Jump to content

Justice Denied Truth Mocked In Zimmerman Verdict


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

stand-your-ground-cropped-485x332.jpg

 

 

Neither justice nor the truth were served when George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing seventeen year old Trayvon Martin. In fact, this was the latest example of a travesty of justice and a bastardization of the truth.

 

One of the last things the prosecution said in closing arguments was this is not about race. It’s about right and wrong. In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a country in which self-defense and the nuclear version known as “stand your ground” are legal concepts that only apply to certain people. In reality, Zimmerman’s acquittal was an inevitability if one looks at the case law.

 

A self-defense defense ultimately depends on who you are, if you look at previous stand your ground cases in Florida.

 

It didn’t apply in the case of a black woman in Florida who shot in the air, when her husband threatened her life. Marissa Alexander self-defense defense was rejected because after retreating, she returned to get her keys. The decision to get her keys earned Alexander 20 years in prison.

 

It did apply to the Greystone Garcia, also in Florida, who chased and stabbed a guy to death over a car radio. The reasoning? The car radio was a deadly weapon.

 

It applied to the white man in Texas who killed a woman because she refused to have sex with him. He shot her whe she was running away.

According to the six mostly white women on Zimmerman’s jury, self-defense applied to Zimmerman but not to Trayvon Martin.

 

In the end, that’s what they were really saying when they returned a verdict of not guilty. According to this jury, Zimmerman was defending himself when he left the safety of his SUV to stalk and eventually kill an unarmed seventeen-year-old boy because he was black and wearing a hoodie in the rain. Zimmerman’s false assumption that since Trayvon was black he “didn’t belong” in that neighborhood was accepted as a reasonable basis for Zimmerman to believe that he was in danger.

 

They accepted the defense’s claim that when a child is stalked by a stranger, it makes sense to take that stalker home with them. They accepted when Zimmerman told Sean Hannity, that when he killed Trayvon Martin, it was God’s plan.

 

In reality, they conformed to other juries who concluded that certain people have a right to defend themselves and other people don’t. Apparently if you belong to the cateogires of people for whom self-defense doesn’t apply, sidewalks, clock radios and refusing to have sex provide a basis for a reasonable person with a gun or a knife to believe that they are in danger.

 

Granted, the prosecution did a pathetic job in the Zimmerman case. They didn’t offer a theory of the case, but then if they did it would mean acknowledging that everything in this case was about race. Race played a role in Zimmerman’s assumptions about Trayvon Martin and it played a role in his decision to leave the safety of his SUV to stalk and kill an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman made it clear he wasn’t going to let this effing a@#hole get away with walking down a street. Not on his watch.

 

The prosecution did nothing when the defense argued that Zimmerman was justified in racial profiling Trayvon Martin, and based on that racial profiling had a reasonable basis to believe that he, Zimmerman was in danger. When Mark O Mara presented a picture of Trayvon Martin as a menacing black boy, they didn’t even counter with the most recent pictures of Trayvon with his Mom or a picture of him riding a horse.

 

They accepted the defense’s animation laced with racial innuendo of what occurred that night, instead of presenting their theory based on the facts.

 

In many respects, the defense prosecuted Trayvon Martin, more than they actually defended George Zimmerman. While the prosecution limited its case to poking holes in Zimmerman’s story.

 

The prosecution appealed to emotions in its closing, but its presentation of the facts on which those emotions were based was to put it mildly weak. Conversely, Mark O’Mara delivered what appeared to be a cool and factually driven closing, yet in reality, they were playing on fears about black boys in hoodies. They dismissed many substantive lies by Zimmerman as something that happens when you tell the same story repeatedly. While this reasoning applies to minor details that is not what occurred in this case.

 

Zimmerman claimed he followed Traven because Zimmerman did not know which of the three streets he was on in the neighborhood he lived in for several years and patrolled. Then there’s the problem with Zimmerman’s claim that amounted to suggesting that Traven Martin had three hands – one to cover Zimmerman’s mouth, another to pinch Zimmerman’s nose and the third one went right for Zimmerman’s concealed weapon that was in a holster on his back.

 

What’s really amazing is that somehow Trayvon reached for and could see a black gun in a black holster in the dark and while Zimmerman was on the ground, meaning the holster was directly making contact with the concrete.

 

None of this rings true, unless you want to believe this was the story about a good white man with a gun defending himself from a young black thug.

 

See if a black boy calls his stalker a cracker, that’s evidence of his hatred. But when the stalker refers to a black boy as an effing a-hole, a suspect, someone who is obviously up to no good being on a public street and not walking fast enough or walking too fast or running, that was just talk.

 

Mark O’Mara may hope that people will put their emotions aside and “understand” that when George Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon Martin, it was Martin’s fault. Or as Zimmerman once said, it was “God’s plan.

