck wind up following a lot of different people.

                  4. Had Martin been walking through the Overton section of Miami, instead of a middle class condo in Sanford, when he found himself being followed by an unknown hispanic male he probably would have high tailed it back to his home.

                    1. Had Martin been walking through the Overton section of Miami

                      OvertoWn, not Overton.

                  5. What evidence do you have Zimmerman “escalated” … I showed you the physical evidence shows it was MARTIN who stalked Zimmerman. Martin was at his home – more than 300 feet away – after he ran and lost Zimmerman.

                    Zimmerman was less than 90 feet from his truck, at the back corner of the building he was parked in front of when the confrontation occurred.

                    You tell us who was stalking whom? The guy whose location was entirely consistent with his claim he was returning to his truck, or the one that was safely at his home, but returned the more than 300′ to confront?

                    NONE of this would have happened if the allegedly ‘poor, afraid young child’ had simply opned his door and walked into his home – where he would have been safe and ould safely have calle 911 t report his ‘fear.’

                    1. “You tell us who was stalking whom?”

                      You are confused. Nobody but you is pushing this Martin stalking Zimmerman line but you.

                  6. In fact, the girl friend Trayvon was on the phone with right up until the altercation started testified that Trayvon said he was going to “fix” the “creepy @ss cracka” who had followed him. She also said she told Trayvon that George was probably a rapist, and went on to say that Trayvon “ain’t that way.” (e.g., isn’t gay) and that the idea of a male rapist following a boy or man is the thing they are all most afraid of. It is entirely possible that Trayvon was in fact engaged in a hate crime – doing a little gay bashing.

                    How does that fit your little scenario of morality?

                    And you keep claiming that George confronted Trayvon, when there is zero evidence to support that. What little there is regarding who actually did the confronting, all strongly suggests that it was Trayvon who confronted George, not the other way around.

                    You are just an anti-gun zealot who’s too lazy to learn basic facts of the case (or is disingenuous about it). And you have no grasp of the law and no moral compass. Claiming that you care about what was in George’s mind but have no interest in the self defense aspect proves that. Like ANYONE can possibly be a mind reader or it has any relevance to his guilt or innocence. Or yet again, you are just being disingenuous so you can post an absurd opinion based on fantasy rather than facts, logic, or reality.

                    1. “And you keep claiming that George confronted Trayvon, when there is zero evidence to support that.”

                      Zimmerman followed Martin to his residence. That was enough to initiate a confrontation.

                      I’m no anti gun zealot. This is just intellectual laziness and name calling on your part. You don’t appear to understand my point, which I admit is a subtle one that you’ve probably not encountered before skimming over my comments. My advice: read them again, more carefully.

                    2. Again, NO. Zimmerman did NOT follow Martin to his residence, nowhere near. Heck, even if he had, that is NOT sufficient to initiate a confrontation. You cannot whale on someone simply because they followed you to your residence – unless, of course, you are trying to get thrown in jail for a good length of time. But that’s moot, because again you display your utter ignorance of the facts of the case and make a bogus claim based solely on your fantasy.

                      Yes, you are an anti-gun zealot, or you wouldn’t keep blaming Zimmerman in large part simply because he carried a gun.

              4. I don’t have the facts at hand

                Then why the fuck are you commenting? Oh, to provide me with entertainment. Thank you.

                1. “Then why the fuck are you commenting?”

                  Because I think that Zimmerman was culpable to some degree in the death of an innocent boy. Isn’t that reason enough?

                  Why are you commenting here? You think Reason needs more cheerleaders? Lame jokes about pizza and weatherpersons?

                  1. Because I think that Zimmerman was culpable to some degree in the death of an innocent boy. Isn’t that reason enough?

                    You haven’t proven Martin was innocent of anything.

                2. Ph2050 said:

                  “I don’t have the facts at hand”

                  Then why the fuck are you commenting? Oh, to provide me with entertainment. Thank you.

                  Probably mtruem is trying to emulate his/her hero, Obama. After all, he set the precedent for this sort of absurd behavior with “I don’t have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly.” And he’s shown time and again that he has no clue about many of the things he comments on or claims.

              5. mtruem said: “I don’t have the facts at hand, but I think the incident started because Zimmerman had a gun and that made it easy for him to escalate.”

                Obviously you don’t have all the facts at hand, so why do you keep making such ignorant proclamations? If you knew even the basics, you would know that before the gun was ever an issue, Trayvon had broken George’s nose, pinned him to the ground, and bashed his head repeatedly into the concrete. Had the gun allowed George to escalate easily as you put it, George wouldn’t have ever let Trayvon touch him, let alone thrash him like that while George screamed in terror for help for nearly a minute before he even pulled that gun.

                But you are right about one thing – Trayvon’s own horribly bad choices led to his death, which was pretty pointless and stupid for him, but it sure made sense for George considering the threat posed to his life from Trayvon.

                1. “Had the gun allowed George to escalate easily as you put it, George wouldn’t have ever let Trayvon touch him”

                  George was clearly out of his element. A gun does not make you invincible. I hope he learned something out of this.

              6. Except that Zimmerman didn’t escalate the situation to the point where lethal force in self-defense became legally defendable. Notice there were no wounds on Martin besides the gunshot and the damage to his knuckles. According to Florida law, even if Zim had initiated the physical confrontation, he becomes the defender if he perceives a threat to his life.

                1. My problem with Zimmerman is that he put himself in a position where he was forced to take the life of the boy who was completely innocent of what Zimmerman had initially suspected him of.

                  1. You really don’t see anything, anything at all morally dubious in Zimmerman’s position here? Why so anxious to paint this affair in black and white? That may be fine for the legal arena, but I’m not a lowyer, and I’m not in court.

                    1. mtrueman said “You really don’t see anything, anything at all morally dubious in Zimmerman’s position here? Why so anxious to paint this affair in black and white? That may be fine for the legal arena, but I’m not a lowyer, and I’m not in court.”

                      No. We’re not painting things in black and white, we are using logic and following the evidence. You’re not. You keep claiming that Zimmerman is morally culpable, then pivot to claim you’re not a lawyer and this isn’t court – yet you ARE trying him and convicting him in your mind, based on nothing more than your own fantasy. It’s despicable behavior.

                  2. mtrueman, you have no basis to claim that Martin was innocent of what Zimmerman suspected of him. NONE. And we can play your little speculative games from the other side just as well, making Martin solely responsible for putting himself in a position where he wound up shot. You keep claiming that following a suspicious person so you can point them out to the police “initiated a conflict” and makes Zimmerman “morally culpable” because he “put himself in a position where.”

                    Well, gee, if Martin hadn’t defaced school property, and been caught with stolen jewelry and drug paraphernalia, he never would have been suspended so he never would have been in Stanford to begin with. So he put himself in a position to be seen by Zimmerman and thereby initiated the conflict. If he hadn’t been acting suspiciously, Zimmerman never would have been concerned, so again, Martin put himself in a position to wind up being shot. If he hadn’t sucker punched Zimmerman and proceeded to commit aggravated battery on him, he never would have put himself in a position to be shot.

                    We can play that game all day, making Martin the one “morally culpable” for having put himself into position to be shot by initiating the confrontation – all using YOUR exact “logic.”

                    Except it’s not logic, it’s lunacy and fantasy, just as your similar claims about Zimmerman are lunacy and fantasy.

          3. You keep saying “unarmed minor” as if that is the end of the debate. If an unarmed 17 year old held me down (a 4’11”, 5 month pregnant woman) and raped me, do I not have a right to self defense and shoot him because he is technically an unarmed minor and I am an armed adult? You have a strange sense of morality.

            1. The circumstances wouldn’t matter to monsieur and his ilk. You, a woman over the age of 18, had fatally wounded a child (of 17), ergo guilty.

              1. No, because Banjos is a woman and Martin is a man. The question then becomes whether or not Martin’s male privilege gives him more privilege than Banjos’ white privilege.

                Facts are irrelevant to deciding if someone is innocent or guilty, but degrees of privilege is very important to understanding the case.

            2. I’m sure he would say it would be your responsibility to ask the rapist/attacker to see some ID, so that you could determine whether or not he’s a minor before you decide to defend yourself.

            3. “do I not have a right to self defense”

              I don’t really know what rights you have. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not really interested in discussing your rights.

              Killing another is illegal. So is raping. Are you arguing that if someone is trying to kill you, you can legally rape them? I’m afraid it’s you, Banjos, who has the strange sense of morality.

              1. Blimey, you almost suckered me into thinking you’re honestly that dense. Good bit of trolling, but you overplayed your hand with this post.

                1. Blimey, you almost suckered me into thinking you’re honestly that dense. Good bit of trolling, but you overplayed your hand with this post.

                  No, he’s sincere enough, but he’s also out of his fucking mind (just read the blog link in his name).

                  These dishonest exercises in circular tautology are his fucking trademark.

              2. I don’t really know what rights you have.

                You are a fucking idiot, plain and simple.

              3. “I don’t really know what rights you have. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not really interested in discussing your rights.”

                Well, the natural ones, to start. Man, I wish I’d come into this thread when it was still really active!

          4. Of course, if a police officer in exactly the same situation had killed Martin, the story would have been dead on arrival. The magic of a badge.

          5. mtrue, it puzzles me how one can be so damn dumb.

            what would you do if you were cold-cocked by a young athletic guy who then mounts you and proceeds to bash your head into the sidewalk? would you ask for ID to determine his age? If you determined that he was merely 17 years old, would you simply take your beating till your brains were spilled on the sidewalk? what difference does it make if you are being murdered by a minor?

            seriously, what would you do?

            1. “seriously, what would you do”

              I would probably do the same as Zimmerman, and I’d probably try my hardest to wriggle out of taking responsibility for my actions. I’m no hero.

              1. Taking responsibility for what? Refusing to die? To quote Big Bird in Sin Semilla Street, “Gawd, you’re messed up…”

                1. I suspect Zimmerman initiated this conflict only because he felt that

                  A) Martin was a baddie and
                  B) He could blast Martin if things got out of hand.

                  Had he been correct on both counts, this story would never had made it out of the local coverage. Zimmerman was incorrect on A). Actions have consequences. Zimmerman deserves to be punished.

                  1. My turn, I guess.

                    First up, Martin went home (to his Uncle’s house) and then returned, and engaged Zimmerman. Might have been a sucker punch, might have started with shoving. Either way, it ended up with Martin on top of Zimmerman, breaking his nose, and slamming his head into the concrete. That part isn’t disputed. At that point — would a reasonable person fear for his life? That’s the only question: “Would a reasonable person fear for his life?”

                    If a reasonable person would fear for his life, it’s self defense, and it’s not a crime. Zimmerman’s actions leading up to it don’t even play into whether it’s justifiable. If a person is an asshole to someone, and gets attacked, there’s no duty to lie there and take it until unconscious.

                    1. “If a reasonable person would fear for his life, it’s self defense”

                      I don’t have any trouble with this. Zimmerman made his mistake when he decided to initiate the confrontation. It was some time before he killed Martin. He decided, gun in pocket, to set in motion a series of events that ended in the killing of an innocent boy. Actions have consequences.

                    2. Except both had gone their merry fucking ways and never would have had to see each other again if Martin hadn’t double backed and beat Zimmerman.

                      Of course we know where your morals lie because you think a pregnant woman should lie there and take it if it keeps her from killing an “innocent boy”.

                      Fuck you, you disingenuous, loathesome, toad.