 

I understand that a seventeen year old boy who was within his rights to go to the store – even while wearing a hoodie in the rain. He was within his rights to walk home with a can of ice tea and skittles.

 

I also understand that there is nothing coming close to self-defense when someone leaves their zone of safety with a weapon to stalk an unarmed child. There is something drastically wrong when someone ignores instructions to stay in his car, stalks and kills an unarmed child, claims it was self-defense and gets away with it.

 

I also understand that this case illustrates the problems that come with a jury of six, mostly white people of one gender, which hardly constitutes a jury of one’s peers in America.

 

One thing I understand more than anything else, this case was about race.

 

The defense knew it, even if the prosecution tried to deny it. The defense played on race when it presented a white woman who was scared because of the black man who broke into her house, and how that justified Zimmerman’s racial profiling of Trayvon Martin.

 

They played on race when they showed a picture of a shirtless Trayvon Martin as the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman saw that night.

 

They played on race when they claimed that instead of going home an unarmed Trayvon Martin waited in bushes that apparently didn’t exist, with the intent of using concrete as a weapon to cause harm to George Zimmerman.

 

I also understand the optics of presenting several well-educated and articulate white witnesses claiming it was George Zimmerman crying for help in the 911 call to counter the testimony of a young black woman for whom English was her third language, and hey, she can’t read cursive.

 

We may have to accept the jury’s verdict in this case. We aren’t compelled to close our eyes and pretend that the truth and justice were served.

 

We aren’t compelled to accept a system in which a white man stalking a black boy is self-defense, and the black boy is compelled to invite the creepy stalker with a gun home.

 

We certainly are not compelled to accept that this killing of an innocent child was God’s plan.

 

Anyone who recognizes that blatant injustice in this case will and should be angry. However, that anger should be channeled to keep fighting for a system in which it would not be necessary to argue that if Traven Martin was armed and stalking George Zimmerman; would your verdict be any different?

 

It’s also worth noting that the legal challenges are not over. Unlike in this case, Zimmerman can be compelled to testify in a civil action. Moreover, the Department of Justice can and should prosecute Zimmerman on hate crime charges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QQ more.

 

in Chicago black children are murdered everyday and none of you liberals give a rats ass. What makes it even worse, their murders are not even looked into. To you liberals, these are just throw away people. You don't care about them and you don't care about Tryvon. You only care about the political advantage you can push in a case like this. So don't talk to me about no justice no peace or that there was a mock trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop cryins skews. justice was most certainly served on Saturday. this was NEVER a case. The Sanford PD closed this as a self defense case because that is what it has always been. not unitl sharpton abused his tv show by creating a circus to force this non case to trial. the jurors nailed it with the only possible verdict based on the facts. SELF DEFENSE!

 

Now it's Zim's turn to start going after nbc, sharpton the martin family and their attorneys. Zim will end up a wealthy man after these false accusations have been proven to be false by a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop cryins skews. justice was most certainly served on Saturday. this was NEVER a case. The Sanford PD closed this as a self defense case because that is what it has always been. not unitl sharpton abused his tv show by creating a circus to force this non case to trial. the jurors nailed it with the only possible verdict based on the facts. SELF DEFENSE!

 

Now it's Zim's turn to start going after nbc, sharpton the martin family and their attorneys. Zim will end up a wealthy man after these false accusations have been proven to be false by a jury.

You do realize that Martins family can bring a wrongful death civil suit in federal court right? That not guilty verdict doesn't shield Zimmerman, and we won't be able to just sit there like a coward and not have to testify right? You do know that in a civil case the evidence just has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt right? You do know that even with the not guilty verdict by a state jury, hate crime law allows for charges to be brought in federal court right?

 

I wouldn't be celebrating to much quite yet if I were you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until black America addresses what actually happened, and starts teaching their children to not do what Trayvon did, there will be more and more black youths turning to violence.
That is what happened in this case, Trayvon turned to violence and started beating Zimmerman's ass.

The thing is, this was considered normal behavior for Trayvon, as testified to by the last person who ever spoke to him.
She wasn't alarmed in the least about "just a fight"

 

The more you guys keep saying that Trayvon was "innocent" and did no wrong the more you guys are encouraging the same thing to happen again

 

Instead of wailing over Zimmerman being proven not guilty, you should be working on keeping kids in school and teaching them right from wrong



You do realize that Martins family can bring a wrongful death civil suit in federal court right? That not guilty verdict doesn't shield Zimmerman, and we won't be able to just sit there like a coward and not have to testify right? You do know that in a civil case the evidence just has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt right? You do know that even with the not guilty verdict by a state jury, hate crime law allows for charges to be brought in federal court right?

 

I wouldn't be celebrating to much quite yet if I were you.