                    3. Fuck you, you disingenuous, loathesome, toad.

                      You are not responding to me. Read my comments again. Pregnant woman? I’ve been talking about the Zimmerman case.

                    4. And others are applying your exact logic, and the exact circumstances, to hypothetical other victims. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and so in effect you ARE talking about a pregnant woman lying there being beaten supposedly shouldn’t defend herself simply because a young man who’s age she has no way of even determining MIGHT be younger than 18 years old. So she ought to just lie there and let him beat her to death. Or are you now claiming that if it had been a pregnant woman instead of Zimmerman, she’d be perfectly justified and not ‘morally culpable’ if SHE shot the “innocent kid?” Which would be a gross double standard. So which is it?

                      Either way, your moral code is utterly despicable, and your ‘logic’ grossly flawed.

                  2. In other words, Zimmerman committed no crime, but you still want to see him thrown in prison because FEELINGS.

          6. Martin was training in MMA. Legally, a trained boxer or other martial artist is considered to be armed with a deadly weapon when barehanded, due to their training.

            Martin was indeed a minor, but he wasn’t unarmed, and it’s not impossible for even small children to kill people. Martin was hardly a small child.

            Martin certainly wasn’t unarmed when he noticed Zimmerman had a holstered gun and tried to grab it.

      3. Dragging the press coverage, however mistaken, into this is a red heron.

        It’s a red heron, huh? So you’re saying that for all intensive porpoises, Zimmerman is guilty because acting in self defense doesn’t matter, so Reason should tow the lion and join the anti-Zimmerman crusade?

        1. If you wait a little longer we’re bound to have some spam posted here. You can join the commenting there.

            1. It’s a mute point.

              1. +1 hand clapping!

            2. I could care less. Posts like these are a diamond dozen.

              1. I disagree, they’re a blessing in the skies.

          1. LMAO! I’ve been following this whole thread, and I gotta say, “mtrueman” (henceforth referred to as “M”) is the embodiment of all the retarded feces that a standard “progressive” can muster, all wrapped up into one person.

            Let’s start with his initial intro to the thread:

            M: The reason why the backlash continues is because Zimmerman killed a boy and walks.

            So here, his argument is that the backlash… continues… because Zimmerman wasn’t found guilty. In his own words. But once this ignorance has been soundly disputed, we’ll later get to watch him dance the standard liberal dance of changing his position, then claiming the new position was his position all along. Let’s watch!

            M: The fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed minor.

            He sticks by this argument by saying further:

            M: Zimmerman was assaulted, to be sure. He was not lethally assaulted.

            To which “Smilin’ Joe” asks:

            J: [Y]ou can say for sure that he would not have sustain[ed] major brain injury or ultimately been killed during the process of Martin assaulting him?

            M, like a true liberal, ignores the question all together.

            1. Much later he comes out with this point:

              M: I’m not defending Martin. I’m saying Zimmerman bears some responsibility for setting off this chain of events.

              While this is the first we’ve heard of it, he will now say this was his original argument all along.

              M: I’m not arguing that Zimmerman wasn’t defending himself.

              And then later when Gindjurra says this:

              G: Claiming someone can’t truly hurt you because they’re just punching you reveals a disconnect from reality.

              M follows with this:

              M: I’m not claiming this. You are revealing a disconnect from my argument. My advice is to set aside the other arguments you’ve come across about this case, and re read my comments afresh.

              Excellent idea! Let’s do that…

              M: Zimmerman was assaulted, to be sure. He was not lethally assaulted.

              Hrm… So how would you define as “not lethally assaulted?” Apparently it’s okay to “kinda beat” someone so long and “truly hurt” them in M’s world, but so long as it’s just short of being “lethal assault” it’s all good. (But we’ll get into how M knows that Zimmerman “was not lethally assaulted” later.) M also conveniently ignores the FACT that Trayvon Martin was training for MMA. (Which in itself shows a propensity for violence.)

            2. M: My problem is that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with a boy that turned out to be innocent of what Zimmerman suspected him of when he began.

              Initiated a confrontation? False. Turned out to be innocent? Also false. One thing I haven’t seen brought up yet is that the argument from the parents is that Travon “must’ve been” peering into the windows of a house that had just been broken into a week prior because he “didn’t know where his dad’s girlfriend’s house was.” And yet as soon as Zimmerman is seen following him, He makes a bee line for his dad’s girlfriend’s house, even telling his girlfriend on the phone when he arrives, disappearing around a corner and shaking Zimmerman in the process. These are the actions of someone who doesn’t know which house he’s going to? There’s every probability that Trayvon was indeed guilty of the very crimes that Zimmerman found him to be suspicious of. So you can drop your false “facts”.

              1. Hi Javin,

                You say “the argument from the parents is that Travon “must’ve been” peering into the windows of a house that had just been broken into a week prior because he “didn’t know where his dad’s girlfriend’s house was.””

                I haven’t run across that bit, and it’s pretty interesting. Do you by any chance have a link for it, or recall any details that might help me search out the reference/quote from the parents? I’d be quite interested…

            3. Trayvon, acting highly suspicious, had the neighboorhood watch captain call 911 on him. When Trayvon realized Zimmerman was watching him, he approached ZIMMERMAN’s car in an aggressive manner.

              Zimmerman: “See if you can get an officer over here.” that’s when Trayvon bolted.

              Zimmerman then proceeds to follow Trayvon from a distance to see if he can determine what house he goes into.

              Dispatcher: “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Clearly indicates that Zimmerman would need to KNOW this information which he could only have by keeping Trayvon within eyesight.

              Dispatcher: , “Are you following him?”
              George: “Yeah.”
              Dispatcher: “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.”

              And you know what George’s next words are? “OK.” He IMMEDIATELY quit trying to keep up with the 6’1″ football player when dispatch told him he “didn’t have to.” He never… continued… to follow… after being told not too.

              At 2:08 in the phone call, Trayvon starts running. At 2:28 Zimmerman stops. That’s 20 seconds. (An overweight desk-jockey isn’t going to get far in 20 seconds, as evidenced by his heavy breathing on the phone.)

              An additional 2 minutes passes before the phone call is over, and Zimmerman is instructed to stay near his car and wait for the cops so he can make a report. About 2 minutes later, 911 gets ANOTHER call from another person reporting the scene he sees where Zimmerman is now on the ground being pummeled by Trayvon while Zimmerman yells for help.

            4. Trayvon had gotten away from Zimmerman after only a 20 second “chase.” Nearly 4 minutes later, however, after telling his girlfriend that he was going to “get that creepy ass cracker”, Travon the thug illegaly assaulted the Neighborhood Watch Captian that was legally, and CORRECTLY doing the job that he was OBLIGATED TO DO.

              Facts should matter.

              M: I know very little of the trial. I read some reports of this affair when it happened and that’s it.

              Aha. So while you’re quick to spout your uneducated opinions as “facts” you don’t ACTUALLY know any. You repeatedly spout such ignorance as “Zimmerman followed Martin to his residence” and that Martin was “proven innocent” and other such drivel. Then when called on it, you pretend to have never heard the rebuttal. You’re a stereotype.

              Let’s call a spade a spade here, M. The fact is, if this really isn’t about racism as you claim it’s not, then it’s about one other thing: Guns.

              You’re scared of guns. You think guns are monsters that give people both the power and the desire to do terrible things (which says more about YOUR mental problems than theirs).

            5. You lament that George may have been given the “courage” to do his Neighborhood Watch duties by the gun, and that without it he would’ve been too much of a coward to. Worse, you say it as if you believe this would’ve been the preferable scenario.

              You’re scared, and weak, and you prefer a world where everyone else is like you. George is the bad guy because he had a gun and guns are scary. That’s what your real argument is. You need to just come out and say it.

            6. Now let me tell you my position, as someone who HAS read the facts, and the evidence, and watched the trial, and actually has some education on the matter I’m speaking on. (Something you should try sometime, but then you run the risk of becoming libertarian.) I’m glad Trayvon’s dead. Yes. Glad. Trayvon was a thug, drug producer, thief, drug dealer, and soon to be on his way to being a murderer. (I’ve no doubt Zimmerman was intended to be his first.) He idolized gangs and gang symbols, and bragged about beating people up, complaining that they “didn’t bleed enough.” He was training to learn how to fight to be more effective at brutalizing people. He was a 6’1″ monster in training, and just months from being a “legal adult”. He was past the point of rehabilitation, and I’m glad he’s dead. My wish is that this case HADN’T absurdly been made a race issue by the media, that George Zimmerman had never been brought up on charges for defending himself from this thug, and I wish that his parents were held responsible for allowing him to become the drain on society that he was.

              Unarmed child, my ass.

            7. But, I’ve no doubt this post will go unread with a “TL/DR” because it runs the risk of educating you. You guys do realize that the libtards “win” their arguments through attrition: Repeatedly spewing enough ignorant crap over and over that everyone gives up trying to talk to them. He’ll consider it a “win” when he gets the last word because everyone just runs out of f*cks to give.

              1. Javin, good summary/recap. I can’t agree on the “glad he’s dead” part, but he certainly made choices that opened himself up to being shot, and no one else can be blamed for that, tragedy that it is for all involved.

                Whats an utter travesty, is the national attention based on nothing more than outright lies and race baiting, including from our dear president, and the death threats, grossly illegal bounty (that Holder, the DOJ, and Obama are doing NOTHING about), and the danger that Zimmerman and his family will likely face for many years if not the rest of their lives because of this.

                1. Good call on the bounties. Why is it when someone puts a bounty on Justin Bieber everyone and their mother was involved, but when a bounty is put on this now proven innocent man by the Black Panthers, nobody bats an eyebrow?

      4. The key facts, that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old boy, are not in dispute.

        I’m always fascinated by people who describe someone wielding a slab of concrete to bash in a skull as being “unarmed”. If sincerely believed, it requires a degree of delusion that is breathtaking.

        1. “it requires a degree of delusion that is breathtaking.”

          But, sadly, not uncommon.

          1. Sadly, all too common, as this fool has proven. When I saw how many comments there was in this thread I was absolutely certain that there would be at least one person who would have proven their ignorance of the facts.

        2. I just think it’s hilarious when people refer to Martin as an “unarmed 17-year-old boy” when he could have enlisted as a Marine and been a “lean, mean, killing machine.”

      5. A red heron?

        Blue herons are cooler.

        1. Tri-color herons trump all

          1. Nope, actually purple with pink polka dot herons rise to the top.

      6. mtrueman: “this is a red heron.”

        Daddy, tell us again about the mysterious red herons.

        Also, mtrueman has a point: To paraphrase the Great OZ: “Pay no attention to that man pounding your head against the pavement. His is, in fact, unarmed.”

      7. It’s “red herring” not “red heron,” you idiot.

        This mistake sums up the complete idiocy of your comments. The “key facts” include the fact that ALL the evidence indicates that the “unarmed 17 year old boy” was shot while engaging in an unprovoked vicious assault on a weaker and smaller adversary who was supine and pinned to the ground. That’s not in dispute unless you’re an idiot. But then again, you apparently are an idiot.

      8. Mtrueman, your name is a misnomer. You purposely twist words to fit your false narrative.

        He killed a 17 yr old that jumped him from behind and was beating him severely. You are a lying piece of crap.

      9. The key fact is Geo. Wash. is dead and Steve Smith is still alive. Make what you will of that.

        I like that “red heron” bit, may start using it. The choice of animal in the metaphor is arbitrary AFAIK, so why should fish get all the fun?