 

 

Preponderance of the evidence:

On one hand you have Zimmerman not even knowing Trayvon's race when the dispatcher asks him, versus pictures of Zimmerman's broken nose and blood running down the back of his head

How do you think that is going to work out?
Seriously??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/justice-denied-truth-mocked-zimmerman-verdict.html

 

Well gee, all those six women were awfully "accepting" of this "racist" Zimmerman who decided to stalk this "child" simply because he was "black". And we all know that Martin did nothing besides go buy some Skittles and the Skittles spilled onto Zimmerman's head causing those injuries. That's certainly no reason to get shot. How could he help it that those Skittles spilled out when it was Zimmerman attacking him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stand-your-ground-cropped-485x332.jpg

 

 

Neither justice nor the truth were served when George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing seventeen year old Trayvon Martin. In fact, this was the latest example of a travesty of justice and a bastardization of the truth.

 

One of the last things the prosecution said in closing arguments was this is not about race. It’s about right and wrong. In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a country in which self-defense and the nuclear version known as “stand your ground” are legal concepts that only apply to certain people. In reality, Zimmerman’s acquittal was an inevitability if one looks at the case law.

 

A self-defense defense ultimately depends on who you are, if you look at previous stand your ground cases in Florida.

 

It didn’t apply in the case of a black woman in Florida who shot in the air, when her husband threatened her life. Marissa Alexander self-defense defense was rejected because after retreating, she returned to get her keys. The decision to get her keys earned Alexander 20 years in prison.

 

It did apply to the Greystone Garcia, also in Florida, who chased and stabbed a guy to death over a car radio. The reasoning? The car radio was a deadly weapon.

 

It applied to the white man in Texas who killed a woman because she refused to have sex with him. He shot her whe she was running away.

 

According to the six mostly white women on Zimmerman’s jury, self-defense applied to Zimmerman but not to Trayvon Martin.

 

In the end, that’s what they were really saying when they returned a verdict of not guilty. According to this jury, Zimmerman was defending himself when he left the safety of his SUV to stalk and eventually kill an unarmed seventeen-year-old boy because he was black and wearing a hoodie in the rain. Zimmerman’s false assumption that since Trayvon was black he “didn’t belong” in that neighborhood was accepted as a reasonable basis for Zimmerman to believe that he was in danger.

 

They accepted the defense’s claim that when a child is stalked by a stranger, it makes sense to take that stalker home with them. They accepted when Zimmerman told Sean Hannity, that when he killed Trayvon Martin, it was God’s plan.

 

In reality, they conformed to other juries who concluded that certain people have a right to defend themselves and other people don’t. Apparently if you belong to the cateogires of people for whom self-defense doesn’t apply, sidewalks, clock radios and refusing to have sex provide a basis for a reasonable person with a gun or a knife to believe that they are in danger.

 

Granted, the prosecution did a pathetic job in the Zimmerman case. They didn’t offer a theory of the case, but then if they did it would mean acknowledging that everything in this case was about race. Race played a role in Zimmerman’s assumptions about Trayvon Martin and it played a role in his decision to leave the safety of his SUV to stalk and kill an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman made it clear he wasn’t going to let this effing a@#hole get away with walking down a street. Not on his watch.

 

The prosecution did nothing when the defense argued that Zimmerman was justified in racial profiling Trayvon Martin, and based on that racial profiling had a reasonable basis to believe that he, Zimmerman was in danger. When Mark O Mara presented a picture of Trayvon Martin as a menacing black boy, they didn’t even counter with the most recent pictures of Trayvon with his Mom or a picture of him riding a horse.

 

They accepted the defense’s animation laced with racial innuendo of what occurred that night, instead of presenting their theory based on the facts.

 

In many respects, the defense prosecuted Trayvon Martin, more than they actually defended George Zimmerman. While the prosecution limited its case to poking holes in Zimmerman’s story.

 

The prosecution appealed to emotions in its closing, but its presentation of the facts on which those emotions were based was to put it mildly weak. Conversely, Mark O’Mara delivered what appeared to be a cool and factually driven closing, yet in reality, they were playing on fears about black boys in hoodies. They dismissed many substantive lies by Zimmerman as something that happens when you tell the same story repeatedly. While this reasoning applies to minor details that is not what occurred in this case.

 

Zimmerman claimed he followed Traven because Zimmerman did not know which of the three streets he was on in the neighborhood he lived in for several years and patrolled. Then there’s the problem with Zimmerman’s claim that amounted to suggesting that Traven Martin had three hands – one to cover Zimmerman’s mouth, another to pinch Zimmerman’s nose and the third one went right for Zimmerman’s concealed weapon that was in a holster on his back.

 

What’s really amazing is that somehow Trayvon reached for and could see a black gun in a black holster in the dark and while Zimmerman was on the ground, meaning the holster was directly making contact with the concrete.

 

None of this rings true, unless you want to believe this was the story about a good white man with a gun defending himself from a young black thug.

 

See if a black boy calls his stalker a cracker, that’s evidence of his hatred. But when the stalker refers to a black boy as an effing a-hole, a suspect, someone who is obviously up to no good being on a public street and not walking fast enough or walking too fast or running, that was just talk.

 

Mark O’Mara may hope that people will put their emotions aside and “understand” that when George Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon Martin, it was Martin’s fault. Or as Zimmerman once said, it was “God’s plan.

 

I understand that a seventeen year old boy who was within his rights to go to the store – even while wearing a hoodie in the rain. He was within his rights to walk home with a can of ice tea and skittles.

 

I also understand that there is nothing coming close to self-defense when someone leaves their zone of safety with a weapon to stalk an unarmed child. There is something drastically wrong when someone ignores instructions to stay in his car, stalks and kills an unarmed child, claims it was self-defense and gets away with it.

 

I also understand that this case illustrates the problems that come with a jury of six, mostly white people of one gender, which hardly constitutes a jury of one’s peers in America.

 

One thing I understand more than anything else, this case was about race.

 

The defense knew it, even if the prosecution tried to deny it. The defense played on race when it presented a white woman who was scared because of the black man who broke into her house, and how that justified Zimmerman’s racial profiling of Trayvon Martin.

 

They played on race when they showed a picture of a shirtless Trayvon Martin as the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman saw that night.

 

They played on race when they claimed that instead of going home an unarmed Trayvon Martin waited in bushes that apparently didn’t exist, with the intent of using concrete as a weapon to cause harm to George Zimmerman.

 

I also understand the optics of presenting several well-educated and articulate white witnesses claiming it was George Zimmerman crying for help in the 911 call to counter the testimony of a young black woman for whom English was her third language, and hey, she can’t read cursive.

 

We may have to accept the jury’s verdict in this case. We aren’t compelled to close our eyes and pretend that the truth and justice were served.

 

We aren’t compelled to accept a system in which a white man stalking a black boy is self-defense, and the black boy is compelled to invite the creepy stalker with a gun home.

 

We certainly are not compelled to accept that this killing of an innocent child was God’s plan.

 

Anyone who recognizes that blatant injustice in this case will and should be angry. However, that anger should be channeled to keep fighting for a system in which it would not be necessary to argue that if Traven Martin was armed and stalking George Zimmerman; would your verdict be any different?

 

It’s also worth noting that the legal challenges are not over. Unlike in this case, Zimmerman can be compelled to testify in a civil action. Moreover, the Department of Justice can and should prosecute Zimmerman on hate crime charges.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that Martins family can bring a wrongful death civil suit in federal court right? That not guilty verdict doesn't shield Zimmerman, and we won't be able to just sit there like a coward and not have to testify right? You do know that in a civil case the evidence just has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt right? You do know that even with the not guilty verdict by a state jury, hate crime law allows for charges to be brought in federal court right?

 

I wouldn't be celebrating to much quite yet if I were you.

So even he's in stone, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not guilty - acquitted, he can still be slammed? Yow, great system. I'm curious, how did that work out for OJ and the slaughter he was involved in? I do remember the tree dwellers dancing in the streets when O J was acquitted; but not much on any follow ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

stand-your-ground-cropped-485x332.jpg

 

 

Neither justice nor the truth were served when George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing seventeen year old Trayvon Martin. In fact, this was the latest example of a travesty of justice and a bastardization of the truth.

 

One of the last things the prosecution said in closing arguments was this is not about race. It’s about right and wrong. In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a country in which self-defense and the nuclear version known as “stand your ground” are legal concepts that only apply to certain people. In reality, Zimmerman’s acquittal was an inevitability if one looks at the case law.

 

A self-defense defense ultimately depends on who you are, if you look at previous stand your ground cases in Florida.

 

It didn’t apply in the case of a black woman in Florida who shot in the air, when her husband threatened her life. Marissa Alexander self-defense defense was rejected because after retreating, she returned to get her keys. The decision to get her keys earned Alexander 20 years in prison.

 

It did apply to the Greystone Garcia, also in Florida, who chased and stabbed a guy to death over a car radio. The reasoning? The car radio was a deadly weapon.

 

It applied to the white man in Texas who killed a woman because she refused to have sex with him. He shot her whe she was running away.

According to the six mostly white women on Zimmerman’s jury, self-defense applied to Zimmerman but not to Trayvon Martin.

 

In the end, that’s what they were really saying when they returned a verdict of not guilty. According to this jury, Zimmerman was defending himself when he left the safety of his SUV to stalk and eventually kill an unarmed seventeen-year-old boy because he was black and wearing a hoodie in the rain. Zimmerman’s false assumption that since Trayvon was black he “didn’t belong” in that neighborhood was accepted as a reasonable basis for Zimmerman to believe that he was in danger.