        1. I think fish are used because the crowd commonly eats them – you throw them a fish. Or perhaps we should throw the heron a fish. So long, and thanks for all the fish

          1. Interesting; apparently it was bloodhounds that ate the red herring:

            Word Origin & History

            red herring
            “smoked herring” early 15c. (they turn red when cured). Supposedly used by fugitives to put bloodhounds off the scent (1680s), hence metaphoric sense (1884) of “something used to divert attention from the basic issue.”

      10. Well, you appear to be living in a bubble when you state later that race has nothing to do with it, and its all about a man shooting an unarmed “boy” and walking. The only reason any of us has heard of this case is becuase of race. The media took this case and from day one portrayed it as a racially motivated killing. And young men get killed get killed everyday and people walk, and they do do not create national hysteria with hours and hours of dedicated news coverage. So I suggest ou open your eyes and look at reality. The media wants to turn this into a morality play, and the truth is not suiting there goal, so they ingore inconvenient facts and make up there own.

    4. they edit it in such a way that a reader is invited to draw that conclusion anyway

      And people say they don’t teach any useful skills in journalism school.

  2. Juror B29 was framed? sort of
    …Saletan makes a number of pretty much unassailable points on this, so read that entire piece. One of the chief ones is that the top, link baiting quote from the interview ? that Zimmerman “got away with murder” ? was, as the author puts it, “put in her mouth.” If you saw the highlights from the interview playing endlessly on ABC, CNN and NBC ? to name only a few ? you saw Maddy reciting that line as if it was her heartfelt conclusion in a moment of juror’s remorse. But when you watch the full interview, (which I’ll include below for your own judgement) you’ll see what really happened. The “journalist” in question fed her that line word for word, prefaced with the ubiquitous, “some people are saying?” for good measure, and then asking B29 to respond. She pauses for quite a while, starts, stops, and then repeats the line the interviewer had said, as if judging how it sat on her tongue. Only then does she add in her own thoughts about how the verdict was legal and that she stands by it, but morally she feels that Zimmerman may have to answer to God for the incident. And even there she clearly seems to allow that none of us know what really happened and aren’t in a position to judge….

    1. So, just your typical journalistic fraud. Figures.

      1. If journalistic fraud was a crime, half the TV newsrooms would be in jail.

        1. Starting with the weather reporter.

          1. What other job can you be so wrong sometimes and vague the rest and still get paid?

            1. A: politician

          2. Indeed. As CS Lewis put it, “The poor read the sporting news, which is mostly true.”

    2. Awesome. Thanks for linking this.

      1. On a bit of a tangent from the hotair juror link, but here’s another really good one:

        The Lynching Afterburner Video (on youtube) by Bill Whittle about the whole Trayvon fiasco: http://tinyurl.com/kbsn7zt

  3. “That made it all the more incumbent on the media to be scrupulously truthful and responsible in their coverage.”

    Dunno what to say about this; the media is there to sell advertising. The occasional cases of honesty and ethics are mostly accidental.

    1. Sell advertising and push the agenda of the people who run their company. If it was just advertising they sold they would not hire people who get them such pathetic ratings.

  4. When I die, I want the media to be my pall bearers, so they can let me down one last time.

    1. You’re worse than I am.

        1. I’ll see if I can meet or exceed your record of pallbearer jokes. I wouldn’t want to let anyone down.

          1. Yet you failed to frame the second sentence as a joke faithful to the original, and thereby let us all down, yet in letting us down you finessed another pallbearer joke.

            Mind: blown.

  5. What’s sickening is how the liberals are showing their true colors, and when that is pointed out, they don’t care. Moral relativism is their disease.

    1. I like to call it their ‘community-based reality’.

      1. Social Reality?

        1. Reality Justice.

  6. So whatever happened with those burglaries in ZImmerman’s neighborhood? Did they continue after the shooting or ?

    1. I read that they’d stopped. Don’t know if it’s true or not, however. Wouldn’t be surprised if it were true – who would want to risk getting shot after hearing about Trayvon?

      Here are two armed robbers I bet will never try it again; 71 year old concealed carrier stops an armed robbery http://hotair.com/archives/201…..d-robbery/

      1. It could be that the burglar got scared off. It’s also possible that dead burglars can’t commit robberies. We might never know.

        1. Naw, it’s not dead burglars – Trayvon had only been there a few days, the burglaries had been going on at least for months if not a few years.

          But it may have reduced the number of future burglars by one.

  7. Can someone fill me in on this story, I haven’t heard of this Zimmerman guy before.

    1. He made Gillespie’s jacket out of the skin of someone he hunted down and shot one night.

      1. He is also Hitler’s illegitimate son who ran concentration camps in Florida for Obama’s sons. And he is personally responsible for Global Warming and the lack of artisanal mayonnaise in peoples homes.

        1. And he gambols, in addition to asking politicians ToughQuestions and uploading the results to YouTube.

          1. These comments are all nonsense.

            The backstory fill-in comments were soooo much better when Postrel was in charge. For a comment’s section for a magazine called (t)REASON!

            1. You’re a towel!

        2. I head he was a climate-change denier and wanted to put trans fats in school lunches, too.

      2. He also circumcises boys and eats deep-dish pizza.

        1. He’s responsible for threaded comments.

          1. He commands the army of server squirrels that devours our various symbols and causes multiple posting.

    2. He let Trayvon Martin down one last time.

    3. Member of neighborhood watch sees suspicious person, follows suspicious person, calls 911 and continues to follow and observe (exactly what neighborhood watch is supposed to do).

      On advice from 911, watchman turns around and walks back to his truck. Suspicious person also doubles back and attacks watchman.

      Suspicious person, AKA innocent black minor (depending on whether you’re a progressive liberal or not) is larger and stronger than watchman, is an athlete where watchman is not, and is training for mixed martial arts (watchman is not). Suspicious person wins fight, decides to make win permanent by killing watchman.

      Watchman has gun, decides he doesn’t want to be a murder victim and shoots.

      Police arrest watchman, trial for 2nd degree murder ensues, watchman is acquitted.

      Liberals RAGE.

      1. Yep. And of course, it’s because, well, he must be guilty of, well, something. /sarc

  8. Hope that you never, ever get on TEAM BLUE’s radar for something like this. Because as Young points out, reality is totally irrelevant, and once The Narrative has been formed, it’s over. The sheep will receive their marching orders, and you will be completely vilified and there is no redemption whatsoever. Since they are animists, anyone they do this to becomes totemic and to them, a source of pure evil. This why they are perfectly happy making death threat even as they call themselves tolerant or whatever delusional shit they actually think about themselves.

    1. “The sheep will receive their marching orders,”

      Those are some well trained sheep.

    2. And Zimmerman was one of them, right up until the time he defended himself.

  9. What Do Zimmerman’s Calls to Police Show About His View of Black Men?
    … I have not seen evidence of any additional calls made by GZ to either 911 or the non-emergency number, and all of the calls introduced into evidence by the state at his trial came from the 43 incidents I catalog here. But if there are other calls that should be included in the calculus, I will be happy to learn about them and update this post.

    8/12/04: Reports male driving pick-up without car seat
    9/20/04: Neighbor’s garage door open
    8/20/04: Reports white male walking in the road carrying a paper bag, presumably drinking
    3/17/05: Pothole
    4/27/05: Neighbor’s garage door open
    9/21/05: Stray dog

    1. 8/12/04: Reports male driving pick-up without car seat
      9/20/04: Neighbor’s garage door open
      8/20/04: Reports white male walking in the road carrying a paper bag, presumably drinking
      3/17/05: Pothole
      4/27/05: Neighbor’s garage door open
      9/21/05: Stray dog

      Looking at that list of calls to the police, if they’re true, shit like the above means I’ve lost any sympathy for Zimmerman.

      Dude’s obviously an arsehole.

      Not that I think he *murdered* Martin, but behavior like the above makes me far more sympathetic to a manslaughter charge than I was before.

      1. Reporting open garage doors and the like are part of being the neighborhood watch.

        1. Not calling them into 911 it isn’t. Neither is the pothole.

          Calling in the guy for not wearing a seatbelt is a dick move.

          I mean there are a several legitimate (if non-emergency calls) in that list but most are either iffy or petty shit that no-one should call the cops for in the first place.

          1. Not calling them into 911 it isn’t.

            They weren’t all 911 calls:

            calls made by GZ to either 911 or the non-emergency number

            1. Well, that’s better.

          2. Calling in the guy for not wearing a seatbelt is a dick move.

            No, no…not seatbeltseat. The guy didn’t have a seat.

            Which if fucking hilarious, btw.

            1. I drove a car once while sitting on an ice chest. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

              1. I once rode in a car with a playmate on my lap.

                1. You win.

            2. Funny, I took it too mean someone driving with a child not in a carseat.

              I am not in favor of carseat nor seatbelt laws but when I see people not using either I question either there concern for their child’s wellbeing or their intelligence since the evidence is pretty soundly in favor of using restraints.

              1. HTML fail: Only the word “laws” was meant to be italicized.

              2. I highly recommend restraints, but use a safety word. Be smart.

      2. Looking at that list of calls to the police, if they’re true, shit like the above means I’ve lost any sympathy for Zimmerman.

        You think the fact that he reported on a pothole and a stray dog means he should have been imprisoned for manslaughter?

        I agree that it made me think he’s a dick and more nosy than he should be, but it doesn’t change my feelings about the case.

        1. Meh, my guess is that kind of stuff is what the neighborhood wants someone to call in and that’s what they pay him for.

          1. I’m pretty sure Neighborhood Watch volunteers don’t get paid.

            1. Heh OK, good point. But still, I think he’s nosy because neighbors are nosy.

              1. A neighborhood watch that isn’t nosy at all is failing at their job.

      3. Open garage doors, especially if the residents are not home can be a sign of a burglary. Presumably he tried to contact the resident first and called the police when he was unable to reach them.

        1. He did – the actual call report notes that there was no answer to knock at the door.

          Interesting to note that a dailybeast article some time ago claimed he made 46 calls since 2004, and during that same time other neighbors made 402. Yes, four hundred and two. Another neighbor is on record stating that everyone was on edge because of the huge rash of burglaries, and that they probably called 911/dispatch at least once a week themselves.

          Here are the call records (note that non-emergency calls are automatically recorded as 911 if I recall correctly, even though most aren’t): http://viewfromll2.files.wordp…..story1.pdf

      4. What I don’t think you understand is that the majority of those calls were NOT to 911 – they were to the police non-emergency number. And in that community, that’s the same number you are supposed to use to call in city maintenance type issues, like potholes that need to be filled, street lights that aren’t working, etc.

        In fact, the night of the shooting incident, he called that same non-emergency number to report a suspicious person, e.g., Trayvon – just as the police Neighborhood Watch coordinator and police training person instructed them to do.

    2. Dog, huh? Was it a black Lab?

  10. WaPo: What motivates a lawyer to defend a Tsarnaev, a Castro or a Zimmerman?
    …The three public defenders assigned to Tsarnaev would have been similarly constrained. But what about the two prominent defense lawyers who have offered their services? Why choose to represent a man accused of turning the Boston Marathon finish line into a war zone?

    Likewise, how can the lawyers representing Cleveland’s Ariel Castro fight for a man who pleaded guilty on Friday to 937 counts related to the kidnapping, imprisonment and rape of three women? And what about the attorneys for the recently acquitted but still controversial George Zimmerman? Do they really believe he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in shooting an unarmed teen?…

    1. And what about the attorneys for the recently acquitted but still controversial George Zimmerman? Do they really believe he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in shooting an unarmed teen?

      Well, we could go by their public statements….nah….

    2. I’m sure many lawyers dislike their clients. But, yeah, there is a thing called the Constitution which protects people from the State. Some lawyers probably still believe in it, and take on cases because of it.

    3. Because Zimmerman’s situation was totally similar to Tsarnaev or Castro’s. Yeah.

      1. It’s cartoonish at this point, isn’t it?

        1. Seems to me it’s gone beyond cartoonish to full-on Salvadore Dali.

          1. Seems to me it’s gone beyond cartoonish to full-on Salvadore Dali.

            Through the looking glass beyond parody kind of shit. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so horrifying.

    4. “but still controversial George Zimmerman” – because we, the media, have decided to make him controversial. Assholes.

    5. “And what about the attorneys for the recently acquitted but still controversial George Zimmerman? Do they really believe he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in shooting an unarmed teen?”

      If they had bothered their poor little journ-0-list behinds and listened to the closing arguments at least, they would never have posed that question (assuming honesty is perhaps overly optimistic on my part). Zimmerman’s attorneys said straight up in closing arguments that he was not guilty – that they completely believed he was innocent.

    6. Well, if they didn’t have lawyers because EVERYONE refused to represent them, they’d be automatically acquitted, since it would be illegal to hold a trial and it’s illegal to hold someone indefinitely on a criminal charge.

      Surely you wouldn’t want bad people to free passes from the court in direct proportion to how bad they are, right?

  11. “he context of a history in which just sixty years ago blacks really could be murdered at will for giving trivial offense to a white person”

    Don’t forget about that, 60 years ago, the very suggestion of a black President would have been ridiculous. In other words, we’ve evolved.

    1. we’ve evolved

      Yea, I now have gills behind my ears that look like vaginas, just like in Waterworld.

      1. Hey Tagliaferro, did your Asian Realdoll get so full of your sticky, stringy cum that you had to send it to the cleaners and that’s why you’re spamming the shit out of this thread? Why don’t you have two? Is the Suki one your only true love?

        1. Huh? Epi, we all know you’re Tagliaferro – you protest way too much.

          1. When I die, I want Epi as my pall bearer, so he can let me down one last time.

        2. Who is Tagliaferro?

          1. He’s an old white dude that thinks he’s a svelte female asian chemical engineer that’s into kinky sex and hating muslims.

            Or something…

                1. Jesus Christ, stop it.

                  1. First Epi things I’m Tagliaferro, now Irish thinks I’m Jesus Christ.

          2. “Johnny Longtorso” is the relatively new handle of a schizophrenic nutcase called John Tagliaferro who used to post as that and as “Suki”, a Asian girl character he created and would post as on here (yes, it is as insane as it sounds). He’s a fucking psycho, so enjoy his ravings.

            1. I really am starting to think that you protest too much, Epi.

              Longtorso is nothing like either tagliaferro or suki. Unless, you actually have some evidence for this.

              1. He has the same neocon obsessions and focus as Tagliaferro and Suki, and is just as spastic and compulsive, and posts the exact same sorts of links and gets obsessed with the exact same issues as they did.

                It’s him. Psychos like him and Mary don’t ever go away.

                1. Um….I believe I’ve come out in opposition to endless wars and to evangelicals enough to not be called a neocon.

                  1. Relax Epi does this to lots of people. Everyone is really someone else and only angry autist Epi is smart enough to know!

                    1. I actually really Epi. Is your mind blown?

                    2. But does Epi actually really you? I mean, really you?

            2. I could never get why an Asian girl would give a shit about the Middle East one way or the other.

    2. In other words, we’ve evolved.

      This is absolutely enough to be labeled a racist. If you don’t absolutely deny that any real progress has been made, you are a racist. That is the calculus they use. It’s sick.

      1. I posted that I completely supported the 1st Amendment on a rather liberal site, and promptly got labelled a neo nazi supporting racist — by a person who said we needed anti-hate speech laws like Canada and Europe. Somehow the liberal calculus doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that the majority of their posts such as the ones he posted attacking me for supporting his 1st Amendment rights would get him sued in Canada or the EU for hate speech. Things just got weirder from that point on.

      2. I read an article yesterday that basically stated that anyone who takes Martin Luther King Jr’s Dream speech to heart, and ignores skin color to judge solely by content of character…is racist.

        In other words, not being racist at all makes you somehow racist. If it’s physically impossible for anyone to avoid being racist, there is no stigma attached to it. There can’t be. Any more than being bilaterally symmetrical would.

  12. Good article.

  13. honorary white male steeped in white privilege

    Do you know who else was a honorary white male steeped in white privilege?

    1. Bea Arthur?

    2. Bill Cosby?

    3. Obama. Except, well, he’s not honorary. But he is, using the MSM’s Zimmerman logic, a bona fide “white black.” Or would that be a “white African American?” I suppose the former, since Zimmerman morphed into a “white Hispanic” and not a “white Hispanic American.” Plus Obama was clearly steeped in privilege his entire life. So does that qualify?

  14. I read the comments on an article that was talking about the fact that Zimmerman’s police calls don’t show any anti-black bias. Most of them were good, but then this happened:

    This article does a great job of trying to hide what really happened. I say that because the article stops at the beginning of the 911 call. During the 911 call he says “The F’n coons always get away with it” but I guess that doesn’t mean he’s racist right? If thats true, then Trayvon’s girlfriend was right about the term “cracka” not being racist as well. You can’t have it both ways (unless your white in America)

    The ‘F’n coon’ thing is based on a misheard section of the call by CNN. They actually had to walk back the story almost a year ago because they admitted they were wrong. The prosecution claimed that Zimmerman said ‘fucking punk’ and I’ve heard other people say that it sounds like the even more innocuous ‘fucking cold.’

    All this came out a year ago. The left has willfully ignored all the evidence that has come out over the last year. The only way you could do this is if you are an utterly vile and depraved human being who would rather our justice system act as a glorified lynch mob than an arbiter of the rule of law.

    These people are utter slime.

    1. “(unless your white in America)”

      Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’d expect out of this tool.

      1. Unless my white in America what?

    2. I was particularly enjoying the elaborate KOCHSPIRACIES about Zimmerman helping people at a (STAGED AS A PR OP!) car accident.

      1. Zimmerman was really David H. Koch in disguise.

        1. Zimmerman blew up the levees.

          1. And he rigged the Twin Towers to fall on 9/11.

            1. Yeah he farted in an elevator and burned down two skyscrapers to cover it up.

    3. Nancy Grace pulled out the “f’ing coons” bit on national TV after the verdict too.

  15. Robert Reich has apparently decided to branch out into comedy.

    The difference has to do with the kind of personalities the two parties attract. People who respect authority, follow orders, want clear answers, obey commands, and prefer precise organization and control, tend to gravitate toward Republicans.

    On the other hand, people who don’t much like authority, recoil from orders, don’t believe in clear answers, often disobey commands, and prefer things a bit undefined, tend to gravitate to the Democrats.

    In short, the Republican Party is the party of the authoritarian personality; the Democratic Party is the party of the anti-authoritarian personality.

    1. In short, the Republican Party is the party of the authoritarian personality; the Democratic Party is the party of the anti-authoritarian personality.

      Cool, then I don’t have to obey the Obamacare mandates.

    2. Holy shit he actually believes this?

      I mean it’s one thing to hear that from Dennis Kucinich or Willie Nelson. I disagree but I can see how those two might think that.

      But Robert fucking Reich? The guy who wants government to centrally plan the economy? How the fuck is that anti-authoritarian?

      1. I’ve hated that little shit since I watched an interview with him during the Clinton administration.

      2. Lots of Democrats are still stuck in the later ’60s/early ’70s when they did have a strong anti-authoritarian faction.

        1. That was an anti-Nixon faction, not an anti-authoritarian faction.

          1. Anti-Nixon was a main element. But the student groups which liked the Port Huron statement were more generally anti-authoritarian.

        2. Lots of Democrats are still stuck in the later ’60s/early ’70s when they did have a strong anti-authoritarian faction.

          There WAS NEVER an anti-authoritarian faction to the Left, strong or otherwise.

          They coveted the authority and were willing to use any means to get it.

          But the student groups which liked the Port Huron statement were more generally anti-authoritarian.

          Uhh, dude, have you ever actually read the Port Huron Statement? I don’t see how you could possibly come to the conclusion that either the people who wrote it or the people who “liked” it were in any way, shape, or form anti-authoritarian.

    3. Weird, just this week the media was positively giddy about a “GOP civil war” between Team Rand and Team Jabba over authoritarian issues like NSA spying and foreign policy.

    4. There is really nothing to say when a leftist goes this route. Current events, philosophical evidence, historical analysis.. none of it matters. It’s a vital self deception that allows them to pursue any path, no matter how destructive, in furtherance of their noble ideology.

    5. Robert Reich must be schizophrenic. That’s the only way to explain how all of his arguments contradict each other.

      I’ve seen him call opponents McCarthyites and then compare them to Stalin in his next article. I’ve seen him claim Republicans are authoritarians and anarchists. I’ve seen him argue that Ted Cruz is a Nazi, a Communist and a McCarthyite in the same article.

      I don’t know what goes on in that man’s head.

      1. A tiny authoritarian with delusions of grandeur and psychological projection issues, are you truly surprised. It reminds one of a certain French general.

        1. Mussolini?

          1. No silly, de Gaulle.

    6. This was a howler, too:

      This means Republicans will almost always be more disciplined about voting and messaging than the Democrats.

      In what universe? Progressive messaging is the status quo in our society, and thanks to guilds like Journolist, the media become complicit in pushing coordinated narratives.

      1. What is it with this recent trend of people trying to lump the other party into some psychologic, genetic or intelligence them vs us pile? It seems to me that normal and good people can have different opinions. I have a lot of liberal friends who I think are wrong on a lot of issues, but I still love them. I certainly wouldn’t try to otherwise deride them for our philosophical differences.

        1. What is it with this recent trend of people trying to lump the other party into some psychologic, genetic or intelligence them vs us pile?

          Political tribalism. It’s always been around in some form, but I’ve noticed that it’s gotten pretty bad on the left ever since Thomas Frank put out that stupid book about Kansas in a lazy effort to make a larger political point.

          “STUPID IGNORANT HICKS WHY WON’T THEY LISTEN TO OUR WONDERFUL IDEAS?!”

          Conservatism as a philosophical movement, on the other hand, has been dead for quite a while. Team Red presidents growing the debt and the size of government will have that effect.

          1. Tribalism is the only explanation for people’s behavior in the political arena. There is no “different opinions” involved in it. When engaged in tribal thinking, one must first check with the tribe to see what the group opinion is.

            That is why you see the Democrats rail against Bush’ attempts at immigration reform – and then sponsor a lesser reform now. Or decry “welfare reform” as racist code words, until uttered by Bill Clinton. Or the complete fealty to the patriot act from team red, until team blue took up the mantle. Then suddenly there are voices of dissent. Now magically even Rush Limbaugh is worried about domestic spying.

            ReasonTV had some priceless videos during the last election cycle showing partisans vilifying Romney for positions they were told he held – then desparately back-walking when told that those were actually policies already implemented by President Obama.

            The amazing thing about TeamThink ™ is that it really does work exactly like Huxley and Orwell described. Those engaged in such thinking don’t even have the ability to understand that this is what is happening to them. And “they” in this instance is “almost everyone.”