 

They accepted the defense’s claim that when a child is stalked by a stranger, it makes sense to take that stalker home with them. They accepted when Zimmerman told Sean Hannity, that when he killed Trayvon Martin, it was God’s plan.

 

In reality, they conformed to other juries who concluded that certain people have a right to defend themselves and other people don’t. Apparently if you belong to the cateogires of people for whom self-defense doesn’t apply, sidewalks, clock radios and refusing to have sex provide a basis for a reasonable person with a gun or a knife to believe that they are in danger.

 

Granted, the prosecution did a pathetic job in the Zimmerman case. They didn’t offer a theory of the case, but then if they did it would mean acknowledging that everything in this case was about race. Race played a role in Zimmerman’s assumptions about Trayvon Martin and it played a role in his decision to leave the safety of his SUV to stalk and kill an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman made it clear he wasn’t going to let this effing a@#hole get away with walking down a street. Not on his watch.

 

The prosecution did nothing when the defense argued that Zimmerman was justified in racial profiling Trayvon Martin, and based on that racial profiling had a reasonable basis to believe that he, Zimmerman was in danger. When Mark O Mara presented a picture of Trayvon Martin as a menacing black boy, they didn’t even counter with the most recent pictures of Trayvon with his Mom or a picture of him riding a horse.

 

They accepted the defense’s animation laced with racial innuendo of what occurred that night, instead of presenting their theory based on the facts.

 

In many respects, the defense prosecuted Trayvon Martin, more than they actually defended George Zimmerman. While the prosecution limited its case to poking holes in Zimmerman’s story.

 

The prosecution appealed to emotions in its closing, but its presentation of the facts on which those emotions were based was to put it mildly weak. Conversely, Mark O’Mara delivered what appeared to be a cool and factually driven closing, yet in reality, they were playing on fears about black boys in hoodies. They dismissed many substantive lies by Zimmerman as something that happens when you tell the same story repeatedly. While this reasoning applies to minor details that is not what occurred in this case.

 

Zimmerman claimed he followed Traven because Zimmerman did not know which of the three streets he was on in the neighborhood he lived in for several years and patrolled. Then there’s the problem with Zimmerman’s claim that amounted to suggesting that Traven Martin had three hands – one to cover Zimmerman’s mouth, another to pinch Zimmerman’s nose and the third one went right for Zimmerman’s concealed weapon that was in a holster on his back.

 

What’s really amazing is that somehow Trayvon reached for and could see a black gun in a black holster in the dark and while Zimmerman was on the ground, meaning the holster was directly making contact with the concrete.

 

None of this rings true, unless you want to believe this was the story about a good white man with a gun defending himself from a young black thug.

 

See if a black boy calls his stalker a cracker, that’s evidence of his hatred. But when the stalker refers to a black boy as an effing a-hole, a suspect, someone who is obviously up to no good being on a public street and not walking fast enough or walking too fast or running, that was just talk.

 

Mark O’Mara may hope that people will put their emotions aside and “understand” that when George Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon Martin, it was Martin’s fault. Or as Zimmerman once said, it was “God’s plan.

 

I understand that a seventeen year old boy who was within his rights to go to the store – even while wearing a hoodie in the rain. He was within his rights to walk home with a can of ice tea and skittles.

 

I also understand that there is nothing coming close to self-defense when someone leaves their zone of safety with a weapon to stalk an unarmed child. There is something drastically wrong when someone ignores instructions to stay in his car, stalks and kills an unarmed child, claims it was self-defense and gets away with it.

 

I also understand that this case illustrates the problems that come with a jury of six, mostly white people of one gender, which hardly constitutes a jury of one’s peers in America.

 

One thing I understand more than anything else, this case was about race.

 

The defense knew it, even if the prosecution tried to deny it. The defense played on race when it presented a white woman who was scared because of the black man who broke into her house, and how that justified Zimmerman’s racial profiling of Trayvon Martin.

 

They played on race when they showed a picture of a shirtless Trayvon Martin as the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman saw that night.

 

They played on race when they claimed that instead of going home an unarmed Trayvon Martin waited in bushes that apparently didn’t exist, with the intent of using concrete as a weapon to cause harm to George Zimmerman.

 

I also understand the optics of presenting several well-educated and articulate white witnesses claiming it was George Zimmerman crying for help in the 911 call to counter the testimony of a young black woman for whom English was her third language, and hey, she can’t read cursive.

 

We may have to accept the jury’s verdict in this case. We aren’t compelled to close our eyes and pretend that the truth and justice were served.

 

We aren’t compelled to accept a system in which a white man stalking a black boy is self-defense, and the black boy is compelled to invite the creepy stalker with a gun home.

 

We certainly are not compelled to accept that this killing of an innocent child was God’s plan.

 

Anyone who recognizes that blatant injustice in this case will and should be angry. However, that anger should be channeled to keep fighting for a system in which it would not be necessary to argue that if Traven Martin was armed and stalking George Zimmerman; would your verdict be any different?

 

It’s also worth noting that the legal challenges are not over. Unlike in this case, Zimmerman can be compelled to testify in a civil action. Moreover, the Department of Justice can and should prosecute Zimmerman on hate crime charges.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define equal justice without character roles ranked in significance to societal evolution? While George Zimmermann and Treyvon Martin were random figures colliding in this tragic saga of social conflicting ideologies based upon race, creed, color, national origin, political beliefs, spiritual faiths, gender bias and gender preference, what is it about seeing lifetimes only as they exist in plain sight?

 

Male and female sole results of ancestry replacing themselves with their own ancestors each generation of another lifetime added to this atmosphere when it occurs presently as it currently does all the time?

 

It is about time vocabulary gets a smackdown in every tongue used to sell self deception as a virtue of civic pride character matters andn genders are worth less not complying to popular opinion of who's who.

 

Being part of a chosen belief doesn't make the collective a chosen society by pretend entities living beyond this atmosphere in this universal moment being eternity creating eternal details never duplicated twice genetically within molecular migration of gases, liquids, and minerals giving shape to forms forming the results never duplicated within this self contained universal position humanity calls planet Earth in English.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until black America addresses what actually happened, and starts teaching their children to not do what Trayvon did, there will be more and more black youths turning to violence.

That is what happened in this case, Trayvon turned to violence and started beating Zimmerman's ass.

The thing is, this was considered normal behavior for Trayvon, as testified to by the last person who ever spoke to him.

She wasn't alarmed in the least about "just a fight"

 

The more you guys keep saying that Trayvon was "innocent" and did no wrong the more you guys are encouraging the same thing to happen again

 

Instead of wailing over Zimmerman being proven not guilty, you should be working on keeping kids in school and teaching them right from wrong

 

 

 

Preponderance of the evidence:

 

On one hand you have Zimmerman not even knowing Trayvon's race when the dispatcher asks him, versus pictures of Zimmerman's broken nose and blood running down the back of his head

 

How do you think that is going to work out?

Seriously??

Well, I appreciate your reply to the article. Sorry about the original post headline. After being on other sites for a week due to this one not being available, I forgot where I was there for a moment.

 

 

But getting back to the issue at hand, I am heartened by the protests I see going on around the country right now. I think about the 14 year olds who are witnessing all of this and will be of voting age in 4 years at age 18. How do you think that's going to play for the conservatives who rabidly defend Zimmerman? How do you think that's going to play for future proposed gun law bills submitted by a new Congress? How is the right going to look to those youngsters when they are viewed standing with the KKK, and other white supremacist groups as Zimmermans only supporters? One thing I have learned in my old age Chuck is the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head sooner or later concerning circumstances such as this, and the political right will be the ones that find themselve's on the wrong end of the eventual backlash. Another thing I know is Americans, most of them anyway, don't like to be seen on the wrong side of history, and as time goes on attitudes and opinions will change, and those who may support the out come of this case now, will question the validity of it as their children grow into adults and question their own parents opinions. This has been the case since I was a kid in the 50's, and have witnessed those changes on every issue from mixed race marriage to the acceptance of gay marriage we see tolerated by a majority of Americans today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black-on-black crime is a sensitive subject in this increasingly polarized nation. While covered in academia and occasionally addressed by talking heads on television, some believe it rarely, if ever, receives the type and depth of attention it deserves. Instead, critics argue that this national tragedy is usually swept under the rug by powerful interest groups and individuals more concerned with elevating their own racially-driven agendas than addressing the real issues at hand. The Trayvon Martin case is only the most recent example of this grim hypocrisy.

Indeed, statistics support a very different narrative than the one usually offered by “race hustlers,” as Pastor C.L. Bryant calls them, who routinely portray an America where members of the black community are selectively targeted and brutalized by white racists.

 

 

A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans.

 

To put these number in perspective, recall that over 6,400 U.S. service men and women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the course of a decade-long war fought in those nations.

 

****************************************

 

Where have skews, tech moron, and William I.Q. 1.3 BEEN, DURING THOSE 9,000 MURDERS, Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I appreciate your reply to the article. Sorry about the original post headline. After being on other sites for a week due to this one not being available, I forgot where I was there for a moment.