            1. When engaged in tribal thinking, one must first check with the tribe to see what the group opinion is.

              This is absolutely right.

              As an anecdote, my wife has a hard left friend on Facebook who posted a link to an article that should have been immediately seen as “holy shit, what that guy did is fucking dispicable” but since it was done by a lefty her only commentary on it was “Thoughts on this?” She was looking for a reason to condone what the guy had done because she generally approves of the guy.

              Liberals have no principles, but principals. They’re fucking sick.

    7. I basically sum it up as Republicans want to control what you do in the bedroom. Democrats want to control absolutely everything else.

      I’m getting old enough that if push comes to shove I’m willing to give up some kinky fetishes if the Democrats will go the fuck away.

      1. I basically sum it up as Republicans want to control what you do in the bedroom. Democrats want to control absolutely everything else.

        My feeling about the Democrats is basically this: Your body’s your own from your waist to your knees, everything else is public property.

        1. Brilliant

      2. Republicans want to control who you screw. Democrats just want to screw you.

        1. *whom (bored)

    8. Another in the long line of “we’re losing because we’re just too complex and sophisticated for the simple-minded rubes!” complaints.

      Saying Republicans “want to put y’all in chains” is sophisticated. Proposing reduction in the growth of government with a view to addressing the national debt is simple-minded.

      Defending the presumption of innocence is simple-minded. Whipping up mob rage against a designated victim is sophisticated.

      And I love the way Republicans are united and the Democrats are divided. Because Republicans referring to other Republicans as “wacko birds,” and Republicans fighting their fellow-Republicans over civil liberties and the budget, is just a false-flag operation to conceal an inherent unity. And Republicans never smear other Republicans as having an “asshole factor” requiring that the be purged from Congressional committees.

      That’s Reich’s version of self-criticism – “we’re just too smart and independent-minded to deal with our dumb, zombielike Republicans!”

      1. “Ironically enough, it’s our very genius which hampers our effectiveness in politics.”

        [Audience nods appreciatively]

        1. “It’s interesting, in the run-up to this speech, a lot of reporters say that, well, Mr. President, these are all good ideas, but some of you’ve said before; some of them sound great, but you can’t get those through Congress. Republicans won’t agree with you.”

    9. Welcome to The Twilight Zone.

    10. HAHAHAHA!!! He IS funny!

    11. Barry Bluestone was dragging down the act. Reich is much funnier on his own.

    12. Actually it’s not that simple. It depends on who is giving the orders.

      Witness how so many of the SAME PEOPLE who wanted to impeach Bush for abusing power have no problems with Obama committing the same (or worse) abuses. Obama’s the Good Guy to them, so when he does it it’s okay.

      When a Republican gives orders to a Democrat, the Democrat tends to recoil. The same happens when a Democrat gives orders to a Republican. But all that goes away when Democrats give orders to Democrats and Republicans give orders to Republicans.

      Put another way, the other guys have special interests while we just have plain common sense.

  16. How the fuck is that anti-authoritarian?

    They’re only demanding that you do what you’d want to if you were as smart and moral as they are, and you will thank them later, thus making it retroactively non-authoritarian. Or the state will just wither away when True Communism comes.

    1. It also goes back to Rousseau’s argument about the General Will in “Social Contract.”

  17. Since the thread has sort of strayed, I thought you might enjoy a retired NY teacher who thinks she could have been fired:
    …”Peg Brunda told Weiner she spent 21 years as a teacher and then nine as an assistant principal. As a city employee, “had I conducted myself in the manner in which you conducted yours, my job would have been gone,”…
    Now, Weiner is certainly a self-centered twit, but Brunda is a lair; no way any NY teacher ever gets fired.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..-standard/

    1. She wants to be one of the pallbearers of Weiner’s career, so she can finally and decisively drop him.

    2. Send unsolicited pix of your genitals to kids would probably get teachers fired.

      1. Considering that NYC public schoolteachers have actually molested kids before and not gotten fired, I’m guessing not.

  18. Obama administration serves as pallbearer for Stupak Amendment, lets it down:

    “Sebelius orders health insurers to cover Planned Parenthood in Obamacare exchanges

    “by Tony Perkins

    “June 11, 2013 (FRC) Most Americans probably have no recollection of what happened on March 24, 2010 — except maybe former Congressman Bart Stupak. He was in the White House that morning to watch the President sign a deceptively meaningless executive order that promised the government wouldn’t fund abortion as part of the health care law. Given the subterfuge that’s now a hallmark of the Obama administration, it’s likely that this “agreement” was a fraud from its inception.

    1. “And more than three years later, the White House is doing an excellent job proving why. According to the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who led the Planned Parenthood cheering section as Kansas’s governor, is taking her allegiance to new heights with the ObamaCare law. In an April letter to insurers, Sebelius issued a regulation ordering companies to cover Planned Parenthood clinics in their state exchange packages. Planned Parenthood, which she deems as an “essential community provider,” is part of the long list of local organizations that insurers are required to partner with. (Others, Bedard says, include lesbian and gay centers, family planning clinics, and “holistic” centers.)”

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/ne…..amacare-ex

      1. …”part of the long list of local organizations that insurers are required to partner with.”…

        In SF, we had a particularly smelly supervisor; if any developer wanted to build in his district, it seems they had to fund ‘neighborhood groups’ to ‘provide services to the poor’ (as penance for not being poor, I guess). Strangely, every one of the groups seemed to have ‘vote for X’ in their windows come election season.
        I foresee all sorts of new ‘holistic health centers’ the managers of which, just by coincidence, tend to vote D.

        1. See? Tony Perkins of the FRC can provide useful news tips!

          1. I’m coming mother!

    2. The FRC? Seriously?

      1. Why not? He’s against compulsory abortion funding as you are.

        1. *as* against

  19. People who respect authority, follow orders, want clear answers, obey commands, and prefer precise organization and control, tend to gravitate toward Republicans Obama.

    I’m here to help.

  20. I just ordered some Papa Johns. Light sauce, square cut.

    That’s my contribution to the thread. You’re welcome.

    1. You’re a sick bastard, Jimbo.

      1. You’ll be getting a lot more Papa Johns once I move out there, so DEAL with it!

          1. No, Papa Johns is his code phrase for scat porn.

            1. And you’ll be getting a lot more of it once I move out there, so DEAL with it!

            2. Poop or the dance style?

        1. Pizza that’s expected to be consumed with garlic sauce is about as bad as beer that’s expected to be consumed with citrus fruit.

    2. Back when he was a storekeeper, Abraham Lincoln sold deep-dish pizza. He also did a side-business as a mohel.

      1. And he posted on Internet forums saying that Picard was ten times the captain Kirk was.

      2. “Back when he was a storekeeper, Abraham Lincoln sold deep-dish pizza. He also did a side-business as a mohel.”

        See? That’s the reason someone threw green paint on the statue.

      3. Snip ‘n Dip was awesome!

    3. I just ordered some Papa Johns.

      Thank you for saving me the trouble of wondering if you’re a horrible human being.

    4. How do you make sauce out of light?

    5. I just ordered some Papa Johns.

      You masochist.

    6. I just ordered some Papa Johns

      Papa John’s: For when you’re in the mood for some suicide inspiring heartburn.

    7. There’s only one Papa when it comes to pizza, and his name is Murphy.

  21. If you smoked dope, was suspended from school for theft (apparently) and participated in street fights, aren’t you…. sort of a thug? Or at least a hot headed high school kid with a penchant for violence?

    If I recall correctly, Martin was staying at his uncle’s house the night he was murdered, because he was suspended from school. The watermelon tea (not “iced tea”) and skittles are a popular ingredient for street drug “lean”, although that’s more of a speculation at this point.

    1. Watermelon? Racist!

    2. speculation for sure, but wasnt he doing a 2 mile round trip for the watermelon punch and skittles?…2 fucking miles? In the rain?He was also posting about it, I guess he already had the robitussin

  22. The watermelon tea (not “iced tea”) and skittles are a popular ingredient for street drug “lean”

    They will be the elements of communion by the end of the year at this rate.

    1. It has been a while since the last ecumenical council.

      1. Vatican III: This Time They Mean It!

        1. I’m still pissed at the council of Nicaea

          -Arian Heretic

      2. Now you’ve made me flash to Tom Lehrer’s _The Vatican Rag_.

        1. The deficit rag, oh yes the deficit rag! Those budget gaps can be a 12-digit drag! I’m telling you, that’s the deficit, they really made a mess of it, that’s the deficit ra-a-ag!

  23. I have my ow conspiracy theory: It wasn’t Zimmerman doing the shooting at all! He was just a patsy, given mind-control drugs to think he did it.

    Trayvon shot himself and this is all a cover for attacking SYG laws and demonizing white folks.

    1. I have my ow conspiracy theory: It wasn’t Zimmerman doing the shooting at all! He was just a patsy, given mind-control drugs to think he did it.

      Trayvon shot himself and this is all a cover for attacking SYG laws and demonizing white folks.

      That’s about as plausible as Zimmerman being the KKK racist prowling the streets in hope of finding a young black man to stalk and kill in cold blood.

  24. David Brooks calls on Obama to tie social issues in with his economic push
    On Friday’s airing of PBS’s “NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks offered support for President Barack Obama’s “worthy” new economic PR blitz, but suggested government needs to take a greater interest in Americans’ personal lives as well as their wallets….

    …Later, Brooks said there seemed to a lack of focus with Obama and compared it to the so-called Progressive Era, which had a distinct message. And part of that distinct message, he said, should involve the social aspects of labor force….

    1. I was ready to get my hate on against Brooks – the pallbearer of the conservative movement – but then I saw this:

      “”So say you’re a young woman, you’re working in a factory, you’re making $9 an hour, you want the job that will get you to $14 or $20 an hour,” he continued. “It turns out you actually need to go back to school and get some technical skills. But say you’re a single mom with a kid. You can’t do that. And so this is the way the social and the economic interact in real lives. And if you’re that kid, your chances of dropping out of the labor force without a dad in the home are much higher. So having a debate where we talk about some of the social problems, the decline in marriage, some of the economic problems and how they interact, that seems to me where the debate is among economists and the academy. It would be great to see Obama merge those two.””

      OK, excellent points. But then he started knob-gobbling the Progressive movement, and he lost me.

      1. But the bad economy and the decline of the family form a mutually-reinforcing pas de deux of dysfunction. Even in the Depression, people’s families were more likely to stay together. My grandparents toughed it out, though I gather it wasn’t fun at all. My paternal grandparents had five kids to raise in a working-class household (they had their kids just before the Anglicans gave the thumbs-up to artificial contraception – good timing since my father was the last-born). So it can’t be exclusively economics. The last time we had a sucky economy, poor families huddled together to endure the storm, now they just break up (if they form in the first place).

        Can’t say I know the answer, but no point pretending it’s not a problem.

        1. If you were a poor woman, you could at least use marriage to get out poverty. Now that avenue has been closed thanks to feminism.

          1. If you were a poor woman, you could at least use marriage to get out poverty. Now that avenue has been closed thanks to feminism.

            Closed to whom? In my experience, the vast majority of women see feminists as dumb or dumber than most of us do. Most women I know are much closer to Nikki than Marcotte, and see feminism as the attempt to replace authoritative men with authoritative women.

            Feminism, particularly hard-left feminism, has very little sway outside of academia. There is a reason for that.