 

 

But getting back to the issue at hand, I am heartened by the protests I see going on around the country right now. I think about the 14 year olds who are witnessing all of this and will be of voting age in 4 years at age 18. How do you think that's going to play for the conservatives who rabidly defend Zimmerman? How do you think that's going to play for future proposed gun law bills submitted by a new Congress? How is the right going to look to those youngsters when they are viewed standing with the KKK, and other white supremacist groups as Zimmermans only supporters? One thing I have learned in my old age Chuck is the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head sooner or later concerning circumstances such as this, and the political right will be the ones that find themselve's on the wrong end of the eventual backlash. Another thing I know is Americans, most of them anyway, don't like to be seen on the wrong side of history, and as time goes on attitudes and opinions will change, and those who may support the out come of this case now, will question the validity of it as their children grow into adults and question their own parents opinions. This has been the case since I was a kid in the 50's, and have witnessed those changes on every issue from mixed race marriage to the acceptance of gay marriage we see tolerated by a majority of Americans today.

 

 

It's time for you, and the rest of the Liberal Left, to man up and acknowledge the facts of this case.

Zimmerman saw Trayvon acting suspiciously and called the cops.

Trayvon saw Zimmerman watching him and toyed with him, was messing with him, playing some sort of game with him.

He disappeared in the dark and came back to circle Zimmerman's truck, than took off running only to lie in wait to attack Zimmerman when he had the chance.

When Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon down the dog walk, Trayvon waited in the dark, whispering on the phone, and when Zimmerman came close enough, he approached, then attacked.

 

This is why he was killed, because he attacked Zimmerman, and this is what we should be teaching everyone who is out there waving a support Trayvon sign.

 

Trayvon was killed because he attacked Zimmerman and was beating him, not because he was black

 

Time to face reality,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's time for you, and the rest of the Liberal Left, to man up and acknowledge the facts of this case.

Zimmerman saw Trayvon acting suspiciously and called the cops.

Trayvon saw Zimmerman watching him and toyed with him, was messing with him, playing some sort of game with him.

He disappeared in the dark and came back to circle Zimmerman's truck, than took off running only to lie in wait to attack Zimmerman when he had the chance.

When Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon down the dog walk, Trayvon waited in the dark, whispering on the phone, and when Zimmerman came close enough, he approached, then attacked.

 

This is why he was killed, because he attacked Zimmerman, and this is what we should be teaching everyone who is out there waving a support Trayvon sign.

 

Trayvon was killed because he attacked Zimmerman and was beating him, not because he was black

 

Time to face reality,,,,

:lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I appreciate your reply to the article. Sorry about the original post headline. After being on other sites for a week due to this one not being available, I forgot where I was there for a moment.

 

 

But getting back to the issue at hand, I am heartened by the protests I see going on around the country right now. I think about the 14 year olds who are witnessing all of this and will be of voting age in 4 years at age 18. How do you think that's going to play for the conservatives who rabidly defend Zimmerman? How do you think that's going to play for future proposed gun law bills submitted by a new Congress? How is the right going to look to those youngsters when they are viewed standing with the KKK, and other white supremacist groups as Zimmermans only supporters? One thing I have learned in my old age Chuck is the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head sooner or later concerning circumstances such as this, and the political right will be the ones that find themselve's on the wrong end of the eventual backlash. Another thing I know is Americans, most of them anyway, don't like to be seen on the wrong side of history, and as time goes on attitudes and opinions will change, and those who may support the out come of this case now, will question the validity of it as their children grow into adults and question their own parents opinions. This has been the case since I was a kid in the 50's, and have witnessed those changes on every issue from mixed race marriage to the acceptance of gay marriage we see tolerated by a majority of Americans today.

How do u think the Latino's will vote? Do you think they will vote against the Dem's ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Zim can bring a civil suit against the martins. the martins allowed this circus to go on even after the Sanford PD told them that this was a clear case of self defense and there would be no arrest. the trouble that the martins caused along with sharpton and the other race baiters FAR outweighs any claims the martins can bring against Zim. If this case does not end now and the doj and/or the martins try to bring any suits Zim should go balls out and sue everyone involved in the false charges/false arrest and the misinformation put forth intentionally by sharpton, nbc and all the other black groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Obamedia will literally go to the ends of the earth, not reporting ( to any extent ) the staggering amount of black on white crime. Stop the feckin hypocrisy. 12 - 14 % of the population responsible for 50+++ % of violent crime. In stone - documented facts; and deliberately ignored with a feckin vengeance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ethical questions are being raised both inside The Virginian-Pilot and in the Norfolk, Va. area after two of the paper’s reporters were attacked and beaten by a mob of at least 30 blacks, but was downplayed by police and withheld from the public for more than two weeks by the newspaper’s editors.

Reporters Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami were leaving a concert on the night of April 14 when a crowd of around 100 young people gathered on the sidewalk near their car. Rostami reached over to lock the door.

 

According to a police report obtained by Fox News, a black male hurled a rock at the car. Forster got out and tried to confront the individual who damaged his car. Instead, a gang of attackers began punching and pound the reporter. Police would not confirm the exact number — but at least one account put the number at 30.