        2. I think there’s more than a wee-bit of Greatest Generation nostalgia there. Let’s not forget during the Depression, husbands also pimped out their wives and daughters to hootchy-koochy shows and there were more than enough single parent raised kids and orphans who found their way to the Italian, Jewish, and Irish mobs. Young men who knocked someone up were easily able to ride out of town via the rails thanks to the Hobo culture.

          The gold in a “golden age” is usually pyrite.

          1. husbands also pimped out their wives and daughters to hootchy-koochy shows

            Funny how HM gets angry at me when I state statistical facts about certain races, yet he himself is willing to make inane generalizations about a time period based on a few instances.

            1. Your ‘statistical facts’ are to a notably racist book that doesn’t even prove what you think it proves. HM often gives you actual genetic evidence to disprove your ridiculous assertions, and you ignore these things because you are a mindless racist.

              Go away, racist.

              1. Don’t call me a racist. It is a waste of your time. I know that by your definition I am racist. Tell me why I am wrong. HM has only given me weak cliches about how “race doesn’t exist.” He has never given anything that “disproves” my assertions. How can it? There is an obvious physical difference between a Swede and a Bantu. There is an obvious genetic difference as well. See here for more information.

                1. Tell me why I am wrong.

                  We’ve pointed that out to you again and again, but you’re too obstinate to accept the fact. I’ve never given you weak cliches; I’ve pointed to studies of haplotypes, clades, and epigenetics. All you’ve proven is that you’re too dumb to understand my arguments.

                  And again, can you source something that is not from AmRen, VDare, or the like? Perhaps a currently study from a well-known and respected Western university? You never manage to do that, I wonder why….

            2. It’s amusing that you think I “get angry” at anything you have to say. The effect the nonsense you sputter has on my day to day life is nil. If I have nothing better to do, will I point out your stupidity; however, we need to be clear on this one point, I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

              Now, your so-called facts are lies. The New Century Foundation is akin to those pseudoscience front groups that fool the gullible, like you, into thinking their theories have merit by taking on the appearance of a reputable academic publication. And yet, your so-called statistical “facts” are given no merit by sociologists and others who actually work in real academia (ie colleges, universities, public-funded research, etc.) Of course you’ll scream conspiracy, but ignore the fact that your precious little monograph has been torn apart by every real scholar that has looked at its fraudulent research methodology and saw that it suffers from selection bias.

              Secondly, before you accuse me of making inane generalizations, read a fucking history book. Seriously, your ignorance of basic historical facts is appalling.

              1. I never did understand your arguments based on halotypes and clades. Because they were nonsensical. Your argument about epigentics was basically, “well it’s genetic, but it might be epigenetic.” Not a solid argument.

                “And again, can you source something that is not from AmRen, VDare, or the like? Perhaps a currently study from a well-known and respected Western university?”

                I could point to the work of J Phillipe Ruston, Richard Lynn, Gregory Cochran, and many others, but I guess they are considered “the like.”

                The New Century Foundation is simply not politically correct enough for you. Give a source for their supposed “selection bias.” The Color of Crime is based mostly on government data.

                Did I deny that there were prostitutes back then? No. But you can’t compare that to what we see today. At no time was the illegitimacy rate 40 percent.

                1. I never did understand your arguments based on halotypes and clades. Because they were nonsensical.

                  The International HapMap Project strongly disagrees with you. But obviously you must be smarter than all those leading experts in population genetics.

                  Your argument about epigentics was basically, “well it’s genetic, but it might be epigenetic.” Not a solid argument.

                  Umm, no. That’s not what I said at all, and again you prove that you’re not intelligent enough nor are you educated enough to understand epigenetic expression. Now, not for you, as you’ve proven that you can’t understand it, but for those of you following along at home, I refer you to Irving Gottesman‘s work in the field. His research on the epigenetic factors of schizophrenia laid the groundwork for his further research on the epigenetic factors for intelligence.

                  It is clear that your main rhetorical tool is to ignore any evidence against your premises, willfully misinterpret your opponent’s argument, and then after arguing against your straw man, declare victory. It’s pathetic.

                  1. I could point to the work of J Phillipe Ruston, Richard Lynn, Gregory Cochran, and many others, but I guess they are considered “the like.”

                    Notice that they never publish their “work” under their institution’s imprint but instead have to resort to a vanity press. Funny, that. Must be the Illuminati/Zionist/Lizard People conspiracy aimed at suppressing the truth and nothing to do with people like Lynn’s history of outright academic fraud.

                    1. “Notice that they never publish their “work” under their institution’s imprint”

                      Notice your pants on fire? They have all published their work in university papers and “mainstream” scientific publications. There have been a few cases of their work getting refused publication, in many cases the publication said outright that they feared that funding would be cut off if they published it. Look up what happened to James Watson after he made politically incorrect statements.

                    2. I’m smelling some misdirection here:

                      “Notice your pants on fire? They have all published their work in university papers and “mainstream” scientific publications.”

                      Have they published work that supports your claims in those publications?
                      ————————–
                      “There have been a few cases of their work getting refused publication, in many cases the publication said outright that they feared that funding would be cut off if they published it. Look up what happened to James Watson after he made politically incorrect statements.”

                      Got a cite to the claim that their work was rejected for the reasons you claim?

                    3. Their ‘work’ is shit.

          2. HM,

            The discussion seems to have been taken over by this GWIA fellow, but nevertheless I’d like to respond to your remarks:

            “I think there’s more than a wee-bit of Greatest Generation nostalgia there….

            “The gold in a “golden age” is usually pyrite.”

            You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I said families were *more likely* to stay together, not that it was a golden age. The surprising thing (from our perspective today) isn’t the number of family breakups, etc. during the Depression but how there weren’t as many as now.

            Then, family structure was challenged by mass poverty. Now, family structure helps *cause* poverty.

            (And I thought the “Greatest Generation” was the WWII veterans, not the earlier generation I was discussing)

        3. You repeal the substitution of the state for the family. You throw away an idiotic tax and welfare code that only encourages marriage in the middle class (never hear about that one, do you?). You legalize drugs so young black men don’t have the same incentive to kill each other.

          It’s at least a start.

          1. It might be a start, but it’ll never happen as long as so many voters have this attitude that views sex without consequences as some kind of civil right. The problem is cultural. You don’t see this happening to poor Asians or fundamentalist Christians, even though they live under the same government as the Blacks do.

      2. Meh

        I dunno, everytime they bring up the “single mother” thing, alot of these are just teen pregnancies, many of these problems wouldnt be around without that.

        1. I don’t think it’s limited to teens.

      3. “But say you’re a single mom with a kid. You can’t do that.”

        If you’re a single mom with a kid, you and your kid are going to have serious problems no matter what. The error here is in pretending that some magical government program can fix that. And differences in the rates of single parenthood alone can likely pretty much account for all remaining social and economic differences between African Americans and other groups.

        The only way to solve the problem of single parenthood is to get people to choose to stop having kids out of wedlock. Of course, conservatives as as guilty here (opposition to abortion, obsession with gay marriage) as progressives (financial incentives for single parenthood).

      4. “It turns out you actually need to go back to school and get some technical skills. But say you’re a single mom with a kid. You can’t do that. And so this is the way the social and the economic interact in real lives.”

        LOL get your central planning buddies out of the way so online education can fill that demand. Brooks is a tool.

    2. I’ve often wondered what drugs David Brooks consumed to get that brain-damaged.

  25. some far-right blogs have trafficked in bad information of their own, using Martin’s marijuana use, past fighting, and teenage social-media bluster to portray him as a thug and even spinning bizarre theories about his possible drug dealing the night of his death.

    Just when I thought I was reading a well-reasoned article, I read this. What is “bad” about pointing out that the fact that Martin’s past fighting and aggressive “social-media bluster” supports Zimmerman’s story that Martin attacked him? Is there some requirement that each article has to have at least one sentence of politically correct cosmotarianism? People who fight are thugs? No….

    1. If you dig deep enough into the history of either one you’re bound to find cherries ripe for picking. But Zimmerman’s priors have no bearing on his assertion of self defense any more than Martin’s priors. The only relevant data pertains to their grappling match the evening of Martin’s death. Everything else is speculative.

      That said, I think Young draws a false equivalence here. As wrong as the right is for suggesting that Martin must have attacked Zimmerman because X, Y, and Z, much of the evidence brought forth against Martin’s character was in response to his portrayal by the left. To the extent that Zimmerman’s defenders did not take a logical leap into speculation on the night of the attack, I think this is a proper response to clear case of whitewashing by the media.

      1. “much of the evidence brought forth against Martin’s character was in response to his portrayal by the left.”

        That’s exactly right. I don’t think anyone has a desire to piss on anybody’s grave. Had the left not turned this into one of there annual race witch hunts, Zimmerman would have never been charged and no one would have said a word about Martin. I totally agree that whether Martin was at the store buying supplies for Lean, or was a pot head, and even if he was an asshole is irrelevant to the case but when the media tries to use the fact that he was just out buying skittles because he’s just an innocent little child out buying candy when he was attacked, than your going to have people point out what he was most likely buying that candy for. This entire case is a testament to just how f’ed up and slimy out media is.

        1. In a narrow sense, their backgrounds are irrelevant to the incident itself, but when trying to understand what happened between two people, one of whom is dead, it seems appropriate to look at their backgrounds. And yes, much of this is in reaction to the initial media/activist narrative of “crazed white racist vigilante stalks and slaughters innocent boy doing nothing wrong.” Well, it turns out Zimmerman was neither white nor racist, and didn’t really “stalk” Martin. And it turns out Martin wasn’t really an innocent boy: drugs, burglary, street-fighting, guns, etc. Note that “lean” can cause paranoia, dissociation, and violence, and that the autopsy showed liver damage consistent with its use.

          But even if Martin wasn’t high, there’s another awkward cultural factor here. In ghetto culture, males are never supposed to allow themselves to be “dissed.” Martin seems like just the sort of kid who might, even after he got away from Zimmerman, double back for a fight. Remember, he was on the phone with his friend/girlfriend just before this. What’s he going to do, say “I ran away and am safe now”? More likely: “I’m going back and teach that cracka a lesson.” Yes, it’s “speculation,” but it’s an awkward truth that Martin was in many ways a living stereotype. When so many factors line up, that’s the way to bet.

          1. In a narrow sense, their backgrounds are irrelevant to the incident itself, but when trying to understand what happened between two people, one of whom is dead, it seems appropriate to look at their backgrounds.

            I agree. I do think their backgrounds matter a little. The reason is this: If Martin actually was an innocent choir boy and Zimmerman actually was a man with a history of racism, as the media claimed, then that might give us a reasonable suspicion of what had happened. On the other hand, if Zimmerman ISN’T a racist and Martin has a history of getting into fights, then that also provides clues as to what happened that night.

            I do think that the background of people involved in an altercation gives you clues as to what happened, it’s just that the backgrounds of Zimmerman and Martin were vastly different than what the media reports initially claimed.

            1. Yes, but sitting in the jury box, you’ve no legitimate recourse to their priors unless admitted into evidence. Even then, unless used to establish mens rea, I’d argue such priors fail to serve justice. If Martin had texted Jeanel (or whomever) “I’m going to beat this cracker, call in a few,” fine. That’s fairly indisputable. But admitting his texts prior to the incident would have proved nothing.

      2. Martin’s character and history has very much a bearing: he threw the first punch, and if he had a record of propensity for unprovoked violence, then that strengthens the case that Zimmerman was not guilty.

        Zimmerman’s character made little difference since there is no evidence that he started a physical confrontation; being a racist is reprehensible, but it is not illegal.

    2. In police shootings, I often point out the background of the person that got shot and in the vast majority of such incidents you will see tons of criminal activity in addition to the fact that many of these people are high on polydrug combos etc. In those incidents, of course I will be criticized for bringing up such things, but they are relevant in deciding how compelling the officer narrative is. The Zimmerman case is a refreshing example where such facts are considered. Most people are not felons and most people don’t walk around high on drugs, but when it comes to shooting victims (including valid self defense shootings by “civilians”), it’s amazing how high a percentage of people shot in justified shootings are both a convicted violent felon AND high on drugs at the time they were shot.

      1. In those incidents, of course I will be criticized for bringing up such things, but they are relevant in deciding how compelling the officer narrative is.

        And you should be criticized because the past actions of a victim of a police shooting have no bearing on the event itself. You are not Judge Dredd and, since the last time I checked, the U.S.A. is not Colombia, so you don’t have the authority to summarily execute junkies on the spot.

        1. Suppose the narrative was reversed. Suppose a police officer who shot a junkie had a history of beating up junkies. Would that fact be relevant?

          1. Is the police officer the defendant, the plaintiff, or a witness. Their are different rules for “good character/bad character evidence” for each. I’m sure one of the HnR lawyers could tell you more.

        2. That is not how American legal principle works. The past actions of someone can be used as evidence in a case if deemed relevant. If the police officer said the junkie attacked him, the fact that the junkie had a history of attacking people can be used as evidence to support the officer’s claim.

      2. it’s amazing how high a percentage of people shot in justified shootings are both a convicted violent felon AND high on drugs at the time they were shot.

        So what is that percentage?

  26. Simply put, you can’t rely on the media when it comes to shootings or uses of force. The Zimmerman trial is hardly unique in that regard. Go to source documents when available. I have empathy for Zimmerman, just like I have for others that I personally know who have used force, including deadly force, and then had to see the media twist and skew the incident to suit their agenda.

    1. Simply put, you can’t rely on the media when it comes to shootings or uses of force.

      FIFY

      An accurate report from the media on any subject* is entirely accidental.

      *with the partial exception of sports scores and yesterday’s weather.

      1. Or as CS Lewis put it:

        “We must get rid of our arrogant assumption that it is the masses who can be led by the nose. As far as I can make out, the shoe is on the other foot. The only people who are really the dupes of their favorite newspapers are the intelligentsia. It is they who read leading articles: the poor read the sporting news, which is mostly true.”

    2. Simply put, you can’t rely on the media when it comes to shootings anything.

      There, fixed it.

      1. “I could have been an actor, but I wound up here / I just have to look good, I don’t have to be clear”

  27. Dammit liberals, don’t make me start sympathizing with anything Dunphy says.

  28. Wow man, very cool indeed.

    http://www.Only-Anon.tk

  29. This will make American very mad. Mexican immigrants are assimilating just like immigrants to America always have.

    The rise in use of English news sources has been driven by an increase in the share of Hispanics who say they get their news exclusively in English. According to the survey, one-third (32%) of Hispanic adults in 2012 did this, up from 22% in 2006. By contrast, the share of Hispanic adults who get their news exclusively in Spanish has decreased to 18% in 2012 from 22% in 2006.

    1. Those dirty brown people need to stay out of the country, where we can still legally drone them, until we ‘progress’ to the point that we can drone them here, along with whitey.

    2. DEY TRK R JRBS

      1. +1 Gooback

    3. So in a few years we’ll get a hispanic Kennedy and then a hispanic Fauxcohauntus?

      Great.

    4. So why is Univision so popular, then? They are #1 in ratings on cable

      http://www.dailyfinance.com/on…..ings-july/

      And why are there signs in Spanish everywhere?

      1. So why is Univision so popular, then? They are #1 in ratings on cable

        Because if 18% of Hispanic people get their news exclusively from Spanish language channels, that would be like 8 million people.

        This is an issue of integration over time. There are still tons of Spanish speakers.

        1. Univision reports more stories about what’s happening in Latin American countries. If you want to know what’s going on back home, how your friends or extended family are doing, you might tune in.

          And the novelas of course.

    5. 32% is a big number!

      Blacks speak English, but would we ever consider them assimilated? No, we wouldn’t.

      1. You don’t know what assimilation means. It is a gradual process. The issue is whether the numbers tend in the right direction or not.

        Fucking idiot, man.

  30. Race baiting dipshit Toure continues to show what a race baiting dipshit he is.

    In the video he claims that Zimmerman isn’t actually Hispanic because he’s a ‘Peruvian-American.’ This raises an interesting question: Where does Toure think Peru is?

    1. So, Obama isn’t actually black, correct?

      1. Its amazing how when it comes to race issues, liberals never see the irony in obsessing over how “black” or “hispanic” someone is or peruvian, its like they know nothing about the one drop of blood rule of the antebellum south

        1. That’s when they aren’t lecturing about how “race doesn’t really exist because it’s just a social construct.”

    2. Maybe he thinks he’s Indian and thus not really descended from Spanish?

    3. Toure is the lamest sequence of DNA the human race has ever produced.

  31. Our old friend has been making more awesome videos on libertarian disaster preparedness. This time there’s a ‘basement type barn’ and implied bestiality!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsE8yqtzNvU

    1. The amount of time she must spend on this stuff is unbelievable. I’ve never seen anyone this obsessed with a blog.

      1. That’s a couple of years old.

        Actually, it’s pretty funny.

      2. You could do that video with adobepro in a couple of hours (less if you’re proficient in it).

  32. Could just be me, but the pessimistic… Ok, I’m not really a pessimist at all, I’m more of a glass half full person, but I do have that cynical streak that seems to run in Libertarians. But… around the web, everywhere that I have been, save HuffPo, they may be beyond redemption, it seems that public sentiment is sliding strongly in the Libertarian direction ( civil liberties wise). I think that Snowden and Amash have set off a real historic movement. I hope.

    1. Even on Breit-tard (which I’m not visiting again) and basically every other righty-site, all the commenters are pro-Snowden and shitting all over any surveillance state apologists. Even on the WSJ! The only site close to an exception is The Telegraph and that’s cuz Brits be retarded.

      1. Even on the WSJ!

        The conservatives at the WSJ tend to be well educated conservatives and are often libertarian leaning. They aren’t the hick troglodyte conservatives you tend to see at Breitbart who think you should have your hand on your pistol whenever a Muslim comes near you.

        I don’t think it’s at all surprising that WSJ conservatives aren’t keen on the surveillance state.

        The only site close to an exception is The Telegraph and that’s cuz Brits be retarded.

        British newspapers are roundly ridiculous. The Guardian is like a parody of idiotic left-wingers and The Telegraph is a parody of the dipshit right.

        1. The WSJ editorial writers sure can’t slurp enough NSA cock and they love Stop n’ Frisk, to which the commenters seem less hostile.

        2. Red State is around 50-50 patriots – NSA fascist apologists. But the comment on every other righty websight are heavily against the NSA.

          1. Red State’s also the site that tends to ban dissent because Erick Erickson is a childish, sexist loser who throws a tantrum when anyone disagrees with him. I’m surprised Erickson hasn’t banned everyone who’s opposed to the NSA.

            The banning of libertarian leaning Republicans is probably the only reason Red State is an outlier.

      2. Cytotoxic| 7.27.13 @ 9:02PM |#
        “Even on Breit-tard (which I’m not visiting again) and basically every other righty-site, all the commenters are pro-Snowden and shitting all over any surveillance state apologists.”…

        “Pelosi taking liberal beatdown for NSA vote. But she says there’s more to the story”
        The lefty columnist (or the headline writer) tries to make apologies, but the commenters (even in SF) are not cooperating.
        http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el…..the-story/

        1. but the commenters (even in SF) are not cooperating.

          Until they have aother opportunity to vote out all security state Dems, yet balk because Republicans won’t acquiesce to free abortions for all.

    2. Rand’s drone filibuster I think helped get things moving a bit, too.

      I don’t have quite the same hope on civil liberties getting much more support. A lot of that, though, is because I see the shrieking left calling for getting rid of double jeopardy. I figure a lot of them will say “Snowden is a glibertarian! Oppose! Must hate liberty!”… and that’s more or less what they’ve done.

      Still, very heartened by how close the vote was.

  33. Dr. Imani Perry, Princeton professor, it’s YOUR fault that your sons cried at the George Zimmerman verdict: http://danfromsquirrelhill.wor…..ani-perry/

  34. Looks like the Saturday night thread is dead, early.

    I just threw on the grill, the biggest fattest, mostest marbled ribeye evah, so, fuck it.

    Lobster tails up next, and moarz beer…

    1. It was clear at Sears Point, so the drags continued. Foggy and chill in SF; roast in the oven.
      Summer……

      1. If it could just not rain on my deck, just for one day this summer, in the Balmer rain forest, I could dig it…

        1. We’ve had a wacky summer here in the Catskills, with periods of enough rain to induce flood warnings, and periods of no rain for a week or more.

          1. We’ve had potted plants outside since April 4th, and have never watered them, one time. Most of them I have had to save from drowning.

            I can’t remember more than a few days in the last 2 months, that it has not rained, mostly in the afternoon hours.

            1. I lived in the midwest for more than a couple of years; the weather seemed “variable” summer and winter.
              As does the weather in SF. Last year, the fog blew in on 7/4 so the fireworks were invisible, and didn’t clear until near the end of August.
              This year, the mornings have been foggy, the afternoons not so much (in the banana belt).
              BTW, I love to fall asleep to the sound of rain, and I really miss T-storms!

              1. Still own my home in the MW, my daughter lives there. Going out there in Sept.

                I still remember the sound of rain on the metal roof when I was staying with my grand parents, as a child, in KY.

                We live in an old growth forest, here in MD, and we have to close our patio doors at night, if we want to watch a movie, cause the frogs. Gawd, I can hear them now…

              2. I do too, but last night was absurd. This on the heels of an intense rainless lightning storm the night before.

                1. That’s not absurd, that’s WONDERFUL!
                  When I was a kid, I’d sleep in a sleeping bag on the garage floor with the door open enough to get a bit of rain on the face.

    1. I think somebody linked it in a Morning/Evening Links thread, but I don’t remember which one.

      1. Just thinking… is Greenwald safe here? He’s still in Rio, right? I’m not so sure that Obama won’t have him arrested and tortured or killed.

        I need to ask my wife, she has a friend that knows him, if he’s still in Rio.

        BTW, fuck you NSA, kiss my ass.

        1. I thought Greenwald was in the UK. The article doesn’t mention where he is.

          It does say he’d be testifying via video link, and not coming to America.

          1. I don’t know. He was in Rio, not sure where he is now.

        2. He’s extremely safe. You don’t kill the guy with the spotlight on you. Besides we’re not close to that stage.

          1. Yeah, well, I’m quiet for now. Really quite for someone who has a lot to say.

          2. You don’t kill the guy with the spotlight on you.

            Yeah, you just hop [wink, wink] that he gets drunk one night, drives drunk and kills himself in a fiery crash.

          3. Neither he nor Snowden are “extremely safe.” I’ve pointed this out before: if anything happens to them, people will immediately blame the US. Plus, Snowden’s death might well trigger a dead-man’s switch and cause the release of more NSA docs embarrassing to the US. This means that every enemy of the US has a motive to kill them.