Rostami tried to pull him back inside the car, but others in the crowd began attack her, the police report stated. She was beaten a half dozen times by an unidentified black man.

Rostami was eventually able to call 9-1-1. Police officers responded, they wrote an incident report and labeled it “simple assault.”

The reporters had to take a week off to recover from their injuries. To date no one has been arrested for the crime.

There was no mention of the attack in the pages of The Virginian-Pilot until Tuesday – more than two weeks later – when columnist Michelle Washington wrote a detailed story on the police department’s handling of the attack and she raised questions about her own newspaper’s lack of coverage.

And she also mentioned another previously undisclosed component to the story.

The day after the attack Forster searched Twitter and found a chilling tweet Washington wrote.

“I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light,” one person wrote.

“I don’t,” wrote another, indicating laughter. ‘(do it for trayvon martin) (sic)”

“Were Forster and Rostami beaten in some kind of warped, vigilante retribution for a killing 750 miles away, a person none of them knew?” Washington wrote. “Was it just bombast? Is a beating funny, ever?”

A police spokesman tells Fox News that the incident is still under investigation and they are also looking at whoever wrote the tweet. But as of now – the case is still a simple assault – and does not rise to the level of a hate crime.

But James Duane, a law professor at Regent University, said he is troubled by the police department’s categorization of the crime.

“This is cause for serious concern,” he told Fox News. “It sounds like it’s much more than a simple assault. Any sort of criminal activity that is engaged spontaneously by a large crowd of individuals especially individuals who are merely strangers to them is a cause for serious concern and ought to be on the part of any police officer or police department.”

Washington wrote that police seemed dismissive when they arrived at the crime scene, telling the injured Rostami to “shut up and get in the car.”

“Both said the officer did not record any names of witnesses who stopped to help,” Washington wrote. Rostami said the officer told them the attackers were ‘probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?”

Duane said it was a “surprising characterization” and said the attack would warrant more charges “and at a minimum a more serious attempt at investigation than what we are led to believe happened here.”

“Even simple assault is still a criminal offense,” Duane said.

The Virginian-Pilot’s readers have been sounding off online – accusing the newspaper and the police department of a cover-up and demanding answers.

“I sincerely believe that the Pilot has acted irresponsibly, and has, by omission, out right lied to its readers,” wrote Thomas McElvy. “This crime, had the roles been reversed and it was two blacks attacked by thirty or more whites, would have made the wire services. All you have done is show your lack of journalistic integrity.”

“This rag did not have the decency to print this story two weeks ago?” wrote Patrick Kenneally. “The police should be ashamed of themselves and a major investigation into what that cop was thinking should be conducted.”

Another writer called it “downright shameful” and said the information needed to “get out so that somebody can clean up the streets.”

The Virginian-Pilot’s editor told Fox News there was debate in the newsroom over whether to cover the story – but in the end they decided not to – because they don’t cover simple assaults.

“We bend over backwards not to treat ourselves any differently than the rest of the community,” Denis Finley told Fox News. “We don’t cover simple attacks. The fact that we know these folks doesn’t make any difference. We don’t want to be perceived as doing something different for ourselves than we would do for the rest of the community.”

Finley strongly denied accusations the newspaper was covering up the story because of the racial component.

“We have no indication that this is racial, no indication that this was anything other than – so far – a simple attack,” he said. “There have been all kinds of innuendo, assumptions, prejudices, you name it revolving around the story but the fact is it was a simple attack and we didn’t put it in the paper.”

He also defended their decision not to cover the tweets that suggested the attack may have had something to do with the Trayvon Martin case.

“That’s another complication,” he said. ‘I don’t know where those tweets came from. I don’t know who said them. Anybody can say anything they want on social media after the fact. I have no idea what those tweets mean – if anything. They’re no different than the attacks that have been leveled on me and the newspaper from some of my readers who have assumed some things that just aren’t true.”

Finley said the incident is a “sticky situation” for the newspaper.

“What would I have to gain by protecting someone who attacked my reporters?” he said. “That’s a preposterous statement to make.”

Michael Finch, a journalism professor at Lee University, believes The Virginian-Pilot did a disservice to their readers.

“It would seem to me this would definitely be a story,” he told Fox News. “In journalism there are seven news values and it seems like this story really meets all seven of them – which is rare.”

“It’s a timely story, it has impact, it relates to a prominent event, it’s in close proximity to their news outlet, it’s a little bit bizarre, it includes conflict and it deals with public concern,” he said. “It’s as good as a news story as you can get.”

Finch said he certainly understands the newspaper’s dilemma “because it was one of their own.”

However, he said, the sheer size of the attack mob elevated the story’s newsworthiness.

And Finley promised that if the police department elevates the crime – they will certainly give the story “due diligence.”

 

Did Eric "The racist" Holder file a fed. complaint or indictment on this? Havn't heard much about this incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...