    2. I’m really curious to see what comes out of this. All along Greenwald’s been indicating that there are things that he’s been holding back and a congressional hearing (where he is not going to be physically present for what that’s worth) maybe what it takes to shake a little more of that information loose.

      I understand that he’s confronting an America that is none too shy about putting the thumbscrews to those that defy it, but I’m still holding out hope that he says fuck it and just releases every damn thing that he has. Hopefully some brave souls in Congress can give him the cover he needs.

      So with that being said par for the course will be a damn nothingburger with our luck.

  35. It’s time for all of us to defy the surveillance state and stand up for liberty.

  36. I understand your reasons for criticism of the overload of media attention this case has gotten, yet here you are, writing about the Zimmerman case and giving it more attention. A lot of people are getting sidetracked by focusing on the details of the trial and what happened that night between Martin and Zimmerman. Well, what’s done is done. Sitting in front of your computer, hashing out what you think happened and what should have been done, all for the sake of being right and proving someone wrong, is exactly why stories like this get blown out of proportion by the media so that we can distract ourselves from the real issues at hand here. Why don’t we talk about how we can move forward and learn what we can from this trial and move forward from it. It is obvious our country is still very racist, and I think this Zimmerman case is a great opportunity to discuss our unconscious biases and why they exist, how we can counter them. Racial profiling is real and needs to be addressed and taken care of, but while the news was busy talking about yet another Weiner scandal, the NYC mayor Bloomberg vetoed the city council’s racial profiling ban. WE CAN’T GET CAUGHT UP IN THESE DISTRACTIONS! Don’t turn these issues into a debate between the right and the left. QUIT SEARCHING FOR SOMEONE TO BLAME! Look at the system as a whole, question it, and let’s talk about what we can do to challenge the white, patriarchal, corrupt capitalist government that is making our decisions for us.

    1. Entertaining, heavy on assertion, light on reality, a parade of non-sequiturs and crazy. 8/10 troll, would reply again.

    2. That’s some A+ crazy right there. Starts off a little unhinged and then flies into all caps and a final sentence that is unrelated to anything that came before.

      I like it.

    3. …”It is obvious our country is still very racist,”…

      Not to me, it isn’t.
      I’d say the media wishes to pitch that view, for the very good reason that it sells advertising, but the view has slim evidence.

    4. This is some of the best trolling I’ve seen here in months.

    5. It is obvious our country is still very racist

      Indeed–just visit any black or chicano studies class at the local university.

    6. Racial profiling is only an issue when the government does it. But nice trolling, I give it a B+ (you have to reach Hercules Triathalon levels to get an A).

    7. white — The government is less white than the population in general. Why is white assumed to be a bad thing, again? The man who invented Nutella was white.

      patriarchal — take that shit up with mother nature. Ask her why she made biology so offensive to your delicate sensibilities.

      corrupt — It’s a government.

      capitalist — which no government can actually be.

      that is making our decisions for us. — I wanted cocaine this morning but I had to settle for coffee. Tired of them making my decisions for me. Motherfuckers.

  37. Lucy Steigerwald’s Twitter feed alerted me to this fun page. It’s on a site memorializing slain police officers (“Remembering all of law enforcement’s heroes”).

    The particular officer being memorialized on this page is Deputy Marshal James Batchelder, who died on May 26, 1854. A Boston mob was trying to liberate a prisoner Batchelder was guarding. Cops drove off the mob, but in the melee Batchelder was stabbed to death (or maybe shot). The prisoner was Anthony Burns, a fugitive slave whom the federal government was holding to return him to bondage. The feds succeeded in this endeavor, though Batchelder wasn’t there to behold his triumph.

    Four cops and ex-cops made posts on the page. A retired police captain posting in 2009 said this:

    “Deputy Marshal James Batchelder:

    To have faced a mob as a law officer, especially in the days of only the gun and the badge – and little else, is the very core of bravery no matter the circumstances.

    “To have taken a bullet in the name of the law deems one a hero among heros. Long live such bravery and honor.

    “To Deputy Marshal James Batcheler [sic] I a [sic] proud to render a final salute.”

    http://www.odmp.org/officer/15…..batchelder

    1. I said “Cops drove off the mob” – some soldiers seem to have helped.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Batchelder

    2. More “reflections” from cops:

      “You are remembered on this day and everyday [sic].}”

      “Rest In Peace.” (from a US Marshal)

      “No peace officer is without reflection. Thank you for your service to our country, long may it stand. God bless.”

      http://www.odmp.org/officer/re…..z2aJ7dtN3e

      1. Anthony Burns, the man Batchelder helped send back to slavery:

        http://massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=153

    3. “Remembering all of law enforcement’s heroes”
      No doubt there are some. Sorta like journalists, the occupation doesn’t require the workers to be without feck, but the incentive is there.
      I gave up on dealing with Dunphy when he did not understand that cops are simply society’s janitors; they are asked to clean up the mess on aisle #6 and please be as quiet about it as you can.
      Instead, Dunphy swore that the clean up required acceptance of the heroics of those swabbing aisle #6.
      Hey, Dunphy, stuff it!

      1. I’m more interested in the fact that Batchelder is honored as a hero for guarding a fugitive slave against his rescuers.

        1. The tone-deaf hero worship knows few bounds.
          Was that slave on aisle 6? The cop was a HERO!

        2. He was just following orders!

  38. The only racism in this case was Martin’s, when he called Zimmerman a “crazy-ass cracker”. It seems that Martin become violent and aggressive out of his irrational racial fears and anger. That is what the whole case is really about, and the only way this sort of violence is going to stop is if African Americans become more tolerant and forgiving. Aggressive demands for change and wild accusations of racism simply aren’t going to help because people who already don’t care about your race can’t care even less about it.

    Obama’s comments on race and racism are quite scary, I find, given that the examples he gave are all things that happen to any young man of any race. Maybe they happen to African Americans a little more, but if any disrespect is misinterpreted as racism, there is no way to ever win and live together peacefully.

    1. “the only way this sort of violence is going to stop is if African Americans become more tolerant and forgiving.”

      Please, just shut the fuck up.

      1. You can take that attitude, but it’s not going to help African Americans. Walk down the street in an African American neighborhood as a white male and listen to the hostility and racism people throw at you. Try it again as a mixed race gay couple (like I did) and you really have to start fearing for your life. This is a problem that African Americans need to address; there is simply nothing that I can do about it as a white male. All I can do is to treat those those folks well that treat me well, regardless of race.

        1. I’m a white male, grew up in a predominately black neighborhood, attended a predominately black baptist church, my mother divorced my father when I was 3 and remarried a black man when I was 16. My ex-wife is black. I experienced racist bullshit from both white and black individuals throughout my life.

          You’re too fucking stupid to even see the fail in your initial comment.

  39. Oh, and nothing good will come of this:

    “Experimental center offered a place for all to be creative”
    “When a group of young people in San Francisco took over a 14,000-square-foot warehouse at Seventh and Market streets for June and July, they did what a lot of young entrepreneurs do with their spaces – made up a cool name (Freespace), got a bunch of 3-D printers and covered the walls in whiteboard paint.”

    As a demonstration of hypocrisy, the real estate in the article is “free”, but the lefty Chron wants to charge you to read about it.
    Regardless, according to the story, the space is simply open to anyone who wishes to walk in. One homeless bum claims he now shows up and acts as ‘hall monitor’ with no mention of who charged him with that authority, but it’s ‘turned his life around’ or some such bullshit. Not sure it’s available in the link, but there’s a photo of a kitchen sink with the caption that anyone can cook their food here; the sink is full of unwashed stuff.
    Nothing good will come of this:
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay…..690303.php

    1. I’m pretty sure that if it’s free they aren’t entrepreneurs.

    2. LOL I just checked their site and not only are they not entrepreneurs they are basically beggars. We provide the space, you bring all the shit to fill it. When I say shit I mean shit since the first thing on the list is TOILET PAPER!

  40. Ooh, a follow-up to my James Batchelder post.

    Did you know that, under a black President and black Attorney general, the US Marshals’ Service honors slave-kidnappers?

    The site says that all marshals who died in the line of duty “have given their lives in service to their nation. We honor their memory and their sacrifice.”

    http://www.justice.gov/marshal…..l_call.htm

    Look who’s in the honor roll. There’s Batchelder, of course. (no mention of how he died).

    There’s also a guy named Edward Gorsuch, whose title is simply listed as “Posse.” He died Sept. 11, 1851. What the site *doesn’t* mention is that Gorsuch was a slaveowner, deputized by the federal government to recover a slave of his who fled to Pennsylvania. The slave’s supporters had other ideas, and Gorsuch was killed. But it was “in service to [his] nation!”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..Christiana

    If the President is going to race-bait, why can’t he at least get outraged over *his own government* honoring the kidnappers of slaves, saying that these kidnappers died “in service to their nation,” and that their “memory and sacrifice” should be honored?

  41. So Zimmerman IS a white supremacist!

  42. Before I forget, I just wanted to say that as long as Hashish is illegal then we live in a Theocracy! /Sarc tag off

  43. You know, if Paul Krugman ever did get his war to unify humanity against an alien invasion after the fighting we may eventually have a truce and trade with them. Some feel first contact would be problematic for religion, it may very well be, but I am certain it would be the death knell for the mainstream economic profession as they realize to their horror that no matter how much money our government prints, the aliens will not want any of it. They will only accept barter.

    1. What if the only things they are interested are humanity’s deep dish pizza and artisanal mayonnaise?

      1. I take it you’re talking about the Hipsterions of Loftia IV?

  44. just before I looked at the paycheck of $5519, I didnt believe that my friends brother was like they say trully receiving money part-time on their apple labtop.. there neighbour started doing this 4 less than twenty three months and by now repaid the loans on their condo and purchased a top of the range Porsche 911. go to, go to this site home tab for more detail— http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

  45. When this story first came to light I was appalled like the rest of the country. The difference is, once I learned the details and the available facts I revised my opinions based one what I learned. That’s the difference between me and your typical “progressive” – I don’t have and agenda (other that a desire to know the truth of things and to favor personal liberty) or a partisan axe to grind.

    1. Same here. I was as outraged by the early “facts” as anybody, until the lies, distortions, and omissions started coming to light.

      As for the progressives, I think Iowahawk put it best in his tweet:

      Of all the young black shooting victims in this country, you can name 1. Because you’ve been trained like a circus seal to bark on command.

      ? David Burge (@iowahawkblog) July 17, 2013

      1. Same here. I was as outraged by the early “facts” as anybody, until the lies, distortions, and omissions started coming to light.

        This is me as well. I remember writing that due to the messiness of the facts a jury should sort it out. I no longer believe the facts once media distortion is taken into account support it ever going to trial.

      2. I’m taking that line and you can’t stop me.

  46. The Mainstream Press is nothing but the Propaganda Arm of the Democratic Party. The Party Press, like Pravda and Izvestia. The V?lkischer Beobachter was more balanced. Goebbels would be so proud.

    They are trying to whip up racial violence, because the Democrat Party agenda depends on violence and chaos. It it gets good enough, it becomes their Reichstag Moment.

    The Democratic Party is the party of Crime, Hate, and Violence.

  47. It general come down to the race vs gun activities.

  48. I just heard the dude who is filling in for Michael Savage reference this article. I always smile when Reason is cited in the MSM, however I guess the Savage Nation would be anti MSM.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.